LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1671
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 6 November 2014
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
1672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, 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 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 LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1673
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, 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 ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
1674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
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:
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1675
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
1676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting now resumes. Council now continues with the debate on the motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.
MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE
Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 5 November 2014
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. This morning, the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM followed "689" to Shenzhen for the Hong Kong/Guangdong Cooperation Joint Conference. Therefore, it is the acting Chief Secretary for Administration Mr Matthew CHEUNG who is sitting on the side designated for officials. If Carrie LAM had been sitting here, she would only have played the role of a human recorder but now, she has been replaced by another human recorder who is more professional. The script was handed to the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM by the Chief Executive's Office and then passed on to Secretary Matthew CHEUNG ― the acting Chief Secretary ― this morning. Please do not expect him to address any queries of Members in his reply later. From this, we can see that the SAR Government is totally unfazed by this motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). They are all out of town because they know very well the motion will be vetoed.
President, it would be better if we can wait till Carrie LAM and "689" come back before we handle this motion, rather than discussing it today. So, I first ask for a headcount under Rule 17(2).
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, what is your point?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1677
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask if Members can place on their desks various kinds of decorations, such as toy figures, lamps, and so on? If they cannot, or if it is stipulated that the decorations placed must be related to the question under discussion, how then is that yellow lamp which Mr CHAN Chi-chuen placed on the desk related to this question being discussed? Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, how is that object which you are displaying related to this question?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, this is not a lamp, but a yellow umbrella representing "I want genuine universal suffrage", with eight banners bearing "I want genuine universal suffrage" attached to it. This is closely related to this issue of LEUNG Chun-ying which we have to discuss today. President, you did not interfere yesterday when we opened the umbrellas. If Dr CHIANG Lai-wan wants to know the reason, I can spend some time to explain to her when I deliver my speech afterwards. This is all I have to say in reply. President, you can make a ruling.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your reply just now failed to relate the object which you have displayed to the question of this debate. Members can of course claim that all current matters pertaining to public policies, governance, livelihood and the economy are related to universal suffrage, but I consider the relationship to be too far-fetched. Objects displayed by Members should be directly related to the question of the debate. Although I did not interfere with the objects displayed by Members in the Chamber yesterday, it did not mean that their act complied with the Rules of Procedure.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I respect your ruling. In that case, I will put it back on the desk when I come to the related topic in my speech later. You can then rule again if my speech is related to it.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, Ms Claudia MO stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point?
1678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to make use of this time to carry out a survey. I went through the notes which I took down yesterday and discovered that Mr WONG Ting-kwong mentioned the umbrella movement in his speech. Mr CHAN Kam-lam even pointed out that an Australian reporter was the first to reveal that LEUNG Chun-ying accepted $50 million without declaring, and that the reporter appeared in Admiralty and the Umbrella Square below. They discussed these but no one said that they had digressed from the subject. Since we have the word "umbrella" mentioned, why is the umbrella decoration displayed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen not accepted?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, whether or not the content of a Member's speech constitutes the reason for any object he or she displays hinges on the specific relationship between the two. For example, Members have mentioned resources and food in their speeches, can they display food to show that the two are related?
Ms MO, you move this motion to ask for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive receiving the benefits of an overseas corporation, so, only objects which are directly related to this question can be displayed.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Since Ms Claudia MO mentioned my name, let me take out the draft of my speech and read out to her. I have to tell her I made no mention of that stupid umbrella: "The purpose is to dovetail with the occupy action, wait for a chance to smear and deal a further blow to the governing authority of LEUNG Chun-ying." These are the words in the original draft. Did I mention whatever umbrella? Rather, you will "disperse" 1 eventually.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should not start a debate now.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
1 In Cantonese, the word "散" when pronounced as "傘" means to disperse. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1679
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion on establishing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region LEUNG Chun-ying receiving the benefits of UGL Limited (UGL), an Australian corporation.
Yesterday, Mr WONG Ting-kwong spoke right after Ms Claudia MO. He remarked that the democratic camp's invoking of the P&P Ordinance to inquire into LEUNG Chun-ying's case was aimed at smearing him. How can anyone possibly smear LEUNG Chun-ying? In the case of a wall which is black in colour, can we possibly make it still darker by giving it another layer of dark paint? The inside, the outside, the front and also the back of LEUNG Chun-ying are all black in colour. I think if we really establish a select committee now, the inquiry outcome may help to prove that he is instead white in colour. Only an inquiry can ascertain whether he is right or wrong. But the "royalists" simply ignore the question of right and wrong, arguing that an inquiry must be an act of smearing him. As far as I can remember, the "royalists" themselves also supported motions on invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire into LEUNG Chun-ying's acts a couple of years ago. So, I presume that at that time, they must also be trying to smear LEUNG Chun-ying then. Mr WONG Ting-kwong is very narrow-minded. He will remember what happened at that time.
Last month, an Australian media organization disclosed that in the course of selling the business of DTZ, LEUNG Chun-ying signed a secret agreement with the purchaser under which he subsequently received a reward of $50 million. It is a pity that Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM is in the Mainland today; if not, I would certainly chide her in person for reasons of her "doublespeak" last week, the "doublespeak" that the agreement was not a secret agreement as such. Can the Secretary tell us what the opposite of "secret" is? It is "open". Well, then, was the agreement an open agreement? She argued that it was not a secret agreement but just a commercial arrangement not meant to be disclosed as a conventional practice in the commercial sector. Ladies and gentlemen, this is pure "doublespeak", isn't it?
1680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
If Members have been to Umbrella Square, they will remember having seen LEUNG Chun-ying's coffin resting on a bier with the words "Infamy for 10 000 years". Carrie LAM's photograph is placed below the bier. Why? This is not without any reason. Hence, Chief Secretary for Administration, please do not be angry with others. Just ask yourself why you sought to defend LEUNG Chun-ying in the very first place. Why didn't you just read out the exact wording of the script he supplied? You did not need to do anything else unless it was specifically stated in the script he supplied that whenever any reference was made to the secret agreement, you must reply that it was not a secret agreement but just a commercial arrangement not meant to be disclosed.
Under the secret agreement, UGL was to pay LEUNG Chun-ying a bonus of 1.5 million pounds on behalf of DTZ and also £4 million of adviser fees staggered over a period of two consecutive years. However, the Chief Executive never made any declaration, and it is even suspected that he attempted to evade tax payment by not disclosing to the DTZ Board his acceptance of benefits from the purchaser. Twice during his public office as the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying received payment of money from UGL. But he still claims that there were no legal and moral problems. I must say people are all discerning enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
Immediately after the media disclosure, LEUNG Chun-ying said that he would issue a lawyer's letter. This can show that this man must have done something wrong. What is more, as soon as LEUNG Chun-ying knew that this Council would deal with him these two days, he hastened to summon a number of pro-establishment Members to a meeting behind closed doors and attempted to offer an explanation to them. The meeting reportedly lasted 40 minutes. Pro-establishment Members know only too well that they and LEUNG Chun-ying must "share the glory and the blame" together ― but precisely, it is all about sharing the blame but not any glory, I must say. They are not quite so willing to do so, but they do not know what to do, and they are unable to speak their own minds. However, lest what happened to Mr James TIEN may befall them and for fear that they themselves are dealt with before they can deal with LEUNG Chun-ying, they have no alternative but to side with the Government.
Nevertheless, I must advise them not to follow him too closely. It is already a foregone conclusion that they will vote against this motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance at the end of the day, but they must be careful not to go LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1681 overboard in their words of support. Some Members have remarked that all Hong Kong people have accused and suspected him wrongly, as if saying that he were a "wise and virtuous emperor" and the best Chief Executive in the history of Hong Kong. The "royalist" must also check whether the "royal" is really worth supporting. Hong Kong people are all horrified at the sight of how they have been supporting him.
LEUNG Chun-ying of course knew that he was in the wrong, and he therefore attempted to canvass voting support at the last minute. Although he thought that the pro-establishment camp would definitely support the Government, he was still worried and he thus wanted to get his last-minute assurance. LEUNG Chun-ying should have come here for a Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session after the re-opening of the Legislative Council in October, and the UGL incident was to be one major issue. However, he has been afraid of coming here so far. He has been talking about personal safety as an excuse, saying that his car cannot stop at the entrance of the Legislative Council Complex. We have been holding meetings for weeks, but no matter how unpopular certain Members are ― I am not referring to you, and I may also be unpopular ― they have been able to come back here for meetings all the same. Where has LEUNG Chun-ying gone? Why is he afraid of coming here? He dare not come to the Legislative Council, and even dare not convene any press briefings and face the mass media for detailed questioning at his own "lairs" ― the Office of the Chief Executive and the Government House. He has only appeared once in the programme called "On the Record" produced by a pro-government television station. This shows that LEUNG Chun-ying has a guilty conscience.
While talking about "a gentlemen's agreement", a golden handshake and the like, you must be very careful because more information may be disclosed at any time, and this might turn the golden handshake into a handshake of "shit". LEUNG Chun-ying is a "recidivist liar". He simply does not know how many lies he has told. Some Members say that LEUNG Chun-ying, who launches policy initiatives once they are ready, is quite a good Chief Executive. Actually, we should say that his scandals will break out one after another once conditions are ripe. He is out of Hong Kong at this moment, and another scandal may well break out any time.
1682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Although LEUNG Chun-ying has repeatedly said that he has never provided any services to UGL, we must still note that as also explained in all those programmes offered to public officers or civil servants by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, even the mere acceptance of money not accompanied by the doing of any acts may constitute an offence because forbearing to do an act after the receipt of money is itself a kind of service. "Protection money" and "hush money", for example, are intended to require the money recipient to refrain from doing something, or to turn a blind eye to something. This is also a kind of service.
Although LEUNG Chun-ying was not yet the Chief Executive when he signed that secret agreement, we must still note that the validity of the agreement did not come to an end until December 2013, meaning that the validity period partly overlapped his term as the Chief Executive. Article 47 of the Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties, and the Chief Executive shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal for the record.
Even Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM must make a declaration when she sold her properties in the United Kingdom. In this present case, the Chief Executive, however, insists that he did not need to make any declaration on the two huge payments he received from UGL privately during his term of public office. I really do not know what reasons he can offer. The £1.5 million of bonus payment also involves suspected taxation irregularities. But LEUNG Chun-ying has insisted that there was no need for any declaration of interest.
A couple of days ago, when the Chief Executive explained his case to pro-establishment Members behind closed doors, he admitted frankly that by the time he wanted to make a declaration, UGL had already completed the procedures of making the two staggered payments to him, so it did not occur to him that he had to make any declaration. Well, even "forgetfulness" can be a reason for failing to make a declaration and tax evasion. What an eye-opener! Only the Chief Executive can use this as a reason. Principal officials must not follow suit. Secretary CHEUNG must not follow suit, either. And, the common people, in particular, must never do so, because we do not enjoy such a privilege.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1683
There was an even more outrageous thing. Although the agreement provided that the provision of services must not put the service-provider in any conflict of interest and UGL in fact never asked him to provide the relevant service, the fact remains that UGL could have required LEUNG Chun-ying to provide services at any time. Is he saying that he did not need to make any declaration until the other side really required him to provide service? Is this acceptable?
According to some media reports, the secret agreement required LEUNG Chun-ying to support UGL's bid to purchase DTZ, and members of the DTZ Board were not aware of his having accepted the advantage offered by the prospective purchaser. On the day of signing the agreement, DTZ turned down the $1.3 billion purchase proposal of the Tianjin Innovative Financial Investment Company, which was almost 100% higher than the UGL proposal. Did all this involve any commercial crimes such as acceptance of unlawful rebate? If the DTZ Board had been aware of LEUNG Chun-ying's acceptance of a bonus, would it still sell the company to UGL? All this requires an inquiry.
After media disclosure, ZHANG Xiaoming, Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR (the Liaison Office), hastened to say that the Central Authorities had long since been aware of this incident, and it was actually no breaking news at all. Now, I would think this involves problems at two levels: does this mean that with the knowledge and approval of the Liaison Office, LEUNG Chun-ying would not commit any crime, all his acts would be lawful, and he could evade taxes? Does this mean that with the approval of the Liaison Office, LEUNG would also have the approval of the Communist Party of China, something that could enable him to do whatever he liked in the whole world and prevent foreign countries from prosecuting him even when he made mistakes?
Since XI Jinping has repeatedly talked about ruling the country according to the law and managing the party according to rules and regulations, we all think that this incident must be handled very sternly. We believe that LEUNG Chun-ying's failure to make a declaration and pay the required tax under the law must be handled before everything else. If LEUNG Chun-ying is an underground Communist Party member, he should even be required to confess at the designated place and time.
1684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
But, well, we all understand that a person cannot possibly become the Chief Executive if the Central Authorities do not have any negative information about him. People have been saying somewhat jokingly that the Central Authorities will not allow any civil nomination and genuine universal suffrage because they cannot make sure that they can have negative information about every candidate. They are afraid that they may not have the negative information required for controlling the elected regional leader in case he turns errant. Therefore, the Central Authorities will have no confidence in any electoral arrangements that allow the participation of people with no negative information available to them. This explains why the Communist Party of China will never accept civil nomination.
If Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM is present today, I will ask her a set of questions. Speaking of the questions I have just asked, I know that she will probably answer the ones which appear on her script, and she will simply ignore the rest. And, I must say we must have heard many of the answers she may give. The Acting Chief Secretary for Administration may answer the question I am going to ask today. If he does not, we will follow-up the question through other channels in the future, such as putting forward a written question or oral question.
My question is not for LEUNG Chun-ying. Acting Chief Secretary for Administration, suppose a government official signed an agreement or contract with a private-sector organization before joining the Government (whether this is to be called a secret agreement), and the agreement is still effective after his assumption of public office, can he avoid making a declaration, and will the Government stop investigating whether he has told any lies, by claiming that he never provided any service during the agreement period? Also, can that government official say that even if he may be required to provide service in the future, he can still choose not to make a declaration because the agreement already provides that the provision of service shall not put him in any conflict of interest with his present office? Can that government official wait until the other side really requests him to provide service, and then say that he will make a declaration to the Government only after he has assessed whether there is any conflict of interest with his post? Will the Government give him any permission to do so?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1685
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to discuss commercial contract from some commercial perspective or by making reference to the general commercial practice. For example, the contract entered into between the Chief Executive and UGL is relatively common in the commercial world. In particular, in the case of an acquisition, the buyer will demand the inclusion of some terms to subject the vendor ― especially the key man whom we refer to ― to some rules. This is to protect the buyer that upon acquisition, the business of the company will not be affected. The most common arrangement is that after the acquisition of the existing company, the key man has to work for it for three more years before he can leave. There are some other similar arrangements: The key man receives a sum of money to stay away from the business for a period of time, which in a way removes a rival; certain employees are not to be poached and they have to continue to work for the existing company.
These circumstances are actually very common, and are normal forms of commercial partnership, but we of course understand that the protagonist this time is the Chief Executive. Although he was not yet the Chief Executive when he signed this contract, his failure to declare such interest has given rise to many queries.
President, I am one of the five Members who met with the Chief Executive on Monday. During the meeting, the Chief Executive gave us a document, the content of which had basically been reported by the media. There was nothing special and it contained no new information. We of course asked him questions and some have been raised by Members just now. For example, why was the offer made by a Tianjian company, which was £100 million more, turned down? Was there anything wrong? That could not have been possible from the commercial perspective as there was a difference of $1.3 billion between the two offers. In particular, the company he sold was insolvent and had to pay back what it owed the bank. Even if he had been willing to accept the lower offer, the bank might not have been willing to. However, after we have raised this question, one explanation offered by the Chief Executive was that the Tianjian company attached conditions to the acquisition, one of which being the relocation of the headquarters of DTZ England to Tianjian, as mentioned by Members.
The other issue involved foreign exchange. If the Tianjian company were to acquire DTZ, the sterling pound had to be paid by remittance. As we are aware, China has foreign exchange control and there was no exact date for the 1686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 green light for the remittance for settlement. Therefore, the explanation offered by the Chief Executive was that the board of directors found the two conditions unacceptable although the buyer was willing to pay more. The offer could thus only fall through.
Moreover, though it is only hearsay, my understanding is that members on the board of directors were basically Britons, and since the acquisition was made by UGL, which is an Australian corporation, the two places belong to the same legal system and speak the same language. Thus, DTZ is willing to accept a company which shares the same language rather than a Chinese commercial organization which is unfamiliar to them.
In addition, we of course asked him if the board of directors was in the know and the answer was in the affirmative. We were told that many decisions were made by the board rather than by an individual. Moreover, out of the £4 million, the granting of £2 million was subject to one condition: It had to be withheld if some employees left within a certain period. We see that no money had been withheld finally, but we do not know if any employee had left.
We of course also asked the Chief Executive if he had provided services in the end, and he replied in the negative. Then, we discovered that the major problem rest with declaration. The Chief Executive said he had made declaration in accordance with the established mechanism of the SAR Government. These were the issues we discussed then.
Why did the Chief Executive refrain from holding a press conference to discuss the matter? Take Mr James TIEN as an example. He held a press conference last week. It lasted for over an hour and did not end until all questions were asked. This is the ideal way to handle the matter. The question now is: Since he has not done so, Ms Claudia MO is moving this motion to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into him.
Even if he has held a press conference to explain, I think some pan-democratic Members will not be satisfied and may also invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. However, the actual situation now is someone has filed a report with the ICAC, and the ICAC has …
(Ms Claudia MO stood up)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1687
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I have some worries. Under Rule 41(6) of the Rules of Procedure, should Members not refrain from using the name of the Chief Executive to influence the Council? Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan is repeatedly citing the conversation between them and LEUNG Chun-ying. Is that appropriate?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan is not influencing the Council using the name of the Chief Executive. Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, please continue. I will continue to pay attention to your speech.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): I heard that the ICAC has opened a file on the case. However, someone told me yesterday it would not make sense even if the ICAC had opened a file as it had to report to the Chief Executive at the end of the day. We should look at it this way: Do we still have confidence in the ICAC? LEUNG Chun-ying can only be the Chief Executive for a few years at the most, but the ICAC has been established for over 30 years. We believe Hong Kong cannot do without the ICAC in the future. The ICAC consequently has to serve and face the people of Hong Kong. If the ICAC launches its investigation, its power is even bigger than that of the Legislative Council. It can enter a premises to investigate and take away all documents but the Legislative Council cannot do so. We of course can summon witnesses and demand access to any related evidence but the ICAC can be more proactive. It can directly enter the premises to investigate. Is this not a greater power?
At the moment, the basis of Hong Kong's rule of law is wavering. The ICAC is always airing this promotional footage which says "Hong Kong ― Our Advantage is the ICAC". Who else can we trust if we do not trust the ICAC? If even the ICAC wavers, I believe Hong Kong will come to its demise. Thus, as far as I am concerned, I have full trust in the ICAC. In my opinion, if it takes over the investigation over the matter, it should be allowed to do so.
As for the Liberal Party, our stance is that we do not consider that the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to inquire into this matter, in order to avoid overlapping with the ICAC's investigation. On 22 March 2012, Mr LEE 1688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Wing-tat, the then Member of the Legislative Council, moved to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the "hospitality-gate" and "interests-gate" scandals pertaining to Donald TSANG, the former Chief Executive. Ms Miriam LAU, the former Chairman of the Liberal Party, had expressed our stance in her speech: If the ICAC is investigating any person, including the Chief Executive, the Liberal Party will abstain from voting on a motion for the Legislative Council to conduct an inquiry. Therefore, the Liberal Party is also ready to abstain from voting on this motion.
Thank you, President.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, we continue our debate on Ms Claudia MO's motion to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying receiving the benefits of the Australian corporation UGL Limited (UGL).
President, I actually want very much to talk to the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, but she is not in attendance and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has stepped in for her. It is my strong wish that Secretary Matthew CHEUNG could truthfully relay to the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM what we have said in our speeches since her response made yesterday on this motion was more assertive than before.
First, she criticized Ms Claudia MO for wilfully hitting out at the Chief Executive, and remarked that her accusations were unreasonable and regrettable. She reiterated that the contract between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL was a departure agreement. In other words, the agreement was about non-competition, under which LEUNG Chun-ying should not work for other rivals upon departure, or poach the employees of DTZ.
The agreement was a non-public commercial arrangement. The agreement and the money arose from LEUNG Chun-ying's departure from DTZ, rather than from any services he was to provide. After signing the agreement, LEUNG Chun-ying had not provided any services to UGL, and the existing declaration mechanism of the Executive Council did not cover a departure agreement. The agreement had been drawn up before LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive, and he had resigned from the membership of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1689
Executive Council. Since these issues had been clearly explained, there seemed to be no reason for the incident to linger on in the Chamber of the Legislative Council.
President, having heard these words of the Chief Secretary yesterday, I have a feeling that a slew of problems exist. First, she sounded as if she were LEUNG Chun-ying, speaking as the first person knowing everything inside out. She even believed what she said was entirely true. President, I find this very strange. If what the Secretary said were true, it would be purely a private agreement between a private corporation and a private employee, but why could the Secretary have so much knowledge? Unless she had found something extraordinary between them and the Government had conducted an investigation and thus gained access to the information held by them, how could she have read such information?
Second, UGL is a private corporation and the departure of an employee is also a private matter which has nothing to do with public office, but why would the Government have probed somebody's private affairs out of no reason? Why? President, I really cannot understand. How could you have allowed the Chief Secretary to speak on somebody's behalf over private affairs? This Council is to discuss and scrutinize matters relating to public office and the operation of government organizations, instead of ― if there are no problems ― probing private corporations and private affairs for no reason.
Besides, why did the Chief Secretary have so much trust in him when the matter is so private? What capacity was she in, and what relationship did she have with LEUNG Chun-ying for her to clearly respond to the questions? Was she the legal representative of LEUNG Chun-ying? Otherwise, why was she qualified to speak those words on his behalf? President, I really cannot understand. Unfortunately, it is Secretary Matthew CHEUNG who is in attendance today and not the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM. I would like to ask if she can guarantee what she knows is the entire fact, without anything concealed and deceptive? Can she guarantee? Can she swear as if she were attending court that what she knows is the entire fact, without fake, omission, concealment and deceit? Can she swear?
President, as we all know, since LEUNG Chun-ying began to stand for election, he had denied having done a lot of things, but was he telling the truth? In fact, he has been hiding the fact by means of double-talk. He has been lying. 1690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
For example, earlier, he was involved in putting up illegal structures. This issue is too distant for us to discuss further. Moreover, the Director of Buildings has been doing him favour and harbouring him. He has let him off the hook and avoided making prosecution. I do not intend to talk about this. President, let us turn to the recent report on The New York Times. What was the report about? They reported that the Chief Executive had said that broad representation did not come from figures and warned that if the candidate of the Chief Executive came from public nomination, the policies would tip towards those in Hong Kong with a monthly salary of below $14,000. This has been translated into Chinese and reported.
Of course, many from the grassroots and grass-roots groups are upset very much by such words and have criticized the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive's Office later made clarification but what did it say? It said the Chief Executive had never made that remark. President, I did read the English original. He really did not mention the so-called figure of "$14,000". I did not see the figure, but what did the original say? It mentioned US$1,800. President, if one has paid attention to the exchange rate, one would know that US$1,800 is roughly $14,000.
Let us take a look at our Chief Executive. He unexpectedly employed this art of double-talk without mentioning $14,000 but US$1,800 to show that he did not say that himself. Under such circumstances, I would very much like to ask the Chief Secretary: How could she emphasize in her speech that LEUNG Chun-ying had not provided any services to UGL? How could she be certain that he had not? How could she trust him? In what capacity was she and how was she qualified to believe him to say those words? Moreover, when the Chief Secretary said he had not provided any services, does it mean that he had not worked for this corporation? President, he could be peculiar with words and differentiate between "work" and "service". There was nothing abnormal working for this corporation. All he needed was making a phone call. How could the Chief Secretary know that he had not done so? I really am at a loss why this Chief Secretary would bet Hong Kong, her personality and reputation on this Chief Executive who always lies. Since the Chief Secretary represents the SAR Government and the SAR Government is about the whole of Hong Kong, not only is she betting herself on this Chief Executive who constantly lies, she is also betting the SAR Government and the entire Hong Kong society on the Chief Executive. President, is this possible? The Chief Secretary believes in what he said without carrying out any investigation. She has gone too far, hasn't she?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1691
President, what is the main reason for us to propose today to conduct an inquiry under the P&P Ordinance? Apart from asking for an inquiry to find out if these so-called reports are real and prove the Chief Executive's innocence, we are also performing our duty. The main spirit of the P&P Ordinance is to allow us to establish a select committee to examine if there is misconduct on the part of the Government or the officials. This is our duty. Why do we not do so?
Besides, President, I said earlier that in the past, the Chief Executive had been constantly covering up his lies with double-talk. Take the acceptance of $4 million from UGL as an example. The Chief Secretary has said a lot to clarify for him but some reports have brought up another issue. It has been revealed that when LEUNG Chun-ying ran for Chief Executive in 2011, apart from allegedly intended to accept $4 million from UGL pertaining to the acquisition of the parent company of DTZ, he even expressed his wish to collect an extra £3 million as compensation from DTZ Japan or as supplementary benefit. This however did not come through in the end as the other party thought that the price was too exorbitant and did not agree to it. Through the Chief Executive's Office, our Chief Executive responded by saying he would not comment on the issue. President, if LEUNG Chun-ying was really innocent, why did he not deny? Given his character, he would definitely have denied just as he clarified he did not say $14,000. We mentioned this earlier. Why then did he not clarify this rumour? President, is this a case of "he who denies all confesses all"? Once and again, every time an issue crops up, it is like squeezing the toothpaste, and we are given a bit more detail every day. Under such circumstances, what reason do we have to ignore the Chief Executive of the SAR Government, and not to conduct an inquiry to find out the truth?
President, we are very worried because the Chief Secretary and the SAR Government are standing up for a person ― not a man in the street but the Chief Executive. I have handled many cases. I remember when someone from the senior level suspected some ordinary civil servants, the latter would be suspended from duties pending investigation, regardless of how much truth or evidence relating to the incident was on hand. In the latest case of seven police officers beating up a protester in a dark corner, although we criticized the Police for failing to make arrest, those police officers have been suspended from duties pending investigation. However, despite widespread global reports of this serious incident which involved the conduct of the Chief Executive, we have not conducted any inquiry. All the Government has done is to come out and say it "believes" and the problem has been addressed. President, is this possible? 1692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Can it be handled in this way? What is happening here? He is the Chief Executive of Hong Kong in charge of a society of over 7 million people. How can we let him off?
Thus, today, I am very much in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion. Business aside, our Chief Secretary has no relationship with LEUNG Chun-ying. How could she have made so many assurances and private remarks on his behalf? How could she have expressed so much trust? President, I do consider this inappropriate. Therefore, President, I wish the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying would come out and explain thoroughly in this regard. By doing so, the Hong Kong people and those who are concerned about this incident around the world can understand it.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is particular about the rule of law; it is also a place where probity is highly regarded by all. "We are lucky enough to have the ICAC" is a well-known phrase always quoted by Hong Kong people. Everybody trusts the ICAC as we all believe that it will tackle all corruption cases impartially and will treat all on the same footing. It will combat both the crooks and the kingpins. Article 47 of the Basic Law also stipulates that the Chief Executive "must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties."
Today, Ms Claudia MO proposes to invoke Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the allegation that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying received the benefits of the Australian corporation UGL before assuming the office as the Chief Executive. Actually, she wants to occupy the moral high ground by making use of the probity issue highly regarded by all, as well as the relevant requirement under the Basic Law to accuse the Chief Executive for breaking the law. This is a very serious accusation. However, more than two weeks ago, this issue was discussed in the meeting of the House Committee. At that time, Members understood clearly that there were no sufficient reasons to substantiate the accusation. The motion was therefore negatived. However, it is obvious that Ms MO brings up this matter from the past as she wishes to stir up problems and attract public attention, with a view to undermining the popularity of the Chief Executive, thereby justifying the objective of launching the non-co-operation movement. That is, to oust the Chief Executive.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1693
President, please let me make a point-by-point analysis on whether the pan-democrat's allegation against the Chief Executive is substantiated. First, as to the fact that the Chief Executive received £4 million from UGL for giving his consent to assist the sale of DTZ, just as everyone have learnt, half of the £4 million was actually a payment for his resignation, and the other half was to compensate him for observing the non-compete and non-poach requirements. As long as a senior staff of DTZ resigns two years after the agreement was signed, UGL shall reserve the right to deduct 5% of the remaining unpaid reward. That is to say, if 20 of them have resigned, in principle, the remaining £2 million payment will be quashed, and no extra money will be paid up for the so-called extra service. I believe that this type of "golden handshake" practice or similar arrangement in the business world is not uncommon at all. I believe the crux of the problem lies in the term "secret agreement" used by the Australian media in the initial coverage of the case, and the fact that creditors as well as the major shareholders were reportedly unaware of the agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL. In that coverage, Mr LEUNG was just being depicted as someone accepting unauthorized commission. However, I wish to point out that after the Australian media, Fairfax, which discloses the case, has published the story, it simply changed the allegation by saying that after checking the emails between the creditor RBS, the former chairman of DTZ and its administrator Ernst & Young, it was found that all these parties were aware of the content of the agreement. That is to say, the report has made a mistake. Then how can we angrily point an accusing finger at someone, even the prima facie evidence is not substantiated? How can one say that an investigation is a must?
When UGL, which acquired DTZ, was asked whether the directors of DTZ were informed and if they had approved the deal, it was clearly stated that (I quote): "We cannot speak for all of the directors of DTZ Holdings plc at the time; however, DTZ Holdings plc board representatives, management, financiers and advisers were all involved with and aware of these discussions." (unquote) That is, the saying that DTZ, in its capacity as the employer, was not aware of the deal, is groundless. The case does not stand at all.
President, as the Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM pointed out last Wednesday in response to Members' question, the agreement was not a secret agreement; it was just a commercial arrangement not made public.
1694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Moreover, as far as the timing was concerned, it happened that the date on which the Australian media published the story was 28 September. It was the day when tear gas was used in the attempt to disperse the protesters who charged at the police cordon lines. I do not want to speculate the specific reason behind that. I only want to point out that it was a timely coincidence. With regard to the purpose, as Mr Alan LEONG, the fellow partisan of Ms Claudia MO, just said explicitly, they wanted to initiate the procedure to impeach the Chief Executive. For that reason, the whole thing behind this motion is not related to a conspiracy, but a fact which is widely known by all.
Furthermore, another focal point of the UGL acquisition was that at the final stage before the sale agreement was to be concluded, a state-owned enterprise, that is, a Tianjin enterprise, came out of the blue. Its bidding offer for DTZ was about £100 million more than that made by UGL. But eventually, the DTZ management decided to sell the company to UGL. Was LEUNG Chun-ying involved in that? As the Chief Executive told some of our Legislative Council colleagues, including me, on Monday in a bid to supplement the earlier announcement made by the Chief Executive's Office, he resigned from the board on 24 November with immediate effect. In other words, when the board made the decision in early December, he was not a member of the board, so he didn't have the final say at all. It was therefore totally groundless to accuse Mr LEUNG for harming the shareholders' interest.
Just now some pan-democratic Members claimed that Mr LEUNG was involved in the entire decision-making process, which was evidenced by the fact that he knew the Tianjin enterprise had imposed some improbable terms and conditions to the deal, such as the relocation of DTZ's headquarters to Tianjin, and that the deal could only be completed with the approval of the State Council. Nevertheless, in view LEUNG Chun-ying's work experience and qualifications in the trade, in addition to the fact that he was in the top management of the company, it was not uncommon for him to learn some of the details about the transaction afterward. Please do not speak or act on hearsay evidence.
President, another point is that amid the entire UGL acquisition crisis …
(Mr WONG Kwok-hing stood up)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1695
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, since Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung brings with him a loudspeaker, I therefore can hear acoustic interference as I am sitting at the back row. Will you deal with that in accordance with the Rules of Procedure?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have not brought a loudspeaker with me. Is Mr WONG Kwok-hing feeling unwell?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): How can that be? I can still hear the buzzing sound now.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): That sound comes from the seat next to him. Why should he accuse me for that? Why should he blame me for everything? It is perhaps due to the person sitting next to him, perhaps Mr NG Leung-sing is listening to something. For a dog to bite a person, "buddy", you should …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down. Members please observe the Rules of Procedure.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung still spoke loudly while sitting)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please stopping speaking immediately. I cannot hear any other sound. Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please make clear the kind of device you have referred to.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): The sound has disappeared now.
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
1696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I suspect Mr WONG Kwok-hing is losing his mind, please take care of him.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): (inaudible) … to save the trouble, please do the head count in accordance with clause 17(2) as a quorum is not present. If you wish to blame someone, please blame Mr NG Leung-sing. What has this matter to do with me? You just blame me for everything.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, a Member spoke loudly)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, a Member still spoke loudly)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please continue with your speech.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Actually, this UGL acquisition crisis, just as today's motion says, took place before Mr LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office as the Chief Executive. If Members remember well, as far as the situation of the Chief Executive election was concern, LEUNG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1697
Chun-ying's situation was not that favourable as he was the underdog. For that reason, the major purpose of the agreement was to prevent him from engaging in some direct competition or poaching activities.
As to the question of whether LEUNG Chun-ying had been engaging in any "part-time job" after assuming office as the Chief Executive, I don't think the question is that complex at all. He added an additional commitment on the day he signed the agreement with UGL. It was mentioned in the agreement that UGL reserved the right to request him to provide his service for a certain period of time. But just as the Chief Executive and Chief Secretary Carrie LAM explained clearly respectively, after concluding the agreement, the Chief Executive had not provided any service to UGL.
Of course, had the Chief Executive been more alert then and made additional efforts to prevent the public from misunderstanding the matter, or had he made a more lucid explanation after the incident was widely covered by the media, it would have helped addressing public concerns. I hope the Chief Executive understand that the society is very concerned about potential conflict of interest nowadays, and he should never treat it lightly.
President, up to this day, neither the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, to which I belong, nor I see any wrongdoing in the UGL acquisition incident which warrants the investigation under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Moreover, once a select committee is formed, the time to be spent on investigation will not be days, but years, and the cost will be hefty. Besides, will the public agree to spend the time and money on an unfound case? Furthermore, the filibustering within the legislature as well as the recent non-co-operation movement will definitely impede the Government's operation in every direction, be it infrastructure, policy, funding arrangement or legislation work. As additional expenses amounting to billions of dollars will incur, people who would have been benefited or supported will not have their wishes fulfilled over a prolonged period of time. The public have been discontented with all of these things.
Lastly, I wish to point out that pan-democratic Members are resorting to every conceivable means to create a chaotic overall situation, to fan the flames of disorder and to find fault with the Government. Yet, they turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the improvement of people's livelihood and economic development. 1698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
May we ask if it is for the good of Hong Kong? Moreover, if the public eventually hold grudge against them, it will be very difficult for them to stay out of the trouble.
With these remarks, I oppose today's motion proposed by Ms MO.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, before speaking on the motion, I would like to first answer the question you put to me last time. You asked me if I was a representative of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), and my answer is that I have been a representative of the 11th and 12th CPPCC. This is my honour to be a representative of the CPPCC, and that is why I will never forget about that. It is my hope that I can continue to hold this post and become a representative of the 13th and 14th CPPCC. Hence, even though today I am speaking in this Chamber in my capacity as a Member of the Legislative Council, I still bear in mind my capacity as a CPPCC representative.
President, the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO seeks to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate whether Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has received £4 million from the Australian corporation UGL Limited (UGL), and whether he has involved in any integrity issue or violated the law. I have listened to the response made by the relevant public officer and the speeches delivered by Honourable colleagues in these two days. Up to this moment, my conclusion is that it is not worthwhile to support the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO to invoke the P&P Ordinance to investigate the Chief Executive. My status as a CPPCC representative is certainly not the reason why I do not support her motion, as CPPCC representatives do not necessarily have to "support LEUNG". CPPCC representatives can distinguish between truth and falsehood and analyse the truthfulness of things in a rational manner. Hence, this is not the reason why I oppose the motion. Nevertheless, I am not saying that I know about what was going on behind the scene or the truth of the incident, so much so that I do not think that there is any problem with the Chief Executive's integrity or he has violated the law.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1699
As a matter of fact, despite his hectic schedule, the Chief Executive squeezed some time last Monday to meet with a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp, including Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, and so on. However, I was not invited to the meeting, and that is why I have no idea about the inside story. Besides, I am not familiar with accounting procedures and do not have any professional training in accounting or law, and hence I cannot analyse from any legal or accounting perspective and judge whether he is clean and has not involved in tax evasion or law violation. Actually, many Members of this Council are accountants or have studied law. Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr Kenneth LEUNG, for example, have studied law and accounting respectively. On the other hand, Ms Starry LEE and Mr Martin LIAO from the pro-establishment faction are also experts in the law. One thing I really cannot understand is that even though they have all studied law or accounting, their judgments can be so different. Some consider LEUNG clean; some think otherwise. Perhaps their divergent views can be attributable to the fact that they studied law or accounting in different schools.
I am not an expert in the relevant fields and have no idea about the inside story. Why am I not in support of the motion then? In the final analysis, the major reason is that I consider Hong Kong a pragmatic society which can differentiate between the real world and fairy tales. I understand very well the motive of Ms Claudia MO in moving this motion. I believe she does not really want to investigate whether LEUNG Chun-ying has violated any law or has any problem with his integrity, I think she just wants to humiliate him. Hence, I find her motive malicious. Regarding the question of whether there are any external forces involved in this motive, as the President has said before, neither you nor I can see it with our eyes, so we can but make some wild guesses. If I know very well that the motive is malicious, I can find no reason for me to join in such a crazy act with her; if I know very well that this motion will never be passed, I can find no reason for me to support her irrationally and senselessly.
Indeed, in the past ― Members all know that this is my second term of office as Legislative Council Member ― whenever the P&P Ordinance was invoked to carry out an investigation, huge amounts of manpower, resources, funding and time would certainly be spent, and in vain in most case. Nevertheless, that does not mean that no investigation would be carried out. The incident this time involves not only the Chief Executive and an overseas corporation (the Australian corporation UGL) but also the Royal Bank of 1700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Scotland ― I am not sure if I get the name right. That being the case, even if an investigation committee is formed, do we have the power to summon such overseas corporation and bank to send representative to our hearings? If we do not have such power, we will be holding the hearings unilaterally. To be very honest, the efforts made will just be in vain and nothing meaningful will come out. Such an investigation is bound to have no meaningful results and will certainly waste a lot of manpower, resources and funding. Why should we proceed with it? We really should not carry out such an investigation.
Moreover, if Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying really has problems with his integrity in this incident, the major victims will be the small shareholders, or the major shareholders as well, not just small shareholders. The shareholders are those who have been taken advantage of or double-crossed by LEUNG Chun-ying, they are the victims (or suspected victims), and yet they do not come up to state their case. Why does Ms Claudia MO have to be so anxious about the matter when these concerned parties aren't? Even if it is all because she is very eager to find out the truth, she can invite the small shareholders to sue the Chief Executive through legal proceedings rather than urging the Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance. Does this Council really have nothing to do? Do we really have a lot of free time? Actually, there are many ways through which the truth can be sought. But then, as the shareholders do not wish to inquire into the matter, I have reason to believe that perhaps there is really nothing wrong, and the shareholders really have not suffered any losses in this transaction.
Earlier on, a Member mentioned that integrity is one of Hong Kong's core values. How come we could do so well in this respect in the past? This certainly has something to do with the good work of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The ICAC has certainly noticed this case, and maybe the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is aware of that as well. Neither the ICAC nor the IRD has opened a file in this respect, and we must trust that these two agencies do not practice favouritism. Those who see things through tinted glasses may argue that the ICAC does not open any file because it is afraid of the Chief Executive, and that the IRD dare not do so because it is a government department. However, equality is upheld in Hong Kong. Given that "both the emperor and the people are equal before the law", how come they do not open any file? Perhaps … no, I should not say perhaps. I believe that the ICAC and the IRD have come to a conclusion that the incident does not involve any tax evasion offence or corruption and bribery offences, and therefore LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1701 they do not find it necessary to open a file. Further still, even if they have secretly opened a file, we can just wait and see. What is the point of invoking the P&P Ordinance hastily to summon the Chief Executive?
President, our society is chaotic enough these days. The situation outside is one example. Nobody knows when Occupy Central will end. The entire population is in pain and the entire population is insane. Every day, people are engaged in some disobedience movement, thereby driving the entire Council crazy. What is the point in doing such things?
Our society should really reflect on a statement made recently. This statement is made by the initiators or organizers of Occupy Central, and they said they would surrender themselves to the Police when the entire movement is ended. The entire population of Hong Kong should really reflect on this statement and consider whether this is the truth or distorted truth. Will this have any adverse influence on our next generation? We should all think about these questions. Perhaps the Chief Executive may also follow their example and say that he will give an account to the public upon completion of his current term of office, while he chooses to wait until the end of his current term of office to give an account of the incident to the public. If we accept the initiators or organizers of Occupy Central to surrender themselves to the Police or give a clear account of the entire movement after it has come to an end, why do we not accept the Chief Executive to give an account of the incident upon the completion of his current term of office? Why must we insist on having him interrogated by Members expeditiously? The law will not change with the persons concerned. Likewise, we cannot accept somebody's arguments just because we support that person, and reject somebody's arguments just because we oppose that person. Given that the pan-democratic faction can accept the Occupy Central organizers to "surrender themselves afterwards", I do not think there is anything wrong for the pro-establishment faction to support the Chief Executive to "pour his heart out" upon completion of his current term of office.
Let me say something from the bottom of my heart. If the Chief Executive had invited me several days ago and disclosed to me more views instead of inviting only those five pro-establishment Members, if he had disclosed more about the inside story to me, I would not have given such explanations for him like "golden handshake", no actual provision of services, no involvement in conflict of interests, or something like "such kind of declaration is not required under the existing mechanism of the Executive Council". I would not have 1702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 given such explanations because they could hardly convince the pan-democratic Members or "KO" them. In the days to come, they will continue to propose motions and organize some disobedience movements. In any case Chief Executive ― sorry, I almost referred to you as the Chief Executive ― President, this is a Freudian slip, a slip of tongue reflecting what is in my heart (some Members spoke in their seats) … I am not making any excuses, sometimes I really let a Freudian slip speak out what is deep down in my heart. President, judging from what I heard in today's debate, unless the pro-establishment Members or opposition Members can produce some special arguments later on that can really cause me to change my mind, I will not change the stance I have been holding so far. I do not support Ms Claudia MO's motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident of LEUNG Chun-ying having received £4 million from the Australian corporation UGL, as I find her motive U-G-L-Y.
I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, since much has been said by many colleagues about the arguments concerning the background or facts of the case, I will not repeat but would only like to express my views on a few other issues.
The motion seeks to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate into the case. Debates have been held in this Council before on many occasions to discuss motions moved under the P&P Ordinance and needless to say, such motions are now moved nearly once every one or two weeks. Nevertheless, since some members of the public may not have a full understanding of the circumstances under which the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to conduct an investigation, I would like to spend some time to have a recap of some basic principles. Although many colleagues are very experienced in this respect, the whole truth has usually not been disclosed due to their subjective will or some political considerations. Worse still, attempts have even been made by some colleagues to deliberately mislead the public. In view of this, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate and clarify the relevant criteria to be met.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1703
President, the motion moved today has nothing to do with what Mr Alan LEONG has suggested at the last House Committee meeting. According to him, since there is a serious breach of law or dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Executive, certain procedures can be initiated pursuant to Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. He has obviously confused one thing with another by saying so. As a senior counsel, he should not justify the invocation of the powers under the P&P Ordinance with the stipulations in Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. If really necessary, impeachment procedures against the Chief Executive as stipulated in Article 73(9) of the Basic Law should actually be initiated by Members if they have the support of solid evidence and justifications, instead of moving a motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance in this Council.
President, there is also another point which in my opinion should not be taken into consideration, and neither is it appropriate to do so. What kind of conduct is actually involved to trigger the moving of the motion in question? As we all know, the P&P Ordinance is only applicable to the investigation into the allegations of serious negligence of duty on the part of the Government, public organizations, public officials or individuals, or into cases involving significant public interests, and it is expected that everyone knows about it. However, what is the subject matter involved in the motion moved today?
President, according to the relevant news reports, though the reports themselves are contradictory, the case on the whole involves only private commercial disputes and the relevant conduct is of a private nature. Theoretically speaking, if a person's private conduct constitutes a negligence of duty on his or her part, action may be taken against the person by the companies, shareholders and the law-enforcement agencies concerned and in the present case, the law-enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies of listed companies in Hong Kong, Australia and the United Kingdom, for instance, may discharge their duties. Any shareholders who consider their rights and interests infringed may lodge a claim for compensation under the common law or the relevant legislative provisions, holding Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, who was one of the directors of the company then, liable for breaching his fiduciary duty as a director and inflicting damages on the interests of the company as well as those of the shareholders. This is merely an action within the scope of private law, which is an area of civil law rather than public law.
1704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
It is of course possible that certain acts infringing private rights and interests are at the same time contrary to public interests or in breach of legislative provisions relating to criminal offences. Under the circumstances, law-enforcement action must be taken by the law-enforcement agencies of the jurisdiction concerned. If there is prima facie evidence suggesting that there is a violation of the criminal law, investigation may be carried out and prosecution may even be initiated by the law-enforcement agencies concerned. I think these are very clear to everybody.
Nevertheless, as I have said just now, the case in question involves essentially commercial activities of a private nature. Mr LEUNG Chun-ying announced at a particular moment his decision to stand in the Chief Executive election, was elected as the Chief Executive subsequently, and might have received benefits under the relevant agreement after he had taken office. However, in examining the question of whether the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to investigate into the case, a very clear line has to be drawn to decide the period to be targeted at. It should be noted that most of the activities involved in the case took place before Mr LEUNG Chun-ying took office as the Chief Executive, that is, before his assumption of office formally. Of course, he has been a Member of the Executive Council for a period of time but having resigned later from his office in the Executive Council. The incident has actually occurred during the "window period". In that case, is there evidence to prove that he was holding public office when the incident happened? Has anything concerning the case been done when he was holding public office? It can be seen from the relevant news reports and facts that justifications in his regard are relatively flimsy.
Besides, although Executive Council Members are required to declare their interests, after perusal of the information on the requirement for declaration of interests for Executive Council Members, I notice that there is already clear prescription of the interests required to be declared, which include only land and property or any beneficial interest in respect of land and property, either owned by Members or by their close relatives, and company shareholdings of a nominal value greater than a clearly specified percentage. In other words, declaration should only be made if their shareholdings in a company exceed a prescribed percentage. However, declaration is very obviously not required for some items such as cash, saving, jewellery or even costume jewellery, and so on. There is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1705 no need to make any declaration for such items. President, it would therefore be difficult to judge if he has acted against the system for declaration of interests when he was an Executive Council Member.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy President, it is a pleasure to have you here. As the Chief Executive-elect, he is required under the Basic Law to declare, upon assumption of office, his assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. First of all, the details of the declaration will not be made public and there are of course reasons behind such a need. Secondly, a clearly defined scope of the declaration has yet to be formulated. Some colleagues have commented that cash should be included as far as the term "assets" is concerned and the argument is both understandable and agreeable to me. However, the scope of the declaration is still unknown and we are not sure if the Chief Executive, on swearing into office, has declared the first payment made to him. Nevertheless, should there be any doubt, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal should probably be the one to pursue and bring the issue up without violating the principle of confidentiality and if Mr LEUNG Chun-ying himself considers it desirable to provide supplementary information or give an explanation, it may also be necessary for him to do so.
There is however another point which I would like to raise and clarify: Unlike the respective system of declaration of interests for Legislative Council Members and Executive Council Members, under which regular or even annual updates are required to revise the information declared according to the latest situation, the declaration made by the Chief Executive to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal is one-off. Under the circumstances, although many people and colleagues are convinced that there is something fishy and dubious about the whole thing, they cannot use this as an excuse to ask for the allocation of a huge sum of public monies lightly and take advantage of the prestige of this Council to press for an investigation under the P&P Ordinance.
I have repeatedly emphasized that for any motion moved under the P&P Ordinance, including the motion moved and enthusiastically responded to in the last term of the Legislative Council to call for an investigation into the KAM 1706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Nai-wai incident as well as the motion concerning the present case which involves a defendant only with no plaintiff or complainant, the P&P Ordinance should not be invoked recklessly to investigate into the case in question if no prima facie evidence can be established, no matter how fishy we regard the case is. Otherwise, not only would this Council be accused of wasting public monies and leaving its proper duties unattended to, an atmosphere of white terror would also be created to a certain extent if we exercise the investigation power of this Council too casually. It is because the public would be given an impression that as long as we consider it necessary to draw the most lofty "imperial sword" to conduct investigation, certain public officers, government departments and organizations would be intimidated or compelled to give in, thereby enabling us to obtain some sort of political advantage or achieve certain political purposes.
Deputy President, there is no lack of perverse logic or false reasoning, such as ― my apology since I have no intention to pick on any individual Member but would only like to cite the examples which happen to come to my mind ― an argument put forward by Dr LAM Tai-fai just now. He has queried the reasons for moving the motion "knowing that it cannot get through" but this should definitely not be a determining factor when consideration is being given to whether a motion should be moved or not. Besides, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has explained that an investigation should be conducted "to clear his name" but an investigative agency would never initiate any investigation to clear the name of the person involved. Neither should any prosecution action be underpinned by the objective of clearing the name of the accused or the target of the investigation. The arguments are simply ridiculous.
Legal proceedings can be instituted if there is sufficient prima facie evidence. Moreover, if there is other evidence which we consider adequate apart from the prima facie evidence, a decision should be made on whether a prosecution has to be initiated, subject to the objective and the nature of the investigation as well as the level of action and the burden of proof required. This is the attitude and the approach we should adopt. Investigation should never be carried out to clear the name of the target of the investigation, the accused and the alleged person. These words should not come from those who have the slightest idea of logical thinking and the slightest knowledge of the judicial system and procedural justice of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1707
Deputy President, as I have said earlier, although there is indeed something fishy about the case under discussion, judging from its nature, the time when it happened as well as the various principles I have mentioned just now, it seems that there is insufficient prima facie evidence to support the invocation of the P&P Ordinance to conduct an investigation.
Deputy President, I have finished what I would like to say but as I still have some time left, let me be prudent and check if I have missed out anything included in my mind map. It is believed that everything I would like to say has basically been covered. Therefore, Deputy President, I hope colleagues would, before taking action to move a motion under the P&P Ordinance, provide this Council with the room and the opportunity to maintain its dignity, lest this Council would be reduced to a machine operated by colleagues who are fond of stealing the spotlight to move a motion under the P&P Ordinance every week should an opportunity arise, thereby achieving their own political purposes at the expense of the debate time of this Council.
Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having listened to the debate yesterday and today on the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance), I really think that it is a waste of time to move the motion in a Council meeting. I also think that all accusations are groundless.
Yesterday, when I listened to the speeches of Ms Claudia MO and opposition Members, I heard them lay various allegations concerning the acceptance of advantages against Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. But none of them could provide any concrete evidence, and all I heard were expressions like "I suspect", "I think", "I guess" and "based on such and such circumstances, I think this might be the case". How can they possibly accuse others like this? This morning, when Mr CHAN Chi-chuen spoke, he even said that since the Chief Executive once issued a lawyer's letter to an Australian organization, he must have done something wrong and must be guilty of having 1708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 accepted advantages. His argument is even more absurd and also an insult to all those Hong Kong people who have issued lawyer's letters before. I therefore hope that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen can withdraw his remark. If he does not do so, he must apologize to all those Hong Kong people who have issued lawyer's letters before.
Deputy President, under the law, the prosecution must not bring anyone to court until there is evidence, right? But in this Chamber today, none of the opposition Members who want to bring Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying to court can produce any concrete evidence. Based on nothing but just their own imagination, they now want to invoke the P&P Ordinance to put LEUNG Chun-ying on trial in front of the public. Deputy President, where is the rule of law?
Yesterday, right at the beginning of his speech, Mr Albert HO hastened to say that precisely because there was no evidence, it was necessary to put him on trial because it might be possible to find some evidence in the process. I find it very deplorable that this kind of reasoning should have come from a legal practitioner. Members have laid various allegations against Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, but he has already produced the documents of different companies and given his clear responses in black and white. The open letter he issued to major mass media has also been given full coverage. Ladies and gentlemen, have you read them all?
The opposition have put forward three major accusations. First, they accuse LEUNG Chun-ying of receiving a secret payment of £4 million from UGL Limited (UGL), and they claim that both DTZ and UGL simply did not know of the agreement at the time. Come on! DTZ was the vendor and UGL was the purchaser. DTZ has already published a statement, pointing out that the Board representative of DTZ Holdings and its management, financial personnel and advisers all took part in the process, and that they were aware of the negotiations concerned. DTZ has issued a statement, clarifying that DTZ itself and its major creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), have been fully aware of the agreement. How can this be called a secret agreement?
There is also the allegation that LEUNG Chun-ying did not include this income of £4 million in the tax return, so he is suspected of wilful evasion of tax. Actually, people with any taxation knowledge should know very clearly that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1709 under Hong Kong's inland revenue legislation, there are precedent cases where the compensation for a "no-compete" undertaking received under a restrictive covenant is ruled as capital receipts, which are not taxable. The rationale here is that such compensation is one-off in nature.
Besides, some people also query LEUNG Chun-ying for holding 30% of the shares of DTZ Japan through a company registered overseas, and since DTZ Japan happens to have some business dealing with Payson CHA, a shareholder of Asia Television Limited, they conclude that LEUNG Chun-ying may once again be involved in a conflict of interest. My God! Anyone having any business dealings with LEUNG Chun-ying's company ― previously, in the future or even once in the past ― would be dragged into an allegation concerning funnelling of benefits.
Members must realize that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has actually responded to most of the requests they put forward to him. Hence, why should they still ask for an investigation into him here today? Yesterday, some Members asserted with certainty that he was not trustworthy and so on, as if he had already been proven guilty. This is tantamount to handing down a judgment before the trial. If such incidents keep happening in Hong Kong and this very Chamber, it will be very appalling.
One day before the meeting today, several pro-establishment Members made an appointment to meet with the Chief Executive with the help of Ms Starry LEE, because everybody knew that the topic would be discussed in this meeting and would like to ascertain and clarify whether the Chief Executive had received any benefits he should not have accepted. We ourselves asked to see the Chief Executive. I do not know if Ms Claudia MO has ever asked to see the Chief Executive. I believe that if she really wants to know more about this incident, Ms LEE will surely help her make an appointment with the Chief Executive so that she can ask him questions directly. I believe that the Chief Executive will surely be willing to give her the answers. I thus hope that Members can stop acting on their auditory hallucination, imagination, illusion and delusion.
Some Members present here are themselves involved in various cases of accepting advantages and "black money" these days. Unlike the present case of the Chief Executive, those cases involving certain Members are full of witnesses and material evidence. Mr Jimmy LAI, for example, has claimed that Ms Claudia MO received $500,000 from him. This is a witness. Should we 1710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 conduct an investigation? Hence, they must not adopt such a double standard, nor should they hand down a judgment before the trial …
(Ms Claudia MO stood up)
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Point of order. I maintain that first, her accusations are irrelevant to the topic under discussion; second, they are not facts; and third, they are offensive.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First, the President has said that the contents of Members' speeches may not necessarily be facts, and the public will know. Second, I do not think that Dr CHIANG's remarks are offensive.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, about the $500,000 which Ms Claudia MO received from Jimmy LAI …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the telephone next to me is ringing. Please ask staff of the Secretariat to handle it.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would staff of the Secretariat please bring the telephone outside the Chamber.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, too few people are here. Please do a headcount under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1711
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please continue with your speech.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since Ms Claudia MO is not pleased with my mentioning Mr LEUNG Chun-ying having given her $500,000, I then … (a number of Members were talking in their seats) No, it should be Mr Jimmy LAI. It is Mr Jimmy LAI who has given her $500,000 … (a number of Members kept on talking in their seats) Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had not given you $500,000, and so you are not happy? ― In regard to the case in which Mr Jimmy LAI has given her $500,000, since she does not want me to mention it, I am not going to mention it now.
Deputy President, generally speaking, when Legislative Council Members propose to invoke the power of the P&P Ordinance, it is mainly based on Article 73 of the Basic Law, and it is exercising the functions and powers stipulated in item (6) to debate any issue concerning public interests. Although it seems that this incident did not happen in Hong Kong but in Australia, and it seems to be unrelated with Hong Kong, some people raise opposition and think that in the incident, the Chief Executive is suspected to have been secretly engaging in other job, and it is not a full-time job. Hence it is necessary to investigate whether he has done anything unfair to the Hong Kong people or has violated Article 47 of the Basic Law, which provides that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties.
I hope Members can refer to Section 1 of Chapter IV of the Basic Law, concerning the provisions on the work, powers and functions of the Chief Executive. I hope they can carefully examine each and every provision and check which one has been violated by him, so that we have to propose invoking the P&P Ordinance today to investigate him. As a matter of fact, I think over the past two years, not only has the Chief Executive performed his duties totally in line with the stipulations in the Basic Law, he is also dedicated to his duties. People can see that he has been very industrious during these two years indeed. Yesterday, Mr ZHANG Junsheng, former Deputy Director of the New China News Agency (Hong Kong Branch) also remarked that in dealing with the Occupy Central incident, the approach adopted by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was very appropriate.
1712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
In fact, the contract signed between the UGL and Mr LEUNG Chun-ying is a termination agreement. However, those against him insist that it is not true and think that this is a consultancy agreement. I have carefully read through the contents of the agreement. If this is really an employment agreement, it should contain the scope of work and some special items. Nonetheless, these provisions clearly do not exist in the agreement. In the contract, not even the word "consultant" has been used. It just says giving "advice" on certain matters. The word "advice" is in fact a very common word.
Members also have to see clearly that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying would only need to give advice under two conditions. First, it was under a so-called "reasonable" condition. That means he would only give advice if he thought that this request for advice was raised under a "reasonable" condition. Besides, he could only give advice to UGL under the condition devoid of any clash of interests. If this was really a job as other people say, after receiving £4 million from UGL, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying could, under the condition when there was no official office hour and no scope of work, decide whether he would give advice or not at his own will. Is that too good to be true? If there is such an excellent job, could you rather recommend me for the position? Is that right?
(Mr Gary FAN stood up)
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, point of order. In Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's speech, she criticized the speeches of other Members as being pathetic and dreadful. However, I reckon that the most pathetic and dreadful thing in this Legislative Session is to have Dr CHIANG Lai-wan …
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, pursuant to which rule in the Rules of Procedure did he raise this point of order?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, what you raise is not a point of order. Please sit down.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1713
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I raise a point of order. In fact, the most pathetic and dreadful thing is to have Dr CHIANG Lai-wan as my colleague in this Legislative Session. Therefore, I request a headcount from the Deputy President according to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr Albert CHAN vociferated in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please do not vociferate recklessly in your seat.
(Mr Gary FAN was speaking in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, I have just reminded Mr Albert CHAN. I have to remind you now. Without my permission, please do not speak recklessly in your seat.
(Mr Gary FAN continued to speak loudly in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please do not speak recklessly in your seat. Although I cannot hear what you say, I can hear that you are speaking. Please do not continue speaking in your seat. Otherwise, I will regard you as behaving in a disorderly manner.
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, you just said that you could not hear Mr WONG Ting-kwong speaking. Could you please listen to the audio tape recording and check whether Mr WONG Ting-kwong was speaking earlier or not?
(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)
1714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a point of order. When Mr Gary FAN requested a headcount according to a rule, he made some remarks before the request. I remember the President has especially reminded and warned Members that when requesting for a headcount, they should not raise any collateral conditions. Could the Deputy President please make a ruling.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All right. I will handle the situation.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please continue with your speech.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, ever since I called Mr Gary FAN as "super opportunist", he has shown dislike of me. But this is no big deal, and I will still forgive him. He said that he still had to work with me for two more years and it was both pathetic and dreadful. There is no other alternative still. We both have to endure for two more years. Of course, if he resigns tomorrow, that will be another issue.
President, in fact, the Chief Executive and UGL have issued their respective declarations that during the past two years, the Chief Executive C Y LEUNG had not provided any service. In order to show his innocence, Chief Executive C Y LEUNG even takes the case to the Department of Justice for investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Then, why is the Member still moving a motion today to request invoking the P&P Ordinance? From past documents, I find that this Council has moved 20 motions on invoking the P&P Ordinance since 2012, and a majority of them are directly or indirectly related to Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. Judging from this, we see that the issue has in fact already developed into a stage when they only pinpoint individuals without regarding the facts. Spending the time of the Legislative Council in this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1715 kind of debates is a waste of public money indeed. Hence, for the sake of Hong Kong, I hope that Members from the opposition camp can repent before it is too late.
President, I oppose Ms Claudia MO for moving a motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance. I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chinese are a people with many lofty sentiments. One such sentiment is the sadness and regret of not having met the right people earlier in life. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is an apt example of a person with this sentiment. I must say: "Filthy as 'CY the Wolf' is, 'YUAN Cau' still regrets not having met him earlier in life". This is no nonsense. I am going to prove the filthiness of LEUNG Chun-ying.
Let me begin with one point. When I was smoking outside just now, I came across a young fellow, and he asked me to bring this prop inside here to let Members have a look. President, do you have presbyopia? This is the hybrid of LEUNG Chun-ying and Mrs Regina IP. Just look at his nevus and "broom-head" hairstyle. Honourable Members, this hybrid, though ugly, actually conveys one message: a rotten system will cause personality fusion or mutation. I shall explain in detail. Actually, what we are discussing today … Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, or "YUAN Cau", was correct when she said, "Hey, they have over and over again talked about investigating and impeaching LEUNG Chun-ying. Over the past two years only, they have talked about this …". She asked whether the answer was 20 times. She said we had said so 20 times. In fact, I have never done any counting at all. TUNG Chee-hwa was a bad guy, right? "Greedy TSANG" was even worse, as he was involved in "sea, land and air" corruption. As for LEUNG Chun-ying, even before he assumed office, he already came under many criticisms in connection with the West Kowloon Cultural District project. Actually, at that time, though he knew that he was wrong, he likewise resorted to the same "magical trick", saying that he had not violated any law.
President, this is actually a plebeian tactic typically employed by those errant common masses who dread the punishment of the law, right? All is 1716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 because they know that the consequence of breaking the law may be imprisonment, and I myself was imprisoned before. But should a politician use the law as the only yardstick to assess his own acts? "YUAN Cau", we are talking about the Chief Executive, a very powerful person of unique status who represents Hong Kong. He keeps saying that he has not broken any law, but he is just like all those street rascals who say to a policeman, "Sir, I haven't broken any law. I only gave him a very light push, and that was all because he charged at me in the very first place." Can you see what I mean? The "blue-ribbon" people repeatedly said so as well. They claimed that they had done nothing wrong as they only wanted to remove the barricades, and the trouble was instead caused by those opponents who ran over to push and beat them.
Many people in society behave like this. But who is LEUNG Chun-ying? He is a dynastic official appointed by the Central Authorities to represent Hong Kong. And, in the UGL incident, the most important thing was … Actually, I should begin by saying that when we suspected him of digging a hole into the ground and thus cast doubt on his integrity ― I must point out that this was exactly what he said ― he refused to tell us any details of the matter, saying only that people would know the truth after the judicial review. Then, after the judicial review, we all learnt that he did dig a hole into the ground. We realized that when he pointed an accusing finger at another person, his remaining four fingers were pointing accusingly at himself as well. Besides, he himself has also proved the truth of what Henry TANG said during the election. At that time, when questioned whether he had ever advocated the deployment of anti-riot squads and the use of tear bombs, he replied in the negative. Well, I would say that LEUNG Chun-ying is in a way very brave because he has fulfilled his undertaking to the communists. He undertook that should anything happen, he would use tear bombs and deploy anti-riot squads. He has really done so, and this is certainly a reason for his "ascendancy".
After his "ascendancy", when we continued to point out that he had dug a hole into the ground, he argued in response that he had only told a lie and had not broken any law. He even asked us why his lie should have anything to do with us at all. Well, in the incident now under discussion, he might really have broken the law. The reason is that the UGL incident simply involves his having cheated the small shareholders, an act typical of street rascals. President, he pocketed £400. Not this sum … ? It was £4 million. Yes, it was £4 million. The sum I mentioned is much smaller. £4 million is such a big sum of money. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1717
They say that Jimmy LAI donated $500,000 to the League of Social Democrats and remitted the money to my account. I am also going to face investigation. Mr TAM Yiu-chung and "YUAN Cau" both say that I must be investigated, don't they? My dear brother, he has pocketed $50 million in this case. And, no one knew of this until the act was brought to light. My dear brother …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please address the Chair instead of speaking to your brother.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, yes. President, my brother already passed away when he was very small.
President, the "brothers" over there have been shouting, saying that we must be investigated. Just let them do so. Has anyone stopped them from doing so anyway? But the problem now is that the acts of LEUNG Chun-ying overseas have led us to suspect him of dereliction of duty and corruption. But the "brothers" and "sisters" over there all say that he has already offered an explanation, so the truth must be very clear. President, has he really offered any explanation? Did he ask you to attend that very meeting to listen to his explanation? The answer is no. You are the very person responsible for monitoring him. Every time he comes, you will stand at the doorway to usher him in, and when he leaves, you will see him out. You are responsible for monitoring him on behalf of the Legislative Council, right? You claim that you are impartial, and I believe that you indeed are. After talking to these five guys, he now says that he has offered an explanation. But these five guys were never given any concrete evidence. There was no audio-recording of the meeting. And, they have done nothing except saying a few simple words afterwards. President, I can bet with my own head that if the words of these five guys are ever questioned by anyone in the future, LEUNG Chun-ying will surely deny having said so and so, will certainly say that his conversations with them are open to many interpretations, so they should be blamed for their erroneous interpretation. This is his magical trick. He asked some guys to meet with him, but there was no audio-recording, nor was there any note-taking. Then, all these guys simply stood forward to say different things, and then went on to say that the Chief Executive had already offered an explanation. My dear brother … my dear President, how can this be acceptable? Even if we accept this practice, we would still think that the one to be invited to the meeting should be you, my dear 1718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
President, because you are so very impartial up there. In contrast, these guys all have partisan interests at stake. My dear brother, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) is unanimously supportive of LEUNG Chun-ying, and there is also the question of subsequent political reward. How can we accept any meeting where these guys were the only participants?
President, there is one more point. Why doesn't he have a meeting with the Chief Justice? Chief Justice Andrew LI is responsible for monitoring his accounts. If he wants to offer any explanation, the first person he should approach must be the Chief Justice. I have said many times, and I have also told LEUNG Chun-ying when asking him questions here, that I do not trust him. I always say that I do not trust him, but I also think that he can show the Chief Justice all his books and accounts. President, sadly, the situation is not like this now. You are monitoring him, and so is the Chief Justice, because there is the separation of powers in Hong Kong. But then, the Judiciary is also worried that in the course of monitoring the Chief Executive, the Legislative Council may behave like the American Congress ― both the Senate and the House of Representatives are adversarial to the President. Well, in that case, the Chief Justice should handle the matter. Why doesn't LEUNG Chun-ying offer an explanation to the Chief Justice? "YUAN Cau", why doesn't he do so? Why has he given an explanation to you only?
President, there is hence one problem, and I want to make an appeal here today. I do not know whether Mr Andrew LI is watching the live television broadcast of this meeting. I call upon him to carry out an investigation into LEUNG Chun-ying because he is obligated to make a declaration. If we impeach him, we will have to invoke Article 79(3) of the Basic Law, and under this provision, a retired Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal will be responsible for the hearings and investigation. Therefore, the right person must be asked to resolve this whole incident. Why should LEUNG Chun-ying show that agreement only to his dishonest "friends"? This is simply outrageous. LEUNG Chun-ying, you must not be so LEUNG Chun-ying in your acts, though this is your exclusive right, right?
President, we should ask the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption one question. Suppose we look at this incident just as an ordinary case … Generally speaking, if an ordinary citizen does something similar to the acts of LEUNG Chun-ying, will he commit an offence? And, will the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1719 investigate his acts? If not, why? If it turns out that no investigation can be possible, then the present system should be amended.
I wrote a poem during my imprisonment because when Mr WONG Yuk-man threw something at LEUNG Chun-ying that day, LEUNG said he was scared. LEUNG Chun-ying was so smart, as he was able to see the past and also the future. After Mr WONG Yuk-man had thrown something at him, he picked up the shattered glass with a trembling hand, remarking that he was scared. He was really smart, as he could foretell that one day three months later, he would be investigated for reasons of corruption. He refused to explain anything to us on the ground that he was scared.
Last time when he was in the Legislative Council, he said that the order in the Chamber was very poor. But have all the pro-establishment Members ever been hurt even in the slightest bit? The answer is no. Are pro-establishment Members protected by G4? The answer is no. I believe the answer is no. In contrast, LEUNG Chun-ying is protected by G4. When anyone throws anything at him, G4 personnel will cover him. If any person wants to assault him, G4 personnel will hasten to tackle the person before he acts. So, how can LEUNG Chun-ying still use security concern as an excuse? The greatest security problem is perhaps his own Freudian slip when answering our questions here. I therefore wrote a poem that day for the purpose of showing support for Mr WONG Yuk-man. But I am not sure whether he is aware of this poem: "LEUNG the Crook usurps the throne/Chun-ying flying up and high with a pack of lies/Must have fawned on CCP since England days of yore/Step of frustrated crawler flattery was/Down to empty talks up on stage/To be an opportunist evermore/Assuage not the pain of those at his mercy/People's fury flies/Resentment and glass flinging are thus no surprise." This means that Mr WONG Yuk-man's throwing of an object at him was actually no surprise. The title of this poem is "LEUNG Chun-ying must step down to assuage people's resentment". Dr LAM Tai-fai, do you know what an acrostic is?
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Full of pronunciation errors.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Even the President has not pointed out any mistakes, so how dare you do so? You are wasting your time. The President is a "walking dictionary", you know.
1720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
"LEUNG Chun-ying must step down to assuage people's resentment". President, if he does not step down, we must keep doing these things to him because he keeps refusing to offer any explanation. I therefore think that he is the worst of the three successive Chief Executives. He should resign. Mr James TIEN asked him to resign, and he was thus disqualified as member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. But, sorry, I am not scared because I do not hold this post. I was elected by Hong Kong people, and today, I demand LEUNG Chun-ying's prompt resignation. You regret having met him too late in life, do you? Poor you.
President, our system has gone wrong. We have seen a constant deterioration from one Chief Executive to the next. Let me take out all the props I have here. See, he is just like this thing. Last year, he did not dare to attend the dragon boat races on Tuen Ng Festival because he was afraid of catcalls. My dear brother, I called him "a vice dumpling" that day. This is the "vice dumpling" I made, also called "LEUNG Chun-ying the Vice Dumpling". Initially, I wanted to ask QU Yuen to bear with this, but later I told myself that I should not do so because this "vice dumpling" was highly toxic and QU Yuen would be in great trouble if he happened to eat it. I therefore decided to get rid of this "LEUNG Chun-ying the Vice Dumpling".
Also, birds of the same feathers flock together, you know, "YUAN Cau". This is Barry CHEUNG, and he symbolizes the beginning of LEUNG Chun-ying's corruption. Barry CHEUNG is just like LEUNG. He set up a company but did not have any money to sustain its operation. But LEUNG Chun-ying still wanted him to stay on for several more years as Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, and he resigned only when the situation got really very bad for him. Hence, we should get rid of this "vice dumpling".
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung threw the rice dumpling onto the floor)
President, how will our system look like? Let us look at this thing here. If we accept the decision of the National People's Congress, we will probably see a contest between LEUNG Chun-ying and Mrs Regina IP in the next Chief Executive Election. There will be a hybrid of LEUNG Chun-ying and Mrs Regina IP. I guess "YUAN Cau" may also become part of a hybrid that combines the strengths of two.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1721
President, I hope LEUNG Chun-ying can step down as early as possible, so as not to hinder the rotation of Planet Earth.(The buzzer sounded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You are angry? I give this to you. It is the hybrid of LEUNG Chun-ying and Mrs Regina IP …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop speaking immediately and sit down. Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the President a question. Just now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned a number of times in his speech … sometimes he said something about Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, and sometimes he said something about "YUAN Cau". Given that the press has nicknamed me "YUAN Cau", may I rebuke him and tell him he should not say such things about me? "YUAN Cau" is my nickname, may I respond under this name?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, if you consider that the content of the speech delivered by a Member is in violation of the Rules of Procedure, you may point that out to me. If you consider that the relevant Member should clarify the content of the speech delivered, you may also make such a request. Now, what is your question?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): There are so many questions that I cannot raise them all. I will not pursue any more, as I do not want to waste Members' time.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(Some Members criticized Dr CHIANG Lai-wan loudly in their seats)
1722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please refrain from shouting loudly in their seats.
(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan spoke loudly in her seat in retort to the Members criticizing her)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please stop talking.
(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan continued to speak loudly in her seat in retort to the Members criticizing her)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please stop talking. I know many people will consider what I am going to say a joke. Honourable Members, please be reminded that this is the Chamber of the Legislative Council, and we have said that we should safeguard the dignity of the Council.
Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, with regard to Ms Claudia MO's motion moved today under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, the Chief Executive, a well-founded reply to the queries raised has in fact been given justly, forcefully and righteously by Carrie LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration, in her opening remarks yesterday. Moreover, the Chief Secretary has also reiterated that on many past occasions in this Council, responses have already been made to the smearing of this sort by Members of the pan-democratic camp. We cannot help but ask: How come such earnest words have fallen on deaf ears?
I wonder why, with solicitors and barristers, accountants, experienced political figures in the pan-democratic camp, they have to turn a deaf ear to the responses given by the Chief Secretary for Administration. Why do they behave in this way? I believe everyone in Hong Kong would like to know the answer.
President, their actions have corresponded exactly with one of the 12 tactics employed by the United States to subvert the government of enemy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1723 countries or places and that is, with excuses given instead of evidence, there will be every reason to denounce the political leaders of target places. Such excuses as corruption, collusion between the business sector and the Government are all given with words alone without justification and explanation. What we witness now is just the same.
As the second person in command of the SAR Government, the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has forcefully elaborated and explained the case and I think she has unmistakably put the matter beyond doubt. However, Members of the pan-democratic camp have done nothing else other than smearing and denouncing the Chief Executive, with the sole purpose of overthrowing LEUNG Chun-ying and overturning the Government of the current term. It is just that simple.
Justice have already been upheld by many colleagues through the speeches they delivered earlier and yesterday. Discerning analysis has been made by Ms Starry LEE as a certified public accountant and there should be nothing to add. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, as a forerunner in the financial sector, has also clearly elaborated the issues involved in a professional manner and there is nothing to add either, since all the facts and truth are already there. The question is: Why do Members in the opposition camp still hold the attitude of pounding a "drowning dog" and resort to smearing without going into the how's and why's, differentiating the right and wrong and worse still, even by calling a stag a horse as well as confusing right and wrong?
President, in order to have the question answered, I would like to look in retrospect from a macro perspective at what has actually happened in this Council since the beginning of the current term in October 2012.
President, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying took the Oath of the Chief Executive on 1 July 2012 and since then, according to my own statistics, nine motions have been moved at Council meetings in the current term to impeach, cast a vote of no confidence in and even investigate Mr LEUNG for the purpose of overthrowing him. Mr WU Chi-wai of the Democratic Party took the lead to move a motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive on 12 December 2012, followed by a motion moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan of the Labour Party to call for an investigation under the P&P Ordinance on 19 December 2012.
1724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Five motions of this sort have been moved in 2013, namely the motion initiated jointly by 27 Members of the pan-democratic camp on 9 January 2013 to urge for the formation of an independent investigation committee to impeach the Chief Executive; the motion which once again sought to invoke the P&P Ordinance moved by Ms Cyd HO of the Labour Party on 20 February; the motion not intended to have legislative effect moved by Mr SIN Chung-kai on 3 July on behalf of the Democratic Party with the same purpose of asking LEUNG Chun-ying to step down; the motion of no confidence in LEUNG Chun-ying moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki of the Civic Party on 16 October; and again another motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive moved later on 6 November by Mr James TO of the Democratic Party. A total of five motions of this sort have been moved in 2013.
Regarding the situation this year, an undeclared war was started in the first half of the year to initiate the non-co-operation movement and filibuster across the board. As a result, over 20 funding applications were affected, with $1 billion of taxpayers' money wasted. The provision of living subsidy for low-income households cannot be implemented; the proposal concerning civil service pay adjustment is put on hold and the delay has deprived government contract staff of their back-pay, thus causing them a huge loss. Today, not long after the beginning of the current Legislative Session, a motion which seek to invoke the P&P Ordinance is moved again to make LEUNG Chun-ying step down.
President, from a macro perspective, since the beginning of the current term of the Legislative Council in October 2012, the pan-democratic camp, which is in disagreement with LEUNG Chun-ying in this Council, is actually an "alliance of causing hardship to the people". Instead of an opposition camp, they are in fact trying to cause hardship to the people by moving a total of nine motions of a similar nature ― two motions to cast a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive; one motion of impeachment; four motions to invoke the P&P Ordinance, and these are all that they have done. Therefore, from a macro point of view, it is clear to us that the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today on behalf of the Civic Party to invoke the P&P Ordinance is nothing but one of the nine "lousy chess games" or "lousy tactics" they played in the current term of the Legislative Council as mentioned above, and this is the overall situation at present. This is precisely how the "alliance of causing hardship to the people" and the various political forces against the SAR Government outside this Council echo and complement with each other to create a situation like this. We would then like to ask: How come they can call a stag a horse in this way? A stag LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1725 should be a stag and a horse should remain a horse but how come they can talk black into white and turn white into black?
President, I would like to raise the third issue and try to analyse and elaborate on the underlying reasons for this. What they have been doing since 2012 is actually a duty fulfilled for the financial contributions offered to them directly and indirectly by the "Yankees" behind the scenes. The details have been disclosed in the book entitled《泛民收錢實錄》(A Record of the Pan-democrats on the Take) which I have repeatedly mentioned and these are also facts admitted by Jimmy LAI. Facts uncovered in the book are supported by receipts, emails, correspondence and they can brook no denial as everything has been put down in black and white. Eight payments with a sum of $14 million have been made in 2012; a total amount of $14.1 million has been received for the 12 payments made in 2013; and in 2014, it has been disclosed that six payments have been made so far, involving a total amount of $12.7 million. I consider it necessary to read out the details here in order to set the record straight.
In 2012, Tanya CHAN, Ms Claudia MO and Mr James TO has respectively received $500,000; $3 million has been paid to Joseph ZEN; a total amount of $9.5 million has been offered to four political parties and a sum of $14 million is involved in these eight payments, excluding the advertising expenses for the election campaign of the team led by Audrey EU.
In 2013, Joseph ZEN has received $3 million; $300,000 has been paid to Martin LEE; two payments with the respective amounts of $300,000 and $200,000 have been made to Anson CHAN; Joseph CHENG and Mr Alan LEONG has respectively been offered $300,000; Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has respectively received $500,000; CHU Yiu-ming has been paid $200,000; $5 million has been offered to the Democratic Party; the Civic Party has been given $3 million; $500,000 has been paid to Hong Kong Democratic Development Network and a sum of $14.1 million is involved in these 12 payments.
In 2014, six payments have so far been made to give away a sum of $12.7 million, with $3 million to Anson CHAN; $200,000 to CHU Yiu-ming; $5 million to the Democratic Party; $3 million to the Civic Party; $500,000 to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and $1 million to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. President, the amount of payments involved each year is over $10 million, and the contribution 1726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 of $13 million to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions uncovered earlier is not yet included in the sum mentioned.
President, this is an unprecedented scandal in the current term of the Legislative Council. Why should this Council try by all possible means to overturn the Government of the current term and smear the reputation of LEUNG Chun-ying? Why should four motions be unprecedentedly moved to invoke the P&P Ordinance, two to cast a vote of no confidence and one to impeach the Chief Executive? The reason is very simple: They have to do the job that they are paid for. Since they have been paid, they have to fulfil the requirements of the secret agreement and sacrifice the interests of Hong Kong people.
President, as the President of the current term of the Legislative Council, do you feel sad for the decay? Does it make your heart ache? Do you agree that they have let Hong Kong people down by doing so? Although the allegations are supported by receipts, emails, correspondence, it is said that no investigation is required and they have made no response either.
President, as you may recall, before five urgent questions were raised at the first Council meeting of the current session, I have asked the Members concerned to declare their interests but to no avail. During discussions on several occasions, I have asked for a reply from these Members three times and urged them to clearly explain if they have received the money as alleged. I have used the word "challenge" openly when raising my queries but they have chosen to avoid my questions because they really are up to something and do have something to hide. This is the reason why Ms Claudia MO has to make the ninth attempt in the current term of the Legislative Council to denounce LEUNG Chun-ying.
By taking such actions in this Chamber, they are actually working in collusion with the occupying action which is underway outside. As I mentioned last time, an elaboration on the argument has already been given in the book and I will not repeat. In Chapter 11 of the book, it is revealed that Jimmy LAI has already admitted but these Members still shamelessly deny. In what position can these Members query the integrity of LEUNG Chun-ying? Their queries can only serve to prove that they have to perform the duty of overturning the Government of the current term (The buzzer sounded) … and overthrowing LEUNG Chun-ying.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1727
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, speaking time is up. Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, yesterday Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM listened to the speeches delivered by 15 Members, and just now I have also listened carefully to the speeches delivered by another nine Members. Let me put it in a straight-forward manner. The arguments put forward by Members to propose or support invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee to inquire into matters relating to the resignation agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL Limited (UGL) is too farfetched and weak. In their speeches, several pan-democratic Members have deliberately tried to mislead the public about some important points which had already been clarified time and again. Hence, before I respond to the queries and allegations raised by these Members, let me first recap the sequence of this incident to make the truth straight.
Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was the Asia Pacific Director of DTZ before he stood for the Chief Executive election. He announced his resignation from the post of Director and other offices he held in DTZ on 24 November 2011. In view of his resignation, UGL, which was at that time trying to acquire DTZ, concluded with Mr LEUNG a resignation agreement on 2 December 2011. Under the agreement, UGL undertook to make payments to Mr LEUNG over a two-year period and to underwrite for DTZ the payment of outstanding agreed bonus to Mr LEUNG, subject to key personnel remaining with DTZ during the two years subsequent to Mr LEUNG's resignation. As pointed out by UGL, the agreement was simply a non-compete arrangement which was to ensure that Mr LEUNG would not move to a competitor, set up or promote any business in competition with DTZ, or poach any people from DTZ, and hence to ensure that the business would retain its value after the acquisition by UGL. Such agreement was a confidential commercial arrangement and a standard business practice.
1728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
As seen from the above, it is evident that the agreement and payments concerned arose from Mr LEUNG's resignation from DTZ, and not for any future service to be provided by him. Besides, as confirmed in UGL's public statement, Mr LEUNG has not provided any service to UGL after signing the resignation agreement.
Regarding the declaration requirement, under the current system of declaration of interests by Members of the Executive Council, there is no requirement for Mr LEUNG to declare the said resignation agreement. Moreover, both Mr LEUNG's resignation from DTZ and conclusion of the resignation agreement with UGL took place before he was elected as the Chief Executive, and at the material time, he had already resigned from the Executive Council.
Article 47 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive, on assuming office, shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and that this declaration shall be put on record. On assuming office, Mr LEUNG made such declaration to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal in accordance with the Basic Law. The term "assets" is not specifically defined under the Basic Law. Hence, the Chief Secretary for Administration has not made any definition regarding the term "assets" when answering Members' oral questions earlier on. The relevant declaration is confidential.
Upon assuming office as Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG has, as President of the Executive Council, observed the system of declaration of interests for Executive Council Members, including the requirement for regular declarations. The Chief Executive has declared his registrable interests annually for public inspection. He has also made declarations on his financial interests annually on a confidential basis deposited with the Clerk to the Executive Council. As with other Executive Council Members, the Chief Executive would notify the Clerk to the Executive Council of any changes to the interests declared in accordance with the system.
I now make a consolidated reply to the allegations raised by Members in support of the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1729
Some Members have alleged that as the Chief Executive was still benefiting from the agreement signed with UGL, he had to keep on providing services for the company. Some of these Members even accused him of dereliction of duty. This is a very serious accusation, yet it is totally fabricated and not supported by any facts. The fact is that the resignation agreement signed between Mr LEUNG and UGL on 2 December 2011 was simply a non-compete arrangement between UGL and Mr LEUNG, whereby UGL would pay a total of £4 million to Mr LEUNG over a two-year period, subject to key personnel remaining with DTZ during the two years subsequent to Mr LEUNG's resignation. Of the said total sum of payment, £2 million was paid to ensure that Mr LEUNG would not be in competition with UGL, and another £2 million was the compensation for his undertaking not to poach employees. The relevant non-compete and non-poach agreement terms have expired by now.
Some Members also said that upon assuming office as Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG should cancel the said resignation agreement or the agreement would give rise to conflict of interest. I need to point out that under the agreement, Mr LEUNG would provide assistance for UGL only when such assistance does not create any conflict of interest. As Mr LEUNG was subsequently elected as the Chief Executive, he would not and should not provide such assistance for UGL. Indeed, as pointed out in UGL's public statement, Mr LEUNG has never provided any assistance for the company after the agreement was signed, and it is therefore not necessary to cancel the agreement.
(Mr Albert HO stood up)
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): May I ask the Chief Secretary for Administration to clarify his speech here? I wonder if the Chief Secretary will accede to this request.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you agree to make clarifications on Mr Albert HO's request?
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Which part does he want me to clarify?
1730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): While the Chief Secretary for Administration keeps saying that LEUNG Chun-ying has never provided any assistance, the said agreement has two main points, one of which is about the non-compete undertaking, and the other one is about the undertaking to act as adviser or referee. In regard to these aspects, the Chief Secretary may say that he has never provided any service. However, the agreement actually has a third main point, which is that he will not object to the relevant acquisition. In other words, his refraining from objecting to or criticizing the said acquisition should be counted as provision of service. I would like to ask the Chief Secretary: Has he refrained from objecting to or criticizing the said acquisition, and can this be regarded as provision of service under the relevant agreement?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please continue with your speech.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I wish to continue with my speech first, as this part is about the general picture. I will give a comprehensive account of the matter to Members later on.
Regarding the matters relating to Mr LEUNG holding the shares of DTZ, he has already transferred his shares of DTZ Holdings plc and its subsidiaries to a trust, and the trustee of the trust is a practising accountant. The Chief Executive has already declared the relevant interest in accordance with the Executive Council's system of declaration of interests, and the relevant declaration has been uploaded to the website of the Executive Council.
Several Members quoted the query raised by overseas media which claimed that a state-owned enterprise from Tianjin was also interested in purchasing DTZ and offered an acquisition price higher than that of UGL, but DTZ eventually sold its businesses to UGL. As a matter of fact, the decision to sell DTZ was made by the company's board of directors. Mr LEUNG resigned from the post of Director of DTZ on 24 November 2011 with immediate effect. The company decided in December of the same year to sell its businesses to UGL, by then Mr LEUNG was not the company's director any more. On the other hand, according to the reports of some overseas media, one possible factor accounting for the decision of DTZ's board of directors was that in the board's opinion, it would take eight weeks to complete the acquisition proposal in which a higher price was offered, and the consent of the bidder's shareholders was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1731 required. As the risk involved would be comparatively higher, they turned down the relevant acquisition proposal.
Apart from that, some Members considered the relevant agree a "secret contract" which was detrimental to the interests of the small shareholders of the relevant company, and therefore they accused Mr LEUNG of violating the integrity requirement and even suspected him of breaching the legislation on prevention of bribery. These are extremely serious accusations, and yet they are not substantiated by any specific evidence. As pointed out by UGL in its public statement dated 9 October, and let me read out the content (I quote): "The vendor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and their advisors were fully aware of UGL's intention to enter into an arrangement with Mr LEUNG and DTZ Holdings Plc played a significant role in initiating and negotiating those terms with Mr LEUNG."(unquote)
Some Members have queried whether the Chief Executive has paid tax for the payments paid to him by UGL in accordance with the requirements under the relevant legislation. According to the agreement between Mr LEUNG and UGL, UGL will make payments to Mr LEUNG over a two-year period and underwrite for DTZ the payment of outstanding agreed bonus to Mr LEUNG. Last year, Mr LEUNG sought advice from a practising accountant on the need or otherwise for him to pay salaries tax in respect of the aforesaid payments, and the accountant's professional advice was that under the relevant provision of Hong Kong's Inland Revenue Ordinance, salaries tax was applicable to income arising in or derived from Hong Kong from any employment, as well as the pension so derived. As such, Mr LEUNG did not have to pay salaries tax for the relevant payments. As regards the bonus concerned, he had to pay salaries tax in accordance with the aforesaid requirement. Mr LEUNG has already made the relevant tax payment accordingly.
Several Members made mention of a lawyer's letter sent by the Chief Executive to an Australian journalist. I wish to point out that Mr LEUNG always respects the freedom of the press. However, a journalist of the Fairfax Media Group in Australia made an accusation in an email sent on 6 October to the Chief Executive's Office which read, (I quote): " It appears to us that this is analogous to the transaction that has landed Rafael HUI in court, i.e. it is a bribe in exchange for Mr LEUNG leveraging his official connections."(unquote) Given the seriousness of the aforesaid accusation, it must be taken solemnly, and that is why Mr LEUNG decides to refer the email to lawyers for actions.
1732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
All in all, as pointed out by some Members, the resignation agreement signed between Mr LEUNG and UGL is indeed a very common commercial arrangement made to safeguard the interests of the buyer in the process of business acquisition. The commentaries of some newspapers have also pointed out that such kind of resignation agreement is a very common term in agreements relating to business acquisition or amalgamation, and they would feel surprised if this is absent. Moreover, as the agreement had been signed before Mr LEUNG was elected Chief Executive, it should have nothing to do with Mr LEUNG's performance of his public duties. As the Chief Executive has observed the relevant declaration requirements under the Basic Law and those of the Executive Council, I really can see no reason for the P&P Ordinance to be invoked to form a select committee to inquire into the matter concerned.
With regard to the comments and criticisms made by the Legislative Council about the Government or individual public officers, President, so long as the comments or criticisms are based on facts and constructive, both the Chief Executive and the Government, being pragmatic and people-oriented, will certainly listen modestly and take them into careful consideration. Nevertheless, if the comments and criticisms are but some farfetched analogies magnified and exaggerated indefinitely to attack the credibility of governance of the Chief Executive or even the Government as a whole, the relevant Members are indeed wasting the valuable time and resources of this Council and failing to live up to the expectations of the general public.
At present, Hong Kong is faced with a number of urgent and important issues. The Occupy Central movement has not yet come to an end, and the incident is impacting gravely and negatively on our society, people's livelihood, the economy and rule of law, although it will take time for the impacts to be felt one after another. On the other hand, we have many issues waiting to be addressed in such fields as land and housing, elderly community, support for the poor and the weak, economic development, as well environmental protection and conservation. I deeply believe it is the hope of the general public that the Legislative Council and the Government can joint efforts and collaborate closely to tackle the urgent tasks, do practical work, and strive for the welfare of the people.
Under the leadership of the Chief Executive, the Government has been putting in its best effort to prevent the adverse impacts of the Occupy Central movement from deteriorating and to enable the community to resume normal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1733 expeditiously. On the other hand, we have also been working industriously to strive for the passage of the various proposals that are beneficial to the development of Hong Kong. Some examples in this connection are the proposal to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau which was passed by the Council last Wednesday, and the 10-odd funding proposals awaiting approval by the Finance Committee, including the proposals regarding three landfills and one incinerator, the Low-income Working Family Allowance, and so on. The Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary have also rolled out the consultation work regarding the policy address and annual budget for the coming year so as to take in people's opinions, with a view to introducing more policies and measures that can help the public overcome their hardship. For this purpose, I earnestly urge Members who speak in support of the motion to place the welfare of Hong Kong as a whole in the first place and refrain from wasting time and resources on such kind of unconstructive matter. Instead, I urge them to join hands with the Government to address the issues facing Hong Kong in a pragmatic manner.
With these remarks, President, I earnestly urge Members to oppose Ms Claudia MO's motion. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you may now speak in reply.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, it is regretful to see that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying continues to stay holed up. Yesterday, he had been hiding behind a lady for the whole day. I note that Chief Secretary Carrie LAM is sitting here. I have known Mrs LAM since I was working as a journalist. For the whole day, I could not see her smiling countenance as in the past. She was frowning and worried. She looked as sad as if she were attending a funeral. I have reasons to believe that Mrs Carrie LAM still has some basic moral concepts, as she has to read out from the script. Today, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is here to be responsible for reading out from the script. I really do not understand how Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is related to this incident. He will not be interested in learning the private property issues of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying.
Mrs Carrie LAM pointed out yesterday that she felt regretful for my wanton criticism and unreasonable accusations against Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. How can that be wanton? I only remarked that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying "has 1734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 neither political wisdom nor political credibility". This is the most acrimonious remark I make, but it definitely was presented politely. She should walk around in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. I believe that the voices and wordings of the public will be 10 times, a hundred times or even a thousand times more acrimonious than mine. What is more ridiculous is that Mrs Carrie LAM has clearly stated that she knows nothing about the private property of the Chief Executive. Since she knows nothing about it, why is she so sure when answering the questions? How does she know that my argument is groundless? I am now not fabricating it out of nothing. Even though the Secretary is now speaking on behalf of Mrs LAM, while Mrs LAM is answering the questions on behalf of the Chief Executive, what Secretary Mr Matthew CHEUNG said earlier was nothing new. I am not sure whether the Secretary has paid attention to the latest development of the issue. If he has, he should know that not a single sentence from his is new. What he uttered are hackneyed and stereotyped expressions. But we are still full of suspicions.
President, you must have suffered a lot of hardships being the President of this Council in this session, as the quality of this Council is really appalling. It is obvious that some Members do not know what they are talking about. It is either that he does not know what he is talking about or that he does not believe in what he is talking. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has even mixed up Mr LEUNG Chun-ying with Mr Jimmy LAI. She has surprisingly remarked that "Mr LEUNG Chun-ying has given $500,000 to Ms Claudia MO". Did she really know what she was talking about? Is she suffering from early psychosis or dissociative identity disorder?
In this Council, there are indeed too many puppets from the Beijing authorities or too many "advantage holders". What kind of advantages? Political advantage is an example, or there are Mainland interests in trading with China. These advantage holders are all speaking here. Too many people are talking nonsense and their clamours can be clearly heard a few streets away. President, I originally wanted to invoke Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure to lodge a complaint to you against Mr CHAN Kam-lam who conjectured in his speech that other Members had impeachable motives. On my second thought, I would not lower my personal standard to adjust to his kind of standard. I thus decided not to complain at the end.
Let us turn back to the theme. Mr CHAN Kam-lam really has to tell Mr LEUNG Chun-ying that a superior man is satisfied and composed. A man LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1735 should have the courage to take the blame for what he does. He should not find another person to speak on behalf of him, particularly a lady who sat here all day yesterday, taking his place in suffering so many criticisms. But when she answered, she still lacked the details. Why did he not dare to come to the Legislative Council? Why could he not properly hold a press conference? I believe that all television stations in Hong Kong will surely broadcast it live. He can hold the conference for as long as he wishes. If that is real, it will be a piece of breaking news. He will have three hours to speak. He can openly show his bank statements, documents, witness letters and emails. The day has eyes, the night has ears. If he has done nothing wrong, why can't he be frank and above-board? But he has not chosen to do so. On the contrary, he still continues to express regret over the matter.
After meeting Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, some Legislative Council Members have completely become his spokesmen. President, you were not in the Chamber earlier and Deputy President took the Chair. I then lodged a complaint to him about the Rules of Procedure. I said that Members could not influence the Legislative Council in the name of the Chief Executive. It is because when a Member quoted the remark of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, he took it for real. In fact, it was only hearsay. However, he said that "this is what the Chief Executive said". I really find it problematic. But of course, I am not in the position to make a ruling on this. At present, I do not intend to continue complaining.
In this Council, even the most basic element of "honesty" is difficult to pursue. It is because the President and Deputy President have said that what Members say need not be facts, and they can simply express their own opinions. Nevertheless, I still need to mention something trivial. Mr WONG Ting-kwong said that he did not mention the word umbrella, but he did mention the Occupy movement. The major sign of the Occupy movement is the umbrella. What we pursue is not only honesty, but also intellectual honesty ― it is difficult for me to express the meaning of intellectual honesty in Chinese, and hence I can only say it in English. However, in this Council, not to mention honesty, it is rather difficult to pursue even intellect, as this Chamber is just full of too many double-talks.
A news commentary has pointed out that in the contract between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL, there is somehow a handwritten paragraph which roughly says that the premise is not to involve in any clash of interests. This is handwritten. Frankly speaking, I can tell that this is the handwriting of 1736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, as he has written some notes to me before. I can tell that this is his own handwriting. However, it is very weird that the Secretary did not mention this earlier. I believe that he did not mention it deliberately. When was that paragraph added to the contract? The Chief Executive's Office issued a declaration yesterday which said that the handwritten term was added on the date of signing the contract, didn't he? How come there is no initial? The meaning of initial is the short form of a signature. Or has that been omitted while photocopying? We are not talking about the term for buying marinated eggs, but a contract worth £4 million. Such contracts require detail scrutiny by many teams of lawyers who will check whether there are spelling mistakes or omissions of certain punctuation marks. Everything has to be nice and clear. Not till now does he say that the handwritten paragraph was added on the date when the contract was signed, but without any initial. Who does he want to cheat? Is he really treating the Hong Kong people like fools? Do those in the business field not like mentioning the usual practices in business? Can this be regarded as unusual? How come not a word is being mentioned? Is there any secret not to be divulged? The so-called stenchy fish-smell is indeed too strong.
At the same time, I would also like to remind Mr CHAN Kam-lam of the pronunciation of "Z" in DTZ. It should be pronounced as "Z"(/zed/) as in XYZ, instead of "/I-zed/". This Council meeting is being broadcast live. I would ask him not to mislead students about the English pronunciation. His pronunciation is incorrect. "Z" in English should be pronounced as "/zed/" instead of "/I-zed/". OK?
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has raised a very good question. A state-owned enterprise was also interested in the acquisition, and it even offered a much higher bid. Why did they refuse? They said it would be required to move to Tianjin and this would involve foreign exchange issues in China and would take longer time for transaction. However, why would that be decided so hastily? This transaction is not about buying a chair or a table, but involves a contract worth millions of pounds. Why should they act so hastily? Can't they wait for a while? They did not show much love to the country, right? That is a state-owned enterprise. The two parties could negotiate. If DTZ thought that moving to Tianjin was not a very good idea, it could suggest remaining in Hong Kong or moving to Shenzhen, which is also in the Mainland but is nearer to Hong Kong. Was it really impossible to discuss that? We just have too many doubts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1737
Besides, in the case of DTZ Japan, there is information that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying asked the other party to give him £3 million in addition, but that was not accepted and he did not receive the payment. However, this again has raised our suspicion on his credibility, and that is a matter of course. A Member from the democratic camp questioned earlier: What is meant by "no comment"? It should be either affirmative or negative. Does he think that if he refuses to mention it, everything will be fine, nothing has ever happened, or it simply does not exist? The stronger he refuses to mention, the more suspicious we will be. We have substantial evidence to start the impeachment procedure. We have to study in detail the room between his mentioning and not mentioning the information, so that we can see the level of credibility of the Government.
It is affirmative that the Beijing authorities know about this contract of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. Because as we all know, one has to go through an integrity check before he can be the Chief Executive. Winning the election does not necessarily mean that he can become the Chief Executive. He must first obtain the endorsement from the Beijing authorities. At the very beginning, who were responsible for integrity check? Holding all his "black materials", these people can protect him and save him from attacks on the one hand, but can also deal with him whenever necessary on the other hand. The veteran secret agents in the Ministry of State Security, and the team of senior cadres of the Organization Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee responsible for manpower appointments will possess this information. That contract must be a highly secret document which will only be in the hands of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL. Who will also have a copy? These people mentioned just now would have a copy. With such a spilling of the information, some people think that this has obtained permission from state leaders who really cannot stand Mr LEUNG Chun-ying anymore. They will ask him to excuse himself when necessary. Mr LEUNG Chun-ying should also come out and respond whether this is true or not. The above mainly comes from part of the analysis made by Prof Willy LAM, a veteran expert on Chinese affairs.
President, Hong Kong ― our advantage is the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). However, as mentioned by Members who spoke earlier, the problem is that the ICAC is responsible to the Chief Executive only. When it was first established, it was especially appointed by the Governor ― we found it very funny then, as it was especially appointed by the Governor ― it was the Governor then, but is now the Chief Executive. However, the ICAC's investigation into Mr Donald TSANG for his various corruptive activities over 1738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 the sea, land and air has been going on for three years. People can thus understand the constraints of the ICAC. Of course, the investigation concerned is on the business and criminal aspects, while we are mainly dealing with the credibility problem of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. This is related to the credibility that he needs to possess as prescribed in Article 47 of the Basic Law.
Dr LAM Tai-fai said that the minor shareholders have yet to voice their opinions. Even though the minor shareholders have incurred losses and find themselves being treated unfairly, they have yet to voice their opinions. And thus why are we more worried than the people involved? This argument is really groundless. When the socially disadvantaged groups do not know how or do not dare to voice their opinions, even if it is related to the problem of righteousness, can we just say sorry to them, and that we cannot help them because they have not voiced their opinions? We have to hold on to some basic concepts of righteousness and fairness.
President, Article 47 of the Basic Law states that ― in the Chinese version, it says the Chief Executive "必須廉潔奉公"(must be honest in performing his or her official duties). As Mr Ronny TONG strongly emphasizes, "廉 潔" (honesty) is in the leading place of "廉潔奉公" (honest in performing his or her official duties), and it does not even require him to be law-abiding, as law-abiding is within our expectation. But "廉 潔" (honesty) is in the first place. Besides, he must also be "盡忠職守" (dedicated to his or her duties). In the English version, this is not a literal translation. In the English version, Article 47 of the Basic Law states that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong must be a person of integrity. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In Ms MO's speech earlier, she mentioned some of my viewpoints concerning whether the contents of Members' speeches must be based on facts. She also mentioned the Deputy President. In order to avoid misunderstanding as you may think that Members can disregard the facts when you speak, I have to state clearly to you.
In the course of debate, it is not rare that Members, in their turns to speak, accuse each other for not speaking in accordance with the facts. However, when a Member is speaking, another Member takes the excuse of point of order and stands up to interrupt a Member's speech, pointing out that what he said is at variance with the facts, I will then need to point out that in the Rules of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1739
Procedure, there is no such rule as to require all the contents of a Member's speech must be in line with the facts. Therefore, the point of order raised for the reason that a Member is not speaking in accordance with the facts is not a point of order. Members should not take it as an excuse to interrupt the Member who is speaking. I, of course, think that what a Member said should respect the facts.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.
1740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frankie YICK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, six were in favour of the motion, 21 against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1741
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debates on motions with no legislative effect. As this Council have not dealt with motions with no legislative effect for quite some time, I need to remind Members that I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee that the movers of motions each may speak, including making a reply, for up to 15 minutes, and have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments each may speak for up to 10 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion debate: Returning a happy childhood to students.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Mr Michael TIEN to speak and move the motion.
RETURNING A HAPPY CHILDHOOD TO STUDENTS
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I now move the motion printed on the Agenda: Returning a happy elderly life to me … Excuse me (Laughter) … It should be returning a happy childhood to me; it is a slip of the tongue.
(Mrs Regina IP stood up to raise a display board)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, according to the Rules of Procedure, only the Member who is delivering a speech may stand up. Please sit down to display the things you wish to display.
Mr Michael TIEN, please continue with your speech.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, this motion was originally proposed in May, but due to the filibustering activities of some Honourable colleagues and the rounds of questions triggered off by the subsequent Occupy Central movement, it is not until today that I finally have the chance to share 1742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 views and discuss with Members this important subject: Returning a happy childhood to students. As far as I know, some Honourable colleagues will continue with their disobedience movement, but I hope they will treat children's interests and benefits as the premise and show some mercy by allowing each Member to finish delivering his or her speech before they continue with what they want to do.
I move this motion not just because I care about education; a more important reason is that I care about students. The economic situation and living conditions in Hong Kong have improved greatly when compared to the past, but why does it appear that our students are increasingly unhappy? President, the Hong Kong Committee on Children's Rights is aware of the motion I move today. A few dozen students who share the same feeling that I mention in the motion have come to meet me and told me how unhappy they are. They also point out the major cause of their unhappiness, which is the existing education system. They have given me 20-odd card boards and asked me to pass them to other Members, as a move to relay the frustration deep down in their hearts. Here are two of the card boards. It does not matter whether you are parents or you have ever listened carefully to children's aspirations. I just hope that you will listen to and look at what I am going to show you.
In the past, when we taught children English, we would say "A for apple"; today, we have to say "A for astronaut". We always say the new generation is not comparable to the previous one, but to the students who have to be biliterate and trilingual even in their tender age and have to receive training in different kinds of skills, both their school bags and the pressure on them are getting heavier than the previous generation. Have the Secretary attached any importance to this phenomenon? Does he know how many children have lost their happy childhood as a result of this phenomenon?
I have in my hand a picture entitled "domino effect", and this is given to me by a young child. The picture tells the entire life of a child, which encompasses awards and diplomas, academic achievements, competition with classmates, parent's expectations, personal stress, and so on. You name it and it has got it. All in all, the pressure on a child is enormous. In addition to tests and examinations, our secondary and primary school students have to deal with the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) when they are in Primary Three, Primary Six and Secondary Three, as well as the secondary school class LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1743 streaming tests. They cannot have any rest even during breaks, as they have to spend all their time on drilling. In addition to examination pressure, they have to deal with a huge amount of homework too. An outrageous case is that a student of a famous primary school in a certain district has to complete 18 drawing assignments in one evening. How can he finish doing all such assignments? In the end, the parents have to stay up whole night to help him complete the assignments. As such, the purpose of homework is total defeated. If students enjoy the learning process, they will have fun and thus achieve better results with less effort. However, if parents boost children excessively to the neglect of the kids' feelings, only the exactly opposite result will be achieved, as excessive boosting will cause children to hate learning. Besides, the kids may resort to memorizing what they are taught without understanding, and the things they have learnt are thus very superficial. In the end, such children will just be "a Jack of all trades, a master of none". This is exactly the problem with the existing education policy.
Perhaps the Government considers that its policy is rightly targeted and positioned, but the community generally considers the policy too ossified and unitary. Such a policy leaves parents and schools with one single formula to follow in preparing the learning path of their children. Under an ossified education system, Hong Kong students can win good results but have lost their interest in learning. According to the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2011, while our students' reading comprehension ability tops the chart, their incentive to read is the lowest. I would like to ask the Under Secretary, as far as education is concerned, is it an achievement we can take pride in if we nurture a student capable of scoring full marks but has no interest in learning? Do you want our students to be examination machines which lack creativity and comprehensive thinking? Or do you want them to be talents with positive and comprehensive thinking? The students today have lost interest in learning. They only know how to conform to convention and most of them can only go with the flow. In the long run, this situation will make it impossible for Hong Kong to nurture creative talents and for our students to have in-depth critical thinking.
In view of the existing problems of our education regime, I will now focus on a few points of suggestion which I hope can help the education sector and students to get out of this mire.
1744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Firstly, we have to change the existing teaching mode and enhance students' incentive to learn. Hong Kong's spoon-feeding teaching mode is the main reason why students have lost interest in their studies. Even though they have attended the classes taught by teachers, students always sweep the difficult part of their studies under the carpet when they try to solve the quizzes at home. This is because they only know how to memorize the model answers and care only about the examination "tips". All these are the results of unilateral teaching. I have sought advice from some education experts, and their advice is that the Education Bureau may try "turning the classroom upside down" if we are to enhance students' learning incentive and relief their learning pressure. Take a 45-minute lesson as an example, the teacher may make a 10-odd minutes video and upload it on the Internet, and then require the students to watch it as lesson preparation before the class. As the students have already watched the video, they can start discussing the contents of the lesson on the following day without waiting for the teacher to give the lecture. Only in this way can the objective of "conveying the truth, passing on the knowledge and clarifying the doubts" be achieved.
This arrangement has three merits. First, students can think about the things they are going to learn in preparing for the lesson. Let me take Member of the Council as an example. Some Members always attend the Council meeting without reading the Agenda. How can they make any meaningful contribution? Second, students will be encouraged to take part in discussions actively. Third, as most of the difficult homework assignments will be handled in class right away, the pressure on students will be greatly alleviated. Actually, in many places, such as the United States, Singapore, Taiwan, and so on, this method of "turning the classroom upside down" are being practised enthusiastically. This approach attaches importance to encouraging students to learn on their own initiative rather than receiving information passively. I suggest the Education Bureau take the lead in exploring this method of happy learning as a new way out.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Secondly, we should review the examination and assessment regimes. Primary Six is the time when the pressure on students is the highest, as they have to deal with a number of examinations at the same time. I do not know if LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1745
Members are aware that in addition to the TSA, Primary Six students also have to sit for the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test. Even though the TSA is said to be held every alternate year, schools may still get the examination papers on a voluntary basis every other year, and the Education Bureau will also prepare the examination papers for these schools. We find that during the so-called off year, while the Education Bureau will not take the results into account, 70% of the schools will get the papers from the Bureau to drill their students. As regards the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test, the Education Bureau will check the results every other year to assess the standards of the primary schools concerned. However, in order to secure their children a place in the elite class, many parents will drill them for the test. Hence Primary Six students basically have to practise for two open examinations. I suggest the Education Bureau combine the TSA with the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test and explore new assessment methods upon the combination of the two. The objective of this is to achieve the class streaming purpose and assess the basic capabilities of the students at the same time.
Thirdly, we should look into ways to alleviate the pressure imposed on students by the drillings for the TSA. I believe the TSA has its value, as it can enable the Government to have an idea of the basic capabilities of students, and such information is helpful to the Government in formulating policies. As such, the TSA should not be abolished arbitrarily. Nevertheless, the Government needs to review its coverage and examination methods expeditiously. More importantly, the majority of the schools are currently depending on the practices as the only means to enhance students' performance in the TSA. The biggest problem arises from this. In our view, the Education Bureau may follow the practice of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and prepare check-up reports for schools. The method is to use questionnaires to inquire into the relationship between students' final assessment results and their learning incentive, time spent on private tutorials, amount of books read, as well as extra-curricular activities. I believe, and many experts also believe, that drills and practices should not be the only way for students to score more points in the assessments. Many a time if students are interested in learning and have read enough books, they can also score more points in the TSA. I hope the Government will conduct a study in this respect and inform schools and parents of the study results, so that they will not rely solely on drills and practices to enhance their children's performance.
1746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Deputy President, I have here an English book, and I have chosen a few pages of it for discussion. Nowadays, we have a few blind spots in making the best use of people's talents. A paragraph reads, "At its fundamentally flawed core, the aim of almost any learning program is to help us become who we are not. If you don't have natural talent with numbers, you're still forced to spend time in that area to attain a degree. From the cradle to the cubicle, we devote more time to our shortcomings than to our strengths." It continues to say, "In every culture we have studied, the overwhelming majority of parents think that a student's lowest grades deserve the most time and attention." Then I would like to say one thing, which I believe the Honourable colleagues present will all agree with and have heard of, "You can be anything you want to be, if you just try hard enough." Nevertheless, this book also reminds us, "You cannot be anything you want to be ― but you can be a lot more of who you already are."
In short, this book tells us that each and every person have different abilities. Some do better in mathematics; some do better in literature. If we try to forcibly boost up students' performance in their weakest subjects ― this is actually what our existing education system is doing all the time, as schools are putting extra efforts in the subjects where their students' performance is the weakest ― it does not do much good to the development of our manpower. We should allow ample opportunities for our students to give full play to their abilities in the subjects they are most interested in or best at. Nobody can be an expert in all areas, and our diversified society should not aimed at nurturing such kind of talents.
Now I would like to switch to the proposal to set up different channels for universities to admit students. At present, we have some 16 000 students meeting the university entrance requirement every year, which is the so-called criterion of "3, 3, 2, 2, 2". However, we do not have enough places for all such students. In our view, many of such students have attained remarkable results in aesthetic and physical activities, and hence the Education Bureau should earmark several dozen places in subsidized degree courses in each of such disciplines like music, art, physical education, and so on for students who have remarkable achievements in the relevant areas. When should the selection process commence? So long as they have met the criterion of "3, 3, 2, 2, 2", the total points they have scored in the open examination is no longer relevant, as the selection will be based on the achievements attained by the students in the areas LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1747 concerned. In that way, we can ensure diversified development paths for students, and thereby increase their opportunities for upward mobility in society.
Last but not least, I would like to speak on the formulation of a specific framework for implementing parent education. Actually, many parents do not know how to teach their children, and some have resorted to all kinds of "monster" approaches. For instance, some parents require their fiver-year-old children to attend eight interest classes a week. What is more, some even require the children to attend two kindergartens, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, with the morning class tuition fee covered by the Pre-primary Education Voucher and the fee for the afternoon class paid by themselves. What help will such arrangement do to the development of students in their entire childhood? Hence, in order to adjust the mentality of parents positively, I suggest the Education Bureau formulate a specific course for parent education and require parents to attend a specified hours of parent education course when their children start going to school. In addition to teaching parents how to help their children to have balanced development, a more important part of the course is to teach parents how to address the different needs of their children.
Deputy President, having spoken on the ideal education system in my mind, now I would like to speak on the relationship between the recent Occupy movement and my ideal. So far many students have participated in the Occupy movement, and I would say they have a noble ideal but are striving for it in a wrong direction. It is noble to strive for democracy, but it is wrong to adopt an unlawful approach which not only impact gravely on social order but also the daily life of the general public. The students only attach importance to the "two systems" in Hong Kong without giving thoughts to striving for democracy in Hong Kong from a "one country" perspective. In my view, they have failed to strike a balance between ideal and reality.
On the other hand, my Honourable colleagues and I can also see that some of the activities inside the unlawfully occupied areas have in fact realized my ideal, and I am referring to the voluntary self-studies and diversified development of ideas. I can see that many students are not born without creative ideas. As I have highlighted in my motion, is the formal education in schools throttling their creative ideas? We all appreciate and encourage students to give play to their creativity. Nevertheless, despite the great creativity, if the direction is wrong and creativity is used to beautify or package the unlawful Occupy movement, some undesirable results will bound to emerge ― I am afraid my speaking time is 1748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 almost up ― we need to educate our students that they must respect rule of law if they are to strive for democracy, and we also need to help students adopt proper standards before nurturing their creativity (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, speaking time is up.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): I so submit.
Mr Michael TIEN moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That the majority view of society has all along held that 'pressure leads to progress'; nowadays, there are many books and discussions available at the market about 'tiger moms and dads', 'helicopter parents' and 'monster parents', etc. for boosting children's learning, but excessive boosting may likely increase pressure on children and dampen their learning interests; the results of a survey conducted by the Programme for International Student Assessment show that some Hong Kong parents excessively intervene in children's learning and drill them by being over-anxious for results, rendering a decline of children's motivation to learn and a negative impact on their academic results; quite a number of media reports have also pointed out that some Hong Kong students have emotional problems because of heavy study pressure, and they become easily anxious and have symptoms such as insomnia, loss of appetite and irritability, etc.; all these problems are attributable to the education system which emphasizes solely on examination results; at the stage of kindergarten education, parents have already enrolled their children in many types of interest classes and request them to do dictation and spelling exercises, etc.; at the stage of primary education, students need to participate in the Territory-wide System Assessment, the Internal Assessments for Secondary School Places Allocation purpose that take place at the end of Primary Five and both in mid-year and at the end of Primary Six, and the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test; at the stage of secondary education, students are faced with a shortage of university places and the 'die or live' pressure from the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination; in contrast, the education systems and teaching modes in many advanced places are better able to provide students with room for exploring their interests to enhance their creativity development; in this connection, this Council urges the Administration to:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1749
(1) assess afresh the pressure and psychological impact of the existing education system on students, and comprehensively review the examination system, the curriculum contents and the mechanism for progression in education;
(2) enhance parental education to avoid parents from excessively boosting children's learning; and
(3) enhance the support for school social workers and teachers to facilitate them to early identify whether or not students are under excessive pressure."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Michael TIEN be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Five Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the five amendments.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will first call upon Dr Helena WONG to speak, to be followed by Miss Alice MAK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Mr Charles Peter MOK respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
1750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please speak.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am grateful to Mr Michael TIEN for proposing this motion entitled "Returning a happy childhood to students" ― although we can only have the opportunity for a formal discussion many months later. This motion gives us an opportunity to examine the circumstances faced by Hong Kong parents and students today.
These days, there is a popular saying in Hong Kong which goes, "Don't lose at the starting line". The phenomenon we have seen is that many parents already enrol their small children in many interest classes and tutorial classes, and they will buy various types of supplementary exercise books to boost their children's learning, solely for fear that their children may lose at the starting line. In order to enrol their children in their desired kindergartens, some parents have resigned from their jobs and gone to queue up outside kindergartens, in a bid to scramble for a school place. Some kindergartens charging exorbitant tuition fees even ask parents to pay several hundred thousand dollars in one go before agreeing to admit their children.
Certainly, everybody knows that parents all love their children. But we have noticed that parents have by now turned into what people refer to as "monster parents". Why would parents have become "monster parents" who hysterically boost their children's learning? I believe this has something to do with our distorted education system.
As everybody knows, the Hong Kong education system has always been dominated by examinations. Students are required to sit the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) in Primary Three, Primary Six and Secondary Three. What is the TSA all about? It is part of the assessment of students' Basic Competencies. According to the Education Bureau, the original intent of the TSA is to help schools to understand students' Basic Competencies in Chinese, English and Mathematics, so as to facilitate learning and teaching. The Education Bureau stresses that as a low-stakes assessment, the TSA is not used to assess the individual academic performances of students, nor will it affect their articulation. For these reasons, the Education Bureau considers that it will not exert any pressure on students' learning.
In fact, however, the situation is not the same as what the Education Bureau has claimed. Since implementation, the TSA has gradually undergone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1751 morbid changes and turned into a high-stakes monstrous assessment. With a view to meeting the standards, schools keep boosting and drilling their students, with the result that students have lost their interests in learning. Therefore, if we want to return a happy childhood to students, we must squarely address the TSA.
What are "Basic Competencies"? According to the Education Bureau's website, "Basic Competencies" refers to "the essential knowledge and skills acquired by students in relation to the learning targets and objectives set out in the curriculum for each key stage". Schools already begin to boost their students as early as they are in Primary One. But actually, students will only take the first TSA in Primary Three, and the second and third TSA in Primary Six and Secondary Three respectively. The assessment is conducted once every three years, with the aim to understand students' Basic Competencies in Chinese, English and Mathematics, as well as their knowledge levels in different stages.
However, in recent years, TSA questions have turned increasingly long and difficult. I am not saying that no assessment should be conducted. But if TSA questions become longer and more complicated, then I must question if the authorities still aim to assess the Basic Competencies of students. I believe problems have already emerged. A student holding a TSA question paper in his hands will not be able to answer any questions if he has not done any similar exercises or undergone any drilling on TSA questions.
Deputy President, I have found a TSA past paper on English Language for Primary Three students. Students must finish this paper within 25 minutes, and all questions are compulsory. I wonder if any parents or adults have read this paper. Having done so myself, I honestly feel surprised. Students are asked to complete 19 pages of questions within 25 minutes, including four passages for reading comprehension (students should answer multiple-choice questions after reading the four passages). What follows is a picture composition question requiring students to write a short passage of around 30 words in English. Students must complete all the 19 pages of questions within 25 minutes. Even if a student spends one minute on reading through each page of this question paper, how can he have sufficient time to give his answers and write a short passage as he also has to spend time on understanding the questions first? I do not believe any of the 70 Members present here can finish this paper within 25 minutes. But I must point out that this is the requirement on our eight-year-old Primary Three students.
1752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
I believe parents hate to learn that their children have failed the TSA, or they are only able to finish four out of the 19 pages of questions within 25 minutes. Schools even expect their students to complete all the 19 rather than only four pages of questions within 25 minutes. How can this be achieved? Drilling every day is the answer.
Deputy President, in our discussion on how to return a happy childhood to students, how can we brush aside the issue concerning TSA questions? We can see from the complexity and quantity of questions that the TSA is no longer a reasonable and basic assessment.
In order to cope with the TSA, what have our students become of? Can they have a happy childhood? As we all know, nearly every school will invariably arrange supplementary classes for their students. Schools usually arrange supplementary classes on the TSA for their students before and after school, at weekends (on Saturdays or Sundays), on public holidays, or even during lunch time. Almost every school will ask their students to buy supplementary TSA exercise books in addition to their compulsory textbooks. How many supplementary TSA exercise books will a student buy during his studies from Primary One to Primary Six? Statistics show that on average, a student buys 22.8 supplementary exercise books. And, 35% of the schools under the same survey even buy supplementary TSA exercise books on Chinese, English and Mathematics for their Primary One students. Although students will not sit the TSA until Primary Three, they have already begun to do supplementary exercises ever since Primary One. This means that students have already started to undergo TSA drilling since Primary One. Mr Michael TIEN, may I ask how our students can have a happy childhood under these circumstances?
What is more serious is that the entire primary education system has actually been TSA-oriented. What does this mean? This means that schools design their examinations and assessment criteria on the basis of the TSA. The contents of the textbooks selected by schools must be similar to what will be assessed in the TSA, and supplementary exercise books must contain question types frequently seen in the TSA. In this manner, the TSA has dominated the whole primary education system. And, primary education has undergone morbid changes, with the only aim of teaching students how to cope with the assessment mode of the TSA and techniques for answering questions. This is a kind of morbid changes. More ironically, the original intent of the TSA is to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1753 understand the weaknesses of the curriculums in teaching and learning through assessment, so that improvement can be made accordingly. But the reality is that the TSA has served to put the cart before the horse, in the sense that students now study for the purpose of passing the assessment.
The education sector has strongly requested the abolition of the TSA for Primary Three and Primary Six students. But the Education Bureau has remained unmoved so far. A moment later, Mr IP Kin-yuen, my colleague from the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, will also rise to speak to express our hope of abolishing the TSA for Primary Three and Primary Six students. We have already put forth this demand, but the Government refuses to accept it.
Through my amendment today, I hope Members can seriously consider the idea of reviewing the assessment contents of the TSA and see whether TSA questions are set reasonably. I also hope that Members can seriously examine the abolition or otherwise of the TSA. I have only proposed to "examine the abolition or otherwise of the TSA", rather than "its immediate abolition". But if we truly care about whether students have a happy childhood, we must examine and squarely address the problems concerned now.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I propose the amendment.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when school resumed earlier, there were a series of incidents involving students who attempted to commit suicide or died of suicide. Yesterday, two secondary students also expressed that they did not want to go to school and intended to kill themselves. Fortunately, the mishaps did not materialize.
It is high time now for us to reflect on the meaning of education. Why do students rather die than go to school? What in fact is the problem? We know that many students now do not return home immediately after school. They are not wondering in the streets as "street kids", but are rushing to attend tutorial classes for their homework or revision. It can be said that children grow up with tutorials: When they are young, they attend tutorial classes; when they enter university, they tutor for tuition. Thus, they live with tutorials from childhood to adulthood, either to be tutored or as tutors.
1754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
According to the information of the Census and Statistics Department, in 2012, close to 120 000 students enrolled in tutorial classes. In addition, a survey carried out by the Faculty of Education of The University of Hong Kong discovered that 72% of Secondary Six students enrolled in tutorials while among Secondary Three students, about 54% did so. Tutorial classes are touted with the enhancement of academic performance, claiming they can help students "gain stars and upgrade". As many parents do not want to see their children lag behind the others, they enrol their children in various tutorial classes to boost them for good grades. When we work at the district level, we come into contact with many families with difficulties or families which are applying for CSSA. Parents from these families consider that the amount of CSSA they receive falls short of allowing them to arrange tutorials for their children, and this is one of the reasons why they feel ashamed in front of their children. This is in fact very deplorable. Why do children still need to attend tutorials after school? Can they really learn more having attended tutorials?
The fact that attending tutorials have become popular indicates that the examination-oriented education system really poses an enormous impact on students. Both students and parents dream of obtaining good results in public examinations. Gradually, academic excellence comes before everything, leaving no room for the fun in learning. At present, students have to attend different tutorials or interest classes after school every day because they have to prepare a personal profile which reveals what voluntary services they have performed, or what kinds of drawing classes or music classes they have attended. Parents have to prepare a thick profile for their children ― the thicker the profile, the better.
Therefore, I have particularly proposed in my amendment that the authorities should encourage schools to invite experts from different industries to hold workshops and experience programmes to enhance the interest in learning. With this direction, we can help students find interest in learning again. Then, they can develop their potentials and broaden their horizons to achieve the effect of learning, without having to learn by rote.
On the other hand, I also think that we should set about streamlining the curriculum content of primary and secondary schools, especially that part of the content which is subject to assessment, so as to ease the pressure on teachers and students. Many teachers tell me that since the content of the New Senior Secondary (NSS) curriculum is more extensive, teachers very often have to sacrifice their rest time during holidays to arrange for supplementary classes, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1755 students of course are also victimized. Teachers have to teach supplementary classes for students during holidays, and students have to go back to school to attend the classes.
The authorities have reduced the aggregate class hours for the three-year NSS curriculum from 2 700 to around 2 400, hoping that this would ease the pressure on teachers and students. Nonetheless, the authorities have only reduced the total class hours without streamlining the curriculum content. In a way, this adjustment has made teaching time more pressing. In order to finish the entire curriculum, teachers can only arrange for extra classes. This has resulted in an increase in pressure on both the teachers and students instead of a decrease.
We hope that in the future, the authorities can consider doing more to streamline the curriculum content so as to ease the learning pressure for students. Then, they can develop their interests and potentials, and join extra-curricular activities in which they are really interested.
I would like to cite an example. When I was young, my mother also arranged tutorials for my brother and me, but we were given our choices. Since I was interested in learning English, Mother let me have English tutorials; my elder brother liked mathematics, so Mother enrolled him in mathematics tutorials. We were happy to attend the classes. As regards extra-curricular activities, my brother pursued his interest in mathematics while I enjoyed writing essays. Thus, I took part in essay competitions and up to now, I still have the chance to take part in social affairs.
My experience tells me if we cannot discover and pursue our interests in the course of learning to nurture and develop our potentials, even upon graduation, apart from getting a certificate, we would have achieved nothing else in our lives.
Besides having to ease the heavy pressure from learning, which the average students have to encounter, we have to face squarely the difficulties encountered by the students with special education needs (SEN students) too. The SEN students include those who are mildly mentally handicapped, autistic, visually impaired, hearing impairments, physically handicapped, attention deficiency and those with hyperactive, speech impediments and special learning difficulties. These students have their unique individual needs.
1756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
According to information of the Education Bureau, in the 2010-2011 academic year, a total of 25 640 students with different degrees of special learning difficulties attended mainstream public schools, and in the 2013-2014 academic year, the figure stood at 33 830. Within these four years, students with different degrees of special learning difficulties in mainstream public schools saw a marked increase of over 24%. This shows that the problem of the SEN students should not be overlooked.
In our opinion, early detection and the provision of appropriate support can effectively reduce the difficulties faced by these students in learning. Therefore, as the initial stage of students entering the mainstream education system, early childhood education should play an important role in the identification of students' learning difficulties and provision of support.
Actually, the Child Assessment Service of the Department of Health will carry out assessment for children aged between zero to 12 who show signs of problems in their development, and will arrange for necessary rehabilitation services and refer them to educational service. The Social Welfare Department also has a Special Child Care Centre. Nonetheless, the support provided by the Government to kindergarten education is very limited.
I would like to cite one more example ― I do not see why there are so many episodes of experience in my family which I can share. Lately, when I had a meal with my younger brother, he said what impressed him most in his childhood was that his kindergarten assignments were all finished by his sister (he was referring to me). Why did I do that? It is because my younger brother has reading disorder. He read all "C"s in their reverse, and after reading the words on a line, he would skip to five lines below and then went back up a few lines. He failed to read the words he saw. When he was in kindergarten, he found it difficult to write even the letters ABC or simple Chinese characters such as that for the sun. Thus, when he was young, I used to be his "ghostwriter" and finished all those assignments for him.
In those days, we might not have considered and paid attention to the needs of the SEN students. After so many years, society has become very complicated, and so has the curriculum content. I believe that not every kindergarten pupil would want their elder siblings to be their "ghostwriter" to finish the assignments for them as a way out. Even at the kindergarten stage, we already have to help those students with learning difficulties for early LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1757 identification of their problems and to provide support. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for them to continue after entering primary and secondary education.
Since children spend much time with kindergarten teachers in kindergartens, we think that besides providing primary and secondary schools with learning support allowance, the authorities should also provide kindergartens with corresponding allowance, for example, allowance calculated on a daily basis for substitute teachers. Then, serving teachers who are busy with their duties can have time and money to enrol in special education training courses.
I do not have much time left though I still have much to say. However, I now just want to bring out my wish that the education authorities can consider the needs of students, in particular those of the SEN students. I hope the education system of Hong Kong can return a happy childhood to students, so that they can develop their interests and potentials. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me first thank Mr Michael TIEN for putting forward this motion. We have indeed come a very long way before we can finally debate this motion today. In a way, we can see that it is not quite so easy to return a happy childhood to children.
Deputy President, some 10 days ago, Mr Michael TIEN and I had an opportunity to see a group of small children. Well, they were not exactly so small; rather, they were a group of students from different secondary schools. I asked if they had been happy. They unanimously replied that the pressure from schoolwork was heavy, and they could not have any spare time or leisure hours. They said, "The greatest happiness consists in being able to do things we like. But such opportunities are very rare." Their answer was therefore "not happy".
When people who are of my age encounter any unhappy events in their life, or when they see the present political impasse, they will say to themselves, "How wonderful it will be if I can go back in time to my childhood." Our childhood as we remember it was worry-free, with endless time ahead.
But are the children nowadays worry-free? Do they have endless time? The answers may all be in the negative. They have many worries, and they have very little time. Why? Who have deprived them of a happy childhood?
1758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
I think the answer is very clear. Those who have deprived them of a happy childhood are all the adults in society ― teachers, parents or policymakers. We are the very people who have jointly made it impossible for the children nowadays to live as happily as we did in our own childhood. What have we done?
This brings me to one saying ― do not let our children lose at the starting line. This saying is very popular these days. I do not know whether Members are aware that this saying actually originated in Mainland China rather than in Hong Kong. Around the year 2000, this saying started to become popular in Mainland China. In China, most families have only one child. Many parents are therefore very concerned about how their children are going to partake in that very competition called life. Such parents think that the finishing points for their children should be admission to prestigious universities, or a well-paid job after graduation. They hope that their children can get ahead of others as early as possible in this competition. Because of this saying, many related commodities have emerged in society. One example is special food, which is understandably very expensive. There are also various kinds of tutorial classes. And, when it comes to schooling, all people scramble for admission to prestigious schools. As a result, children must learn dancing and music and even attend some special classes beforehand.
We talk about "do not let our children lose at the starting line", but who are the ones to start running first? Parents start to run first. Then, they urge their children to run along. After this saying has been popular for such a long time, more and more Mainland people have started to reflect on its true meaning.
An old friend of mine and the headmaster of a famous secondary school in Shanghai, Mr LIU Jinghai, recently appeared in an interview hosted by the Shanghai Education Television Station. Referring to this saying, he said with deep grief, "I think this is the most vicious and mind-poisoning saying ever." Very sadly, however, this saying started to gain popularity in Hong Kong around 2010. It has since made parents and children in Hong Kong extremely busy. One of my friends has told me that it is not enough for children to learn English only. He says that it is best for them to also learn other less popular languages such as Latin and Spanish in order to increase their chances of entering prestigious schools. This is a very insightful observation, and I suppose his life experiences must have told him that this really works.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1759
What do all these phenomena tell about our life? We are no longer able to care about the feelings and needs of children, and we have sacrificed their life today for the sake of their future prospects. Parents are panting, and children are likewise panting. In fact, all of us are in a very pitiable state.
Children are pitiable, but their abilities are extremely remarkable. Our children have been achieving excellent results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2012, their result in mathematics ranked third among the 65 participating places. And, they ranked second in languages and the sciences. We are the envy of the whole world, but no one knows how we suffer. Our students' academic performance is very good, but as rightly asked by Mr Michael TIEN just now, what is the point of this? Their learning interest is extremely low. Our children do very well in mathematics, but they hate this subject. Their results in languages are very good, but they do not enjoy reading. Many children have the opportunity to learn how to play the piano, but if they are given choices, most of them wish to stop learning. When they grow a bit older, they lose their confidence in their studies and all line up for enrolment in tutorial classes. They are made to work very hard at the starting line, but very soon they will be exhausted. They will have neither the impetus nor the confidence to carry on the race. In the end, society as a whole must bear the ill-consequences, and our economy and political development will both be affected.
I am not so extreme as to think that our children should only pursue happiness and totally brush aside their studies. Education psychologists tell us that children in the formative years have their special needs, and rather than requiring them to do a lot of reading and learn many new words in their prime years of growth, we should help them develop their various physical senses and explore this wonderful world. Every day, with the help of many different games, we should let children experience the practical functioning of life, do exploration, make discoveries, imitate examples, engage in creativity, communicate with others and solve the problems before them, so that they can get to know the world they are living in, and train and equip themselves.
Frankly speaking, children in Hong Kong all suffer from a severe lack of games, especially group games. They also suffer from a severe lack of rest. They have little freedom, they have few chances to handle things independently, and they rarely come into contact with nature.
1760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
The United Nations Children's Fund has recently produced a promotion video which causes the deep grief of people concerned about education. The theme of this video is "Reclaiming Childhood". In this video, there is this question: Can children be given one hour of free play a day? One hour only. I suppose the international standard is much higher than just one hour. According to many education psychologists, the only duty of children is to play. They are supposed to learn through the process of playing games, and this is especially the case during early childhood. However, how is our situation like?
As indicated by some surveys, over 50% of parents will enrol their children in interest classes in order to increase their chances of entering prestigious schools. Eighteen percent of parents will enrol their children in more than five interest classes. More than five interest classes! So, our small children must carry very heavy schoolbags to school. This is really a heavy blow to our children. What should we do? I think parents, teachers, school principals and all policymakers must ask themselves what kind of environment we have created for our children. Should we think up some means to prevent our education system from reinforcing the present phenomenon of depriving children of happiness and healthy growth?
My amendments contain several important points. The first one is small-class teaching in primary schools. The implementation of small-class teaching in primary schools can obviously enable children to receive greater care and concern and have more opportunities of personal development and participation. All these are the key factors that make happiness at all possible. People in Nanjing even think that small-class teaching is greatly related to a happy childhood, and they have thus carried out a large-scale study. Since Hong Kong possesses the necessary resources, we must promote small-class teaching. However, in recent years, we have instead seen some signs of retrogression. In some districts, small classes have gradually been turned back into large classes. Here, I must urge the education authorities to firmly uphold the policy of small-class teaching in primary schools and prevent any retrogression.
Dr Helena WONG discussed the problems concerning Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) just now. Why has TSA, which is designed as a low-stakes assessment, come to be regarded as a high-stakes assessment? Do we need to do some reflection? Should we continue to tolerate the existence of such a morbid change? In the course of formulating children policies and education policies, should we listen to the voices of children? Do children have any opportunities to voice their opinions?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1761
I asked the group of secondary school students mentioned above whether their life had been happy with the presence of TSA.(The buzzer sounded) … All of them said that they were not happy …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, your speaking time is up.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): … We must listen to their voices, so as to formulate better education policies.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, please stop speaking.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, children are the future of society. Which kind of people do we want them to become in the course of development? We find that children, in the course of development, can be classified into happy, depressed, angry and hostile categories. Why are there such classification? Children should actually not be involved in political issues. However, I am surprised to find that this picture has been circulating among many people on the Internet. In the picture, a person, whom I am not sure whether he or she is a proper kindergarten teacher, was telling a group of students about the clash between the people in the occupied area and the police officers. Besides, some of the messages written on the Internet will also be transmitted to the children. An example goes, "Find the police officers for help when something happens, but tell them off when nothing happens."
Let us try to think about it. In childhood, children should first establish a positive view of life. However, before they learn anything, they have already learnt how to be angry and think that nothing is good in this community. I think it is immoral to instil in them this kind of ideas. Let us look at this picture again, which category do most of the youths in Hong Kong nowadays fall into? What do we expect our children, students and the future youths, and even our society to be?
I have to mention a report published by the Education Bureau yesterday. It has raised many points and I do not have enough time to quote them all. However, one point is worth mentioning. It says that the concepts of rule of law 1762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 are quite weak among the examination candidates, and they misunderstand that abiding by the law is the rule of law. This is quoted in the newspaper. This report from the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) has exactly pointed out its problem: First, the report does not have thorough understanding of the question. It says that the students "have mistakenly thought" that abiding by the law is the rule of law. However, will this leave a message to the community that abiding by the law is not the rule of law? The report only tells us half of the picture but not the other half. Isn't this the same as Mr Benny TAI's idea that not abiding by the law is also the rule of law? The report can say that the rule of law is not just abiding by the law. Under the common law, there are matters like procedural justice, respect of contract and respect of court. Nonetheless, not a single word is mentioned in the report in this aspect. It just gives that remark. The HKEAA required the candidates to give comments. But in the report, it has not explained what is meant by the rule of law and the requirements of the HKEAA. It only criticizes the students.
Therefore, I think this report has failed. The many criticisms on the students in the report have exactly demonstrated what is meant by being examination-oriented. It only has a smattering of knowledge and is unclear about the answer of the examination question. A newspaper quotes that if someone raises an "anti-Government" argument, he has to point out that it is due to the poor governing ability of the Government. In fact, he should put forward a lot of arguments before he can come up with this conclusion. I am highly dubious of what the answer to this examination question is. From my personal assessment, this report (at least on the section of rule of law) has failed. Before the HKEAA blamed the students, has it consulted anyone in the legal field, or are the staff only have superficial knowledge themselves?
After reading this report, I have lost my confidence and feel very worried. I now think more strongly that Liberal Studies should not be classified as a core subject in the examination, nor should the score of this subject be counted in the admission score of the university because it is not fair to assess students with this approach. In fact, I am absolutely not against the subject Liberal Studies. However, we should find a way for students' happy learning while their parents can also rest easy. However, there are also certain part in Liberal Studies that I appreciate very much, and that is Independent Enquiry Studies project. I understand that the teachers have to work very hard. They have to teach a lot of areas, including law of succession, and even global warming and globesity. Nevertheless, the part on the rule of law is totally unclear. Only one remark LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1763 from the HKEAA can reflect all the problems, because a lot of arguments have been overlooked before it jumped to that conclusion.
Deputy President, examination is not necessarily a bad thing, because other countries also have open examinations. However, the report from the HKEAA is actually exposing its shortcomings. I am very sympathetic to these students. They should complain to the HKEAA, as they basically do not know how it conducted the assessment. In Liberal Studies, there are many open answers, meaning that both sides need to be mentioned. But I tell you that as I can see, many students are really very painful. This is also mentioned by some Members just now and I fully agree with them. At present, parents are awfully nervous. For teachers, not only are they nervous, they need to be superhuman too. Do you know that in the textbooks, there is also a section on WTO trade barrier? In fact, there are basically no textbooks. There are dozens of discussion items covering economics, politics, the WTO, global warming, environmental protection and China. They have to be taught, included in the examination and scored. Worse still, all these will form part of the university admission score.
Let me cite an example. There is a science student this year who has good results in Chinese, English and Mathematics but not in Liberal Studies. However, he said he had spent a lot of time reviewing Liberal Studies but he still failed to cover all the areas concerned. In fact, not all students are suitable for taking a certain subject. Hence, I think Liberal Studies can be taught, but a more open approach should be adopted. I suggest changing Liberal Studies into an elective subject. Those who like to take the course and include this as an examination subject, especially those who are interested in politics and environmental protection, can take Liberal Studies. However, we should not force those students who are good in science or arts subjects to take this subject because at the end, they may not be able to enter universities due to this subject.
Deputy President, when we come to the rule of law, politics and nurturing of children, I think Hong Kong at present only emphasizes confrontation. But if we have to talk about the rule of law, why do we not mention some rather positive examples? For example, in 2000, both Al GORE and George W BUSH ran the election. Although GORE got more votes than BUSH, the former lost the election. The supporters of GORE almost initiated an unrest, but he dissuaded the supporters from doing so. Even though he did not agree with the court decision, given his love to the country, he hoped that his supporters could respect the court decision. GORE's remarks have been well respected because 1764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 although he was disappointed himself, he still respected that the rule of law should be above all other dissensions as laws are to solve problems and resolve dissensions.
Another example is policy study. This was often mentioned in the past. However, it seems that the name Charles LINDBLOM cannot be found in many textbooks that I have read through. When we studied Public Administration at university, Charles LINDBLOM's Incrementalism would be especially mentioned. It says that not everything can be accomplished at one stroke. If we cannot get what we want, it does not necessarily mean that we should resist and fight because we have more options than the two, namely contending or not contending. In the colonial era of the past, it was always emphasized that "muddling through" is the way to success. However, have we told the youths about that now? From the existing foundation, we walk forward step by step, and we can still get to the finish line. In that way, they will not fall into the angry or hostile categories. They keep on hearing other people say that Hong Kong "cannot be even worse". Nonetheless, is it true that Hong Kong "cannot be even worse", or our laws "cannot be even worse"? Hong Kong is well-known to be a society of rule of law, where a vast majority of laws are reasonable. Do we have to teach the youths that not obeying to laws is fair and reasonable? With such training, what kind of people will these youths and children become in future?
There are many tragedies in Hong Kong. Some of them are family tragedies, like the parents being stabbed and killed by their children. We should not train the youths to be hostile to society, to families, to systems, to the marriage system and to dissidents. Nowadays, cyber-bullying is very common on the Internet. Due to different political views, some people refused to take the class strike, for instance, and were persecuted by peers. Please do not do this. Can we exist side by side despite our different views? Can we put more positive ideas into the minds of the youths? Different opinions will definitely exist in the Hong Kong society because a pluralistic society allows free expression of opinions. Hong Kong is almost restriction-free to the extent that you can almost do whatever you like. Let us take the present Occupy Central movement as an example. A lot of people think that the occupiers can occupy the area for a further period of time and this is no big deal. What is important is that we have to learn to accommodate different views.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1765
Should our society put emphasis on other aspects? However, this cannot be found in our Liberal Studies textbooks. Whenever the rule of law is mentioned, only confrontation and law-breaching will be touched upon and surrendering oneself to the Police is tantamount to accomplishing the rule of law. This is an extremely wrong message. Does it mean that surrendering oneself to the Police after taking drugs is tantamount to accomplishing the rule of law? What I want to highlight is that the Hong Kong society must agree to disagree. We have to learn how to agree to disagree, trying to seek a consensus. There must be consensus and compromise in society. There must be compromise in a family, too. Compromise must also be sought among friends and classmates who have different views. It is not merely attacking, hostility, turning against each other or ruining the entire society. Our established edges including the rule of law and freedom will also vanish among these cruel political contests. As a result, the youths will lose their happiness, the children will lose their happiness and the families will lose their harmony.
I very much hope that the Education Bureau can hear my opinions. The future is not made by destroying the present. We should teach our children to fight for the future upon the present foundation. Therefore, a very serious problem exists in our present education system. I feel very disappointed that the Secretary does not attend our meeting today. In regard to the report announced by the Education Bureau yesterday, I would ask him to check who the author is.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the topic of Mr Michael TIEN's motion is a very interesting one. Are Hong Kong students happy nowadays? This certainly depends on how you look at it. When I put forward my amendment a couple of months ago, my original intention was to focus on the examination system, the system for progression in education and diversified career pathways.
The education system should focus principally on respecting students' independence and uniqueness, and on reducing any excessive competition created by elitism. I agree to most of the views raised by other Members in their amendments, and my own amendment advances two main points. First, abilities and interests vary from person to person. The education system should provide students with many more alternative pathways to develop their strengths. Besides, while making continuous efforts to expand associate degree 1766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 programmes, higher diploma programmes, the Youth Employment and Training Programme and also the Yi Jin Diploma Programme, we should also focus on conventional tertiary education pathways and gradually increase the number of subsidized bachelor degree programme places, so that students can lead a normal and happy life without becoming "examination machines". School-age children spend the bulk of their time at school every day, so the education system inevitably produces a great impact on whether they can have a happy childhood.
Deputy President, I have recently met a secondary school classmate who emigrated from Hong Kong. His two sons have both graduated from a university belonging to the most prestigious Ivy League in the United States. He let me look at his sons' Facebook photographs, and these photographs showed that they apparently lived a life of frequent partying, ball games and different funs. This father smiled and told me that if any Hong Kong people were to see these photographs, they would definitely think his sons were "worthless youths" who knew nothing but having fun. He further told me that his sons had never done any school assignment ever since they were small. I think by Hong Kong and Mainland standards, they must be losers at the starting line. But the fact is that eventually, his sons excelled both in their conduct and studies, gained admission to the best universities and now work in Wall Street. Freedom and openness constitute the best environment for development. "Pressure is the mother of progress" is definitely not true.
The above is what I have planned to say. But at this very time when crowds and crowds of students are found outside, how can we allow our debate on their happy childhood to focus only on the academic structure?
Many students, at least several dozens, are still staying behind in the Admiralty areas outside the Legislative Council Complex. They do their revision or homework in the makeshift study corner or even on the streets. We will see them if we walk past the area. Over the past few weeks, we have maintained frequent contacts with many students and this has prompted me to deeply reflect on how we can return a happy childhood to them. Is it true that students can surely grow up happily if their studies are not so tough, if competition for education opportunities is less severe, and if pressure from parents is not so heavy? I have seen a video clip on the Internet about a 10-year-old boy orating for two minutes with a loudspeaker at Umbrella Square in Admiralty. You may say that he is small and innocent, but he has a genuine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1767 concern for Hong Kong and he has his own dream, unlike some adults who care only about "earning two meals a day", and who assess everything in terms of money.
These days, I have heard quite a lot of people lash out at the students. But have these people ever done any deeper thinking and wondered why the students have still insisted on sleeping in the streets despite the scorching sun, the rains and even the fear of being beaten up or arrested? Students who take to the street must face the tear bombs of the police, the ejection of pepper spray directly on their faces, triad intimidation plus assault and also the verbal abuses of "blue-ribboners". But they have persisted all the same. Have all those critics of the students ever wondered why they should have done so much and what their purpose is? The students can actually ignore everything and continue to live a life of great fun as we think they always do. Alternatively, they can stay in school to attend classes. But they instead want to make sacrifices, and they have done so much for Hong Kong. The reason for this is that they do not want Hong Kong to become a place where money and power reign, where triad forces are rampant, where certain police officers can do whatever they want, and where people "call a stag a horse". The truth is that if society degenerates into such a state, even adults will not be happy. Then, how can young people live happily?
The students are making efforts for the future. But all aspects of our education system ― curriculums, assessment, study pathways and classification of students ― are under the control of the Government. Our education system only aims to develop various types of "talents" who can meet the needs of society, rather than inspiring students' thinking, developing their moral integrity, and nurturing their creativity and imagination. Under such a system, students go to school, take part in interest classes, attend tuition sessions, sit for examinations, and do their assignments day after day, so they simply do not have any spare capacity and time to consider how they are going to live in the future. How can they be happy if they only live to compete?
Since the students are willing to stop attending classes in order to fight for a meaningful form of universal suffrage and a political system which is more democratic than the present one, we should realize that when it comes to the problem of returning a happy childhood to students, the true remedies are not as simple as the provision of school places, the availability of career prospects and the alleviation of learning pressure. Young students aspire to a society with fairer and more impartial systems, so that they can enjoy the freedom and right to 1768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 make genuine choices. Many adults agree to such aspirations. But why do these adults say no when young people take actions?
The Occupy movement over the past one month or so has been led by students. The only thing we adults can do is just to marvel at their organization ability, communication competence, creativity and initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome, students who take part in the Occupy movement have certainly learnt an important lesson in life. The tests and exposure they have had are far more concrete than any examination, curriculum or textbook relating to Liberal Studies.
Deputy President, Mr TIEN's motion definitely merits our careful consideration. "Returning a happy childhood to students". But after a happy childhood, what will happen in adulthood? Can happiness possibly continue? The young people and children who have stood forward to fight for democracy on Hong Kong's behalf today are doing so not only for adults, but also for their own happiness in the future, which consists in the founding of a society with fairness, justice, democracy, openness and freedom.
But regrettably, Mr TIEN still criticized the students taking part in the Occupy movement at the end of his speech just now. He remarked that the students did not understand "one country, two systems", only concentrated on their ideal, and failed to be realistic. But if they are overly realistic, how are they going to pursue their ideals? If everybody is so realistic, how can society make progress? Innovators and reformers down through the ages have been criticized by some people for being unrealistic. The comment that students are too idealistic and unrealistic is most upsetting to them, as it suppresses their freedom of thinking, creativity and ideals.
Deputy President, education nowadays should no longer focus entirely on such top-down concepts as "teaching" and "nurturing", as a lot of young people are able to engage in self-directed learning. Hence, education is putting an increasing emphasis on sharing. Instead of focusing only on teaching children, adults should also share opinions with young people regardless of the views they hold. The original motion points out that students should be provided with room for exploring their interests, so as to enhance their creativity development. This is correct. We should not cling to our subjective adult perspective and seek to control children's thinking and social development based on the traditional, top-down concepts of education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1769
Students' childhood is affected not only by the learning system. Their childhood is also closely related to the social climate and environment. Though under such heavy pressure of education progression, the students have still chosen not to seek academic results blindly, but to stand up for a better society and take up the task shunned by adults. It is unfair to these students if adults do nothing, strive for nothing, and just point an accusing finger at them. Hence, the Government, adults and everyone in society are obligated to return a happy childhood to students. Thank you, Deputy President.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Mr Michael TIEN for proposing this motion today and five Members for proposing their amendments, so that we can exchange views on an education issue we all care about.
In formulating education policies, the Government will take the interests of students as the sole consideration. Successful implementation of the various enhancement measures hinges not only on the making of policy decisions and participation of front-line education workers but also on the changes to the culture and concept of parents and even the community as a whole, and such changes should be complemented with and supported by real actions.
In the past 10-odd years, with concerted efforts and united strength from the Government and fellow workers in the education sector, education reform has been implemented step by step to strive for the unification and coherence of the primary and secondary curricula in Hong Kong, as well as the continuity of junior and senior secondary curricula, so that students may be provided with a broad and balanced curriculum, from which they can choose to take courses they prefer and right for them having regard to their own interests, inclination and aptitudes, and to develop their full potential. The New Academic Structure seeks to nurture students and help them develop multi-perspective and critical thinking skills, the capabilities of autonomous learning and the enthusiasm to inquire so that they can thoroughly understand and master the knowledge acquired. It is believed that we will have a more apparent display of the effectiveness of education reform in the future. In the field of basic education, enhancements have been made to the Primary One Admission System with a view to preventing using children's ability as an admission criterion, thereby reducing the incentive for drilling children in early childhood education and removing obstacles in learning. We have also enhanced the Secondary School Places Allocation System and schools are 1770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 encouraged to avoid spending too much time on tests and examinations or determining the ability of students with their academic results, and the practice of using academic results as the criteria for students' assessment is also discouraged.
Furthermore, we have enhanced the mechanism of Territory-wide System Assessment to strengthen its feedback loop and discourage the using of the percentage of students attaining basic competency for ranking, mutual competition or changing the teaching and assessment methods in primary schools, thereby reducing the incentive for drilling students. As for senior secondary education, students under the New Academic Structure are no longer required to attend two public examinations, namely the Hong Kong Certification of Education Examination and the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination and rather. They only need to attend the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. It can help relieve the pressure of public examinations imposed on students while at the same time provide them with multiple pathways such as sub-degree programmes, higher diploma programmes, Yi Jin Diploma and other vocational training programmes, and so on, so that students may choose the courses or programmes they like according to their own interests and aptitudes, thereby boosting their learning motivation. The four-year undergraduate curriculum has helped promote whole-person development among students through the provision of a more balanced and all-round university education, while at the same time ensure a smooth integration of the academic structure of Hong Kong into the prevailing international norm.
According to the results of various international and local researches on education in recent years, persistent improvements have been made in the learning motivation and academic performance of Hong Kong students as well as the methods adopted and the role played by teachers of Hong Kong in both learning and teaching. Performance of Hong Kong students in the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 gives them an international ranking of the third in mathematics, the second in science and the second in reading. In the McKinsey Report 2010 of "How the World's Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better", the school system of Hong Kong is classified as one of the 20 most improved systems in the world and the rating has been upgraded from "Good" to "Excellent". As far as the promotion of whole-person development is concerned, "Other Learning Experiences" has been incorporated as one of the components of the senior secondary curriculum so that all students will have adequate room for developing their potential and interests. For the past few years, Hong Kong students have achieved outstanding results in various LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1771 international competitions such as Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod of the United Kingdom, World Rope Skipping Championships, Asian School Boys Rugby Sevens Championship, and so on. The performance of Hong Kong students have all along been internationally recognized, both academically and in all-round development.
Successful education lies solely in the full support from the community and the various stakeholders. I would like to express our thanks to a professional team of teachers, who have dutifully made their best endeavour to nurture students and ensure that they can grow up healthily. We will also keep on drawing experience from the education reform implemented in recent years to work out various improvement measures, such as strengthening the support to students for life planning, enhancing the Territory-wide System Assessment, providing enhanced support for needy and non-Chinese speaking students as well as students with special educational needs, and developing multiple pathways in post-secondary and vocational education. It is believed that more fruitful results will be yielded in local education provided that we can strive with a common goal to review and reflect on the effectiveness of our education system in a pragmatic and proactive manner on an ongoing basis.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I will give another response after listening to the views of other Members.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am very grateful to Mr Michael TIEN for proposing this motion. Our debate on this motion has been delayed for a long time, but I still think that this motion is very meaningful.
Deputy President, in the good old days, many parents only hoped that their children could receive education normally, and that more importantly, they could grow up healthily and happily. But now, time has changed. Today, the wishes of many parents are no longer as simple as this. Many parents want their children to be successful, and they are determined to enable their children to "win at the starting line". Just now, many colleagues talked about problems with the education system. I now wish to talk about my observations from the perspective of the circumstances faced by students or children, in a bid to draw the community's attention to the importance of giving children a happy childhood by allowing them to play.
1772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
With a wealthier society, parents' higher education level, and a persistently low fertility rate, children have turned increasingly precious nowadays. They are now spoiled, rather than just being provided with some daily necessities as in the past. Over recent years, many new terms have emerged, such as "monster parents", "helicopter parents", "tiger dad" and "tiger mom". These stigmatizations reflect a social phenomenon, one which arises from parents' over-concern rather than apathy about their children.
Children very often live under the subjective wishes of their parents, and they are already very busy even in their childhood. Apart from usual schooling, they are also enrolled in a variety of interest classes for the purpose of learning various extra-curricular skills, foreign languages and sports, so that they can obtain as many certificates as possible and excel in all aspects. The purpose of all this is nothing but to obtain an admission ticket to prestigious primary schools. Then, they have to cope with heavy schoolwork and frequent examinations while attending tutorial classes. This is how hastily they pass their supposedly happy and worry-free childhood. Recently, a primary school student said in a television interview that he was unhappy because he only scored 97 marks in a test. He added that if he could not obtain full marks, his parents would be disappointed.
Is the aforesaid "way of life" something that children themselves want? Or, is it actually their parents who want their children to be like this? Today, children no longer feel happy about studying, and they attend interest classes not because they have such interests. As for parents, they are obsessed with comparing their children with other's. Competitions among children have by now turned into contests among parents. Not many parents are willing to pay heed to the wishes of their children. Is it really necessary for us to put our children under such immense pressure?
Deputy President, speaking from parents' point of view, I know that they only want to equip their children with various skills, lest they may fall behind others when they grow up. But if we look at this from children's point of view, I would say it is actually a pity to them if they are stripped of their supposedly happy and carefree childhood. Certainly, parents should not regard their children as their own property, still less should they perceive them as their replicas, expect too much of them and impose excessive pressure on them. On the contrary, parents should give their children more freedom and space, and consider their needs more often.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1773
I do not believe anyone will oppose the saying that it is the right of children to play, rest and take part in leisure activities. Playing is not a sin, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child has likewise affirmed children's right in various aspects, such as engaging in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child, and also participating in cultural life and the arts. However, a comprehensive survey conducted by the Playright Children's Play Association in April this year has found that more than 60% of the parents under survey took their children to playgrounds less than once a week within the three months prior to the survey. And, 25% of the parents under survey responded that within the three months prior to the survey, they had not taken their disabled children to playgrounds. The playgrounds we frequented in our childhood are like "luxurious goods" to many children today.
Deputy President, it is very important to take children to playgrounds and engage them in cultural and arts activities. Sadly, under the present competitive environment, participation in cultural, arts and recreational activities is nonetheless regarded as part of the competition of academic performances, thus rendering children unable to truly enjoy the fun in these activities. In fact, enabling children to truly enjoy extra-curricular activities and to spend their childhood happily is very important to the sound development of their mental, intellectual and physical abilities.
In the case of cultural and recreational activities for children, I must point out that our Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) plays a very important role. Many of the 700 or so children's playgrounds managed by the LCSD are places where children like to linger. Speaking specifically of users of children's playgrounds ― children ― has the LCSD listened to or accepted their views and added the facilities they like? As reported, the number of swings, which people from our generation liked very much to play on, has been decreasing. Can playground facilities meet the needs of children with disabilities? I understand that the Government can hardly take on board children's views on every single issue. But I think that when dealing with matters closely related to children, the Government should try to understand children's feelings and thoughts more often.
What is more, the social trend marked by a deteriorating wealth disparity has aggravated the child poverty problem in Hong Kong. Many previous surveys have found that many poor families are unable to arrange beneficial activities for their children during summer vacations mainly because of the 1774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 exorbitant expenses. It is a pity if children are stripped of the opportunities to take part in any recreational and cultural activities due to financial reasons. In my view, the LCSD or voluntary organizations should provide more recreational and cultural activities specifically for children living in poverty.
Deputy President, I believe that the best and most precious gift from parents to their children is to allow the young ones to grow up happily, to refrain from adopting indiscriminately distorted parenting approaches and social values, and to cease excessive boosting.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support Mr Michael TIEN's original motion and other amendments.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese):Deputy President, with regards to Mr Michael TIEN's motion on "Returning a happy childhood to students", the first thing that comes to my mind is how unhappy students are. Where have all the happiness gone? It is a rather difficult question to answer.
Therefore, I wish to ponder on this issue the other way round, that is, to view the matter from the perspective of student suicide statistics. According to the coroners' report issued annually by the Coroner's Court, over the past few years, it was rather fortunately that there was no suicide case under the zero to nine age group. However, of all suicide cases further investigated and confirmed by the Coroner's Court, eight students committed suicide in 2010; 12 in 2011, 22 in 2012 and 19 in 2013. As to a comparison to the situation earlier than that, there was no relevant information in terms of the rate or the figure.
Anyway, I wish to make an appeal here: I believe that when a person is in his most difficult time, at his wits' end, thinking that nobody understands him and there is no way out, perhaps the only solution is to end his own life. However, to youngsters or students in the age group of 10 to 19, are these problems, which may have prompted the suicidal attempts, really that hard to solve? After all, teens don't have to face livelihood issues. They are probably facing problems with academic achievement, peer pressure or love affairs and so on. Why should teens resort to committing suicide? I consider that we should pay special attention to this issue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1775
According to the annual report of the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong, its hotline support service received a total of 18 213 cases last year (that is, 2013), of which 289 were help-seeking cases or inquiries about study. It seems that the number was not that high, mainly because the number of help seekers in the age group of 10 to 19 was not very high. Of the male help seekers aged between 10 and 19 who made the phone inquiries, sexual problem was the most asked question. The second most asked question was about family disputes, and the third was about study. As to inquiries made by female help seekers, family disputes ranked the top and the second was study problem.
One can see that among kids around the age of 10 to 19, study problem was something they concerned most. Of course, as I have mentioned in the beginning of my speech, we will never know how many of the actual suicide figures were study-related. Nevertheless, I truly believe that if a troubled student wants to find a solution, or even if there is no solution, as long as he can find a safe haven and he thinks that his family is the safe haven, the tragedy will not happen. For that reason, I hope that the Education Bureau and the Social Welfare Department will consider taking the suicide figure of students as a reference to formulate a zero suicide target, before reviewing the existing welfare and education systems and sorting out why kids or teens choose this road of no turning back, as well as why they don't consider their families the safe haven.
I am a representative of the labour functional constituency. Why people do not consider families the safe haven? Certainly, the interaction within each family is very different, but the essence of the problem stems from working hours. In 2009, the median weekly total working hours of male employees was 44.3 hours; in 2013, it was increased to 48 hours. We always talk about how good the economy is and how low the unemployment rate is, but we now realize that the labour intensity and working hours of wage-earners have also increased and prolonged. As to the median weekly total working hours of female employees, it has increased from 42.6 hours in 2009 to the present 44.5 hours. In a nutshell, the crux of the matter lies in whether parents have sufficient time to stay with their kids.
I have heard the saying that for the first 40 years in a person's life, kids between one and 10 years of age belong to the parents, kids from 11 to 10 years of age belong to friends, young men from 21 to 30 years of age belong to their loved ones, and men from 30 to 40 years of age belong to the family they built. 1776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
If this is a perfect life of ours, I will question whether the time parents spend on the childhood of the new generation is adequate.
I have a five-year-old daughter. She has a lot of homework to do and she needs a reading partner, but the pair reading is not done by the "sister", that is, the foreign domestic helper, but her parents. As a matter of fact, I am quite ashamed of that as I don't have many opportunities to go home and do the pair reading with her before she goes to bed. Nowadays, as to the study of children, a lot of things involve the parents. Although some Members have mentioned just now it would not be a good thing for such activities to transform from parents' participation to a parents-led or parents-managed mode, parents still want to participate. Nevertheless, as the working hours are so lengthy these days, how can parents participate? For that reason, if we are to return a happy childhood to students, I believe the first thing to do is to let students feel that family is a good and safe haven in which their problems can be solved with others members altogether.
For that reason, regarding the question whether our students or the students who are participating in the current Occupy movement are happy, I hope that we can ponder on it together and see how the society can return to them a safe haven so as to let them feel that the family is crucial to them and that returning home is the best. I believe we should ponder the issue together.
With regards to the recent Occupy Central movement, some academics relate that to a fight between generations, saying that the younger generation is extremely dissatisfied with the previous generation because all the resources have been taken away by the previous generation. However, according to my observation, the future really belongs to the younger generation, and they have more opportunities than we do.
Let me cite some figures: In 1979, there were 830 000 children in the zero to nine age group, which accounted for 16.9% of the total population. In 1999, there were 720 000 children in the zero to nine age group. The figure decreased and accounted for 11% of the total population only. In 2014, there were only 520 000 children in the zero to nine age group, which accounts for 7.3% of the total population. If someone says it is a fight between generations, they need not fight at all. Future opportunities belong to the younger generation. For that reason, I consider that the Education Bureau should think clearly over the matter. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1777
In the face of the fact that the number of children is declining, whether it requires less efforts in the promotion of policies and allocation of resources (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Speaking time is up.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): … I hope that the Bureau will get this job done properly. Deputy President, thank you.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Regarding the reference to "childhood" in the subject of the motion, some people may think that it refers to the life stage before 12 years old since persons who are 13 years or above are described as "teenagers". Generally speaking, however, "childhood" can also be used as a collective term to cover those in their teenage years as well.
As we all know, having children is a luxury in Hong Kong and this explains why the local fertility rate has always been on the low side. It is clear to all that by describing it as a luxury, we are actually referring to the huge sum of money involved in raising children until they graduate from university. It is also obvious to all that public policies in Hong Kong are plagued with problems: housing, welfare, education in particular and constitutional affairs as well, since there is no genuine democracy. Policies in other areas are likewise confusing and inconsistent, when people who are waiting for the allocation of public housing units may suddenly be joined by some other applicants, who may even jump the queue.
Children in Hong Kong are as precious as jewels in the eyes of their parents, be they rich or poor. The kids are always given much love and care. Attention is paid to every minute detail, and most important of all, every endeavour will be made for them to learn English well. To be honest, it is a hard fact that all mothers, be they living in housing estates or at the peak, consider it most important for their children to learn English well because good knowledge of English would guarantee their children's access to everywhere in the world in future, no matter whether they study in the arts or the science stream.
1778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
However, the objective of learning English well has become a nightmare for children. I have been the host of a children's television programme and have once received a call from a daughter, saying that her mother was an English teacher, who minded it very much if her daughter's English and the examination results for the subject were not good enough. Such problem has become a family crisis and she was growing up in the company of the nightmare of learning English.
We should not take the anxiety of this daughter as an individual case. Let me cite another example. A Secondary One student performing in a school concert had the first line of his rap song saying that learning English was a "terrible pain". English has all along been taught in a way that everything is just swallowed with no digestion, thus making learning English a really painful experience. Take English vocabulary as an example, if 10 new words are taught, students will be required to remember them tightly and write it down when a dictation is done next week. What is the point of having a score of 90 or even 100 if English is learned this way? Students show no interest at all in learning English and will forget everything about the subject after school.
Children without good knowledge of English will be faced with a serious problem when they are required to attend interviews for Primary One admission. As we all know, the same also applies to the admission of students into secondary schools, unless they are studying in schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme or "through-train" schools. Interviews held by many faculties in universities are conducted in English as well and students will be disadvantaged if they have no confidence in their English speaking skills, or if they are not used to speaking English.
In fact, something is terribly wrong with the education system of Hong Kong and people may not be aware of that. Neither should any individual person be held responsible since everything has been going on for quite a long time ― 10 years of learning and teaching in mother tongue have brought us a catastrophe of 10 years. During these 10 years, I have witnessed in universities that the changes took place among those in the younger generation. At first, their English speaking skills, though not very fluent, were acceptable and they also had confidence in expressing themselves with English. During group discussions in classes, their oral English was not of a particularly high standard but was considered adequate for the purpose of communication. Nowadays, however, using English in class seems to be a torture for university students and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1779 everyone will be happy if no English is required. Why have we got into such a plight?
The implementation of the policy over the past 10 years to learn and teach in mother tongue has rendered some schools super elite English-speaking schools of the first class, and everything about these schools will become particularly superior as long as English is used. The same also applies to kindergartens, which makes the admission procedures for English-speaking kindergartens particularly "fussy", where tents have been put up in the queue by parents trying to enrol their children into these kindergartens.
It is of course important for children to learn English words. "A for apple" is what we learned when we were small but it has now become "A for astronaut". Yet, "astronaut" is not that "superior" now since some schools are teaching "A for asparagus", a word with a really frightening pronunciation. Children may not have eaten asparagus before and may know absolutely nothing about the plant, but they are now made to learn such a complicated word and their mothers are happy about this. Therefore, we cannot lay all the blame on schools and teachers for using such teaching materials to drill their students.
I always make fun of it by saying: "A for apple; B for boy; C for cat" or "C for cosmopolitanism", is it "superior" enough? English of this sort should be the best, right? Of course not.
Under the current education system, something is terribly wrong in the teaching of English from pre-primary to secondary level. Mothers would very much like their children to learn more about English and the more complicated English words they know the better, and schools are made to meet the expectation of these parents. In response to my queries, the Secretary for Education once said that schools were doing this to meet the expectation of parents, and parents did have such appeals, as if he could be waived by such a reply of his responsibility. After all, the community as a whole has been heading in the wrong direction as far as language education is concerned, and the English teaching methods thus adopted only require students to learn by rote and swallow everything with no digestion.
I have asked Secretary Eddie NG to relax a bit and not to underpin English teaching on the drilling of English grammar. Children should not be frightened by the nightmare of learning English and neither should they grow up under the 1780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 influence of the horror. Secretary NG, however, replied that a big mess has been made in the past several years with the implementation of education reform and the Education Bureau would now refrain from making any big move so as to recuperate and build up its strength. I hope serious reconsideration would be given by the Bureau to its approach in this regard. Thank you, Deputy President.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, about half a month ago a 15 years old high school girl suffering from psychosis committed suicide by jumping off a building. This school girl was having learning disorder and the problems she encountered in her studies caused her to suffer great emotional disturbances. Regrettably, she eventually chose to commit suicide. This is really saddening.
Indeed, many children have to face immense examination pressure and the pressure generated from their parents' expectation on them. As such, children can hardly enjoy a happy childhood.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Just now many Honourable colleagues have also mentioned about the pressure from examinations. For a child coming from a middle-class family, the parents start to feel very anxious right from the day the child is born, as they have to arrange the child to go to playgroup and look for a quality pre-school institution which must be high-class, privately-run and international. A child has to face all kinds of keen competition starting from kindergarten. According to a press report, a two years old child can be a "veteran" interviewee, as he has participated in the interviews of eight kindergartens. However, even though he is admitted by seven kindergartens, his parents still cannot feel at ease, as the kindergarten they aspire most will conduct a second round of interview, and the interviewees include not only the young children but their parents as well. Such kind of absurd situation is not uncommon.
At present, Hong Kong has about 7 000 private tutorial schools. According to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong, while more than 50% of the Secondary Three students attend tutorial classes at private LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1781 tutorial schools, more than 70% of the Secondary Six students need tutorials. The figures tell us that currently about five youngsters have to compete for one university place, which means they really have a tough journey ahead. In view of such, I have no idea how I can make the children happy.
The "3+3+4" academic structure implemented by the Government seeks to reduce the number of open examinations students have to sit for by combining the examinations they have to take in Secondary Five and Secondary Seven. Nevertheless, while the Government has reduced the number of such open examinations, it has introduced other open examinations, and one example is the so called Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA). The TSA was first introduced to Primary Three students but has eventually been extended to students in Primary Six and Secondary Three. Even though the authorities have indicated that the TSA would not be implemented for Primary Six students in these two years, the Education Bureau is still distributing the relevant teaching material and model papers to schools.
Moreover, according to a press report, as some schools are concerned that their territory-wide rankings may drop, they have gone to an extreme and adopted some "pyramid" indicative requirements. Under such requirements, if the territory-wide average passing rate of a certain subject is 70%, these schools will strive to achieve a passing rate of 80% or even higher. In the event that the passing rate or accuracy rate of a certain subject achieved by a certain class taught by a certain teacher falls slightly below the average rate, the school principal will exert pressure on the teacher and the teacher will, in turn, exert pressure on the students.
At present, practice exercises for the TSA are commonly available in book stores. Apart from the TSA, students also need to sit for the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test, and many practice exercises are thus developed. It seems that our children have many opportunities to learn and to develop, but in reality they are weighed down with the various tests and examinations. To the students, whether their schools or they themselves will be affected by the examinations, they still have to live under great pressure. Hence, it is really worthwhile for us to reflect on these old questions: Are our children really enjoying a happy childhood? Are we adults adding pressure on them incessantly?
1782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Further still, let us look at the living conditions of our children. The poverty rate of the children in Hong Kong really makes us feel ashamed. According to the report released by the Commission on Poverty last year, the 2012 figures showed that 24.2% of Hong Kong children (zero to 17 years old) were living in poverty, a figure in which we shall never take pride. The United Nations Children's Fund released in 2012 the children poverty rate of 35 economically advanced regions or countries in the world. If we compare the figures of those 35 regions and countries with Hong Kong's 24.2%, we end up in the last but one place. The children poverty rate of many countries, including Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, and so on, is just a single-digit figure. Certainly, some countries do have a rate greater than 10%, but their figures are not comparable to ours, as the children in close to one quarter of Hong Kong's families are living in poverty.
My speaking time is really insufficient. Mr Michael TIEN mentioned at the beginning of his speech that a lot of creative ideas in the occupied areas outside and many children there should feel happy because they had the chance to give play to their creativity. But then, he also mentioned that the gatherings there were unlawful. According to a report released today by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, some of the candidates have been misled by the adults into believing that rule of law is simply abiding by the law or law enforcement. Actually, they should have a much broader understanding of the notion of rule of law. The said report has spotlighted the fact that the present problem facing Hong Kong is a governance issue rather than a law-enforcement issue. Hence, in addition to showing our concern for the issues facing Hong Kong's children, I hope Members can learn from the children as well. Let us go to the Umbrella Square together and learn from their creative ideas.
I so submit.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, the motion today is "Returning a happy childhood to students". Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides for "the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts." Whenever we think about our childhood days, we can recall that the happiest times were the carefree times LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1783 when we played with the children in our neighbourhood. Those precious moments are all gone now and have become the memory we treasure for life. Everyone should respect happy childhood of the kids.
Over many years in the past, in addition to dealing with pressure from school's homework and examinations, primary and secondary school students in Hong Kong also have to handle lots of extra-curricular activities. All these have been adding increasingly to the burden on their shoulders. In recent years, the results of a number of surveys have revealed that school children have gradually lost their private time and thus cannot have enough rest. What is most surprising is that despite their tender age, they are leading a more busy life than the adults and more unhappy than the adults.
There is nothing wrong about hoping one's child to be successful in future. In order to prevent their children from losing the race at the starting line, some parents in Hong Kong who are eager to see results have enrolled their children in various kinds of classes indiscriminately. To identify the potentials of their children, these parents arrange whole-man education for their young children at an early stage by enrolling them in all kinds of interest classes, language courses, interview training, and so on, with a view to training up their biliterate and trilingual proficiency as well as aesthetic and physical abilities, thereby preparing them well for the competitions they may encounter in their school lives. How can young children handle such kinds of long and tedious training?
Childhood should be carefree. Regrettably, however, because of parents' expectations and demands, many children have lost the innocent and artless times of their lives. This is indeed saddening. Children are just like a white sheet of paper with limitless space for creativity and development. If parents make premature and excessive efforts to intervene, boost and design the development path of their children and drill them over-anxiously for results, they are in effect throttling the potentials of their children and limiting their creativity and field of vision.
Children are our future, and the future of our society depends on how many persons of ability we have. If Hong Kong is to enhance its competitiveness, the most urgent task we need to deal with is nurturing talent. We need to nurture more talents in various fields who are well-learned, can think independently, equipped with specialist skills, creativity, broad vision field and resolution. Our 1784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 society is in dire need of changes, while the modes of education and training need to be changed, the attitudes and ways of thinking of most of the parents in Hong Kong need to be changed all the more.
In my view, nurturing the physical and emotional wellness of children, helping them to become a person of integrity and developing their potentials are the essential factors for children's growth. Parents should have patience, wisdom and lots of love. Parents should also allow their children to think and make their choices independently and allow them time to play, so as to return a happy childhood to students.
Many parents in Hong Kong tend to go with the flow and attach excessive importance to academic achievements. They require their children to attend private tutorial classes after school to the neglect of their children's incentive and interest to learn. This is just like putting the cart before the horse, as excessive tutorial classes will only serve to achieve an exactly opposite result and leave the children confused. In the end, they will very easily get fed up with learning and develop a rebellious attitude.
Allowing children to have a happy childhood does not necessarily mean turning a blind eye or giving the children a free hand. Some Hong Kong parents dote on their children excessively and submit to their children's wishes indiscriminately. Not subject to discipline for a long time, these children will become perverse and unreasonable, doing whatever they want without restraint. They seem to be happy, but in fact they are being detrimentally spoiled. They have missed the chance to learn and possess the right virtues and proper value standards, and they do not have the right attitude to live and work with other people. An even graver problem is that these children cannot cope with adverse situations. They will be at a loss as to what they should do in the event of setbacks.
Some people say that it pays to work hard but hurts to have fun. However, I can hardly agree with this. If we are to give play to our children's potentials, we should let things develop naturally, complementing play time with learning time and guiding the children to have extensive contact with things and events. Playing games and participating in extra-curricular activities are effective ways to nurture children's ability to think independently and to train up their body and mind. Getting to know Mother Nature and the profound mystery LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1785 of the universe can help children cultivate a desire for knowledge, ignite their curiosity and nurture their interest and love for plants and animals, so much so that they will learn to respect life. This will also help nurture their empathy, so that they will care for the weak and young, respect the elderly and be nice to their friends. Play time is an indispensable part of a happy childhood. Another indispensable part is the time parents spent with their children and the love from parents and relatives. Parents should make an effort to build up mutual understanding with their children and enhance their relationship with each other, as this is the way to ensure that their children can grow up happily.
Even though I agree that we should promote the development of information and technology, I do not think young children should be given the chance to have contact with and use electronic products prematurely, or even become addicted to online activities and electronic games, as this may hinder the development of their mind and body, and reduce their interest in social activities and reading. We should not let electronic products take control of our children prematurely and nibble away their innocence of childhood, as that will take away their enjoyment in simple fun and set limits on their way of thinking or creativity.
President, as the world is ever-changing and technologies advance rapidly, no one can foretell how the world is going to develop in the next decade or two. As parents, in better equipping our children for the future, we should nurture their basic survival skills, independent thinking, ability to solve problems, resolution and confidence, so that they can brace themselves for the up and downs in life, move forward with times and face up to any future challenges.
President, I so submit.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, this basket was designed by the parents of some students studying in Topkids Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten in Tin Shui Wai. They intended to present it to Secretary Eddie NG during a petition. The theme is "Carry education on our shoulders". Children may be put inside the baskets as a symbol. And, needless to say, many parents have indeed walked very long distances carrying their children like this, in the hope that the Government can squarely address the various inadequacies of the education system and Secretary Eddie NG can learn a lesson from the bitter experience.
1786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
We welcome the attendance of the Under Secretary at the meeting today. The Secretary himself has travelled afar to Germany. I hope that when savouring beer and frankfurters, he can at the same time realize why the German education system is so well-developed and successful. I also hope that he will bear in mind his main responsibility and show commitment to the education system of Hong Kong. The Secretary enjoys travelling to different countries, but has he brought any benefits to the education system and policies in Hong Kong after coming back from all these visits? I think we can hardly notice any.
The motion topic today is "Returning a happy childhood to students". People all interpret happiness differently, but how is the childhood of Hong Kong students like? President, sometimes, I ridicule myself as a person with no childhood. And, many Members have also mentioned that when they were small, owing to the pressure or difficulties of life, parents would try to boost their children or urge them along, so as to ensure that they could grow up and develop quickly within the soonest possible time. "Don't lose at the starting line" is already considered a much too elemental aspiration. People now think that the sooner one gets ahead of others, the better. The reason is that due to the increasing inequity and widening wealth gap in society, grass-root children will have to overcome more obstacles, high mountains and precarious situations than before. This is aptly reflected by the Gini Coefficient, an objective standard of measurement.
Should our education system seek to foster an environment of relaxed, delightful and happy learning experiences for students, or seek to turn the pressures of adult life into the daily challenges of children at too early a time? In the case of kindergarten education, for example, is the Government going to implement 15 years of free education, a topic which has been discussed for so long? Or, is the Government going to keep looking around evasively until the committee chaired by Moses CHENG publishes its report? There are still endless arguments over this issue.
Actually, in terms of commitment to early childhood education, Hong Kong's ranking is rather low among developed societies. The Hong Kong Society for the Protection of Children has recently released the findings of a comparison relating to the resources devoted to early childhood education by the governments of developed countries. Hong Kong's ranking is the 10th from the bottom, far lower than those of other countries. Suppose 15 years of free education is to be provided, has the Government set any objective of pushing the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1787 low levels of resource allocation and investment for early childhood education up to satisfactory levels? Or, will it still cling to minor reforms and "piecemeal" assistance which are likely to generate more disputes?
The case of Topkids Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten in Tin Shui Wai can show that developer hegemony has already laid its talons on early childhood education for many years. Sadly, the Government has always resorted to the excuse that since Hong Kong is a free market, any affected kindergartens would have no alternative but to look for alternative venues. When I conducted a survey in 2013, I already discovered that for 93% of the kindergartens covered by my survey, the rental contracts did not exceed three years. How has the Government responded to the invasion of developer hegemony? Will it do something with land planning? Or, will it leave the decision to the market, just wishing everybody good luck? The case of Topkids Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten is obviously connected with policy problems as well. But what is so regrettable is that the problem of developer hegemony is compounded by an unfeeling government, and further compounded by an opinionated Secretary for Education called Eddie NG. In the end, 500 children and their families are deprived of a happy childhood. Do they feel ashamed?
Some Members have pointed out that the problem of boosting students for TSA, the basic competency tests for Chinese, English and Mathematics, is found in all primary and secondary schools. This is also a problem requiring proper attention. But at the same time, I must add that our primary and secondary schools are still faced with the problem of developer hegemony. A direct subsidy scheme (DSS) school on Hong Kong Island called St Margaret's Girls' College had to move out from the school buildings that it had occupied for several decades due to the landlord's refusal to renew the rental agreement. The kind of assistance offered by the Government was just the permission for it to use a school campus in Tai Wai on a temporary basis. But a report of the Audit Commission has long since pointed out that some DSS schools must require government assistance in identifying new sites. This school has not identified a new site so far. The Government's assistance is just like a droplet in a bucket of water. Its attitude is still kind of "wish you good luck". In the end, this girls' school, which has been so very popular among South Asian students, is forced to stop student intake this year. I also tried to fight for their case in the Legislative Council, but government officials still refused to listen and insisted on doing nothing. The Government should have treated this as a special case. It should take special measures and act with sincerity, rather than chanting mere slogans. 1788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
The Under Secretary says over and over again that children are very important, and that a "people-oriented" approach is adopted. But all this is not the case in reality.
President, Hong Kong's education system is full of all sorts of problems. One of the Nobel Peace Prize winners this year is a child called Malala YOUSAFZAI. We are very delighted, and we hope that the children in Hong Kong, the masters of our society in the future, will also be able to grow up healthily and happily in a free, open, tolerant, inclusive and democratic society. The Chairman of the New People's Party is jealous of Joshua WONG, whose photograph recently appeared on the cover of TIME magazine. Joshua WONG has therefore given her a string of grapes, reminding us of the story of sour grapes. Mrs Regina IP, we wish you good luck. I hope that all the pro-establishment Members in this Chamber will go outside and have some good discussions with all the students there. I also hope that they will then fight for a system of genuine universal suffrage from the Government, so that all the students can return happily to school to continue their studies at an earlier time.
I so submit.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, having taken a look at today's original motion and its amendments, I realize that in discussing the subject of "Returning a happy childhood to students", Members have mainly focused on the improvement of Hong Kong's education system and the curriculum contents.
However, the relevant proposals involve very complex problems, which cannot be clearly explained in a few words. It may be better if each proposal is treated as the subject matter of one single motion debate. That said, when listening to Members' speeches in my seat, I realize that they have deviated so far from the subject matter that I doubt whether they were talking about a happy childhood or the misery of middle-aged persons, or the misery of elderly persons like the President and me. In their speeches, Members could not help talking about what is happening nowadays.
I would like to try to raise three issues for discussion. First is the much-criticized Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), which has been referred to by many Members. The original intent of implementing the TSA in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1789 primary schools is to enable students to improve their learning through examinations and assessments, and to enable teachers to review and change their pedagogical approaches, but its gradual degeneration has led to rivalry among primary schools, and students are required to drill incessantly to cope with assessments as early as possible. However, I have reservations about the views that the TSA should be abolished. While schools should not boost students' learning for better TSA results, the problem lies in the schools instead of the TSA. We should not totally disregard the functions of the TSA, as it facilitates data collection by the Government for evaluating the overall education standards of students and ensuring the proper use of public money. Of course, if there is a mechanism that is better than the TSA, and such a mechanism can provide the Government with data while preventing schools from abusing the TSA to heighten students' pressure, I will welcome it wholeheartedly. But I have failed to see the introduction of a better mechanism to replace the TSA for the time being. For this reason, I agree to the review of the TSA, but its abolition or otherwise should be decided after the review.
Another issue is small-class teaching. People familiar with me know that I have reservations about small-class teaching, because I think that the relevant funding may not be put to proper use and thus fail to help children with their learning. I do not oppose small-class teaching, but I am opposed to the preservation of teachers' "rice bowl" in the name of small-class teaching. The number of secondary school students is on the decrease in recent years, and some secondary schools are facing the crisis of school closure due to insufficient number of students admitted. For the preservation of teachers' "rice bowl", there are voices urging the Education Bureau to implement small-class teaching in secondary schools.
In fact, we must consider the student-to-teacher ratio of Hong Kong. We should not merely talk about small-class teaching and mislead parents into thinking that the reduction of students in a class means more activities for students. The student-to-teacher ratio has actually kept decreasing. The number of students allocated to each Secondary One class has been reduced from 38 in the 2008-2009 school year to the prevailing 34 students. The student-to-teacher ratio in public sector secondary schools also dropped continuously from 18:1 in the 2005-2006 school year to 15.3:1 in the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, the teacher-to-class ratio for senior secondary levels (that is, Secondary Four to Secondary Six) had also been raised from 1.9 teachers per class to two teachers per class starting from the 2012-2013 school year. The 1790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 student-to-teacher ratios of secondary schools in many Asian countries are higher than that of Hong Kong, such as South Korea (16.16:1 in 2012) and Indonesia (15.97:1 in 2010).
Small-class teaching may sound attractive, and people are prone to believe that the smaller the number of students, the more time teachers will spend on each student. But will this really do any good to the students? Will students be happier as a result? Certainly not. In the case of prestigious schools or good schools, the forceful reduction of student intake may not be a good thing to those students who are denied admission as well as their parents.
I would like to point out that if we merely talk about small-class teaching, without the introduction of appropriate supporting services such as pedagogical approaches, not much help can actually be rendered to the students. Regarding education problems, we should adopt a macro and forward-looking perspective. There have been a lot of discussions in the academic community in recent years on whether new pedagogical approaches should be introduced in response to flourishing information in the modern era. In simple terms, since students can already obtain different information through various channels outside schools, they no longer need to rely on schools to acquire textbook knowledge. For this reason, there is a proposal that advocates a change in the conventional mode from attending class in school and then completing assignments at home to first collecting information on subject matters outside school and then attending class to complete assignments under the guidance of teachers and receive remedial teaching. This can better cater for the differences among individual students.
In fact, joyful learning has been adopted as the objective of the education systems and models of many advanced regions. For example, Taiwan has in recent years started to focus on enabling students to learn happily and offering them room for exploring their own interests, so as to enhance their development in innovation. I agree to the idea that Hong Kong needs to keep abreast of the times by trying to introduce some new models on a pilot basis, but we must not simplify the problems and believe that the mere implementation of small class teaching can help students.
Finally, I would like to talk about the issue concerning "monster parents". I fully understand that this is a phenomenon worthy of our attention, because children who grow up in an excessively demanding or over-protective environment will have difficulty in developing a healthy, happy and self-reliant attitude towards life. However, as public funds are valuable, we should not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1791 make hasty and wasteful efforts. "Monster parents" are generally people with financial means, so it may not be appropriate to spend public funds to cater for their needs. On the contrary, I think the issue concerning dual-income parents warrants more attention from the Government. In Hong Kong, many dual-income parents are worried that their children may go astray due to their insufficient attention. This is exactly a problem that warrants the attention of the general public.
For this reason, instead of introducing long-term parent education targeting at the issue concerning "monster parents", the Government should allocate more resources to support dual-income parents and their children, such as providing schools with additional resources for more staff, and allowing students to stay in school premises after school for attending remedial classes or participating in activities that benefit them physically and psychologically, such as outdoor excursions to get in touch with nature and experience joyful learning.
President, I so submit.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, no parents want to steal their children's happy childhood. Are children unhappy these days because their parents hover over them too much like "helicopters", or because the education system of Hong Kong is really too "sick" as many parents think it is? Is teaching children to be smart or preventing them from losing at the starting line tantamount to depriving them of a happy childhood?
President, I am a parent. Like other parents, I have been struggling and asking myself whether I am too indulgent, whether I need to work harder to catch up and become a "super tiger mom" or, if I become a "tiger mom", whether I can really turn my child into a smart kid who will not lose at the starting line.
I believe there are innumerable parents who share my doubts. In fact, the author of this book has raised a question that many Hong Kong parents and I have asked, and that is: How should we teach our children so as to make them the smartest kids? As soon as this book came out, it topped the best-seller list in the category of "international education" on the Amazon online bookstore. The author of this book is an American journalist who has won a number of awards. She, like Hong Kong parents and me, was puzzled as to why some countries were able to create smarter kids through teaching. She personally visited Finland, 1792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
South Korea and Poland with three young American students respectively to gain a first-hand understanding of the actual situations in these three education superpowers. President, as you are also well aware, the students in these three education superpowers have achieved very good results, or are progressing with amazing speed, in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
President, I will talk about Finland first. Finland has adopted a rigorous approach to education, and the school teachers there are all the best of the best. Their remuneration packages and social status, as well as the level of respect they enjoy, are comparable to those of doctors or other professionals in Hong Kong. That is why Finland's teaching sector has attracted the best talent. The Finnish Government sets great store by the training of teachers. The teachers and school principals there are regarded as professionals, and they have the absolute respect and trust of parents and the Government. Finnish students study very conscientiously, and their parents are also very concerned about their academic results.
South Korea's success is the result of goal orientation. The students there are under huge pressure, and their goal is to get into a top-notch university, which is a guarantee of a bright future. Anyone who has looked into the situation in South Korea should know that the students there spend a lot of time undergoing hellish drills after school, and the daily private tuition received by them might stretch until midnight. Such crazy tuition has prompted the Government to introduce legislation banning tutorial centres from operating after 11 pm. I wonder if Members know that the income of a top-class private tutor in South Korea can be as high as that of an NBA basketball star in the United States.
Another country whose students are progressing with amazing speed in PISA tests is an Eastern European nation, Poland, which has been undergoing a radical education reform since 1999. Compared with the United States, Poland is much more backward in terms of school facilities, and its student unit cost is also much lower. Yet, as I mentioned just now, Poland is progressing with amazing speed in PISA tests. The academic progress made by Polish students is even faster than that made by their American counterparts.
The key to Poland's success in education is its determination to bring about education reform. Polish society did not spend much time arguing about or debating this issue. Instead, all the school principals, teachers and parents there believe in the need to pursue education reform, to break the previous education LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1793 stalemate, and to lead students forward. It is their determination and concerted efforts that enable Polish students to make progress in the PISA by leaps and bounds. The example of Poland actually makes it clear to Hong Kong society that as long as we unite and we have enough determination to carry out reforms, even if we do not put in much money, our students can still make rapid strides.
President, after travelling to different places around the world, the author has come to realize some simple truths ― but it may take some time for many parents to come to terms with them. In this world, there is no single formula for making children smart through teaching, nor is there a perfect education system. Every country's education system has its own merits and demerits. Even in the same education system, students have different performances; even in the same school, say, a famous one, there are outstanding students as well as students seriously lagging behind in academic performance. So, to put it simply, there is no single formula for making children smart through teaching in this world.
That said, we must admit that schools are at the core of education, and teachers are at the core of schools. There needs to be a high calibre team of educators, from school principals to teachers, who have the spirit of respecting and enjoying their work, to make efforts to teach students properly. As for the Government, it should strive to look into ways to attract and build a high calibre education team.
Having read this book, I think the Education Bureau must learn from Finland in this regard, because when it comes to attracting and building a high calibre education team, Hong Kong certainly still needs to work hard. Parents are concerned about the teaching of their children, but then again, being concerned does not mean having to arrange hellish drills for their children. President, while the education system of South Korea is fairly successful, if we want to return a happy childhood to our students and refrain from copying such "self-torturing" education of South Korea, we have to think of ways to enhance the intelligence of our children.
The author concludes that in order to cultivate children's independent and creative thinking, what parents need to do most is to communicate more with their children, share life experiences or views on current social issues with them, and always maintain a harmonious family relationship, rather than only focusing on the success or failure of their children's exams or interviews, which is just counterproductive. Being impatient for success will only make children lose the 1794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 motivation to learn. Therefore, the influence of family is of utmost importance. On the education front, it is necessary to maintain a high calibre education team.
President, the findings of the author are, in fact, very similar to the findings of a study on PISA tests conducted in Hong Kong earlier by an academic at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. According to this academic, the attitude of parents towards their children has a significant bearing on the latter's academic performance, but what parents should do is to communicate more with their children, and talk to them about important social and international affairs, rather than blindly pursuing good academic results.
President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supports Mr Michael TIEN's original motion, but has reservation about abolishing the TSA.
President, I so submit.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, although Ms Starry LEE just said that parents should not only focus on their children's academic results, after listening to her speech, I find that she is telling us how to nurture smart children. Does it mean that smart children will be happy while those who are not smart enough will not be happy? The focal point of this discussion is on education. Of course, education is rather important in childhood but it is not everything and good academic results will not necessarily make children happy.
Only the representatives from the Education Bureau have attended this meeting today. I believe this is not enough and this reflects that the Government's views on this issue are one-sided and biased. Members believe that being smart is tantamount to being happy and children with good academic results are happy. If we adopt such an attitude, we will never be able to resolve the problem. I normally will not point out the wrong pronunciation of Members and I have rarely done so in recent years. However, when Ms Starry LEE used the Chinese expression "敬業樂業" (respect and enjoy work) earlier, she wrongly pronounced the Chinese character "樂" (enjoy) as "lok6". As we are discussing a subject about children today, I do not want children to learn something wrong; this Chinese character should be pronounced as "ngaau6" when it is used as a verb.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1795
President, the subject of this motion is "Returning a happy childhood to students", and the focus is on the word "returning". Mr Michael TIEN also agrees that students in Hong Kong are generally not very happy; and we should thus return a happy childhood to them. We can repay debts but it is fairly difficult to return a happy childhood to students. People who owe students a happy childhood include parents, the community and the Government.
In recent years, whenever I asked children in Hong Kong if they were happy, even though they did not say they were unhappy, they would not say what made them happy. When children see that the adults as well as the whole community are unhappy, and when they fail to see any prospects for our society, being smart, they understand what is happening around us. Their world is different from the one we had when we were small. At that time, we were rather stupid, and we would not watch the news. Nowadays, students, children and adults are unhappy because they see no hope.
The Earth Institute of the Columbia University in the United States is commissioned by the United Nations each year to name the happiest place in the world. The happiest places in the world are Denmark, Norway and Switzerland, and Hong Kong ranked 67th. What has gone wrong? If we are really concerned about the future of Hong Kong and the future of children in Hong Kong, just visit the square where the Umbrella Movement is held, that is, the so-called occupied area, and read the slogans written by students and take a look at their creations, so as to figure out what they are thinking. At present, the norms of etiquette are crumbling; people are confusing right and wrong, and distorting the facts; the Government is colluding with the business sector; property prices are frantically high; social injustice is prevalent and public opinions are unheeded; all these are evident even in the eyes of children. As they cannot see the future and they see no hope, how can they be happy?
Have Honourable colleagues carefully read the articles written by children, expressing why they are unhappy? They are unhappy not because they are not admitted to prestigious schools or they cannot afford to attend tutorial classes, to learn to play musical instruments or to attend painting or dancing classes. I have read an online article written by a student. He said that in 1997, a university graduate earned around $10,000 a month, and a box of rice with barbecue pork and chicken was sold at $20. After a period of three to four years, he could buy a HOS flat, and if he worked harder for a few more years, he might start his own business, raise children and take them out shopping during holidays. His children would attend good schools and his generation and the next generation 1796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 would have hope. However, today, a university graduate earns $12,000 a month, and a box of rice with barbecue pork and chicken is sold at $40 to $50. Even after a long wait for 30 years, he may not be able to buy a HOS flat. He has to live in a "sub-divided unit" or he may have to pay a lifetime mortgage for a 300-square-foot unit. If he does not cling on to people in power, he cannot start his own business. He dares not have children because he does not know where he can lead them. Even if his children study hard, it would be useless because all prestigious schools are DSS schools and school fees are high. Thus, people give up all hope from generation to generation.
Why have hundreds of thousands of people taken to the streets? Many of them are young people and secondary students, and I have even seen primary students. Are they only striving for genuine universal suffrage? The reason is that they see no hope. That is a true fact. They have participated in the Occupy movement but they are not demonstrating strength but weakness. They are emotionally vulnerable; they stand forward to lament, roar and struggle, simply because there is no way out. They want to fight against those greedy dignitaries.
I once saw a news clip about a female student reviewing her lessons in the study room at the Umbrella Square. She used to go to the library after school, but now she goes to the occupied area for study and she gets better results. According to that girl, the learning atmosphere at the square is good as people greet each other and some volunteers would help them if they have problems with their homework. Some foreigners would also go there to talk to them in English. It does not matter if we support the Umbrella Movement, if we care about young people, children and education in Hong Kong … officials from the Education Bureau should visit the occupied area. I personally know that there are some children who did not care much about politics in the past, but after visiting the occupied area once or twice, they can now explain to adults on the scene what problems have arisen in connection with the entire political system, why functional constituencies should be abolished, as well as why we could not "pocket" the Government's proposal first. These Secondary One or Secondary Two students can answer all these questions. In fact, teaching can be very flexible; if they are determined to learn and consider it necessary ― the most important thing is that they should be interested in learning. These are the important points of education. As long as they believe there is a need, they will not only learn it themselves, but also teach people around them.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1797
The occupied area in the Umbrella Movement is a very good testing ground. We see a lot of pictures drawn by children ― Mr TIEN has displayed some on his table. The pictures drawn by children and students can better reflect their state of mind and why they have been so unhappy for many years or in the past few years. If we want to return happiness to them, can we just do so by improving education?
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, learning can be very interesting. The acquisition of new knowledge is like climbing on higher steps or standing on top of the mountain, enabling us to look further and wider. So, learning is joyful.
Why are Hong Kong students unhappy? They seem like going to the battlefield when they go to school every day, and they always look sad and distressed. Not only are students sad and distressed, their parents suffer too. Starting from nursery, children feel like going to the battlefield every day. The original motion has set out a number of reasons, including "helicopter parents", uninteresting interest classes, examinations, dictation and spelling exercises, the Internal Assessments for Secondary School Places Allocation, System Assessment, the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination, university admission, and so on. However, after listing the reasons for causing students' unhappiness, the original motion still traps students in the cage as it merely calls for reduced pressure and less boosting. Why can't we jump out of the box so that learning can become painless and joyful?
Every child has the right to receive education and the right to play. Through learning, they would understand the world, master the things around them and explore the world, so that they would eventually live independently, contribute to the community and thereby promoting the advancement of society. This is the real goal of education. In other words, we have to acquire knowledge, learn to distinguish between right and wrong, and then learn to have a commitment to the community. Nevertheless, it appears that Chinese people have been cursed as the saying goes "Suffering starts from literacy". As it turns out, after we have learnt to read and write and become sensible, we become aware that there are different forms of repressions and inequalities in society, and we will start to be concerned about the country and the people. Unless the children nurtured by us have no feelings or are unaware of or indifferent to the injustice around them; and unless they are determined to be happy vegetables, they will definitely be worried.
1798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
This generation cannot be happy and many young people outside have noted this fact. Even if they themselves are not happy, they hope that the next generation would be happy. Students who stay outside are not only restricted to university students; there are also Secondary Two or Secondary Three students, and they have also noted this fact. President, I have deliberately put on this T-shirt with words "born in troubled time, a kind of responsibility". This T-shirt is printed by the young people outside. They are aware of their responsibilities and the limitations imposed on them by society. In the Harcourt Village, they learn to undertake responsibilities and build a society through self-study and practical life experience. In the Harcourt Village which is built from scratch, we have witnessed the development of social order and the formation of groups with tacit understanding. This village was established by students and members of the public in the past few months. This is the best learning process of political philosophy. Although people encountered inequality and suppression in the community outside ― they were pepper sprayed and tear gassed on their first day in the Harcourt Village ― they have learnt to protect themselves by peaceful means, and they have started to live in the Harcourt Village, engaging in self-study, study groups, talks, and artistic creation. This is an amazing place.
On the one hand, these students are unhappy because they learn about social injustice and repression, but on the other hand, they have found happiness in the Harcourt Village. They have identified their roles and responsibilities, as well as the meaning of life. After 28 September, life will never be the same and Hong Kong will be different.
Nonetheless, Members proposing this motion and the amendments today are still trapping these students in a cage. The students want to fly or are learning to fly but other people think that they are sick. Someone has recently said, "Birds that never know how to fly think that flying is a kind of sickness". Most parents of this generation have suffered from this kind of sickness. Children are not sick but parents and this generation of elderly people are sick. We even questioned whether the independent thinking of students have been exploited and incited, and we have to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into them. Is this self-contradictory?
In the recent Asia Youth Happiness Index Survey, Hong Kong ranked third from the bottom among the 10 cities, which reflected the actual situation of this city. Yet, young people have awakened and they perform various duties in the occupied areas, including cleaning toilets, separating waste and doing carpentry LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1799 work. They have identified their roles and responsibilities in a community. They have transcended the values of the Central District, departed from the so-called normal life as referred to by the pro-establishment camp and created a brighter future and a free life.
President, freedom is the basis of happiness, but children do not have room for freedom in this so-called normal life filled with power struggles and corruption. Thus, not only do we need to change the education system, we also have to change the general social environment, so that students can freely create their future and have control of their lives. In addition, parents should give children space and they should not become accomplices, suppressing their children who want to fly and have learnt to fly.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, there are at least two defects that can be identified from the subject under discussion today. First of all, this motion is ill-timed.
President, many people told me that Hong Kong people are most unhappy during this period. When I arrived at my office at 7 am the day before yesterday, the female cleansing worker said to me with tears in her eyes, "I have come to Hong Kong for more than two decades, why do Hong Kong people cause such hardship to themselves now?" I almost burst into tears upon hearing her words. Many of my friends also told me that after living in Hong Kong for several decades, they live most unhappily this year.
President, it is really ironic to discuss the subject of "Returning a happy childhood to students" at a time when everyone is feeling so unhappy! However, it is certainly not the fault of Mr Michael TIEN for he does not propose this motion at this point in time. The times have changed, and so have the conditions. We can do nothing about that.
President, the second defect may be even more serious. What is meant by "Returning a happy childhood to students"? Is it a panacea for all ills if one has a happy childhood?
1800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
President, I believe we both grew up in the same generation. I am not sure if you had a happy childhood, yet I must admit that my childhood was not a happy one, albeit it was not an unhappy one. There are material differences between the two; in any case, my childhood was not an unhappy one.
President, perhaps many of you may know that I was raised in a poor family of eight crammed in a cubicle of not more than 100 sq ft. We had neither television nor radio at home and the newspapers we read were all old newspapers used to wrap food and the like, and certainly, we did not have any chance to read same-day newspapers. I was not the most favourite kid of my parents and my father was plunged into a prolonged period of unemployment since the early days. In my childhood, not even a single day passed without any bickering, and some of my family members were even occasionally subjected to domestic violence.
President, oddly enough, I did not grow up to be a person who detests the world or who is extremely radical. Many friends of mine wonder why I, with such a background, am comparatively ― President, please note the word "comparatively" ― willing to accept and accommodate different opinions? In my view, this has nothing to do with a happy childhood. If it does, it may mean that the happier a person is, the more self-opinionated he will become, refusing to accept all other opinions.
President, what makes a child happy? As all of us were once a child, we all have our own personal insights about this question. President, I reckon that parental love is of paramount importance to building a warm family. Ask a child what makes him happy, his answer will definitely be not going to school. President, I do not know if you also played truant when you were young, but I did so almost every week in my childhood.
The second thing that makes a child happy is that he can have whatever he wants. I recall that when I was still a small kid, I once visited the flower market with my family on the Lunar New Year Eve. Certainly, we did not buy anything for we were poor. When it was about time to leave the flower market, a toy ambulance caught my eyes and I urged my father to buy it. Instead of getting the toy, I was given a sudden slap on the face by my father, and I dared not make the same request again thereafter. For this reason, I did not have any toys bought from shops; my so-called "toys" were all self-made. Will it be the same for kids nowadays?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1801
President, owing to serious wealth disparity, the current situation of many grass-roots children may be similar to mine in my childhood days. Nowadays, I very often receive students visiting the Legislative Council Complex, and I observe that they all have a camera and at least one mobile phone. They really have what they want. Will these students be in a better position to accord with the spirit of democracy when they grow up? Will they be more accommodating towards people with different views, will they not discriminate against the minority or persons with dissenting views?
President, I dare not say. The young people I see today have commitments and ideals, but they sometimes lack tolerance and forbearance. Is our society only in need of young people with ideals? And if their ideals are not shared by other people, what should we do? Since our society is severely polarized at present, will people only stick to their own point of views without making any compromise? Is this a happy society? I think the answer is in the negative.
Today, Members have proposed various amendments. A Member has proposed to enhance education. If we ask a three-year-old kid, he will certainly disagree. Is education unnecessary? Certainly not. I believe what matters most is the parents' attitude towards their children; parents should give their children opportunities for wider exposure and allow them to receive different messages.
In times of poverty, we know how to find a way out; in times of indignation, we should remain rational and be more considerate. We can hardly learn our lessons on life philosophy from schools, lectures or through social resources.
President, I raise the above views based on my personal experience and exposure, and hence they may not be acceptable to all. However, I think it is incumbent for us to bear one point in mind: We should not blindly pursue happiness, nor should we blindly determine what makes our next generation happy from our own perspective. In my view, happiness may not be a suitable yardstick to educate our next generation. President, on the contrary, it is my wish to see Hong Kong being a society where diversity, tolerance, forbearance and mutual respect remain the common features (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.
1802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Michael TIEN for proposing this long-awaited Members' motion of "Returning a happy childhood to students". I think this subject is very relevant. As many Members have already given their valuable opinions on nursery education, school education, children's growth, family education and social development, I will not supplement on these points. Instead, I would only say a few words from the bottom of my heart to express my feelings on the unhappiness faced by children in Hong Kong.
President, the occupation of roads over the past 40 days is unprecedented since the inception of Hong Kong. We have never seen any incident which has lasted so long and created such a profound impact. Since the reunification in 1997, there has never been such a serious socio-political incident in Hong Kong. Do Members know that our children had been very unhappy over the past month? Their mothers also shared the same feeling. This feeling of unhappiness is also unprecedented. Once the television is switched on, even a kindergarten kid of four or five would say to his parents, "It's Occupy Central again!" Even a kid would utter such words. How can children in Hong Kong be happy upon watching scenes of Occupy Central on television?
Many mothers told me that they had been very unhappy in the past month and they lost their appetites. At first, they worried about class suspension, and when classes resumed, they worried about traffic congestion. In fact, the traffic had been very congested. When children were stuck in traffic and they wanted to go to the toilet, what should be done? This feeling of unhappiness has never been so widespread in our society and it affects every family with children.
President, the Occupy movement has not only adversely affected various trades and industries, as well as different aspects of society, it has also caused significant disruption and nuisance to our daily lives as well as the social and inter-personal relationships of families and individuals. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions held a meeting last Monday night at Chater Garden for representatives of different trades and industries affected by the Occupy action to air their grievances. A television station videotaped the representative of tram drivers when he spoke. He told us that he lost a monthly compensation allowance of $2,500 because of the Occupy action. He initially intended to use the money to pay the school lunch fees for his two children. At the meeting, he asked who would pay him the money, and exclaimed, "My children have nothing to eat now!". I shared his distress and helplessness.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1803
Hence, Mr TIEN's motion of "Returning a happy childhood to students" brought the painful memory to mind. The current movement has even affected our grass-roots children, they had to go without lunch. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the occupiers to stop their actions and give the roads back to us. In nine days, 1.83 million signatures in opposition of the Occupy movement have been collected, which means that about 200 000 signatures have been collected on average each day. Will occupiers please stop and return a happy childhood to our children.
Since the pan-democratic camp is an important party to the five-party conference of the Occupy movement, which is composed of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism, the Occupy Central Trio and so on, the pan-democratic Members should summon up the courage to stop the movement and ask the occupiers to retreat, but they do not even have the courage to do so. As such, how can they make our children happy? I urge the pan-democratic Members to summon up the courage to ask the occupiers to retreat.(The buzzer sounded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up. Does any other Member wish to speak? All Members in the Chamber have already spoken.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, you may now speak on the amendments. You have up to five minutes.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, although this motion was proposed a few months ago, I do not think it should be affected by the present Occupy Central movement as this is a longstanding issue. I notice that not many Members have spoken today, and honestly, I am pretty disappointed. Why can't we be more farsighted? We should not be bound by the current situation and merely be concerned about politics. The happy childhood of students does have an implication on our next generation and the future development of Hong Kong in various aspects.
Firstly, I want to express my support to the amendments proposed by five Members. I would like to quote the first sentence of Mr TANG Ka-piu's 1804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 opening speech, and that is, "What does unhappy mean". Having examined a number of requests for suicide prevention assistance, he found that most of the problems are related to education and family. With regard to education problems, we have heard a lot, such as the frequency of examinations, their contents and methods. Dr Helena WONG mentioned that in the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for Primary Three, students are requested to finish a 19-page paper within 25 minutes. Secretary, are we testing their basic competencies or are we testing how "quick-witted" they are; how fast they can finish their work or how good their memory is? I am really perplexed. Hong Kong is like a big pressure cooker where speed is all that matters and every single second counts. The same applies to examinations. If our examinations remain unchanged, how can we examine the students' depth of knowledge? How can we encourage students to understand the concepts instead of rote learning? How can we promote their interest of study? As a result of such examinations, students will only acquire a superficial knowledge and parrot others' ideas. They blindly follow the mass; they only read newspaper headings but not the contents. Is that enough? The problem lies in our focus on speed.
With regard to family, all parents compete to send their children to reputed schools, and arrange them to attend various courses, activities or interest classes; the more, the better. Why would this happen? This apparently has something to do with the admission of various universities. University admission not only requires students to take part in diversified activities, but also get a score of 3-3-2-2 in the core subjects of Chinese, English, Mathematics and Liberal Studies. In other words, students are expected to have all-rounded skills, but there is no need for them to be good at every skill. In short, students must learn a little bit of every skill. The problem is, if a student has difficulty in understanding a certain subject (say Liberal Studies), or he hates politics or fails to sort out personal conflicts, he will not be able to obtain good result in Liberal Studies no matter how hard he studies, thereby rendering him unable to meet the university admission requirement. Some people, on the other hand, resist English language and fail to get good result in this subject, which will again deny them of university admission. Is this fair? I therefore want to highlight one point. I have quoted a few sentences from this English book earlier, and now I am going to make some more quotes. According to the book, any learning programme "is to help us become who we are not. All of them are devoted to addressing our shortcomings rather than our strength." The author then pointed out that in the United States, 77% of the parents think that students should spend more time on subjects which they get low scores.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1805
Are these our major problems today? In order for Hong Kong to have good future development, people must be accommodating and harmonious. If everyone can give play to their strengths and get a job that they are interested in, I believe social problems will certainly be reduced. And yet, under the education system and given the minimum requirements of university admission, students will doom to fail if they cannot meet those requirements. This is why most students have devoted much of their time on their weakest subjects. But what kind of human resource policy is this? I eagerly hope that the Secretary will think about it, for such policy is pretty outdated. What is the current world trend? It seeks to give full play to the interests of all individuals. By arousing a person's interests and bringing joy to him, it is hoped that he will then conduct in-depth studies on his own. What kind of people will we nurture as a result? They will be people with critical thinking, who have their own stance based on their feelings upon reading the relevant information, instead of casting their votes following other people's preferences.(The buzzer sounded)
President, I so submit.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr Michael TIEN for his original motion, and Dr Helena WONG, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Miss Alice MAK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr Charles Peter MOK for their amendments and the 12 Members who have spoken for their precious views. As I pointed out in my opening speech, in the last 10-odd years, we have gradually put in place various enhancement measures in a prescribed order to implement the education reform. We hope that students can have joyful learning and balanced development, and grow up healthily. In this respect, the Government has the same vision as the general public.
The Education Commission submitted the Reform Proposals for the Education System in Hong Kong in 2000, setting out a blueprint for education development in Hong Kong. The report was compiled after extensive consultation with teachers, students, parents, education groups, school sponsoring bodies, social services groups as well as the business community. It reflected the consensus in society, which was to enable our new generation to enjoy learning, to communicate effectively, and to develop their creativity and sense of commitment.
1806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Some Members suggest formulating the genuine ideals for education, and assessing afresh whether the existing education system, examination system, curriculum contents and the mechanism for progression in education can truly achieve the objectives of education. Here I would like to point out that while formulating the education policy and promoting education development, the Education Bureau continues to assess the effectiveness and performance of the various aspects of our education system. For example, after the completion of the first cycle of the new senior secondary curriculum and assessment, the Education Bureau, the Curriculum Development Council and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority joined hands in reviewing the new academic system (NAS) in the 2012-2013 school year, and announced the short-term fine-tuning measures on the senior secondary curriculum and assessment in April 2013. They also put forward the first batch of recommendations on the medium-term review of the NAS in April this year and conducted a comprehensive consultation on the medium-term review through various channels. These short-term measures and medium-term recommendations have addressed the practical concerns of schools and teachers regarding the lesson time and curriculum contents, thereby fine-tuning the senior secondary curriculum and assessment and at the same time, manifesting the ultimate objectives of the senior secondary curriculum under the NAS, that is, to promote students' learning to learn and whole-person development.
Some Members expressed their concern about the pressure faced by students when they spoke earlier. We agree that in traditional Chinese society, parents in general have higher expectations of their children's academic performance. Some parents are over anxious to enrol their children in prestigious schools; they arrange their children to take part in excessive extracurricular activities, do extra homework and attend various tutorial lessons, which may not be appropriate. As pointed out by Members, excessive boosting and drilling may dampen children's learning interests. For this reason, we have, as far as possible, formulated measures in respect of the curriculum contents, the examination system and the mechanism for progression in education that will reduce students' pressure and ensure the education quality.
Miss Alice MAK has, in her amendment, proposed to streamline the curriculum contents, so that students can use the spare lesson time to cultivate their personal interests. Actually, the new senior secondary academic structure already provides a broad, balanced and diversified curriculum to allow students to choose appropriate subjects that suit their interests, abilities and needs without the constraints of the traditional practice of streaming into arts, science and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1807 commercial classes. As regards "Other Learning Experiences", schools will set the lesson time to facilitate students' learning in the five areas of "Moral and Civic Education, Aesthetic Development, Physical Development, Community Service and Career-related Experiences" with emphasis on quality rather than quantity to promote the whole-person development of students. The school must maximize students' benefits in learning, make flexible adaptations to the school-based curricula and create room for the students and school. In respect of primary and kindergarten education, the updated Basic Education Curriculum Guide ― To Sustain, Deepen and Focus on Learning to Learn (Primary One to Six) published recently also reminds schools and stakeholders to care about children's balanced development, so as to ensure that they have sufficient time for rest and play, and can develop their personal interests and a good relation with their family and friends, and provide them with a relaxed learning environment in which they can learn, nurture an interest in learning and develop a healthy lifestyle.
It is a well-known fact that examination always exerts pressure on students, many Members have thus requested for a review of the examination and assessment system, especially the impact of the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA). As I said in my opening speech, we have launched improvement measures, including the continuation of the alternate-year arrangement for the TSA at the Primary Six (P6) level and the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test (Attainment Test), with a view to alleviating the pressure of P6 students having to sit for a number of examinations in the second half of the school year, while preserving the core functions of the Attainment Test and the TSA. We have also stopped disclosing the basic competency attainment rates of individual primary schools and removed the TSA from the key performance measures of primary schools, in order to avoid primary schools using the basic competency attainment rates for ranking or competing with other schools, thereby eliminating the incentive and pressure of schools to frequently drill their students. I also believe that our professional education team would aim at teaching students effectively rather than drilling students to attain good TSA results. We will continue to enhance the professional training and support for schools, reduce excessive drilling and assist schools in taking advantage of the statistics of students' competency attainment, so that the TSA can provide teachers and schools with better feedback to enhance the effectiveness of learning and teaching.
There are Members who are concerned about the learning abilities of students with special education needs (SEN) and non-Chinese speaking (NCS) 1808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 students. Apart from implementing the general "enrichment and remedial" measures to cater for students with different learning performance, the Education Bureau also provides targeted support, so that such students can be more involved in school life and achieve joyful learning.
In respect of catering for students with SEN, we have always provided public sector ordinary primary and secondary schools with additional resources, professional support and teacher training. We have increased the rate of the Learning Support Grant by 30% starting from the 2014-2015 school year. Schools may deploy the resources flexibly for employing additional teaching staff and teaching assistants to enhance the effectiveness of learning and teaching, or hiring professional services to cater for individual needs to boost the learning abilities of students with SEN.
As regards NCS students, starting from this school year, we will provide schools with the Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework to address NCS students' difficulties in learning Chinese, so as to enable them to bridge over to mainstream Chinese Language classes. We will also provide an Applied Learning (Chinese Language) subject at senior secondary levels which is pegged at Qualifications Framework Levels 1 to 3 and continue to finance NCS students to sit for internationally recognized non-local Chinese Language examinations to connect them to multiple pathways.
Mr Charles Peter MOK proposes to increase the number of tertiary education places. As a matter of fact, in the 2013-2014 school year, the undergraduate programme cohort participation rate has reached 38%, and together with students enrolling in sub-degree programmes, close to 70% of young people have the chance to receive tertiary education. We will increase the senior-year intake places in publicly-funded undergraduate programmes to a total of 1 000. By the 2018-2019 school year, 5 000 meritorious associate degree graduates will be able to articulate to subsidized degree programmes each year.
To provide further support for schools to prepare students for future education and employment, the Education Bureau is vigorously promoting career and life planning. It also steps up the co-operation with various stakeholders and organizations concerned to promote various pathways, including vocational education, further education and employment. Starting from this school year, schools offering senior secondary curriculum will be provided with a recurrent career and life planning grant. With this grant, teachers can engage in career LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1809 and life planning education in a co-ordinated and systematic manner. They can provide students with career-related extra-curricular activities as well as learning experience and activities relating to further education and employment. The Education Bureau will also enhance its support to schools, including providing professional programmes for teachers, holding thematic talks on further education and career and those especially catered to parents; providing platforms for professional exchange; launching a career planning programme and expanding the Business-School Partnership Programme in order to allow students to learn from practical experience and widen their horizon.
To enhance students' psychological qualities through life experience, the Education Bureau has launched a number of programmes, namely the Understanding Adolescent Project (Primary), the Enhanced Smart Teen Project for secondary school students jointly organized by the disciplinary forces, and the "Pupil Ambassador: Active, Bright and Caring" Programme for the promotion of life education for primary and secondary pupils, helping them to face the challenges in life with optimism and a positive attitude. We understand that students will be happy if they have good peer relations and a joyful school life. Hence, we encourage schools over the territory to formulate their own school-based Healthy School Policy to create a healthy and joyful learning environment, strengthen peer support, and help students to develop, starting from a young age, a healthy lifestyle with positive values to cope with setbacks and adversities that they may come across in life.
Members are concerned about parents arranging too many playgroups or interest classes for their children which may have a negative impact on their growth. In our view, it is most appropriate and important to help parents make the right choice by taking into consideration their young children's interests, needs and capabilities and enabling them to have a balanced development. Many Members have mentioned the impact of family on children. To many children, family is the source of their happiness; the happier the family is, the happier the children. Hence, the parenting style and whether parents have spent time with their children in relaxing activities are crucial to giving children a happy childhood.
Many Members propose to enhance parental education. As a matter of fact, parental education has all along been a major cross-sector task of the Government. By promoting parent-school co-operation and organizing various counselling, preventive and developmental activities, we facilitate the healthy development of students. We encourage schools to draw up systematic support 1810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 strategies for parents and provide parental education to enhance the parent-child relation. Through the establishment of the Committee on Home-School Co-operation, we encourage schools to set up parent-teacher associations to enhance communication between parents and the school, and to inform parents of the education policy and the relevant education information. We have also set up district networks to facilitate communication and exchange of ideas among parents within the districts, and have also provided parents with information on various education stages. In respect of parents of kindergarten children, the Education Bureau distributes pamphlets titled "Helping Your Children of Kindergarten Age" every year to help parents understand children's growth pattern, how to help children grow up happily and how to choose a good kindergarten. Following the implementation of the NAS, the Education Bureau organizes seminars for parents of Secondary Three to Secondary Six students every year on the objectives of the new senior secondary curriculum and multiple pathways, and encourages parents to let their children choose the subjects or the pathways for further education and employment according to their interests. By getting across the positive messages such as "all roads lead to Rome", we hope to change their traditional concept that "studying in university is the only pathway".
Many Members have talked about the starting line. Let me reiterate that we strongly oppose this idea. Learning is more than a competition and our life is not only about winning and losing. Parents should not set their goal at winning at the starting line; rather they should care more about their children, understand their interests, capabilities and needs, and help them choose an appropriate learning path.
President, young people are the pillars of society and also the hope of our future. The Government spares no efforts in helping them achieve a whole-person development and healthy growth. Once again, I thank all Members who have spoken and their precious views relating to assisting young people in their growth. We will certainly consider their views thoroughly. The Education Bureau will continue to collect the views of stakeholders, including school principals, teachers and parents, on education, and to build upon our strength and to make long-tern planning for the benefits of students. We are confident that with the parent-school co-operation and the combined efforts of cross professional sectors, we will surely create an environment for students to enjoy learning and give full play to their potentials.
Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1811
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Dr Helena WONG to move an amendment to the motion.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Michael TIEN's motion be amended.
Dr Helena WONG moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "'joyful learning' is a learning guideline issued to schools by the Education Bureau, but" after "That"; to delete "and" after "excessively boosting children's learning;"; and to add "; and (4) review the assessment contents of the Territory-wide System Assessment to avoid the need for students to undergo mechanical drills on examination questions, and study whether the Territory-wide System Assessment should be abolished, so as to reduce students' study pressure" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Helena WONG to Mr Michael TIEN's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr Michael TIEN rose to claim a division.
1812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan abstained.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1813
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment and nine abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and seven abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Returning a happy childhood to students" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion, moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
1814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Returning a happy childhood to students" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss Alice MAK, as Dr Helena WONG's amendment has been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Michael TIEN's motion as amended by Dr Helena WONG be further amended by my revised amendment.
Miss Alice MAK moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Dr Helena WONG: (Translation)
"To add "; (5) allocate additional resources to assist students with learning difficulties and those with special learning needs, including identifying such students as early as possible and providing them with training and support on all fronts, so as to reduce their study pressure; (6) streamline the existing curriculum contents of primary and secondary education, so that teachers and students will not come under pressure for catching up with the curricula, and students can use the spare lesson time to cultivate their personal learning interests; (7) encourage schools to invite experts from different industries to hold workshops and experience programmes, so as to broaden students' horizons and enable their understanding of potentials, thereby cultivating the relevant interests and developing their careers in the future; and (8) sort out the negative impacts of study pressure on students and give comprehensive care to students' physical and mental development, including increasing the support services provided by clinical psychologists and medical social workers in schools to offer emotional and psychological counselling to students, and expanding the school dental care service and the student health service to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1815
ensure that they have good physical health for learning" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Miss Alice MAK's amendment to Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr Michael TIEN rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
(Mr SIN Chung-kai stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai, please keep quiet and be seated.
1816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LIAO abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present and 23 were in favour of the amendment. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, as the amendments of Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1817
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK, be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr IP Kin-yuen moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK: (Translation)
"To add "; (9) firmly uphold the policy of small-class education in primary schools, and expeditiously implement small-class teaching in secondary schools, so as to improve students' learning environment, enhance students' concentration and increase teacher-student interaction; (10) examine the impacts of the morbid and substantive change in education brought about by the Territory-wide System Assessment on schools and students, and expeditiously rectify the pitfalls; (11) provide more support to non-Chinese speaking students, so as to eliminate the barriers in their learning and social life; and (12) conduct studies on the impacts of the curricula of playgroups and interest classes available at the market on children's intellectual and psychological development, and introduce appropriate regulation, so as to avoid such curricula and activities having negative impacts on children's growth" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment to Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr Tommy CHEUNG rose to claim a division.
1818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr TANG Ka-piu voted for the amendment.
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1819
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, five were in favour of the amendment and 16 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment and eight abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, as the amendments of Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK, be further amended by my revised amendment.
Dr Priscilla LEUNG moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK: (Translation)
"To add "; and (9) enhance the education on building students' self-confidence and the promotion of diversified career pathways, so as to avoid taking examination results as the sole objective of learning by students" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment to Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG and Miss Alice MAK, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
1820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, as the amendments of Dr Helena WONG, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Priscilla LEUNG have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr Charles Peter MOK moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Dr Helena WONG, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Priscilla LEUNG: (Translation)
"To add "; (10) develop a diversified education system, including strengthening vocational education, arts education and physical education, so as to reduce the pressure of public examinations on students, and assist those students who are unable to adapt to conventional education in choosing study pathways according to their abilities and interests; and (11) increase the number of tertiary education places, especially the degree programme places offered by institutions funded by the University Grants Committee, so as to alleviate students' pressure arising from the need to compete for such places" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment to Mr Michael TIEN's motion, as amended by Dr Helena WONG, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1821
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr Michael TIEN rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr NG Leung-sing and Mr Martin LIAO abstained.
1822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert CHAN abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment and two abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 22 were in favour of the amendment and one abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As Mr Michael TIEN has used up his speaking time, I will not call upon him to speak in reply.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Michael TIEN, as amended by Dr Helena WONG, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Mr Charles Peter MOK, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1823
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr Michael TIEN rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion as amended.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the motion as amended.
1824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were in favour of the motion as amended; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present and 23 were in favour of the motion as amended. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motion for adjournment: Motion for the adjournment of the Council under Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 16(6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, the total speaking time for this debate is one and a half hours, of which 75 minutes are for speeches by Members, and in accordance with Rule 18(b) of the House Rules, each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to five minutes. The speaking time limit for the reply by the public officer is 15 minutes. I wish to remind Members that if the total speaking time of Members reaches 75 minutes, even if there is a Member speaking, I am obliged to direct the Member to discontinue immediately.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 3.49 pm. The debate will now begin.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Mr WONG Yuk-man to speak and move the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1825
MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL UNDER RULE 16(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I move "That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the security arrangements adopted by the Legislative Council in respect of large-scale public events.".
President, I do not understand why the Secretary for Security is present in the Chamber. He should be very busy recently. What has he got to do with the present motion? The subject of this motion is security arrangements adopted by the Legislative Council in respect of large-scale public events. If the Secretary for Security is present, it means that the Government even wants to interfere with the security arrangements of the Legislative Council. Hence, it is inappropriate to ask him for a reply. Let me ask Members present here a simple question. This is the Legislative Council. Should the Legislative Council work independently? Why do we need the Secretary for Security to be present to give a reply? What answers can he give? I will ask my questions later and see if he can answer them. But I can guarantee that he cannot answer them; if he can, I will write my name backwards. Ask him what he has to do with this motion?
This Council is more afraid of the people than thieves. This Council is a place to balance the interests of various sectors and allow the public to monitor the Government's administration. Yet the legislature of Hong Kong is intrinsically deficient and extrinsically dysfunctional for it was emasculated by the functional constituencies and the split voting system …
(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please hold on. Mr IP Kwok-him, what is your point?
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Point of order. Mr WONG Yuk-man just said that there was no need for public officers to be present. Is that appropriate? 1826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
If not, by his remarks, Mr WONG Yuk-man is being disrespectful to public officers …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, this is not a point of order. Mr WONG Yuk-man was expressing his views. Will Members please understand that as this debate will end after one and a half hours, they should not interrupt another Member. Mr WONG, please continue.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, you should give me time to compensate for the speaking time lost. He is not making any sense …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please continue.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, did you know what you were talking about? Do you have to go to such extreme to flatter him? He is not qualified to reply to this motion. This is a matter of constitutional principle. Having been a Member for such a long time, you are still so woolly-headed, just like your fellow party member "YUAN Cau".
As this Council is intrinsically deficient ― stop staring at me ― and extrinsically dysfunctional, a minority of Members with vested interest can repeatedly exploit the people in the majority through the split voting system and the functional constituencies. Over the years, this Council has passed numerous evil policies including the Mandatory Provident Fund system, the Express Rail Link project and the budgets which rob the poor to help the rich. All these policies are detrimental to people's livelihood. Hence, people should strive to regain control of the Council.
On 6 June this year, when the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council scrutinized the funding request relating to the advance works of the North East New Territories New Development Areas, the SAR Government not only failed to positively respond to Members' questions regarding land resumption, the disappearing borderline between Hong Kong and the Mainland, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1827 the distribution of land use, and so on, but it also intended to force through the funding request with the co-operation of the pro-establishment camp. Affected villagers and members of the public demonstrated outside the Council and occupied the public areas in the ground floor lobby of the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex). Yet the Legislative Council Secretariat resorted to calling the Police. To avoid the executive authorities interfering with the legislature and as an embodiment of the separation of powers, legislative assemblies of civilized countries and developed places would set up an independent police region or security teams to maintain order, so as to obviate the need for deployment of outside police. In Hong Kong, sections 8, 23 and 24 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ― just to name a few due to time constraint ― clearly provide that the precincts of the Legislative Council shall be managed by officers of the Council subject to the Rules of Procedure or any resolution of the Council. It also defines the constitutional status of the Legislative Council as being independent from the executive authorities and the judiciary. With a large team of security officers, the Legislative Council is more than capable of handling dozens of villagers and members of the public in a silent sit-in protest, as well as maintaining the normal operation of the Council. Yet the Legislative Council Secretariat chose to degrade itself voluntarily and invited the Police to enter the Complex and take over the work of security control. This had severed the Council's dignity and ruined the spirit of the separation of powers. Can the Secretary answer any of these questions? I do not know what answers he will give later.
While the pan-democratic camp has been criticizing the Communist Party's theory of "co-operation of the three powers", Members like Ms Cyd HO and Mr Ronny TONG supported the Secretariat's decision to call the Police. This is degradation of political ethics and a clear illustration of what is meant by the so-called democracy of the so-called democratic camp. To put it bluntly, any Member who supports the executive's authorities' assault on the Council is obviously derelict in his duties and has failed to deliver the expectation of his electors.
President, due to time constraint, I cannot go into further details. I hope other Members ― almost all Members of the pan-democratic camp have left the Chamber as they think I am talking nonsense ― can give due regard to this matter. Although this adjournment debate can only take place today, the matter 1828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 is far from over. The Legislative Council may have to face similar problems in future. Do we want to have the Police taking over the security matters of the Legislative Council again? I will definitely follow up this matter. There is another matter which relates to me personally. A Chief Security Officer gave instructions to the security officers through walkie-talkie, asking them to stop me from leaving the carpark. I am now following up this matter. From these tell-tale signs, one can have a clear idea of what the present Legislative Council is like. Members of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) can go to hell! Buddy, is that right? If they allow something like this to happen, should they not go to hell? The Commission, not LAI Tung-kwok, is in charge here. He can call it a day now! Why is he still sitting here?
Mr WONG Yuk-man moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the security arrangements adopted by the Legislative Council in respect of large-scale public events."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That this Council do now adjourn.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, regarding the security arrangements adopted by the Legislative Council in respect of large-scale public events, I would like to highlight two points worthy of our concern. First, what should be the Police's role inside the Legislative Council? Second, should guidelines be adopted for the security arrangements both inside and outside the Legislative Council in case of large-scale public assemblies outside the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex)?
President, the Police as part of the executive authorities is independent from the Legislative Council as the legislature. Hence, according to section 24 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, an officer of the Legislative Council shall have the powers of a police officer, while security management of the Legislative Council falls within the purview of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission). But with the Hong Kong Police repeatedly entering the Complex to enforce the law, it has already become LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1829 a standing practice, and the situation has been worsening. On 3 July this year, the Police entered the Complex to collect evidence, and Mr Jasper TSANG, the President of the Legislative Council, and Mr Kenneth CHEN, the Secretary General, were completely unaware of this act. Afterwards, Andy TSANG, Commander of Police dared send an absurd letter to the Legislative Council, asking if it was necessary to bring additional charges on Members for damaging the property of the Legislative Council. The Commission did not condemn the Police for stepping over its powers, and its connivance undermines the independent status and dignity of the Legislative Council, giving the green light to the Police's wilful acts of entering the Complex.
Hence, it is incumbent upon the Commission to state solemnly to the Police that police officers can only, upon a request made by the Legislative Council Secretariat, enter the Complex to discharge their duties, which include collecting evidence, conducting investigation and maintaining public order. Meanwhile, if the Commission considers it necessary to seek the Police's assistance in maintaining order within the Complex over a period of time in future, the Commission and the Secretariat must inform all Members in advance and hold meetings to discuss the matter if necessary.
Regarding the preparation for security arrangements inside and outside the Legislative Council, in June this year when the Finance Committee scrutinized the highly controversial funding request relating to the advance works of the North East New Territories New Development Areas (North East Development), layers of mills barriers were installed outside the Complex, while security officers were standing on guard closely. Even some smoke doors inside the Complex were locked illegally. Notwithstanding the potential threat on personal safety of Members as well as the staff, the Government and Members of the pro-establishment camp were dead set on passing the highly controversial funding requesting relating to the North East Development. But, absurdly enough, 43 Members of the pro-establishment camp refused to hold the first Council meeting as scheduled on 8 October due to personal safety reasons.
Moreover, on that day, Members' Assistants were not allowed to move freely inside the Complex, members of the public could not freely observe meetings or visit the Complex, and some Members' Assistants were "convicted before trial" and prohibited from entering the Complex. The Legislative Council, as a legislative assembly, has become a prison, guarding against people as if they were thieves. Yet the relevant security arrangements were decided by 1830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 the few members of the Commission, without any objective criteria. For instance, if the number of seats in the public gallery was to be reduced, why was it reduced by half? What factors had been considered before such a decision was made? When the number of people gathering outside the Complex reached a certain number, should consideration be given to suspending the ongoing meeting? I think the Legislative Council should formulate specific guidelines on these questions in advance.
President, the Legislative Council is a legislative assembly with at least half of its Members returned by direct elections. It is saddening to see that the Council has fallen into such a state where it must always guard against the storming or occupation of the general public. Working against the people, the Government is collaborating with Members of the pro-establishment camp of the Legislative Council to force through some policies with great backlash from society, public opinion and the people, yet it is afraid of public opinion. The Government is keeping its doors tightly shut, guarding against people as if they were thieves. The Legislative Council's move to invite the Police's assistance in the Complex has jeopardized the independence, fairness, impartiality and openness of the Legislative Council. Who is the culprit jeopardizing the rule of law of Hong Kong? President, this is a question we should ponder on.
I so submit.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, just now the two Members behaved like "a thief crying thief", and I am sorry about what they just said.
President, the Secretary General and The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) adopted emergency measures against the earlier storming of the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex). I consider such measures appropriate and I support the decision made by the President, the Commission and the Secretary General. On this occasion, I would like to send my regards to all security staff of the Legislative Council for their dedication to their duties and efforts in maintaining order. They came forward to maintain order in the chaotic situations, some of them sustained injuries, and some were even seriously injured. I express my sincere solicitude. Moreover, in considering that the Police were invited by the President and the Commission to enter the Complex to assist in maintaining appropriate law and order in this Council, it is appropriate for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1831
Secretary for Security to be invited to attend the meeting today. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my respect, through the President and the Secretary, to front-line police officers for their wholehearted devotion to duties without complaint. They came forward to protect the safety of this Council during the unprecedented storming of the Complex. I also hope the Secretary and the Police would continue to be highly concerned about the security issues of the Legislative Council.
President, the earlier storming of the Complex had set a very bad precedent to the community. On that day, in response to the appeal and incitement of some radical Members, people took violent actions. The storming was in fact a prelude to the Occupy action which has now lasted 40 days. Members of the opposition camp should be solely responsible for the 40-day occupation saga. President, the Legislative Council has now degenerated into a place where language violence and parliamentary violence are rampant. The fact that Mr WONG Yuk-man has just incited the public to regain control of the Legislative Council is a very dangerous signal. President, we must heighten our vigilance. One day, a crowd of people may rush into the Complex to take over this Council. This is a very important message and I hope the President would take note of it.
Regarding the earlier storming of the Complex, I think the President, the Commission and the Secretary General must draw lessons and learn from the incident, and consider how we can prevent the recurrence of the following situations. First, some Members colluded with various forces outside this Council in inciting and commanding, through the Internet, the public to attack and storm the Complex. Second, Members' offices and conference rooms in the Complex have become the hiding places of those who stormed the Complex; they are the Trojan Horse, trying to attack the Council from inside. Third, some Members' assistants had, in their capacity as assistants, taken the lead to storm the Complex. These cases are unprecedented. Should we conduct a review to prevent such illegal deeds or to hold these Members and their assistants responsible?
These are the reasons attributing to this Council's bad image and declining reputation, as well as the occupation action that has lasted 40 days to date. Hence, I hope all of us would be concerned about this situation.
1832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): This morning I met and exchanged views with students of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who visited the Legislative Council. Most of their questions were centered on the constitutional functions of the legislature of Hong Kong (that is, the Legislative Council) in relation to the executive authorities.
President, this is a very important point. I believe that you would, as the President of the Legislative Council or speaker of the legislature, understand that this Council was not "born out of a rock", but to a large extent, it was developed from the principle and concept of separation of powers before the unification. Many businesses we deal with in the legislature, including The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission), the security issues and the like are derived from the constitutional spirit of separation of powers, check and balance as well as respect. For this reason, the Legislative Council should not be mistaken by the public as part of the Government.
The idea of co-operation of the three powers as advocated by XI Jinping is definitely not applicable in Hong Kong. In the constitutional tradition and the parliamentary history of the United Kingdom, several speakers were killed or forced to step down for defending the dignity of the parliament against the monarch's attempt to erode and impair the parliament. As such, in the United Kingdom, there is a tradition for a person holding a black rod to play a certain role at the annual opening of the Parliament. This ceremony signifies how the Parliament (particularly the House of Commons) represents public sentiments and public opinions in facing the monarchy. The British Parliament still retains this ceremonial event to refresh our memory. Please bear in mind the independence of a legislature and its important status.
Against this backdrop, we should understand that when the Hong Kong Police or law-enforcement departments intend to handle security issues of the Legislative Council, they must obtain the consent of the President, the Secretary General and, when necessary, members of the Commission. I am somehow disturbed by the current situation. If there is a need for the Police to enter the legislature to enforce the law, shouldn't the Police maintain a sound and close co-operative relation with the Secretary General, so that people would not wrongly mistaken that the Police have already stationed in the legislature or even taken over the security work of the Legislative Council? This point is worth reviewing. In the face of the increasingly intricate political reality and public sentiments, conflicts have become more and more acute. The Legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1833
Council, being one of the most open legislature willing to face the general public (be they proponents or opponents of the Government), should adopt an open attitude as far as possible to listen to and accept public views and voices of discontent, and allow the public to express such views and voices in a peaceful manner.
Over the past period of time, we have noted that the legislature, particularly the Commission and the Secretariat, have become increasingly tolerant of the arbitrary behaviour of the Police within the precincts of the Legislative Council. In particular, from 26 September to 27 September, the Police, together with the Secretary General, passed through the Legislative Council to conduct a law-enforcement operation. What were the details of the operation? In the early morning of 27 September, why did the Police besiege the sit-in participants within the precincts of the Legislative Council from the rear and the two sides, and drive them by violence, with shields and pepper spray, to places outside the precincts of the Legislative Council? In the process, did the Police mislead the Legislative Council, the Secretariat and the Secretary General? In the whole process, did the Police provide the Legislative Council Secretariat with comprehensive information? Or, given the atmosphere, environment and various circumstances, did the Police exploit our concerns, overly interpret our so-called "invitation" and use excessive force to turn the Legislative Council into a base for their deployment and drive away the peaceful sit-in protesters? These protesters were merely expressing their discontent, with the hope of supporting students and other people participating in a sit-in in the civic square.
President, I hope we can examine these issues in the Commission. A legislature must maintain its constitutional (be it constitutional tradition or constitutional spirit) independence and autonomy. If we need resources to adequately safeguard the safety of our security staff, we should put in more resources instead of rashly requesting Police's assistance in clearance operations.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, today's adjournment motion is proposed under Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure and a public officer is required to speak in reply. I have raised a point of order earlier because Mr WONG Yuk-man has accused the public officer in a manner which I consider inappropriate. According to Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure, it shall be out of order for Members to use offensive and insulting language. Therefore, I disapprove of Mr WONG Yuk-man's behaviour and express my strong objection.
1834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
President, today we are holding the fourth Council meeting of the new session and special security measures have again been put in place. Some pan-democratic Members disagree with the security arrangements. They consider that with tight security measures inside the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex) and rows of mills barriers outside, the Complex has become very much like a prison. However, when considering that protesters opposing the proposal of the North East New Territories New Development Areas had violently stormed the Complex earlier; students who boycotted classes had recently forced their way into the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices and the Occupy action, claimed to be an act of civil disobedience, has spread like virus in our society, we agree that the special security measures are necessary and indispensable.
When pro-establishment Members enter or leave the Complex recently, they are often greeted with abusive language by protesters stationed outside. Although these protesters have not abused Members physically, they have done so verbally. A few weeks ago, some protesters tried to prevent government officers and reporters from entering the Central Government Offices from Lung Wo Road. A female protester stopped the car of Mr Paul TANG, Secretary for the Civil Service, and rebuked him by saying, "Can't you get out of your car and walk a few steps? What kind of man you are! You can have whatever you want!" Such unreasonable obstructions and rebukes are a kind of violence and that female protester is actually an assistant of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung.
As an institution that represents public opinion, the Legislative Council should be as open to the public as possible, but ironically, being compelled by the protesters who talk about democracy and freedom all the time, this institution has to take tight security measures. There are 70 Members and more than 700 Members' assistants in the Legislative Council. Some Members' assistants often participate in demonstrations and marches, and they express their views in radical ways. In June this year, some protesters who opposed the proposal of the North East New Territories New Development Areas stormed the Complex. It was alleged that some assistants to Members from the pro-democracy camp colluded with the protesters to help them get inside the Complex. That is precisely the reason why security arrangements in the Complex have become increasing complicated and tightening security measures has become indispensable.
As political conflicts in Hong Kong have become more and more intense, the Complex has now become a target of attack by the protesters, making it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1835 necessary for the Legislative Council to implement special security measures. Though such an approach can only treat the symptoms but not the disease, the political conflicts in Hong Kong cannot be resolved instantly, nor can they be dealt with unilaterally by the Government or any one party. These conflicts can only be resolved through dialogue with all parties on the basis of seeking consensus despite differences of opinions in a rational and practical manner. If the protesters express their views in a peaceful and rational manner, it will not be necessary for the Legislative Council to implement special security measures. Therefore, whether such security measures should be withdrew is not to be decided by the Legislative Council, but by the protesters.
At present, the Legislative Council still cannot operate normally. To say the least, there is still no direct access for Members to drive to the Complex to attend meetings, which has seriously affected the normal operation of the Legislative Council. A case in point is that the Chief Executive, though scheduled to attend a Question and Answer Session, cannot come to the Legislative Council because of security reasons. This situation is not desirable. I believe that Hong Kong people would like to see that proper security measures are put in place and that the Legislative Council can operate normally.
I so submit.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, in any civilized society, separation of powers should be adopted and the legislature must uphold the principle of independence. I certainly understand that owing to certain incidents, the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat (the Secretary General) had to report to the Police. Under specific circumstances, we understand what had happened, and it is difficult to pursue liabilities, but every time the Legislative Council makes such kind of decision, it should embody a spirit of independence. The Beijing authorities have repeatedly emphasized the co-operation of the three powers, which has made us tremble with fear. If Hong Kong accepts the principle of co-operation of the three powers, it will, in essence, be totally Mainlandized. In particular, at the judicial level, the Courts will make decisions according to the wishes of the executive authorities because the two powers will co-operate and collaborate. Similarly, the legislature will co-ordinate with the executive authorities. The executive authorities can just casually send public officers to attend meetings of the Legislative Council and 1836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 answer Members' questions. If the role of the Legislative Council is merely to co-ordinate, the authorities may just find a group of "buddies" to form the Council; is it still necessary to hold the Legislative Council election?
President, my problem really has nothing to do with the Secretary for Security. Here is my complaint. On the night when the funding proposal of the North East New Territories New Development Areas was discussed at the meeting of the Finance Committee, many Members (myself included) approached the Chairman Mr NG Leung-sing to raise our protest and complain against his improper handling, and he put the proposal to vote arbitrarily. The situation was chaotic at the time and some security staff stopped us from approaching the Chairman. I did not blame them because they were only carrying out their duties, but the proposal was put to vote when I was not in my seat. I could not hear what was said nor did I know that the proposal was put to vote. I therefore consider the voting results invalid. Some people said to me, "You can apply for judicial review". If I did, I would be forfeiting the independence of the legislature because I would be asking the judiciary to make a decision in relation to a matter within the purview of the legislature. That would create a problem too. The Legislative Council has turned into a mess now, hasn't it?
Finally, I would like to mention one particular point. In the current Occupy movement, many tents have been set up outside the public entrance underneath the drum of the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex). Honestly speaking, that would be the safest place for occupiers. They should not be subjected to any threat of clearance because the area is within the precincts of the Complex. I have discussed the matter with the Secretary General and he told me that there was no particular clearance plan. Nonetheless, I have to warn the people because some occupiers told me that police officers have been patrolling the demonstration area from time to time. I guess the police officers have done so out of good intention. Perhaps they enter the area just to check on the place and its sanitary conditions. However, taking this action is technically very wrong and inappropriate because that is the demonstration area of the Legislative Council. Unless the Police have received a report, police officers should not enter the area. I will ask the Legislative Council Commission to take note of that.
I so submit, thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1837
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): As a public opinion institution responsible for monitoring the work of the administration, the Legislative Council plays a very important role in the model of separation of powers under our political system. Therefore, we have to strictly uphold one principle under all circumstances and that is, the Legislative Council is an institution for enacting laws and discussing matters independently, and through this venue, political issues and social conflicts can be resolved by political means. On this basis, if we rashly invite the Police to enter the Chamber, the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex) or any area within the precincts of the Legislative Council, the power of the Legislative Council to resolve political issues by political means will gradually diminish. I think we have to face this problem squarely and handle it carefully. If the Legislative Council cannot resolve social conflicts through deliberations and Members' political power, we will have to think of other ways to resolve the social crisis.
Of course, as we are aware, the problem is related to the entire political system. However, before the system can be revamped comprehensively, we have to protect the Legislative Council's important image of being accountable to the public, being above politics, and being independent from the executive authorities.
We understand that during the process of protest, people may sometimes behave boldly. In this regard, I have to commend the security staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat. For instance, on 13 June when discussion on the proposal of the North East New Territories New Development Areas was held and a group of peaceful protesters tried to enter the Complex, the security staff did very well in allowing them to stay inside the building to express their views and aspirations peacefully. Certainly, the bold actions taken by other supporters at a later time had turned the once peaceful protest into a violent one, triggering the nerve of the whole team of security staff and causing The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) to, out of worries, lock the smoke doors of the Complex and ask the Police to step in on 27 June, as if the Complex was confronted by a powerful enemy.
In retrospect, society respects peaceful protesters but they condemn and react strongly against those who use undue violence to attack security staff. On that day, some very daring people on the scene suddenly took charging actions and dispersed quickly. They had adversely affected the demonstration which was initially only a peaceful expression of views and aspirations. If Members 1838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 had noticed how the public reacted towards those people, they would realize that the public disapproved of their acts. In fact, the best way to prevent things from getting worse is that everyone in the Legislative Council performs their roles dutifully and allows the protesters to demonstrate and express their views effectively and peacefully. By adopting such an approach, the community will not be in turmoil, and the Legislative Council can thus resolve political problems by political means.
Unfortunately, when faced with political conflicts, the administration, the pro-establishment camp or the SAR Government have been over anxious and have used disproportionate police power to handle peaceful demonstrations. In fact, using strong police power will very often lead to provocation and resistance from both sides. I think that is a problem we have to inquire into.
Of course, I understand that the security staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat have to perform their duties. However, the authorities concerned, the Commission, the Secretary General and the President of the Legislative Council should consider the matter from the perspective which I have just mentioned and identify ways to enable demonstrations to be conducted peacefully within the Complex. They should not (The buzzer sounded) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, having heard the speeches delivered by a number of Members, I note that they have varying degrees of misunderstanding as regards the functions and duties of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission). Hence, I would like to clarify a few points first.
First, while members of the Commission may reflect the representation of different groupings of Members in the Council, the same does not apply for our duties. President, for instance, I am a Member representing the New Territories East, but I am not only responsible to the New Territories East constituency. Instead, I must be responsible to all people of Hong Kong. Similarly, members of the Commission do not only serve the interests of their respective political LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1839 parties or groupings; they must work from the perspective of safeguarding the dignity and interests of the Council as a whole. I think Members should understand this point clearly.
The second point which I think Members may have varying degrees of misunderstanding is that the Legislative Council is not an independent kingdom. Of course, we are an independent institution, but we are not an independent kingdom. We do not have our own laws. Also, we cannot say that the Legislative Council is not bound by the laws, and that we can make our own decisions no matter what happened. That is not how the Legislative Council works.
If Members review the laws of Hong Kong, they can find that express provisions have been provided under the Public Order Ordinance, the Police Force Ordinance as well as the Crimes Ordinance that the Police absolutely have the power to enter the Legislative Council to perform duties or prevent crimes. Nonetheless, given the separation of powers, the Police are obliged to respect the views of the Legislative Council. But it does not mean that the Council can wilfully or groundlessly refuse the Police's requests to enter our premises and reject them categorically. President, that is absolutely not the case.
If the Police can give us the reasons why it is necessary for police officers to enter the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex), we are obliged to let them in. Nonetheless, under the principle of mutual respect, we must first give our consent and have a clear understanding about the actions to be taken by the Police after entering the Complex. We will not allow them to wander around or do whatever they like. While the Police actually have the power to do so, they must respect the views of the Council by adhering to the constitutional order.
However, it does not mean that we can wilfully say that we do not like the Police's presence and hence will not let them in notwithstanding they have the duty to enforce law. We cannot act like that because we are not only responsible for the safety of our Honourable colleagues, but also the safety of our staff as well as the safety of the entire Complex. In this connection, the main duty of the security staff of the Legislative Council is to maintain order, rather than protect our personal safety. As security staff have not received the relevant training, and they are not required to stop or arrest the protesters, they cannot practically perform those functions.
1840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Separately, I would like Members to understand that our insurance does not cover those scenarios. I do not know if Mr CHAN has spoken on this motion or not. If he has not spoken yet, I invite him to confirm this point, that is, our insurance does not cover the losses incurred as a result of riots.
What is meant by "riots"? According to the relevant insurance regulations, if three persons are involved in the commitment of certain acts causing fear in other persons, it would constitute a riot or civil commotion. Under the circumstances, any bodily harm or damage to property caused as a result is not covered. In other words, if some people enter the Complex and damage our properties or injure any Member, our staff, the Secretariat's staff or security staff, we must bear full responsibility. Of course, it does not mean that Members have to make payments out of their own pockets. This is not the case. Nonetheless, the relevant sums would have to be paid by the public coffers. Hence, we should not, for reason of self-esteem, squander the money or shirk our responsibility in protecting the facilities of the Legislative Council or the safety of individuals. We should not refuse the Police's entry into the Complex simply because of the consideration of political dignity.
I hope Honourable colleagues can have a clear understanding of the functions and duties of the Commission. Moreover, they should know that members of the Commission do not only serve the interests of their individual political parties or groupings. Instead, they are responsible for the entire Legislative Council as the legislature. There is a difference between these two responsibilities, and we must respect them fully. I hope Members who have opposing views in this matter can think twice. Of course, it would be ideal if they are willing to serve in the Commission. In that case, I will be the first one to resign.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, in the past two years, the incident in which Members almost burnt and flooded the Legislative Council Complex due to smoking, or the case of someone tampering with the lift, causing the abortion of Council meeting, had brought total disgrace on the Legislative Council by Members of the opposing camp. If a person breaks the law, he should certainly be arrested. Should the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex) be turned into a safe haven for the criminals? Do we wish to create LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1841 another Kowloon Walled City? To uphold the dignity of the legislature and avoid this solemn Council being disgraced again, it is perfectly justified for us to allow the Police to enter the Complex to arrest anyone who has broken the law.
The security inside the Complex is a matter of great importance. However, our security staff are not armed and they have not received any professional training on handling violent confrontations. The recent incidents have exposed the various security problems in the Complex. For example, in one confrontation, protesters used metal bars and bamboo poles to pry the doors and the brick wall beside the fire exit was also damaged. Many security staff were injured in that incident. Also, someone blocked the carpark with a vehicle, thus stopping Members from leaving. In recent days people have been camping outside the Complex. Apart from occupying the space outside the Complex, some protesters also occupied the offices on several floors in the Complex. As far as we know, close to 300 people have stayed on a certain floor day and night, turning the conference rooms or offices in the Complex into "sub-divided units". We do not wish to see this solemn Council being disgraced. We also find, on the Internet, guidelines on how to attack the Complex.
President, as Members, we are horrified by such incidents and condemn such acts. I find it regrettable that the administration division of the Legislative Council, being aware of those incidents, has not properly dealt with them or taken vigorous follow-up actions. A more serious problem is, if we, as suggested by Mr WONG Yuk-man, do not allow the Police to enter the Complex in order to uphold the dignity of this Council, how then can such scandalous acts of those people in this Complex be tolerated? Is it that people inside the Complex can act against the law and will not be arrested? If so, this will convey a wrong message to society that the authorities are not even capable of handling the security inside the Complex or ensuring the personal safety of Members and staff, the general public will thus query who can protect their personal safety and property. Upon the dissemination of this message, I believe some people dare not stay in Hong Kong but will emigrate to other places. It turns out that Hong Kong is such a dangerous place.
Today, it is deplorable that some Members have distorted the facts. I think Mr Ronny TONG has made a fair judgment just now. He pointed out Members' misunderstanding of the functions and duties of The Legislative Council Commission. In my view, if in future anyone violates any rules or breaks the law in this Complex, the President should act decisively and request 1842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 the law-enforcement agency to come and enforce the law. We should not be hesitant to take such action because of the perverted logic of one or two Members.
I so submit.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, first of all I have to declare that I am a member of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission). I very much agree to Mr Ronny TONG's explanation of the insurance policy of the Legislative Council just now.
I wish to point out that the design of the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex) is based on the principle of openness. The building is open to all people in Hong Kong; they can come to observe the meetings or pay a visit. Such openness symbolizes the high transparency of our legislative work. Unfortunately, the political atmosphere has been changing rapidly in recent years, with more and more people using radical means to make known their demand. For example, many people in the public gallery would violently disrupt our meetings.
In June this year, some petitioners stormed the Complex, causing tremendous chaos. This highlighted the serious security loopholes of the Legislative Council. Although the Police eventually came to our aid, over 10 security staff of the Secretariat were injured, reflecting that our security system cannot keep up with the actual needs. Some security staff complained that when they first took up the work, they were only told that their duties were to patrol and guard the Complex, and they had never expected they would have to face violent confrontations. Besides, they also complained that the Secretariat waited too long to call in the Police.
As a matter of fact, as the administrative organ of the Legislative Council, the Commission is duty-bound to ensure the safety of about 800 employees and visitors in the Complex every day. This is a tremendous responsibility. Also, as the employer of 600 employees, the Commission is duty-bound under the law to ensure their safety. Should any employee be injured or even killed owing to the employer's wrong decision or lack of protection, the family of the employee may initiate civil proceedings to claim compensation and the compensation can amount to tens of millions of dollars.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1843
In today's society, people tend to invert right and wrong. There are people who criticize the Commission for implementing too many security measures, turning the Complex into a fortress. I hope the people who make such criticisms would consider the following analogy: if your home has been robbed and after reporting the robbery to the Police, you install a burglar alarm and a metal gateset, but someone criticizes you for reporting to the Police and taking security measures, turning your home into a fortress, thereby denying visits from friends, I believe most sensible people would consider that such arguments are absolutely absurd, which invert right and wrong.
In the storming of the Complex, protesters outside were aided by people inside. The assistants of some Members either joined in storming the Complex or provided information to the protesters outside to facilitate their action. In fact, some Members on the one hand criticize the rigorous security measures in the Complex, but condone their assistants' participation in the storming on the other hand. This is tantamount to asking people not to implement so many fire prevention measures, but setting fire everywhere and then in turn criticizing the management for mishandling. This is downright confounding right and wrong. As a matter of fact, the legislature in overseas countries, such as the parliaments of most European or North American countries, have put in place rigorous security measures and security screening systems, but no one has ever doubted their necessity. Why should it be a problem for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to enhance its security measures?
In addition, the above confrontation has fully reflected the security loopholes and the fact that the Complex cannot withstand terrorist attacks. Hong Kong is an international metropolis and the Complex is a landmark in Hong Kong. Hence, there is a risk that this building may come under terrorist attacks. If a vehicle dashes into the Main Lobby of the Complex and detonates a bomb, serious casualties and damage will be resulted. Moreover, as the Complex is fitted with external glass curtain walls, if a super typhoon hits Hong Kong, there is the risk that the glass panels will be shattered. In designing the Complex, people might not have considered these problems seriously. I believe it is high time that we studied and resolved these problems. In the long run, as people in Hong Kong are becoming increasingly radical, the number of storming of the Complex is bound to increase and the existing security system of the Legislative Council will not be able to cope with the situation. It is therefore necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the system.
1844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
Moreover, at present many tents have been set up in areas all around the Complex, including the Legislative Council Square. Many people have gathered in these areas day and night. Are all areas in the precincts of the Complex in compliance with the Fire Services Ordinance? As we can see, there are endless rows of tents surrounding the Complex, and if a fire breaks out, will we be censured for not taking appropriate measures to properly manage our facilities? We have also noticed that many mills barriers bearing the logo of the Legislative Council have been used by protesters as road barricades. I would like to know why no actions have been taken to recover these properties after so many days. Will this give people an impression that while we, Members are engaged in legislative work, we have taken no action to stop people from illegally using the properties of the Legislative Council as road barricades, thereby bringing disgrace on the Council. Therefore, I hope that the Legislative Council would consider how to recover those mills barriers as soon as possible, such as negotiating with the peaceful protesters or the Members' assistants who are in charge of the resources of the Occupy Central movement ― I know many assistants to Members are managing various spots of the occupied areas ― and then take action expeditiously. Thank you, President.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to declare that I am a member of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission).
During the last Legislative Session, that is, in June this year, the Legislative Council was stormed as a result of the Government's funding request relating to the advance works of the North East New Territories New Development Areas. The incident reflected that the executive authorities and the Legislative Council had, as a whole, failed to respond to public opinion and hence, causing public furore and serious consequences. At the meetings of the Finance Committee, the Government disregarded public's views and forced through the funding application. Mr NG Leung-sing, the then Chairman of the Finance Committee, also failed to handle the situation satisfactorily.
On 9 June, the President and the Secretary General made a conciliatory decision. While some villagers had entered the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex), they were not storming the Council. They were only holding an assembly peacefully. Hence, the President and the Secretary General decided to allow the villagers to stay in the lobby to watch the live telecast of the meetings before advising them to leave later. But regrettably, during that time, some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1845 other people caused panic and confrontations, making it necessary to call in the Police. On 13 June, as meetings of the Council were handled in a violent manner, people gathering in the demonstration area outside the Complex were thus instigated to storm the Legislative Council.
At that time, I had to make a very difficult decision, that is, should we close the demonstration area of the Legislative Council so that the protesters would return to Tim Mei Avenue and continue to hold assemblies there? On the one hand, I strongly hoped that the Legislative Council's principle of opening to the public could be maintained, but on the other hand, given the limited number of our security staff, we could hardly handle the situation where close to 100 people were storming the Complex with mills barriers. Under this dire circumstance, I agreed to close the demonstration area downstairs. As such, the assemblies would be held in Tim Mei Avenue, and the Police could maintain order in public places outside without the need of entering the Complex.
President, the dignity of the Legislative Council is upheld neither by the Police nor the Rules of Procedure (RoP), but by Members who must handle the businesses of the Council and matters relating to people's livelihood seriously and carefully. Moreover, it would depend on whether Members are holding meetings of the Council in a serious manner in accordance with the RoP, so that different views can be discussed through rational debates. But this is something we cannot achieve.
I have been a Member for 10-odd years. At the said meeting of the Finance Committee, I violated a series of provisions in the RoP. When Mr NG Leung-sing made the groundless decision to expel Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, I stood up immediately in protest and pointed out that he should not and ought not expel Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. At that time, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung was only asking questions in his seat repeatedly. How could Mr NG Leung-sing abuse his powers as the Chairman of the Finance Committee? In an attempt to veto the relevant motion, the Chairman of the Finance Committee also extended the voting time from one minute to one minute 57 seconds, so that Members with opposing views could still enter the conference room after the original time limit to cast their votes. These practices were most unfair and hence, we dashed out to snatch the microphone. We were compelled to foul the rules because a person was chairing the meeting unfairly.
1846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
President, you said earlier that the Legislative Council should be a solemn place. This could be a joke, even though your statement is absolutely right. The Legislative Council is indeed a solemn place. But on the one hand, Members of the pro-establishment camp are destroying the Council's culture through their advantage of holding the majority vote under a most undemocratic system, and on the other hand, some Members are taking actions to challenge the RoP in order to highlight the unfairness of the Council. As Members are working in these different directions, the Council has become a laughing stock.
The decorum of the Council cannot be restored simply through a decision of the Legislative Council or our own efforts. Instead, it is only possible through a reform of the political system so that the Legislative Council can truly represent public opinions. In that case, members of the public will no longer need to storm the Council as sufficient channels are available for them to express their views. If Members do not heed their views, the public can replace them in the next election by not voting for them. But before such a political reform is realized, we can only adopt an inclusive attitude and call on all parties concerned to remain calm and respect others' views. That is how we can maintain the effective operation of the Council. Thank you, President.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to declare that I am a member of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission). The subject of today's adjournment motion is "the security arrangements adopted by the Legislative Council in respect of large-scale public events". We are not focusing on the arguments of Members having different positions on various issues, but the security arrangements in respect of large-scale public events. However, we must identify the causes of large-scale public events. Of course, it is natural for members of the community to have different positions, perspectives and views on different issues, but some Legislative Council Members have exploited these differences to provoke discontent of the masses or incite them to take aggressive actions to storm the Legislative Council and affect its work.
On the other hand, they kept saying that Hong Kong should adopt the separation of powers. The Legislative Council should maintain its dignity; but does dignity exist in view of their acts? I believe people watching the television broadcast are well aware of the situation, the expression of different opinions should not be conducted in that way. People are also aware of the roles played LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1847 by some Members' assistants. Regarding the security staff, the Commission should make a solicitous enquiry after their situation. They command our respect as they have indeed made great contributions, in particular, in the past year or so, they had made arduous efforts. I hope the relevant Members could restrain their assistants and ask their supporters to stop such behaviour.
In the eyes of the public, the Legislative Council is completely ridiculous at present. The issues just mentioned by Mr Ronny TONG are very serious and we must consider if we can bear the consequences. Should such problems arise and there are casualties, there is nothing the legislature can do to remedy the situation. It is absolutely preposterous that Legislative Council Members would break the law.
Today's debate involves another issue. Secretary T K LAI attended the meeting today. He has been working very hard recently. He attends the meeting today to assist in our work or answer our questions. However, to our surprise, the attitude of the Member proposing the motion is indeed baffling. Does separation of powers means confrontation of powers? Do we need mutual co-operation between the executive authorities and the Legislative Council? The same also applies to the judiciary.
Hence, I hope members of the public and Honourable colleagues in this Council would remain coolheaded and sober, and see clearly what has happened. Thank you, President.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, I must express my views on this subject today because I am a member of The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) and I have noted some important points raised by Members just now. First, Article 2 of the Basic Law provides that, "The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law", we actually enjoy four kinds of power. Hong Kong previously did not have the power of final adjudication but it now has the power. Four powers instead of three powers are involved. In my view, while we lay emphasis on independence of various sorts, co-operation is required in many aspects of work. Take for example financial applications, the Legislative Council itself basically does not have money. In respect of 1848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 healthcare, should we need to call an ambulance, the person in need of care and attention will not go outside; instead, the medical units will come inside. In the event of a fire, do we have to put out the fire by ourselves? Similarly, firemen also have to come inside. However, some Members said that the Police are not allowed to come inside, and their argument is astonishing. Should we not allow the Police to come inside if an accident occurs?
In accordance with Article 75 para 2 of the Basic Law, the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council shall be made by the Council on its own, provided that they do not contravene the Basic Law. Therefore, as the legislature, we should act according to the law. The Commission, comprising of 13 members including the Chairman, is empowered by the Legislative Council to exercise powers and assume the responsibilities concerned. As mentioned by Members earlier, the Commission would not simply protect a small number of people, it also has to perform … The Legislative Council Complex is for public use and it should meet the needs of all Hong Kong people. We, as Legislative Council Members, should take the lead to observe the laws of Hong Kong, and we should not assail others. Have we actually acted in accordance with the law?
The remarks made by a certain Member are ridiculous. In the course of the Finance Committee's meeting, a group of Members dashed out for whatever reasons. The situation is like someone saying, "I will break the law first and you may arrest me afterwards." They all dashed out and hence could not return to their seats in time to vote; they then blamed the staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat under the Commission for obstructing them. Their act of dashing towards the Chairman set a very bad example to the public. They eventually failed to vote and they put the blame on other people. Obviously, as they did not abide by the rules, they failed to fulfil the responsibility to vote but they put the blame on others. Some Members have made similar remarks earlier, which made me feel very … If voters have chosen these Members, it made me feel really sad, and a lot of public money has also been wasted.
We often say that Legislative Council Members should take the lead in complying with the laws. Some Members have also pointed out that "people give face to you, but you lose face of your own accord". To duly perform our functions as Legislative Council Members, we should set good examples by properly fulfilling the responsibilities entrusted by the Legislative Council. If we do so, I believe the Secretariat should be able to work smoothly, and a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1849 confrontational culture will not be incited, which has caused injuries to a number of Secretariat staff. On behalf of the Commission, I would like to express my regards to the Secretariat staff; in particular, they have made painstaking efforts and wasted a lot of time owing to the current situation. I hope this situation will end as soon as possible and I also hope that Members would reflect on themselves. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr IP Kwok-him said that if there were no protesters and occupiers, the security requirements of the Legislative Council would have resumed normal. This is all too natural. We are now in an abnormal or even sickened state. And yet, it is not the protesters who fell sick, but the SAR Government and this Council. As I have always told members of the public, if the problem can be resolved by a letter, a telephone call or an email; and if public views will be respected, it is downright unnecessary to organize any protests, demonstrations or assemblies. If protests, demonstrations or assemblies alone can reflect public views and if public views have been respected, it is downright unnecessary for people to stay behind, charge at the Police, or engage in acts of civil disobedience and risk criminal sanction.
As we all know, enhancing the security requirements is not a solution to the problem. Enhanced security requirements imply a greater number of police officers, which will thus increase the possibility of conflicts. The Legislative Council is a place of the people, and Members are to serve the people. The royalist camp has not only manipulated this Council, but has barbarously attempted to bulldoze through important issues during the discussions. In order to press through those controversial motions, tactics such as turning the one-minute bell into two-minute bell, and hastily put the question to vote when Members were not in their seats. Just now, a Member has expressed disappointment about the elected Members. If electors think what we did was wrong whereas other Members were right, they might as well not vote for us in the next term. But regrettably, that Member returned from the functional constituency with zero votes, and of course he could shamelessly say that he was elected by a unanimous vote. Members of the public do not even have a choice.
1850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
What I am trying to say is, if this Council has not fallen sick or Members have not provoked the general public, no one will risk breaching the law by forcing their way into the Complex. Yet, up to this moment, many people have indicated that they do not care if they will breach the law by storming the Complex. Therefore, as I have said at the Finance Committee meeting at that time, people might force their way into this Chamber one day. I am scared too because people may beat me up as well. The reason is they no longer believe in this Council, thinking that it can do nothing to help. I do not want to see this happen either. President, you once said that this Council should treat the protesters with the greatest tolerance. While the last incident was triggered by the funding proposal of the North East New Territories, it was the Occupy Central movement this time. Although certain parts of the Legislative Council have been occupied, the President has been so fair as not to sling mud at the protesters and occupiers. He even commended their self-discipline, saying that the people there only read books and conducted seminars, which therefore obviates the need to enhance the security requirements. And yet, just now a Member asked if there is a need to remove them and get back the mills barriers, vowing that we should not sit with our hands folded. Hence, the ball is now in the court of The Legislative Council Commission to examine if it will provoke the protesters.
The Secretary for Security is present today, so I am going to ask him two questions about fire safety and police officers. Regarding fire safety, when the Finance Committee was having a meeting on that day, security staff closed the main gate for fear that members of the public might force their way into the Complex. Worse still, mill barriers were seen placed in front of the fire prevention doors. Mr Albert CHAN then reported the case and called on the Fire Services Department (FSD) to follow up on the matter. Noting that this Council is responsible for its own security matters, is it the same for fire safety matters? Will the FSD send someone to inspect the Complex's fire installation requirements? Has the FSD followed up on the matter?
Another question is about police officers. My assistant, Miss YUEN Mi-ming, was arrested on 16 June for allegedly obstructing Members going to or from the precincts of the Chamber. But on 17 September, she refused to extend bail and was released. So far, she has not been prosecuted, but the Police have reserved the right of prosecution. When will the case close, or have the Police purposely left room for future actions to be taken 10 years later? I have also reported to the Police on 16 June when Mr LEUNG Che-cheung stopped his car in front of Miss YUEN Mi-ming's car, making me unable to leave the Complex. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1851
Should I call the Police on the same ground? However, the Police have yet to report the progress of the case to me so far. Is this selective law enforcement or selective investigation? With regard to the case of Miss YUEN Mi-ming, arrest action was taken within 24 hours immediately after investigation, and now that the bail period is over. What is the progress of my case then? Will the Secretary please reply.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now, I have been listening attentively to Members' speeches. First of all, Mr WONG Yuk-man berated the Secretary for Security at the outset for attending this meeting. I nonetheless do not find it strange to see the attendance of the Secretary as the discussion may be related to him, for example, just now a Member asked about the role of the Police. Perhaps the Secretary can elaborate on this point later on. On the other hand, Members may give some advice to the Police, and the Secretary can respond accordingly. As such, I really do not see what is wrong with the Secretary's presence. Certain Members are sometimes pretty unreasonable, and this is a very typical example.
Mr Gary FAN mentioned the burial of rule of law in his speech, which is indeed taking wrong as right and talking black into white. Who is breaching the law? Have the people staying outside complied with the law? This is obvious to all. Why do we have this problem? The first storming of the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex) on 6 June 2014 gave rise to the problem. A Member said just now that the Government should be blamed as it had insisted on developing the North East New Territories and the Chairman of the Finance Committee had chaired the meetings inappropriately. These were the two reasons leading to the problem, as stated by that Member. And yet, these two reasons did not justify the storming of the Complex. The first storming was already very serious, and the second storming on 13 June was even more devastating as even the front doors were smashed. As shown clearly on television footages, some people tried to pry open the doors with bamboo poles and smashed the doors with mills barriers. Even the stone pillars were crushed, which was indeed terrifying. Fortunately, the Police were here to enforce the law, otherwise we really did not know what to do. Would people violently 1852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 sabotage the place after they forced their way into the Complex? Despite those acts, Members still insisted to take wrong as right and talk black into white. Luckily, we have Mr Ronny TONG. Originally, I was pretty shocked to hear his criticisms of Mr WONG Ting-kwong when he spoke on the motion on the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, for he should not, as a barrister, have spoken in this way. And yet, I find his speech just now pretty pragmatic. Given that he also has a part to play in the movement, he should know how to deal with the current situation.
I firmly believe that The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission), the President or the Secretariat will exercise extra caution and will not arbitrarily request the Police to enter the Complex to provide help unless it was absolutely necessary. How many security staff do we have? Being unarmed, how can our security staff resist those people? In the previous incident, 10 security staff were injured, how can we still denounce the decision to seek help from the Police? I have no idea if these people use their brains or other parts of their bodies to think. They are absurd.
As a matter of fact, we are still in danger as the Complex has been encircled on four sides with only one exit. Just now, a Member asked what should be done in case of fire. Should we shut the door like what we did last time? I also want to follow up on this question. Given that the Complex has been encircled ring upon ring, how can we escape if there is a fire? So what kind of problem is this?
Regarding the enhancement of security requirements, we should be pragmatic and target only at the possible scenarios. We absolutely do not want to see any accidents and wish that everyone can be safe and sound. This is why measures have to be taken, which is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, the President, the Secretariat and the Commission are all derelict of their duties. What is more, I think the Secretariat has been very tolerant. Earlier on, many colleagues complained and as mentioned by some other Members, the rooms upstairs have become "sub-divided units" or hourly hotel rooms. The President said that he cannot stop those people from entering the Complex for they may have to attend meetings at night, or even around the clock. The fact is, however, they do not enter the Complex for meetings, but for getting a good night's sleep. Such scenes have been captured by cameras and have caused a public outcry.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1853
I therefore hope that the Commission will exert greater effort to do what should be done and will not be deterred by criticisms. Likewise, the Police should take action when they consider necessary. The safety of life is of paramount importance. If anyone loses self-control, the Police should take law-enforcement action. Hong Kong is a community where the rule of law prevails, but the rule of law is being challenged. We will regret if we do not keep up our vigilance. In case of accidents, who should be held liable? I therefore consider that the speeches of certain Members pretty ridiculous. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There is one minute left for Members to speak. Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Security to reply.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I believe Honourable Members would remember the incident on 13 June when protesters stormed the Legislative Council Complex (the Complex). During the meeting of the Finance Committee on that day, protesters forced themselves into the Complex by violent means, causing damage to many parts of the building. They pushed over and seized mills barriers, charged their way into various entrances of the Complex, smashed the glass doors at different places, damaged the building façade and broke the fire prevention door of one of the emergency exits. The protesters' storming disrupted the proceedings of the Finance Committee meeting. Six security officers of the Legislative Council and five police officers were injured when carrying out their duties, and among them, one security officer sustained a toe fracture. The protesters' violent acts posed serious threat to the personal safety of all those at the scene, which included Legislative Council Members, security officers and police officers on duty, and even members of the public who originally intended to express their views in a peaceful manner, thereby causing severe damage to public order and public peace.
1854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
In relation to the storming of the Complex on 13 June, the Police had instituted prosecutions against 21 persons for the following charges: "Unlawful assembly", "Attempted forcible entry", "Assaulting an officer of the Legislative Council while in the execution of his duty", "Obstructing an officer of the Legislative Council while in the execution of his duty", "Contravening an administration order of the Legislative Council", "Assaulting a police officer in the due execution of his duty" and "Resisting a police officer in the due execution of his duty", and so on.
In the last Legislative Session, four Members raised urgent oral questions at the Legislative Council meeting of 18 June on various issues, including the storming of the Complex, security arrangement of the Complex and the role of and the assistance rendered by the Police in the incident. During the question session which lasted for more than two hours, the Acting Secretary for Security clearly explained that security management within the Legislative Council precincts falls within The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) and the action taken by the Police was in response to the request of the Legislative Council Secretariat (the Secretariat) for assistance to ensure public order and safety of officers of the Legislative Council and the public.
President, I would like to respond to some key points on the subject of today's motion.
According to the Police Ordinance, the duties of the Police Force include preserving the public peace and regulating assemblies in public places. I believe Members are aware that unlike other general public places, security management within the Legislative Council precincts falls within the Commission's purview, which is supported by the Secretariat. There are established measures on the part of Legislative Council in managing protest activities at the Complex and its surrounding areas. The Police will not arbitrarily enter the Complex. Generally speaking, it is upon receipt of the Secretariat's request for assistance in handling incidents involving public safety, public order or law and order, or receipt of a report, shall the Police, after liaising with the Secretariat, enter the Complex to render assistance.
In dealing with a serious security problem or an emergency situation that may possibly occur, the Legislative Council may seek assistance from the Police, and the Police shall handle the issue in a proactive manner. After the storming of the Complex on 13 June, the Commission and the Secretariat had discussed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014 1855 and reviewed the security arrangement of the Complex a number of times to explore ways to enhance the security measures inside and outside the Complex. The Secretariat had also been actively liaising with the Police on related security issues in an effort to work out an effective arrangement and various contingency measures to reduce the risk of another storming of the Complex.
I understand that the Commission had instructed a security consultant firm to conduct a comprehensive safety review on the security of the Legislative Council and explore ways to enhance its facilities and measures. The review will certainly cover contingency measures in emergencies, so that the Legislative Council can maintain order and safety when crowds gather within its precincts, and can deal with various possible situations in the future.
President, Hong Kong is a law-abiding society. The Government respects the freedom and rights of the public under the Basic Law to processions and conduct peaceful assembly. In exercising the rights to express their aspirations, participants of public meetings and processions shall observe the laws of Hong Kong and conduct such activities in a peaceful manner. They shall not engage in any act to the detriment of public safety and public order. In presenting views and aspirations, members of the public shall never step beyond the limits of the law. Protesters should bear in mind that it is very dangerous for them to commit unlawful acts and the consequences will be serious. The Police will certainly take actions against any acts in contravention of the law or in breach of public peace or public order.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That this Council do now adjourn. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
1856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 November 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 12 November 2014.
Adjourned accordingly at 5.10 pm.