LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7509
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 3 June 2020
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
7510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.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 CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE 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, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7511
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN
THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK
THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING
THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN
7512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG
THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI
THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN
MEMBER ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7513
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE ERICK TSANG KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE CASPAR TSUI YING-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER HUI CHING-YU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
MR ANDY CHAN SHUI-FU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
7514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.
Dentists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 98 of 2020
Dental Hygienists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ... 99 of 2020
Medical Practitioners (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 100 of 2020
Midwives (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 101 of 2020
Registered Nurses (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ... 102 of 2020
Enrolled Nurses (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 .... 103 of 2020
Medical Laboratory Technologists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 104 of 2020
Occupational Therapists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 105 of 2020
Optometrists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 106 of 2020
Radiographers (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 107 of 2020
Physiotherapists (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ... 108 of 2020
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7515
Chiropractors (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 109 of 2020
Chinese Medicine Practitioners (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2020 ...... 110 of 2020
Revenue (Reduction of Fees for Pharmacists' Certificates of Registration and Practising Certificates) Order 2020 ...... 111 of 2020
Exemption from Salaries Tax and Profits Tax (Anti-epidemic Fund) Order ...... 112 of 2020
Tax Reserve Certificates (Rate of Interest) (Consolidation) (Amendment) (No. 3) Notice 2020 ...... 113 of 2020
Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 2020 ...... 116 of 2020
Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 ...... 117 of 2020
Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 2020 ...... 118 of 2020
Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulation 2020 ...... 119 of 2020
Other Paper
Report No. 2/19-20 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
7516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.
Hung Hom Station Extension works under the Shatin to Central Link project
1. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): In May 2018, works quality problems were uncovered in respect of the construction works at and near the Hung Hom Station Extension under the Shatin to Central Link project. The independent commission of inquiry set up by the Government for this matter submitted its final report in March this year. The report has pointed out that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and its contractor, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"), were responsible for the serious deficiencies in their management and supervision systems, and the Government as the overseer, had to bear a measure of responsibility. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that project mismanagement on the part of MTRCL has led to a number of works quality problems and a delay of commissioning of the rail line, whether the Government will consider not paying MTRCL any amount of the management fees for the entire works project; if it will still pay such fees, whether the reason therefor is that the Government is still satisfied with MTRCL's performance;
(2) given that Leighton, as the contractor of the works project, has failed to fully comply with the procedures and requirements which aim to ensure works quality and structural safety, thereby compromising its integrity, and yet it is learnt that the Government has so far not completely disqualified Leighton and its related companies from tendering for public works projects, whether the Government will consider imposing heavier punishments on Leighton, including blacklisting Leighton and its related companies to permanently bar them from tendering for all public works and railway projects; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(3) given that as the overseer of the project, the Government has failed to play the role of an active participant, whether the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7517
will consider holding accountable the main government officials who were then involved (e.g. making a public condemnation); if so, of the specific actions to be taken; if not, the justifications for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): The Commission of Inquiry into the Construction Works at and near the Hung Hom Station Extension under the Shatin to Central Link Project ("The Commission") submitted its final report ("the Final Report") to the Chief Executive on 27 March this year. After redacting several parts therein to avoid any prejudice to relevant criminal investigations and any potential prosecutions of any criminal offences, the report was published on 12 May this year.
The Government welcomes the Commission's conclusion that, with the "suitable measures" in place, the station box (i.e. the diaphragm walls and platform slabs of the Hung Hom Station Extension), North Approach Tunnels, South Approach Tunnels and Hung Hom Stabling Sidings structures will be safe and also fit for purpose.
The Government also respects and is actively following up with the Commission's comments and recommendations. We will give a detailed account of the follow-up actions on the recommendations in the Commission's Final Report at the Legislative Council Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways meeting on 5 June.
The expenses relating to the Hung Hom Station Extension incident are estimated at about $2 billion. The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") is responsible for all the concerned expenses. Based on the conclusions of the Final Report, the Government will study the responsibilities of MTRCL, and follow up according to the Entrustment Agreement as and when appropriate.
At present, the Government and MTRCL are focusing on project delivery, with a view to expediting the project progress so as to enable the public to enjoy the new railway service as soon as possible. After much effort, we anticipate that the full commissioning of Tuen Ma Line could be brought forward to the third quarter of 2021. By then, the "Kai Tak to Hung Hom Section" will connect with West Rail Line and Tuen Ma Line Phase 1. This will further improve the connectivity between the northeast New Territories and the urban area, and relieve the pressure on the current transportation network. At the same time, the 7518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Government has taken a series of measures to closely monitor the MTRCL's project management process. The Government will continue to follow up with MTRCL on the Commission's recommendations on MTRCL's areas for improvement, and will closely monitor MTRCL's implementation of the improvement proposals.
We understand that the regulating action taken by the Development Bureau against Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") on 8 October 2018, in respect of the construction issues of the Shatin to Central Link Project is still effective, and the eligibility of Leighton to submit tenders for government public works projects has still been suspended. The Development Bureau is now reviewing the Final Report, in order to examine and analyse whether there are new circumstances that have not been previously considered. If necessary, the Development Bureau will, pursuant to the existing regulating regime, follow up the case in a fair and just manner.
As for legal liability, we understand that the Buildings Department prosecuted the contractor Leighton under Cap. 123 Buildings Ordinance on 15 May this year. Since the case has entered the judicial process, it is not appropriate to comment at this stage.
The Hung Hom Station Extension incident is mainly an issue of site supervision. It was recommended in the Final Report that government departments should participate more actively in site supervision. We are currently studying measures to improve the site supervision mechanism, and are examining the feasibility of establishing a new department specifically tasked to supervise and monitor the planning and delivery of railway projects following the direction recommended by the Commission, with a view to enhancing the Government's ability in monitoring and controlling the planning and delivery of new railway projects. The roles, responsibilities, staffing and structure of the new department are being studied in depth. With the new railway projects under the Railway Development Strategy 2014 progressively entering their planning and design stage, we will implement the above measures as soon as possible to ensure that the new monitoring strategy could be implemented before construction works of the projects commence, so as to enhance the public's confidence in the quality of railway works.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7519
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): I would like to follow up several points made by the Secretary in his reply. I wish to express my gratitude to the Secretary for the Tuen Ma Line which can come into service in the third quarter next year eventually. This is because many residents of New Territories West work in the East Kowloon, and they look forward to having to transfer once rather than twice when they commuting to work. Also, according to my understanding, in a quarter after the commissioning of Tuen Ma Line, the cross-harbour section of Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") will be commissioned. Does it mean that passengers may use SCL to cross the harbour by the end of next year? If this is not the case, I will consider it unacceptable. I want to make this point clear.
Second, regarding the responsibility of the Government, the Secretary has indicating that the incident is an issue of site supervision, implying seemingly that this has nothing to do with the government officials responsible for overseeing the project then. In this connection, since the overseeing mechanism is formulated by people, may I ask the Secretary whether those formulating the mechanism should be held accountable? Let me take filing of forms as an example, it is stated under the mechanism that no action is required to follow up failure to file forms, and unauthorized alteration of construction plans can be remedied by submitting applications afterwards. Under the circumstances, should the one designing this mechanism be held accountable?
Third, Leighton has been put under suspension for 10-odd months …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, you have asked two supplementary questions, yet Members are allowed to raise just one supplement question to follow up their main question. Please be seated. Secretary, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Regarding Mr TIEN's supplementary question, I will give an explanation here. The East West Corridor ("EWC") and the North South Corridor ("NSC") of SCL are two completely different railway lines, which have different requirements for construction, planning, as well as the signalling system and operation. As I have reported to Members just now, Tuen Ma Line will be commissioned in the third quarter of 2021, which is the result of the concerted efforts made by MTRCL, the government team and all project staff.
7520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Members also understand that the construction of NSC involves a lot of procedures, including cross-harbour works, alteration of signalling system for the East Rail Line, replacing the 12-car trains with 9-car trains, adopting a mixed mode of operation. It will take some time for staff to get familiarized with everything, and tests have to be done upon the smooth completion of the relevant railway work on the Hong Kong Island before the project can be accomplished. Hence, to this day, we are still working hard. Yet, according to the estimation made today, the project cannot be completed until 2022. I hope Members would understand that the development of railway project is to provide convenient, efficient and environmentally friendly commuting options for the public. At the same time, safety is the basic premise. Hence, we will complete the relevant work as soon as possible while ensuring the safety of railways.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): I have raised two questions, one is on responsibility …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, if you have other questions to raise, please press the "Request to speak" button again to wait for your turn. Members are allowed to ask one supplementary question in each turn, and the Secretary has already answered your first supplementary question.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): But then, should the person formulating the mechanism be held accountable, Secretary …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is another question. Please wait afresh for your turn to raise another supplementary question. Mr MA Fung-kwok, you may ask your question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7521
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): The Secretary has mentioned in the last part of the main reply that a new department tasked to supervise and monitor the planning and delivery of railway projects will be established. In reality, however, as reflected in the problems with SCL, the issue in question is far more than a matter of supervision and monitoring. One of the key concerns is whether or not the Government will review the modes of railway construction to be adopted in future, including the current practice of authorizing MTRCL to operate and construct railways under the concession approach, and examine their pros and cons. Will the Government handle this issue with new thinking in future? I hope the Government will give respond to these concerns.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Mr MA for his supplementary question. The establishment of a new department which I have mentioned just now is the follow-up actions implemented in response to the series of recommendations made by the Commission. The recommendations of the Commission can be summarized into several aspects. First, structural safety of railways; second, quality assurance of projects, and third, system of site supervision, as well as the so-called culture of collaboration and other communication arrangements.
Hence, in general, the new department is established to follow up in a comprehensive manner the recommendations of the Commission. I thank Mr MA for bringing up the issue of entrustment agreement. In deciding whether the service concession mode or the ownership mode should be adopted, different factors have to be taken into considerations for these two modes. The service concession mode was adopted in the past for certain reasons, yet we have learned from experience that the approach is not very satisfactory in certain aspects.
Recently, when we invited MTRCL to submit detailed planning and design for railway projects, as Member have noticed, we have adopted the ownership mode having regard to the situation concerning the railways, as well as the units to whom the former owners or owners of sites in the vicinity or sites connecting the railways belong. We will also conduct timely reviews on the various entrustment arrangements. When new railway projects are introduced in future, we will handle them appropriately.
7522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, Secretary, as the saying goes, "Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future". We can now see the serious mistakes and blunders of MTRCL and Leighton as pointed out in the report. As regards the conclusions made in respect of these issues, I understand that the Secretary will give a further account at the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways on 5 June. Yet, I wonder if the Secretary has the feeling that, first, the railway constructed in Hong Kong is the most expensive in the world. With the geological condition of sites in Hong Kong being either too soft or too hard, or neither soft nor hard, the construction cost is particularly expensive. Second, MTRCL is actually so fat that it cannot even pull up its own socks, for it enjoys monopoly and the Government entrusts projects to them. Has the Government learnt from the painful experience? Will it consider appointing the China State Railway Group Company Ltd which is separated from Hong Kong by a river only? They have constructed high-speed rails in the Mainland of a length of 20 000 km to 30 000 km, running through provinces and municipalities and going across valleys. Yet, the construction cost of the railway projects is merely around RMB400,000 per metre, whereas the lowest cost charged by the company in Hong Kong ranges from $3.5 million to $8 million. Hence, should we consider appointing railway companies of our Motherland to introduce competition, so that Hong Kong may construct beautiful and good railways at a lower cost and in a speedy and timely manner? The report has made no mention of these issues. May I ask the Secretary of his views in this respect?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr HO for his views on the construction costs of railway projects in Hong Kong. I hope Members would understand that Hong Kong is a densely populated place with scarce land resources. Since the area used for residential purpose merely accounts for 7% of the total area of land in Hong Kong, the population density is extremely high and the area is packed with high-rise buildings. In constructing underground railway, we must give regard to geological changes and safeguard the safety of buildings above the tunnels or near the sites and to minimize the impact on the public. Hence, there are basically inherent restrictions. As for the possibility of introducing other contractors to Hong Kong for railway construction, the answer is in the affirmative. According to our observation, many places around the world, including the Mainland as mentioned by Dr HO just now, have often invited MTRCL to submit tenders for the construction of new railway lines, and this is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7523 good evidence showing that MTRCL is a capable contractor with good reputation. We understand that Members are disappointed with the individual or various situations occurred recently. Yet, I hope Members will give MTRCL, a Hong Kong brand, the opportunity to continue to serve Hong Kong. Also, we will urge MTRCL to do a good job in maintaining railway operation safety as well as quality control of railway construction projects. The Government team will also double its effort to continue to work hard in this respect. It is hoped that with the work we carry out in future, we can boost the public's confidence in MTRCL as well as the railway development in Hong Kong, so much so that they will lend us their support.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, given that the Entrustment Agreement is signed between the SAR Government and MTRCL, and that the power of the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC") is mentioned in at least several paragraphs in the Entrustment Agreement, will the SAR Government and MTRCL cooperate fully with PAC on PAC's request, so that PAC may follow up the conditions involving SCL?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms CHAN for her views. First, the SAR Government respect the functions of the Legislative Council in overseeing the Government and conducting legislative work. In the past, we had provided the relevant information in response to Members' questions on various occasions and at different committees, including PAC. When the Legislative Council exercises its power to conduct the relevant work, we will cooperate fully.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I did ask whether MTRCL in particular will cooperate.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
7524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, regarding the cooperation mentioned just now, I am referring to the cooperation of all units concerned. Indeed, as a large enterprise in Hong Kong, they have their social responsibility. In the course, I believe the relevant companies will cooperate as far as possible in this respect to clarify the facts.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, regarding the SCL incident, even though the independent Commission has stated that the structure has met the required standards in general and Leighton has to face legal proceedings, the Government as part of the Board of Directors still has an unshirkable responsibility over the incident, for the Government has appointed representatives to the Board of Directors to assume relevant roles. In view of the serious problems and loopholes in management revealed in the SCL incident, may I ask the Secretary whether the Government has assumed accountability after the incident and reviewed if the representatives appointed to the Board of Directors should take up a more significant and dominant role in future to improve or enhance the management of MTRCL? May I ask the Government whether the role and attitude adopted by the representatives appointed by the Government will change because of this incident? Has the authorities conducted a review; if so, what are the results?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. I believe if Members have read the report of the Commission, they would have noticed that a number of problems involving communication and reporting have been mentioned, including the extremely inadequate communication between the design team and the construction team at the site, such that certain alterations of design have not been made know to the design team. Moreover, if Members have paid attention, when the Government discovered this situation last year and realized the severity of the case, the Board of Directors of MTRCL and the Government both stated clearly that the Government and the Board of Directors of MTRCL had been kept in the dark and the incident had never been raised to or discussed by the Board of Directors. Hence, the colleague responsible for the case has left.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7525
Regarding the follow-up work in future as mentioned by Mr CHAN, we will follow up the issues thoroughly according to the recommendations of the Commission. Moreover, we have invited a small team to conduct independent audit for us. We hope that as we follow up these issues in a practical, serious and solemn manner, the relevant problems can be resolved one after another. We also look forward to providing railway services trusted by the public.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My supplementary question just now is very straightforward, and that is: As the Government has appointed representatives to the Board of Director of MTRCL, whether the Government will review and enhance the role of these representatives in the light of this incident? It is indeed a straightforward one.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have already stated the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, in fact, in the main reply, as well as my replies to the supplementary questions asked by a number of Members just now, regarding the detailed interim report and the final report of the Commission, issues mentioned in the report mainly involves site supervision, communication and the collaboration among various teams but do not cover any upper echelon of the Board of Directors or other related views. I hope Members will refer to the relevant report.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?
7526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.
Second question. Mr Wilson OR, please ask your main question.
Development plans for three squatter areas
2. MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Chief Executive put forward in the 2019 Policy Address the resumption of the private land in three squatter areas in Kowloon East (i.e. Cha Kwo Ling Village, Ngau Chi Wan Village and Chuk Yuen United Village) to make way for the development of seven hectares of urban sites into a new community mainly comprising high-density public housing. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the latest progress of the aforesaid development projects; the number of housing flats that may be provided, the population that may be accommodated and the average living space per person upon completion of the projects;
(2) given that the population in Kowloon East is aging and welfare facilities in that area have all along been in short supply, of the floor area to be reserved by the Government in such development projects for constructing welfare facilities; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7527
(3) given that Cha Kwo Ling Village is the only remaining ancient village in Hong Kong, which has a history of 400 years with rich cultural relics and heritage (including not only the Tin Hau Temple of Cha Kwo Ling, which has been classified as a Grade 3 historic building, but also activities in celebration of Lu Pan Patron's Day and Tin Hau Festival which are held annually), whether the Government has drawn up any conservation framework and blueprint for the three villages?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, to increase land continuously for housing development and speed up government-led planning, the Government announced in the 2019 Policy Address the commissioning of studies on three urban squatter areas (viz. Cha Kwo Ling Village, Ngau Chi Wan Village and Chuk Yuen United Village) for integrated planning comprising mainly public housing. The studies aim to make better use and expedite development of sites that are suitable for high-density housing development, so as to meet the keen housing demand of the public.
My reply to the three parts of the question raised by Mr OR is as follows:
(1) In respect of the planning of the three squatter areas, the Civil Engineering and Development Department has commissioned two Engineering Feasibility Studies ("EFSs"), with the one covering Cha Kwo Ling Village commenced in mid-2019 and the one for Ngau Chi Wan Village and Chuk Yuen United Village started in early 2020. These studies will cover formulation of the development options, detailed land use proposals (including the distribution of housing, Government, Institution or Community ("GIC") facilities, open space and supporting infrastructure) and implementation arrangements, as well as technical assessments. On the premise that these three projects will be taken forward at a relatively high development intensity, we estimate preliminarily that more than 7 hectares of land in these three squatter areas can altogether provide about 6 300 public housing units. As regards the development parameters including the actual number of flats to be provided, plot ratio and population figures, these will be confirmed upon completion of the EFSs. In the course of the development, we will listen to views of the local community and stakeholders on the 7528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
development proposals and implementation timetable. Our target is to complete these studies within 2021, followed by local consultation and relevant rezoning procedures of the Outline Zoning Plans ("OZPs"). Detailed design for infrastructural facilities will also be carried out concurrently to pave way for funding applications for the related works, and subsequently conduct land resumption, clearance and infrastructural works in accordance with the established mechanism. If things go well, we will make our best endeavours to officially commence works in around 2025, with a view to increasing public housing supply in the medium term. As and when the epidemic subsides, we will arrange to brief the affected households, business undertakings and possibly affected parties on the studies, implementation processes and the Government's compensation and rehousing arrangements, etc.
(2) As stated above, other than public housing, the development proposals for the three squatter areas will also provide suitable GIC facilities to address the needs arising from the additional population brought by the future development and district demand. Based on the scale of the proposed development and the supply-and-demand of local community facilities, and with reference to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and comments from relevant departments, we will pursue comprehensive planning addressing the needs of the community. Land and floor space will be accordingly reserved for the provision of facilities for children, elderly, education, health care, recreation and transport, etc. We will try to optimize the land resources reserved for implementation of these GIC facilities under the "single site, multiple use" concept wherever practicable. Details like the actual types, floor space required and exact mode of development of GIC facilities will be confirmed by the EFSs and subject to consultation with relevant departments. We will further gauge views from stakeholders during local consultation prior to initiating the rezoning process.
(3) These three squatter areas have a long history. The study area of Cha Kwo Ling Village covers the Law Mansion, a historic building accorded with Grade 3 status by the Antiquities Advisory Board ("AAB"). As for Ngau Chi Wan squatter area, it has Man Fat Nunnery, also a Grade 3 historic building. To strike a balance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7529
between development needs and heritage conservation, we will assess, during the course of the EFSs, whether the proposed works would affect buildings with historical significance and sites of archaeological interest in the squatter areas. Subject to any impact identified, necessary heritage impact assessment and consultation with AAB will be conducted, so as to devise suitable heritage conservation measures and arrangements. Generally speaking, when formulating development options, our overarching principle is to preserve in-situ the graded historic buildings accorded by AAB as far as practicable, and to incorporate these buildings in the future development through comprehensive planning. As such, subject to the findings of the studies, our current intention is to preserve the Law Mansion and Man Fat Nunnery in-situ while developing the squatter areas. We will present detailed conservation proposals at the local consultation prior to commencement of rezoning procedure. As for the Tin Hau Temple in Cha Kwo Ling Village, it falls outside the study area of the EFS on Cha Kwo Ling Village. Hence, we believe that the temple and its current associated activities with conservation and cultural values would not be affected by the proposed development.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am disappointed with the Secretary's main reply. His reply even gives me and the public a strong feeling that this is indeed a Buddhist-style government. Deputy President, all of us know that we have been talking about these three squatter areas for years. The Chief Executive has already included them in the Policy Address in as early as 2019, but it is already June 2020 now. If the earlier remarks of the Secretary should be the case, I believe we would have to wait for decades.
Secretary, I wish to cite the development sites in the North East New Territories as an example for you. I believe the Secretary should know very well that to date, more than 10 years have passed after two terms of Government, and it is until recently that tasks such as consultation, compensation and rehousing have been completed consecutively. If housing construction is kicked off now, it will take three to five years to complete at the earliest. That is to say, a total of 15 years are required. Secretary, I am deeply worried that these three squatter areas will face the same problem as well.
7530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Deputy President, here is my supplementary question for the Secretary. The residents of these squatter areas are indeed in dire straits, as they are living in an extremely poor environment. Could the Secretary undertake publicly to let those living in the squatter areas know whether the Secretary can serve as the coordinator in these processes in a bid to shorten such procedures, so as to expedite the development of these three squatter areas?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my thanks go to Mr OR for his supplementary question and comments. We share Mr OR's anxiety as we also hold that it is more desirable for the future development in society―especially projects in relation to public housing―to be implemented more expeditiously. I also agree with this direction indeed, but I disagree with Mr OR's remarks that we are working in a Buddhist style. In fact, I have also mentioned just now that subsequent to the delivery of the 2019 Policy Address, we have immediately commissioned in mid-2019 the relevant study on the project of Cha Kwo Ling Village―actually more than two thirds of the 7 hectares of land is situated in Cha Kwo Ling Village. I have also pointed out earlier that we hope to complete these studies one by one within the next year, and I believe the study on Cha Kwo Ling Village will be completed first.
In fact, according to the existing laws and regulations, we have to go through the rezoning procedures, by that I mean we have to amend the OZPs so that the relevant sites can be used for public housing development projects of a relatively higher density. As certain time is required to proceed under the full set of regulations and system, it is our hope that the works can be taken forward in 2025, actually this is a rather aggressive timetable. What I can promise Mr OR is that we will, upon going back to our office, explore the possibility of further speeding up to some extent each step in every aspect. That said, I must also tell Mr OR that the room for further speeding up the work is in fact somewhat limited, since we must adhere to certain procedures in the course of implementing land planning and preparing for land development projects in Hong Kong.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, whilst it is certainly important to increase the supply of land and housing, we must not ignore the conservation of cultural relics and culture at the same time. I heard the Secretary mention in part (3) of his main reply concerning the EFSs the approach to strike a balance between development needs and heritage conservation, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7531 that is, to incorporate them in the future development through planning. It gives me the feeling that this is the approach to be adopted to protect these cultural relics or buildings. However, Deputy President, we can see in the process of development and heritage conservation in the past that the design of buildings or community facilities is often incompatible with those cultural relics or buildings under protection, and that such a problem has occurred very frequently. The Government merely protects the cultural relics, but it has not done enough in fostering them.
Therefore, may I ask the Secretary how they would ensure in this development project that the design of the buildings and the overall planning can integrate the newly built items into these protected cultural relics, including the Law Mansion mentioned by the Secretary just now? Will the Secretary consider attaching greater importance to the design in the light of this issue, or organizing a design competition to enable the sector to give full play to its expertise and creativity?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr TSE for his supplementary question. The point raised by Mr TSE relates to the challenges we encounter in planning for development, particularly when there are some historic buildings, or even premises of cultural inheritance or where activities are held in the development area which warrant conservation. Let me answer Mr TSE directly. Just as I have mentioned in my main reply earlier on, we will conduct relevant studies and assessments. This is actually related to future land use, for instance, what are the major developments in the area? They are mainly public housing development projects, and we will make appropriate consideration in regard to the design of public housing, direction or arrangements of people flow. Yet, it is difficult for us to provide more details at this moment, and I do not want to be too abstract. In fact, each project will bring about great challenges as we have to address the relevant needs. It is because it is a major issue even in foreign countries when speaking of how to combine a historic building or graded monument with some new developments in the future, let alone Hong Kong. Nevertheless, we have, in recent years, taken a very proactive approach and worked very hard to carry out the work in this respect.
Regarding Mr TSE's question of whether a design competition would be organized, I have some reservations over this at this point. Why? It is because, first, we must give due regard to the needs of the project; second, the time for 7532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 public housing construction is very tight after all. Just as Mr OR has said, we really wish to supply public housing as soon as possible. If extra time will be required for some parts of the design procedures, we then have to consider how much benefit this will bring us. At this moment, I will not tell for sure that a design competition will not be organized, but this is not included in our idea at this juncture.
MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Secretary about land resumption in these three areas. As a matter of fact, there have been numerous land resumption cases relating to squatter areas in the New Territories in the past, so matters like resumption methods and compensation are very clear. There are quite a number of squatters in Ngau Chi Wan and Cha Kwo Ling, but they differ from those in the New Territories. This being so, may I ask the Secretary whether the same approach will be adopted for matters like land resumption methods and compensation in dealing with urban squatters, rendering it in line with that for squatters in the New Territories, or another approach will be adopted such that it will take an even longer time?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. I am very grateful to Members of the Legislative Council for endorsing in mid-2018 the enhanced rehousing and compensation arrangements for squatter occupiers. What is the essence of the arrangements? Under certain circumstances, we have an arrangement for squatter occupiers who fail the asset or means tests for allocation of public housing to exempt them from these tests. They can then be rehoused in Dedicated Rehousing Estates provided by the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS"). This arrangement is fully applicable to urban squatters. In fact, we are also carrying out land resumption in Kwu Tung North and Fanling North. I dare not say that we are doing this smoothly without a hitch, but we have managed to get the job done all along. I hope that when we reach the stage of land resumption in the several urban squatter areas, this relaxed arrangement―I thank the Legislative Council again for endorsing this arrangement―should be helpful to the land resumption work in these squatter areas.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7533
MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): I would like to have more details, as the Secretary has mentioned the rehousing estates provided by HKHS just now. There are indeed such estates in Hung Shui Kiu or North East New Territories, but there is none in the urban area.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, you cannot ask a new supplementary question.
MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has claimed that it is the same case as in the New Territories. May I ask if there are such rehousing estates in the urban area?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would be happy to answer this question.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please be brief when providing supplementary information.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, there are such estates in the urban area. We have mentioned earlier that some sites in Kai Tak would be allocated to HKHS for housing construction, and some of the flats would be used for this purpose.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, I have noticed that the Secretary has mentioned in his reply that the development of the entire project would in fact take quite a long time and involve many procedures. Yet, I have received the views from many villagers of these squatter areas that while it would take quite a long time from now on up to the time when the freezing surveys are officially launched and the process of rehousing and compensation is taken forward, there have now been many cases of illegal sales, and some people would even expel the occupiers in the hope of obtaining higher profits or more benefits. I would like to ask the Secretary, given that they have already decided to pursue 7534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 these projects, such that land resumption or the final land planning will be carried out eventually, whether he will launch the freezing surveys and make the corresponding land resumption compensation as soon as possible―I also hope that he can do so as soon as possible―in order to do a good job on this part. The residents will no longer have to be worried as they would at least know their way forward that they would not need to live in a place where the structures are relatively unsafe, and that they could move to a safe permanent dwelling as early as possible. Will the Secretary make the corresponding land resumption compensation and conduct freezing surveys as expeditiously as possible?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): My thanks go to Mr WU for his supplementary question. In fact, I also agree with the relevant direction. Mr WU is actually very familiar with the situation in this respect, but freezing surveys need to be conducted at an appropriate timing, as some problems may arise if such surveys are carried out too early. According to my understanding, there is currently a view that people hope the surveys can be speeded up to a certain extent. It is because in some previous cases, we might have to complete the OZPs for submission to the Town Planning Board first, whereas freezing surveys would only be carried out after the situation has become more certain.
Insofar as the three squatter areas are concerned, we consider it possible to carry out the freezing surveys at an earlier time. I thus agree with this direction, and we are now focusing on the several technical feasibility studies currently underway. As I have said just now, these studies will be completed successively within 2021. If we can draw up the boundary and some basic parameters of the development areas, it is my hope at this point of time that the freezing surveys can be carried out in 2021 or in 2022 at the latest, which is earlier than the time required when we adopted some other practices in the past. In this connection, we will keep considering how to do our best by taking into account the development of the situation.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please point out direct the part of your supplementary question not answered.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7535
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): My question is: Since I am aware that the study on Cha Kwo Ling Village will actually be completed in this year, does the Secretary imply that the freezing survey will be conducted upon completion of the study on Cha Kwo Ling Village?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, you have raised a new supplementary question. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I would be happy to answer Mr WU. The study on Cha Kwo Ling Village was commissioned at an earlier time. Subject to its completion in the first half of 2021, we would also be happy to conduct the corresponding freezing survey as long as we have some baseline data in hand. That said, I am unable to give Mr WU a concrete answer at this moment, since it would also depend on the findings of the study and whether there would be some factors that require consideration.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Secretary, I have been gravely concerned about the policy on squatters all along, especially there are only a few squatter areas left in the urban area nowadays. From another perspective, squatters have always been listed among the targets of clearance operations by the Government. Nevertheless, this is a historical issue. Despite the fact that I am quite dissatisfied with the governance during the British Hong Kong era, their policy has solved the housing problem. The SAR Government has to tackle with the housing problem now, and it has also adopted the approach of demolishing squatters and developing public rental housing on the sites. From this perspective, I think this is a kind of collective memory. Does the Government consider it necessary to retain some squatter areas with distinctive features, so that such squatters will not vanish completely in our society in the future as a result of the clearance or "renewal" operations by the SAR Government?
I have to remind the Secretary that many of those who have lived and grown up in squatters have certain influence in society nowadays. Therefore, can the Secretary retain some squatters from the perspective of conservation to enable Hong Kong people to know the development process of Hong Kong?
7536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr LEUNG for his supplementary question. Perhaps Mr LEUNG is also very familiar with this issue. Meanwhile, we tolerate the existence of squatters. Do the squatters own the land title? No, but we tolerate their existence. Instead of demolishing all squatter areas in Hong Kong for development purpose, in fact our current approach is to conduct clearance to make way for a particular development project when development needs arise. I have mentioned some compensation and rehousing arrangements earlier on, hence I would not repeat them here.
There are currently hundreds of squatter areas in Hong Kong, why do we seek to develop these three of them only? It is because the transportation in these squatter areas is relatively more convenient, and they are located near some high-density public housing developments with relatively more comprehensive community facilities. At present, does the Government have any plan to demolish all squatter areas in Hong Kong? No. At this stage, it is also difficult for us to point out very conceptually which squatter areas should be retained and which should not. In fact, it all depends on the long-term development needs of Hong Kong society in the future.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I think the Secretary has not responded to my supplementary question at all. Why have I proposed to retain some squatters with distinctive features? It is because they form a part of our history. Now that the Secretary has told me …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you cannot raise another supplementary question. Please point out the part of your previous supplementary question that has not been answered.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): This is not a new supplementary question, Deputy President, he has not answered me at all. He indicated that they had not considered any places with distinctive features. I am now talking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7537 about an ancient village with distinctive features and a history of 400 years. Yet, the authorities still seek to demolish it, claiming that it has no distinctive features. But it has a history of 400 years, Secretary.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have clearly pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Mr LEUNG. Let me further speak on it briefly. On the question of whether individual squatter areas will be demolished in the future, it actually depends on the long-term development needs of Hong Kong. Therefore, at this stage, the Government would not make it clear the future development in advance and decide which squatter areas should be retained or demolished. I hope Mr LEUNG would understand our stance.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has requested a headcount.
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, but some Members did not return to their seats)
7538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.
Third question. Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please ask your main question.
Statutory bodies
3. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Recently, the work and decisions of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, the Communications Authority and the Independent Police Complaints Council have given rise to controversies across various sectors of society. Some members of the public have queried that such statutory bodies are only subordinates of the Executive Authorities which are not subject to public monitoring, and that they have not placed the overall interests of Hong Kong above all else in the course of their actions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will enact legislation to transfer the functions of certain statutory bodies to those bodies with their members elected by members of the public (e.g. District Councils), so that members of the public will have more opportunities to participate in public affairs;
(2) as there are comments that given the resources for operating the statutory bodies being mainly provided by the Government, coupled with the fact that a majority of their members are appointed by the Government, the independency of these statutory bodies is prone to be questioned, how the Government will improve this situation; and
(3) of the ways to avoid controversies being caused in society again by statutory bodies when they discharge their statutory functions?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my consolidated reply to Dr CHENG Chung-tai's question is as follows:
As a key component in public administration, advisory and statutory bodies ("ASBs") play an important role of helping the Government in the consultation with stakeholders, formulation of policy objectives and performance of statutory LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7539 functions. The relevant bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") are responsible for the establishment, composition (including the appointment of non-official members) and actual operation of individual ASBs. At present, there are about 500 ASBs in Hong Kong. Of them, 270 are statutory bodies established in accordance with various ordinances. Given the difference in legislative purposes, the nature and functions of these statutory bodies vary considerably, including:
(a) advisory boards and committees that advise on policies and public services;
(b) public bodies that provide services to members of the public;
(c) appeal boards that resolve disputes between members of the public and the Government/public bodies; and
(d) regulatory bodies that regulate specific trades.
Statutory bodies perform various statutory functions in accordance with the relevant legislation. In general, these functions involve the handling of territory-wide policies or public affairs. District Councils ("DCs") mentioned in the question, established under the District Councils Ordinance ("DCO") (Cap. 547), are also statutory bodies but their functions target at handling matters in the respective districts. These include advising the Government on district administration affairs and undertaking community activities and environmental improvements within the district. Under the current system, if district-specific matters (such as construction of public facilities in the district) are involved in a bureau's policy formulation or a statutory body's performance of statutory functions, the bureau and/or statutory body concerned will also consult the relevant DC.
The appointments of individuals by the Government as non-official members to ASBs are based on merits. When making an appointment, the relevant B/D takes into account the candidate's ability, expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to public service, with due regard to the functions and nature of business of ASB. As for the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA"), the Communications Authority and the Independent Police Complaints Council mentioned in the preamble of the question raised by Dr CHENG Chung-tai, we have consulted relevant bureaux. 7540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
We understand that as these statutory bodies are responsible for handling more specialized matters, when making an appointment, the Government needs to consider whether the professional knowledge and experience possessed by the candidate are compatible with the statutory body's performance of its functions. To gauge a wide range of public views, the Government will consider appointing people of various background and experience, such as professionals, academics, businessmen as well as representatives from districts and related sectors. Apart from those appointed directly by the Government, some ASB members are identified through nomination, recommendation, appointment or election by the relevant institutions and professional organizations.
There is no lack of people in the community who have enthusiasm to participate in public services and have the necessary ability and experience. As such, under the principle of appointment by merits, the Government has established internal guidelines to make sure that individuals from various sectors of the community have the opportunity to participate in public services. According to the guidelines, B/Ds, as a general rule, shall not recommend appointment of a member to serve on more than six ASBs at the same time or to serve on the same body for more than six years in the same capacity. This is to ensure a reasonable distribution of workload and a healthy turnover of members. Moreover, the Government has set a gender benchmark target of 35% to enhance the participation of women in relevant work. To provide more opportunities for young people to participate in policy discussion and debate, the Government has set a target of increasing, within the current-term Government, the overall ratio of appointed youth members aged between 18 and 35 to 15%.
The Government has all along been encouraging the public to participate in the work of ASBs so as to enhance public participation in public affairs. Those who are interested to join ASBs may provide us with basic personal particulars and indicate the policy area(s) which he/she is interested in through a form downloadable from the Home Affairs Bureau's web page. The Home Affairs Bureau will put the information received in a centralized database from which B/Ds may draw reference when making appointments. In fact, the Government creates, through various initiatives, a favourable environment for the public (in particular young people) to join different ASBs, which include regularizing the Member Self-recommendation Scheme for Youth ("MSSY") launched by the current-term Government to regularly recruit young people who aspire to serve the community to join more ASBs involving different policy areas.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7541
The Government has always attached importance to the composition and operation of ASBs, and encourages ASBs to take appropriate measures to enhance transparency and commitment to the public. To this end, ASBs have, in light of their respective functions and nature of business, issued press releases, made available meeting agendas or documents for public access or uploaded suitable information onto the Internet, with a view to enhancing transparency as far as practicable.
B/Ds will continue to closely monitor the operation of ASBs under their purview and keep in close view the composition to make sure that it meets the operation need and keeps up with the current situation of society. This is to ensure that ASBs can effectively perform their statutory functions, make decisions that meet the overall interests of Hong Kong, and provide quality public services. The Home Affairs Bureau will continue to encourage B/Ds to keep identifying more talent from different fields to participate in ASBs, allowing them to give full play to their strengths while helping the Government to have a better grasp of social conditions and public views so as to achieve effective governance.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I had expected that the Chief Secretary for Administration would answer this question, but now it is answered by the Home Affairs Bureau. This is incomprehensible.
My question only seeks to ask one thing. The DC elections of the current term and the last one were full direct elections. All along, it has been pointed out in social science studies that public administration in Hong Kong employs administrative absorption of politics, which is one of the ways to alleviate social conflicts. Given that DCs have already implemented full direct elections, why does the Government not give consideration to incorporating incumbent DC members into the establishment to alleviate social conflicts, but chooses to obviously put its stance above everything else and politically sever ties and even struggle with DC members? For the well-being of Hong Kong, I wish to ask whether the Bureau has considered what can be done at the DC level to incorporate DC members into the advisory framework or statutory bodies.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, DCs have their own functions. As highlighted in my opening remarks just now, according to section 61 of DCO (Cap. 547), the functions of DCs include 7542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 advising the Government on specific local affairs and making proper use of the relevant funding for the districts. I am not going to repeat the contents of the particular provisions in this aspect.
The Deputy President may also have noted that over the past few months, DCs have held quite a number of meetings to discuss numerous issues and items concerning the districts. As at April this year, the 18 districts have held more than 200 meetings in total, during which a lot of detailed discussions were conducted. Among them, more than four meetings lasted over 10 hours. The number of motions proposed and moved exceeded 500, whilst the number of funding applications vetted and approved was over 380. Hence, if DCs can properly play their roles under DCO and deliberate over livelihood issues in the districts, they can in fact perform their duties effectively. Let me end this part of my reply for now.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many statutory bodies operate independently. However, independent operation does not mean plain sailing. Neither does it mean that the Government will have nothing to worry about. Let me cite the recent incident of HKEAA setting a wrong question in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSE") as an example. This incident has aroused great controversy. The Education Bureau actively intervened afterwards, but a gross mistake had already been made, and the remedies also gave rise to other problems. May I ask the Secretary, when a statutory body encounters a problem in its operation and even fails to perform its statutory functions, what policy does the Government have in place to facilitate advance supervision, intervention and timely rectification to prevent the occurrence of any more mistakes?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Regarding the case mentioned by the Member, earlier on the Education Bureau has already taken actions. For instance, to maintain the professionalism, fairness, impartiality and credibility of HKDSE, the Bureau has assigned supervisory officers familiar with quality assurance of the curriculum to visit HKEAA to look into the question setting, vetting and approval mechanism for HKDSE, and whether the preparation of the examination paper on this occasion was conducted in strict compliance with the mechanism. Certainly, they have also requested HKEAA to invalidate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7543 the examination question concerned and make appropriate adjustments to safeguard the reliability and validity of the History examination in this event, thereby ensuring that all candidates are fairly treated.
Although HKEAA is authorized to plan and assess HKDSE, since this incident has aroused public concern, I know the Education Bureau will review the existing mechanism so as to fulfil its role of monitoring the conduct of HKDSE, with a view to ensuring the sustained quality of the examination and question papers.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has spelt out in detail the intervention by the Education Bureau in the aftermath, but just now my supplementary question was whether the Government has actually put in place any measures which can facilitate advance supervision and early intervention to prevent any problems from arising in these statutory bodies.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the supplementary question raised by the Member just now, we know the Education Bureau will review its role in its future work and see how the good quality can be maintained in the long term.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai asked about statutory bodies, and the first one mentioned in his main question is HKEAA. Financially, HKEAA is completely self-financing without receiving any government subsidies. Given the drop in the number of students and reduction in the number of examination subjects, HKEAA has repeatedly applied to the Legislative Council for funds owing to its income falling short of expenditure. At the same time, however, HKEAA has issued bonuses to its staff. Moreover, leakage of examination questions has been suspected a number of times. Recently, Weslie SIAO, a "tutor king" involved in conspiring with officers 7544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 of HKEAA to leak examination questions, was convicted of conspiracy to misconduct in public office and sentenced to imprisonment of more than 10 months.
In this connection, how should these statutory bodies be held accountable? Should the Government not conduct a review and manage them strictly to prevent their officers from committing any illegal acts, and at the same time stop them from squandering money, requesting funding from the Legislative Council while issuing bonuses to their staff? They are totally "footloose and fancy-free".
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Actually, the source of funding of many public organizations and statutory bodies can be of various backgrounds or approaches. Some operate by charging fees, and some by making investments or relying on donations. As mentioned by Members just now, a mechanism has been put in place to monitor their operation. Should any non-compliance be detected, there is also a series of laws to deal with such non-compliance. Certainly, concerning the future monitoring work, apart from monitoring by the public and the Council, as in the case of HKEAA mentioned just now, the Education Bureau will also review its operation afresh to ensure its professionalism, such that different public organizations can produce their intended effects.
MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, statutory bodies act as a bridge between the community and the Government in different policy areas. Apart from serving as an advisory framework, some of them discharge specific statutory functions. For example, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, the Hong Kong Productivity Council and the Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation, which were established in 1960s in the last century, have made tremendous contributions to the development of the industrial and commercial sectors in Hong Kong over the past decades. Having different historical backgrounds and operational needs, different statutory bodies are monitored by different ordinances. They also have to report their work to their respective advisory or regulatory committees, while the Office of The Ombudsman and the Audit Commission may conduct investigations and relay their views on the performance of these organizations. Therefore, it is absolutely not true that they are totally "footloose and fancy-free".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7545
Nevertheless, positions in statutory bodies are mostly unpaid. In addition, in the current political environment, when assisting the Government in the promotion of policies or offering advice, statutory bodies are often sandwiched on the political front, thus bearing heavy pressure. Such unhealthy phenomena may discourage aspiring or competent people in society. I wish to ask the Government's view on this issue and how it can encourage more aspirants to participate.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The Member has just highlighted a few salient points, one of which is the fact that most officers of statutory bodies in Hong Kong do not receive any remuneration or allowance. Moreover, sometimes the meeting time is quite long. They are actually great volunteers. We have also noticed in the past that when we wished to invite more people interested in serving the community to join in, they were somewhat hesitant about participating in the advisory framework.
At the same time, however, I am not pessimistic about the situation. For example, the Government wishes to attract more young people to join its statutory bodies and advisory framework by way of MSSY. I remember that in my last post, I served as a member in certain committees and needed to interview young people who were candidates under MSSY. I found that the response from young people was very enthusiastic. Since MSSY was launched in October 2017, over 5 000 applications have been received from the recruitment in the three phases. A total of 71 posts were offered by 35 committees participating in the Scheme, and appointments have been made to fill most of the posts. I would like to share with Members an even more encouraging point. Most of the committees offered only two posts, but when the other committee members and I conducted interviews with the young, we met with many outstanding young people aspiring to serve Hong Kong society. For this reason, we also hoped that they could join other committees. Even if they had not yet joined any committee, when there were events held by other committees, we also welcomed them and invited them to attend. During the course, they gave us very good advice, particularly about how we should make illustrations, communicate with young people and apply new technologies.
7546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
I would like to share some figures with Members too. Although MSSY in these three phases offered only 71 posts in 35 committees, some young people whom we met in the interviews under MSSY have joined other committees. Young people appointed through MSSY have taken up more than 250 posts in the committees. Therefore, in my view, the future is still full of hopes. There are many young, professional and aspiring people who may join the Government's committees.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now Mrs Regina IP mentioned the issue of HKEAA. I would like to clarify one point. She said that officers of HKEAA conspired with a "tutor king". To my knowledge, those involved in the case were temporary examiners or invigilators rather than officers of HKEAA. I think I need to make it clear for the organization concerned.
During our discussion on statutory bodies, we are of course gravely concerned about the issue of HKEAA. My supplementary question is about the way of handling these statutory bodies. As we can see, this time the Education Bureau has adopted a brutal approach. It first made a condemnation and then sent officers to investigate HKEAA. So many members of the community have been appointed to these statutory bodies. Among them are professionals. If the government departments are so mistrustful of these statutory bodies and intervene in such a brutal manner, I wish to ask the Secretary how the Government will treat statutory bodies in future. Will it continue to hold such a mistrustful attitude? Will it continue to adopt such a brutal approach to condemn and investigate these statutory bodies, thus causing members of the community to shrink from joining them?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I have mentioned in my opening remarks that ASBs are a key component in public administration. As I said just now, there are many different committees in the Government, each with their own professionalism. With active participation of the committee members, the Government is thus able to perform its functions in different subject matters and areas, such as promotion of policies, monitoring in the districts and regulation of industries. In this regard, most ASBs of the Government can play an effective role. The situation mentioned by the Member just now does not exist. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7547
In fact, the Education Bureau has already responded to individual cases. So I am not going to repeat it here.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has requested a headcount.
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, but some Members did not return to their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.
Fourth question. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please ask your main question.
Stability and development of the financial market
4. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic having dealt a heavy blow to the global economy and showing no signs of abating, coupled with the continued wrestling between China and the United States ("US") in various aspects, financial markets around the world have been very volatile recently. However, unlike other stock markets, Hong Kong's stock market does not have a circuit breaker mechanism in 7548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 place. In respect of ensuring the stability and continued development of the local financial market, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will review the volatility control mechanism in the local stock market and if there is any need to introduce a circuit breaker mechanism, so as to ensure that Hong Kong's stock market can maintain a smooth and orderly operation amid the turmoil in the international financial markets; if so, of the details of such review (including consultation with stakeholders);
(2) whether it has reviewed if the various exchange participants have now taken sufficient measures in response to the epidemic, e.g. how the authorities ensure the normal operation of the market in the event that some brokerage firms have to close their offices temporarily due to the epidemic and as a result are unable to settle the transactions on that day; and
(3) whether it has examined the challenges and opportunities brought to the Hong Kong financial market by the wrestling between China and US which has extended to the areas of finance and technology, how the financial services industry of Hong Kong may play a greater role in the development of the financial services in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, as well as if the proportion of investment in local stocks in the investment portfolio of the Exchange Fund may be increased?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, financial markets are fast-changing. To safeguard financial security, the Government and financial regulators have been working closely together in the "cross-market, well-coordinated, and cross-time zone" monitoring of all sectors of the financial market, including currencies, stocks, futures, derivatives, etc. Since each market is unique, the approach of monitoring and control in each market also varies. The Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") is responsible for regulating the trading activities in the securities market to ensure that there is no abnormal trading and position holding, as well as market manipulation. SFC also keeps a close watch on the operation of the intermediaries to ensure that the market can operate in an orderly manner under a stable environment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7549
In fact, the financial system of Hong Kong has withstood crises over the years and has been operating in a fair and orderly manner. We will continue to monitor the market closely and strengthen the enhancement measures as necessary to safeguard the financial stability of Hong Kong.
Having consulted SFC and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"), we would like to respond to the three parts of the question raised by Mr CHEUNG as follows:
(1) In 2016, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited ("HKEx") introduced the Volatility Control Mechanism ("VCM") under which a cooling-off period would be triggered if the volatility of a stock as covered reaches 10% within five minutes. HKEx consulted the market on proposals to enhance VCM in 2019. In light of the general support from the market on VCM enhancement, HKEx has implemented the first phase of enhancement measures since mid-May this year by expanding the coverage of VCM from 78 constituent stocks of the Hang Seng Index and Hang Seng China Enterprises Index, to almost 500 constituent stocks of Hang Seng Composite LargeCap, MidCap and SmallCap Indexes, with triggering thresholds respectively set at ±10%, ±15% and ±20% to the last traded price five minutes ago. HKEx will review the market operation six months after the first phase of enhancement measures and decide on the timing to implement the second phase of enhancement measures. Multiple triggers per stock covered under VCM per trading session would be allowed by then.
In conducting the above mentioned consultation on VCM enhancement, HKEx also invited market feedback on whether market-wide volatility control measures (e.g. market-wide circuit breaker) should be introduced in Hong Kong. Due to the mixed responses across the market, HKEx would not make a firm decision on the matter at this stage. We wish to point out that the volatility control measures adopted in securities markets around the world are unique, and some of which may not be applicable to all. HKEx will, having regard to the feedback received from the above mentioned consultation, formulate a feasible model for further market engagement.
7550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(2) Hong Kong's financial system has withstood crises one after another. With our resilient regulatory regime, Hong Kong can cope with the ever-changing market. Financial regulators and the trade have also, in response to the novel coronavirus epidemic, adopted an array of measures to maintain business operations and provide necessary services while minimizing the risk of infection.
SFC has enquired licensed corporations ("LCs") on their business continuity plans adopted, and noted that some LCs had already adopted contingency measures in response to the epidemic or other reasons that had prevented employees from returning to the workplace. Specific measures include working from remote office, relocating of certain functions to different offices, etc. In light of this, SFC is pursuing a flexible approach to ensure that markets continue to function properly, while safeguarding investor protection. As of now, all trading and settlement were orderly conducted. SFC will continue to monitor the market closely to ensure that it will operate efficiently and fairly amidst the extraordinary conditions that it is experiencing.
(3) Given multiple unstable factors affecting the situation around the world and locally are at play, it is inevitable that the financial market in Hong Kong will become volatile. Notwithstanding the above, Hong Kong's underlying fundamentals remain strong, and the core competitiveness remains unchanged. We will continue to maintain Hong Kong's position as a major international financial centre, leverage Hong Kong's connectivity with the Mainland and international market, and exploit the opportunities presented by, among others, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("Greater Bay Area") development.
On 14 May, the People's Bank of China and respective Mainland authorities jointly promulgated the "Opinion on Providing Financial Support for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" ("the Opinion"). Out of the 30 items, the Opinion sets out 26 concrete measures for the financial services development of the Greater Bay Area to further promote financial liberalization and innovation, as well as deepen financial cooperation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7551
between the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao. Among others, item 18 of the Opinion supports the opening up of the securities sector; the setting up of foreign-owned securities companies, fund management companies and futures companies orderly in the Greater Bay Area in accordance with the law; the expansion of business scope of eligible securities firms in accordance with the law; and the participation of Hong Kong's private equity funds in financing innovation enterprises in the Greater Bay Area. We will continue to liaise closely with the Mainland authorities and take forward the measures in the Opinion progressively in a risk-controlled manner, with a view to leveraging the opportunities brought by the Greater Bay Area development and promoting the development of the local financial services sector.
Separately, the Exchange Fund primarily invests in highly liquid foreign currency assets to ensure that it can readily liquidate assets for achieving its statutory objective of maintaining Hong Kong's monetary and financial stability. HKMA has been cautious towards investing in Hong Kong dollar assets and currently has no plan to change such investment strategy.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as a common saying goes, in every crisis there will be opportunities. I would like to ask the Government a follow-up question. With regard to the United States claiming to sanction Hong Kong, how will the Government assess the advantages and disadvantages to be brought to the local financial market? Apart from taking enhancement measures to safeguard the market, should Hong Kong actively strive for the issuing of more Renminbi-denominated financial products, and will the Government provide more facilitation for corporate weighted voting rights to attract and accelerate the return of more China concepts stocks and strive for their inclusion in the mutual market access schemes, with a view to enhancing Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government has always paid attention to the impact brought by the tug-of-war between China and the United States on the 7552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 development of the local financial market. Apart from continuously monitoring the operation of the market, the Government has, as Mr CHEUNG said just now, consistently considered ways to enable the local financial market to grasp new opportunities amidst changes in the international setting. For example, some Chinese enterprises listed in the United States may more actively consider listing in Hong Kong, whilst the innovative technology enterprises in the Mainland or other corporations in need of international financing may also actively consider availing themselves of our platform in Hong Kong.
Moreover, HKEx has recently entered into partnership with MSCI Limited to launch a suite of 37 MSCI Asia and Emerging Market equity index futures and options contracts, and this will inject diversity to the products offered in the financial market of Hong Kong. It also marks a big step forward in developing Hong Kong into a pre-eminent risk management centre and derivative hub in the Asia time zone, and represents a notable vote of confidence of the international financial markets in Hong Kong.
Given unstable factors affecting the global financial market at various levels due to the wrestling between China and the United States, market participants all the more wish to look for reliable and stable markets for investment. Our financial supervisory policies in Hong Kong have all along been open, transparent and highly effective, and we absolutely have the conditions to attract these capitals in pursuit of a stable environment for investment. We will continue to effectively give play to the institutional advantages in Hong Kong and be committed to upgrading Hong Kong's position as a major financial centre. We will leverage Hong Kong's connectivity with the Mainland and the international market and capitalize on the opportunities presented by the Greater Bay Area and the Belt and Road Initiative, with a view to developing Hong Kong into a broader and deeper fundraising platform. We will further enhance Hong Kong's position as a centre for offshore Renminbi business, asset and wealth management, insurance, risk management, and green finance, and promote the development of financial technology.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please ask focused questions and the Secretary please give focused replies to questions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7553
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Secretary HUI has mentioned in the last paragraph of his main reply that "the Exchange Fund primarily invests in highly liquid foreign currency assets". But generally speaking, after investing in foreign currency assets, a certain degree of currency hedging will be carried out to reduce the exchange risk. In this connection, while HKMA claims that it has been cautious towards investing in Hong Kong dollar assets, actually currency hedging can be carried out to turn investment in Hong Kong dollar stocks into investment in foreign currency assets. So, my question to the Secretary is this: When HKMA has been cautious towards investing in the Hong Kong stock market, does the reason purely have to do with the types of currency or is it because of the need to avoid the risk of over concentration in the local market?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the direction of investment of the Exchange Fund mentioned by Mr CHAN, the major considerations are multi-faceted, and one of them is precisely concentration on the local market as pointed out by the Member just now.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to bring up the point that if, out of 22 minutes, 14 minutes are spent already, with only one Member asking a question plus a number of follow-up questions, this may have breached the Rules of Procedure or digressed from the original intention of the question.
Deputy President, my question is: In part (1) of the main reply the Secretary mentioned VCM or the so-called cooling-off period, and it seems that the relevant work will be carried out in an orderly manner, rather than expeditiously in one go. But the very core of the problem is that as the novel coronavirus disease pandemic prevails, coupled with the wrestling between China and the United States, the situation is indeed different from that in normal times, and under these special circumstances and in the face of such a major disaster of the century, can the existing VCM make early adjustments in response to substantial volatilities in the market more efficiently and flexibly, instead of making gradual, step-by-step improvement as stated by the Secretary?
7554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The Government and financial regulators have been closely monitoring the market, in order to maintain the transparency and order of the market, reduce systemic risks, facilitate the healthy and orderly development of the market, and safeguard the financial stability of Hong Kong. In response to market volatility, HKEx has in place a comprehensive range of measures for risk management, including initial margin, intra-day margin calls based on market volatility, capital based position limit, reserve fund, and so on. So far, clearing participants have met the risk management requirements of the clearing houses. SFC has set out capital requirements for LCs, such as the financial resources rules, and so on, while ensuring that LCs have sufficient liquid assets to meet ongoing liabilities as they fall due. Overall speaking, the transaction or clearing arrangements are sound and smooth.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I understand that the new Secretary may be nervous in answering questions. But the problem is that the Secretary's reply does not match my supplementary question at all. Actually, he has not answered my question at all. I would have accepted it if the Secretary simply said that he would give it consideration, but the Secretary only read out from the script and his reply was entirely irrelevant to my supplementary question …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, please state the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): … I asked the Secretary whether he will, in view of the very tense situation of the pandemic and the wrestling between China and the United States, speed up the enhancement of VCM, so that we can deal with the crises more flexibly and appropriately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7555
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Actually, as I said in my reply to the main question earlier, insofar as volatility control mechanism is concerned, each market is unique, and adjustments have to be made in the light of the development of respective markets. HKEx will continue to hold discussion with market practitioners and review what adjustments will be required as the next step in the light of the development of the market.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): The Secretary has sounded very optimistic in the main reply in saying that Mainland enterprises in Europe and the United States may come to Hong Kong for listing and that innovative companies in the Mainland may also come to Hong Kong for listing. Obviously, this is because they probably cannot list in overseas countries anymore in future. However, we have seen that some investment banks have slowed down the pace of their new investment or even reduced their scale of operation in Hong Kong. I am most worried that Hong Kong, being an international financial centre, would turn into a financial centre of China because we have put all the eggs in the same basket. Earlier on the Secretary or a Member mentioned about corporate weighted voting rights, yet this will actually put even greater pressure on corporate governance.
My supplementary question is this: Hong Kong is a diversified market―the Secretary also said just now that he hoped that Hong Kong would become a diversified market―but quite the contrary, we have seen that the market is becoming homogenous, so much so that Hong Kong will face the risk of being placed in the same class as the Mainland. What policies does the Government have to pre-empt these developments over which the market has already expressed concern?
7556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr MOK for his supplementary question. In fact, as Members can see, the position of the financial market in Hong Kong is very clear and that is, to leverage our connectivity with the Mainland and the international market. Under this premise, what are the areas in which connectivity can be established? This can be achieved, firstly, in respect of products, and secondly, in respect of liquidity.
Regarding the measures taken by us in the past to attract more international enterprises to list in Hong Kong, as well as the efforts currently made by us to further attract China concepts stocks listed in the United States to list in Hong Kong, there is only one objective and that is, we hope to further enrich our foundation for listing, so that on this foundation, these enterprises can introduce new financial products. This is what we do in respect of products.
Second, with regard to liquidity, actually it covers not only Mainland capital but also international capital. For instance, Members can see from Stock Connect or Bond Connect as to how Hong Kong, being a meeting point of Mainland capital and international capital, has provided room for investment and suitable kinds of products to meet the needs of investors.
Our role as a meeting point in respect of products and liquidity as I have explained above is precisely a characteristic of the financial centre in Hong Kong. Under this premise, what new plan and new direction for development do we have as the next step? It will be to further expand, reinforce, and improve our platform for products, such as ETF and various other products. Moreover, in respect of liquidity, we have to forge connectivity with the Mainland and the international market in more areas and in a better way, in order to attract new or diversified capital to the local markets.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7557
Office accommodation for the Radio Television Hong Kong
5. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): It has been reported that the Education Bureau ("EDB") last month requested the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") to vacate and hand back the Education Television Centre at Broadcast Drive by September this year. Besides, the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation has planned to resume the premises located in the InnoCentre at Tat Chee Avenue which is currently used as the office of the General Programmes Section of RTHK's Television Division. In January 2014, the Public Works Subcommittee of this Council voted down the proposal to upgrade to Category A the project to construct the New Broadcasting House of Radio Television Hong Kong ("BH"). In November 2017, the Government indicated that the project had been downgraded from Category B to Category C, but such an adjustment would not affect RTHK from continuing to explore feasible options, including the exploration with the relevant Government departments the feasibility of constructing a joint-user building, and RTHK would take forward the BH project in accordance with the established mechanism. Regarding the office accommodation for RTHK, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the progress of the BH project; whether it will expeditiously upgrade the project to Category B and, at the same time, accord a higher priority to the project, as well as provide RTHK with additional funding to meet the expenditure on renting new offices before the completion and commissioning of the BH;
(2) as RTHK has over the years been the sole user department of the Education Television Centre, whether EDB will defer the resumption of the facility, or grant the site concerned to RTHK by way of temporary government land allocation until the commissioning of the BH; and
(3) as the Government has repeatedly stated in recent months that RTHK must fully abide by the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong and duly fulfil the obligations as a public service broadcaster, whether it has assessed if the decision to resume the above premises 7558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
will hinder the fulfilment of such obligations by RTHK, including meeting the target number of hours of programme output for the current financial year?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as a government department, the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") has been allocated sufficient resources under established mechanism for providing public service broadcasting. Our reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Member, prepared in consultation with the Education Bureau and relevant departments, is as follows:
(1) As for the New Broadcasting House ("New BH") project, the Government submitted to the Legislative Council Public Works Subcommittee ("PWSC") on 18 December 2013 a funding application of $6 billion for the construction of the New BH in Tseung Kwan O. However, the application was negatived at the PWSC meeting on 3 January 2014. Subsequently, the Government reduced the cost to $5.3 billion in response to the request of PWSC. Unfortunately, consensus could not be reached among Members after rounds of communications. Hence, the Government informed PWSC on 29 January 2014 that it would not submit the revised funding application to PWSC for another discussion.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Having regard to the views of the Legislative Council, operational needs of RTHK and the need to ensure that the reserved site would have better economic benefits, the Government has been proactively taking forward the construction of the new BH on the basis of a joint-user building. With the assistance of the Architectural Services Department, RTHK is discussing with departments which are interested in the joint-user building on their respective requirements, as well as project design and planning. RTHK will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7559
continue to take forward the New BH project in accordance with the established mechanism.
RTHK currently uses different government properties as offices and for programme production purpose. RTHK also rents other properties subject to its operational needs, and the expenditure involved is met by existing resources. Meanwhile, RTHK will continue to step up maintenance and repairs, and take measures to improve the facilities and working environment of the buildings located at the Broadcast Drive, with a view to coping with operational needs.
(2) The Educational Television Centre ("ETC") at 79 Broadcast Drive has all along been owned by the Education Bureau for the purpose of producing school educational television ("ETV") programmes. Since the commissioning of ETC, Education Bureau staff have all along been working in ETC, and RTHK is not the sole user department. During and before the financial year 2019-2020, RTHK was responsible for producing ETV programmes for the Education Bureau. To facilitate programme production, the Education Bureau has thus shared the use of its ETC with RTHK.
Following the change in mode of production of ETV programmes in light of the recommendations made in the Director of Audit's Report No. 71 published in October 2018, RTHK is no longer required to produce 62 ETV programmes for the Education Bureau every year. RTHK posts responsible for production of ETV programmes have also lapsed in this financial year. It can be seen that the original purpose and service need for RTHK staff to use ETC no longer exists. There is also a need for office accommodation within the Education Bureau arising from the continuous development of its own services in recent years. Hence, the Education Bureau has recently informed RTHK, requesting RTHK to move out from ETC by September this year.
7560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
The Education Bureau will continue to discuss with RTHK on the arrangement and timetable of moving out in order to meet the operational needs of both parties.
(3) RTHK expects that the re-provisioning of offices and production facilities at InnoCentre and ETC has no impact on programme production. RTHK has sufficient resources and equipment for providing public service broadcasting to fulfil the public purposes and mission under the Charter of RTHK.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, according to the Budget for this year, the number of hours of output of RTHK in 2020-2021 will be larger than that in previous years. Pursuant to the reply given by the Bureau to my written question last week, RTHK now has only four studios, including one studio at ETC. Following the resumption of ETC, the staff concerned will need to occupy one studio at Television House, and the number of studios available to RTHK will be reduced from four to two. May I ask the Bureau whether it will reduce the number of hours of output of RTHK in the future? Or, as the supervisor of RTHK, will the Secretary assist RTHK in conveying its views to Secretary Kevin YEUNG and striving to retain this studio currently used by it, so as to assist RTHK in meeting its output target this year?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first, RTHK has its own production centres and offices, which are mainly located at Broadcasting House and Television House. RTHK now has one studio at ETC, but when RTHK has ceased the production of ETV programmes for the Education Bureau, the original purpose for RTHK to use ETC no longer exists. Currently, the average utilization rate of the studios under RTHK is some 70% during peak hours of the year, and some 50% during off-peak hours. For this reason, RTHK has informed me that they have sufficient production premises to undertake the relevant work.
As I said in the main reply, when the working relationship between RTHK and the Education Bureau has ceased, it is reasonable for the Education Bureau to resume a place that belongs to it. As for the specific arrangement, government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7561 departments can certainly have negotiations over it, and we are also pleased to see various departments engaging in negotiations to deal with this task. In addition, most of RTHK staff at ETC use that place as their office, rather than for producing programmes. As such, it is more viable to use other places instead.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): The 70% as referred to by the Secretary is only the average utilization rate in weekday daytime, weekday nighttime, and weekend. The Secretary's claim that the output of RTHK will not be affected is neither the whole truth nor reasonable.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, this is not the content of the supplementary question you have raised just now, and now is not the time for debating. Please be seated.
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Speaking of office accommodation for RTHK, people can clearly see that the Government has been depriving RTHK of resources and suppressing it in all aspects, dealing heavy blows to its manpower and office accommodation, thereby forcing the staff to commit mistakes. Efforts would then be made to lodge complaints and "DQ" them. Let me return to this question. Recently the Government has established a dedicated team to review the governance and management of RTHK, but the Director of Broadcasting and the staff side representatives are not included therein. What sort of review will the Government conduct? The Government had better tell us directly that this is a team for rectification and disciplinary action, rather than for conducting any review. My supplementary question is as follows. Instead of feigning conducting any review and upholding democracy, the Government had better tell the community directly that RTHK should not criticize the Government and the Police Force, or else it will be subjected to "DQ" and shut down. Is this the strategy the Government adopted to deal with RTHK?
7562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, your question is not within the scope of the main question. Secretary, will you give a reply to it?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first, I can by no means agree with the accusation made by Mr HUI Chi-fung just now. The reason is that, as a government department, RTHK has seen its recurrent expenditure increased by 122% and its manpower by more than 45% over the past decade. The only one case of manpower reduction that RTHK experiences under the latest Budget is attributable to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Council has accepted the Director of Audit's Report No. 71. The RTHK posts responsible for production of ETV programmes are then deleted. We can therefore see from the overall figures that the Government has all along been treating RTHK as a government department and public service broadcaster and providing it with resources on an as-needed basis.
In addition, regarding the dedicated team established by us recently, I have earlier clearly explained to the public and RTHK the scope of work of this team. President, I will not repeat that here.
(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, what is your point?
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has failed to answer my question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The two questions you just raised are basically not related to the main question. Please be seated.
Mr YIU Si-wing, please raise your question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7563
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Under the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong, RTHK shoulders certain social responsibilities. Regrettably, their current affairs programmes are sometimes not impartial, the standards of production are mediocre and the audience ratings are undesirable. In fact, the longer an organization operates … (A Member spoke loudly) … I have yet to state my supplementary question―the more deep-rooted its operational processes and practices will be, and it will be very difficult to make any changes. I think it is a good thing that the Government has recently established a dedicated team to review the governance of RTHK. May I ask the Secretary whether the dedicated team will, apart from reviewing the operation of RTHK, conduct a joint study on its manpower and premises and give some advice?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that this main question concerns the Broadcasting House of RTHK. Members should not raise questions about other issues. That said, Secretary, will you give a reply to Mr YIU Si-wing's question?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the scope of work of the dedicated team established recently can be simply divided into three areas. First, to review RTHK's administration, including reviewing its financial control, human resources management and procurement matters, conducting value-for-money assessments on RTHK as an ordinary government department, and reviewing whether it complies with government rules and regulations. This is the first area, which is indirectly related to Mr YIU's question on RTHK's use of resources. Second, to review RTHK's progress of implementing the recommendations of the Director of Audit's Report No. 71. Third, to review RTHK's overall management systems, processes and practices to ensure its full compliance with the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong. We are willing to listen to Members' views and will join hands with RTHK to proceed with this task.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. RTHK operates seven radio channels, five television channels and seven mobile applications, and produces tens of thousands of hours of radio and television programmes each year. As it is able to do so much work despite tight 7564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 resources, it has indeed striven to stand on its own feet. Notwithstanding all these, the Government still refuses to provide premises for RTHK while requiring it to do its work. The three buildings on the Broadcast Drive have undergone maintenance work for a total of 247 times over the past five years. When it rains, it pours. Does the Government believe that it can bring down RTHK by doing so? RTHK has instead fared better, as more Hong Kong people watch its programmes. The Government made a funding application for constructing the New BH of RTHK in 2013, and some seven years have passed since then. The Secretary's main reply just now has failed to mention how a joint-user building will be constructed. May I ask whether RTHK will have its New BH only after the Secretary has stepped down? President, please put my question to the Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as I have clearly explained in the main reply just now, a proposal for the construction of the New BH of RTHK was submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council on 18 December 2013. Regrettably, however, the proposal was negatived by PWSC on 3 January 2014. Subsequently, the Government communicated with members for seeking a consensus among them, and reduced the estimated cost from $6 billion to $5.3 billion on their advice. Regrettably, however, our revised proposal then still could not be agreed on by members. As such, we respected the decision of the Legislative Council as a whole, but we have not stopped there. We are still moving toward the direction of constructing a joint-user building.
As for Mr KWONG's question on resources, I have said here time and again that we have a mechanism to deal with applications by government departments for resources. Each year, we allocate resources on the basis of the departments' needs and pursuant to the overall policy of the Government. Like other government departments, RTHK is allocated appropriate resources. Moreover, as we can see from actual figures, I believe that an annual expenditure of some $1 billion and some 760 employees are sufficient for a public service broadcaster to cope with its operation and do its work. Certainly, as a public service broadcaster and government department, RTHK must also absorb the views of the community at large. I hope it can make improvements and do its work better.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7565
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, within seven years a skyscraper could have been completed. A new building could have become an old one, buddy. Saying that there is no political motivation is just "kidding".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, this is not the content of your supplementary question. Please be seated.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary is supposed to help RTHK obtain sufficient resources, but even though seven years have passed, the New BH has yet to be constructed. We all know the reason. The pro-establishment royalists had colluded with the Government to veto the proposal. I believe that the current proposal concerning the New BH is nothing more than a farce. My supplementary question is very simple. Secretary, you have two choices. First, you can sincerely negotiate with RTHK and allow it to continue using ETC and the InnoCentre, so that it can prolong its feeble existence. Second, you can make it clear that within your term of office you will strangle RTHK or wipe it out. First or second?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Members should be aware of the procedure of the Government concerning all public works projects. Meetings of PWSC and the Finance Committee are held every week in the Legislative Council, and the Government does its best in following up each proposal submitted. Even if the proposal concerning the New BH of RTHK had been vetoed, we are still doing our work in this direction. However, I also understand that Members or the general public often have different views regarding the public works projects of the Government. For this reason, we have achieved a happy medium by adopting the proposal on a joint-user building. I do not hope that Members will 7566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 mistakenly believe that if the New BH is not constructed, RTHK will be unable to operate. The reason is that apart from using the buildings at Broadcast Drive, RTHK also rents premises at other places each year.
In addition, regarding a Member's reference just now to "When it rains, it pours" in describing the circumstances surrounding RTHK, my view is quite to the contrary. Each year, we allocate repair and maintenance expenses on the basis of the needs of RTHK. In the case of last year, for example, $56 million were used for maintenance. In addition, a building is a place where people work, and the most important thing is that it should be practical and able to perform its functions. A building cannot be regarded as being unable to perform its functions just because it has been in use for too long. In the case of another department, the Observatory, for example, the main building of the Observatory, which was constructed in 1883, can still function today despite being a monument. For this reason, the most important thing is that government departments can function, and the Government will allocate sufficient resources for the departments.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I have just asked him whether he will make the first or second choice. My question is as simple as that. As RTHK is the second most popular public service broadcaster among members of the public, I have asked the Secretary whether he will shut it down or allow it to continue using the relevant premises. He has failed to give a reply. First or second?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the Secretary has already answered your supplementary question. Please be seated.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, unfortunately the proposal on the New BH of RTHK with a construction cost of $6 billion was voted down in 2013, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7567 and the proposal with a construction cost of $5.3 billion also failed to win a consensus. Certainly, the Government is now proceeding with the proposal on a joint-user building. Secretary, may I know which departments are planning to jointly use a joint-user building with RTHK? Given that even Members attending meetings at the Legislative Council Complex could involve a lot of security issues these days, and a radio station is a very important organization in terms of strategy and security, which government departments can co-exist with RTHK safely?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, when it comes to the proposal on a joint-user building, we first consider the needs of RTHK itself. As a broadcaster, RTHK requires certain equipment not only in terms of security, but also from a professional perspective, such as soundproof equipment and equipment for stable transmission. In addition, RTHK needs to collaborate with relevant departments in jointly using a building. We do not mind which specific departments will be jointly using a building with it. As long as the various departments can collaborate and land lots can be identified, we will proceed with this task. As for the security concern mentioned by Mr TSE, I do not think that the security arrangement required by RTHK should override that made for other departments, but RTHK certainly needs a stable and reasonable operating environment. We will consider all these needs and strive to proceed with the relevant work under the stringent requirements made by the Legislative Council earlier.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): The Secretary has said that RTHK has adequate premises for use and adequate expenses for undertaking repairs, but its staff union has said that is not the case. Members of its staff union have said the demand of a radio or television station for operating premises is very different from that of an ordinary department for office premises. I wonder whether the Secretary has visited RTHK recently. If he has, he should have observed that there are so many storage boxes and containers that even space of the car park is occupied. The situation is extremely undesirable. May I ask the Secretary whether he will communicate with these staff members? Since the Government has established a dedicated team to review its overall 7568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 governance, why does not the Secretary bypass the top management of RTHK and consult its staff directly? This may be more effective than consulting its Board of Advisors.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I believe that the supplementary question just now has confused two tasks. Regarding the demand of RTHK for offices or production facilities, we have all along been clearly aware of it, otherwise we would not have been able to present a schedule of accommodation. In as early as 2013 and 2014, we already knew very clearly RTHK's demand. Regarding the demand of RTHK for facilities or offices in its daily operation, the Government will deal with it under the existing mechanism. RTHK has set up offices or production facilities at its six operating locations as needed. I think the management of RTHK clearly knows its own demand, including its demand in terms of operation or manpower, and deals with the relevant work on an as-needed basis. I think this can absolutely be done. As for the review over RTHK, the dedicated team established this time around will, as I said just now, review the three major areas I mentioned just now instead of the daily operation of RTHK.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has failed to give a reply as to whether the staff will be consulted.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, RTHK clearly knows the daily needs of the entire department and its staff, and there is no need for the Government to do this task superfluously.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7569
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Protection of the consumers' rights and interests of online shoppers
6. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the protection of the consumers' rights and interests of people who purchase goods and services online ("online shopping"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of complaints about online shopping received by the Consumer Council and the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") in each of the past five years and between January and May this year, with a breakdown by spending category (i.e. goods and services) and traders' place of registration;
(2) of the number of pursuable cases among the complaints mentioned in (1), with a breakdown by spending category and the action taken by the authorities (e.g. conciliation and institution of prosecutions);
(3) as the Government indicated in May 2018 that the Police, when handling online fraud cases involving places outside Hong Kong, would seek cooperation with the relevant law enforcement agencies outside Hong Kong as necessary, and C&ED might demand those websites found to have committed contraventions to remove the relevant contents or hyperlinks, and conduct joint operations with the law enforcement agencies outside Hong Kong, whether the Government has assessed the effectiveness of such actions, and of the new measures in place to combat online fraud cases;
(4) whether it will, by making reference to the practices adopted by economies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the South Korea, enact legislation to regulate online shopping by stipulating that traders must prepare contracts and provide a cooling-off period for transactions, and provide consumers with accurate descriptions of services and goods as well as contact methods;
(5) whether it will study the enactment of legislation to introduce connected lender liability, i.e. based on the principle that in case of a breach of contract of a trader, the party who cooperates with the 7570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
trader by offering lending is required to bear the legal liability jointly, thus allowing all consumers who have paid by credit cards to, in the event of closing down of business of a trader, lodge claims to the card issuers directly without the need of resorting to the winding-up process which has a little chance of success; and
(6) as the Government indicated in April 2019 that a cross-sector Working Group established by the Department of Justice carried on studying and considering the Report on Class Actions published by the Law Reform Commission in May 2012, and that the content of the Working Group's study at this stage mainly focused on considering the Report's recommendation on introducing class action in Hong Kong starting with consumer cases, of the progress of the relevant study?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Department of Justice ("DoJ"), the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED"), and the Consumer Council ("the Council"), our reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The number of online-shopping complaints related to suspected violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362) received by C&ED in the past five years and the first four months of this year is as follows:
2020 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (January to April) Goods 255 544 1 115 1 250 775 1 191 Services 41 42 112 311 224 283 Total 296 586 1 227 1 561 999 1 474
The number of online-shopping complaints received by the Council in the past five years and the first four months of this year is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7571
2020 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (January to April) Goods 1 392 1 586 1 815 2 439 2 231 2 005 Services 2 076 1 622 2 125 2 544 2 333 2 649 Total 3 468 3 208 3 940 4 983 4 564 4 654
Due to time constraints, the complaint statistics of May 2020 are not yet available. In addition, C&ED and the Council do not maintain separate statistics on the place of registration of traders.
(2) The breakdown of online-shopping complaints related to suspected violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance received by C&ED is as follows:
2020 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (January to April) Goods Number of Investigation 3 12 5 8 8 0 Number of 0 0 0 2 1 0 Warning/Advisory Letter Number of Prosecution 1 9 4 2 3 0 Number of Undertaking 0 1 0 0 0 0 Secured Services Number of Investigation 0 2 1 1 0 0 Number of Prosecution 0 0 0 1 0 0
The breakdown of online-shopping complaints received by the Council is as follows:
2020 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (January to April) Goods Number of Pursuable 758 905 1 051 1 365 1 347 1 681 Case Successfully Resolved 582 691 696 947 797 938 7572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
2020 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (January to April) Services Number of Pursuable 1 482 1 031 1 453 1 498 1 573 2 017 Case Successfully Resolved 1 202 792 1 089 980 1 045 1 282
(3) C&ED is committed to combating online unfair trade practices. If local or overseas websites are found to be conducting illegal activities, C&ED may demand such websites to remove the relevant contents or links. Depending on the circumstances, joint operations with overseas enforcement agencies will also be mounted as and when required. C&ED will review the effectiveness of its enforcement actions from time to time, and will continue to monitor different types of illegal online activities by using advanced tools for evidence collection and investigation, and initiate follow-up actions and prosecutions where appropriate.
(4) The rights of online shoppers are currently protected by various laws in Hong Kong. The Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26), Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 71), the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (Cap. 457) and the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) all regulate contracts related to transactions, for example by stipulating implied conditions in the contract of sale of goods, including that the goods supplied are of merchantable quality and that a buyer has the right to reject defective goods unless he or she has a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods; a supplier of a service is obliged to carry out the service with reasonable care and skill and within a reasonable time; and the courts are empowered to refuse to enforce, or to revise unconscionable terms in consumer contracts for the sale of goods or supply of services, etc.
In addition, the Trade Descriptions Ordinance prohibits common unfair trade practices, including false trade descriptions and misleading omissions, and is applicable to both online and physical traders. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the development of online platforms and review the relevant laws as necessary for the protection of consumer rights.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7573
As for the provision of cooling-off period, the Government considers that priority should be accorded to stipulating a statutory cooling-off period for sectors that give rise to more complaints involving large amount of payment and deployment of aggressive sales tactics. Comparatively, it is unlikely for online shopping to involve aggressive sales tactics. In fact, in territories where e-commerce is booming, such as the United States, Australia and Singapore, there is no legislation requiring traders to provide cooling-off periods to online shoppers. Moreover, the use of online transactions is increasingly common in various sectors. Implementing an online shopping cooling-off period will have a comprehensive impact on the business operation of various sectors. As such, we have no plan to implement a statutory cooling-off period for online shopping contracts.
(5) In general, in the event that a merchant goes out of business and is unable to provide services or goods, consumers who made credit card payments may request card-issuing institutions to assist in making application for refund of the payments through the chargeback protection mechanism of credit card associations. As for connected lender liability, given its complex nature and involvement of stakeholders in many various sectors and different policy areas, caution is required in its consideration.
(6) The cross-sector Working Group established by DoJ to study and consider the recommendations set out in the Law Reform Commission's Report on Class Actions has, since its inception in December 2012 to date, held 29 meetings. In the meantime, the subcommittee set up to assist the Working Group in resolving the technical issues arising from its discussions has held 33 meetings since its formation in April 2014. The most recent Working Group meeting was just held in May 2020. The Working Group's study involves technical issues in law and policy considerations, etc. Given that the issues being studied by the Working Group are wide-ranging and interrelated, more time is required to sort them out. Upon completion of the study, the Working Group will put forward its recommendations for the Government to consider and map out the way forward.
7574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Demand-side management taxation measures for the property market
7. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Chinese): President, since 5 November 2016, the Government raised the ad valorem stamp duty ("AVD") chargeable to residential property transactions across the board to a flat rate of 15% (i.e. Part 1 of Scale 1 rate). Nevertheless, Hong Kong permanent resident ("HKPR") buyers who do not own any other residential property in Hong Kong at the time of acquisition of the residential property are allowed to pay AVD at the original rates (i.e. Scale 2 rates), which are lower. Besides, a HKPR who replaces his/her only residential property in Hong Kong by first acquiring a new property before disposing of the original property may apply for a refund of the difference between the AVD amount computed at 15% and that at the original rate, provided that the original property is sold within 12 months after acquiring the new property. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that in the last financial year (up to 29 February this year), among the residential property transactions which were subjected to AVD at Scale 2 rates, 77% were transactions for properties of prices ranging from $4 million to $20 million, whether the Government has assessed if the buyers of such properties (quite a number of whom being first-time home buyers) found it burdensome to pay an AVD of $150,000 to $500,000 after making down payments; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether it will consider lowering the rates;
(2) of the number of those applications for a partial refund of the AVD payment, in each of the past two financial years, which were approved or still being processed, the average amount of refund involved in such applications, and the average number of days between the execution of the instruments for a transaction on the property purchase to the submission of the AVD refund application by the applicant (with a tabulated breakdown by the group to which the property price/value belonged);
(3) whether it has reviewed if the arrangement whereby persons replacing their properties have to pay an AVD at a rate of 15% first and then claim partial refund of AVD after disposing of their original properties has added financial burden to such persons and impeded the turnover of residential properties; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7575
(4) whether it will (i) review the effectiveness of the various demand side management taxation measures for the property market and their impacts on the property market and home-buyers, as well as (ii) consider adjusting such measures or establishing an adjustment mechanism?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD"), my reply to the question is as follows:
(1) In order to accord priority to the home ownership needs of Hong Kong permanent residents ("HKPRs") who do not own any residential property in Hong Kong, under the existing mechanism, if a buyer is a HKPR acting on his/her own behalf and is not a beneficial owner of any other residential property in Hong Kong at the time of acquisition, the relevant residential property transaction is subject to the lower ad valorem stamp duty ("AVD") rates at Scale 2. Rates at Scale 2 are the original AVD rates before the introduction of the demand-side management measures by the Government. Depending on the consideration or value of the property (whichever is higher), rates at Scale 2 range from $100 to 4.25% of the consideration or value of the property.
In considering whether there is a need to adjust the stamp duty rates concerning residential properties, the Government must carefully take into account the impact of relevant arrangements on the property market as a whole. Any move to relax the demand-side management measures or to lower the stamp duty rates may be speculated by the market as a signal for adjustments to the Government's policy on the property market, which may result in further exuberance in the market. The relevant move may also stimulate demand for local residential properties from some citizens, and may lead to a counter-productive result of pushing up property prices when the current housing supply still lags behind demand. Therefore, the Government must act prudently to avoid sending a wrong message to the market.
7576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(2) According to information provided by IRD, information on applications for partial refund of AVD in relation to replacement of residential properties in the past two financial years is set out at Annex.
(3) Under the existing mechanism of the New Residential Stamp Duty ("NRSD"), if a HKPR acquires a new residential property to replace his/her only original residential property, he/she has to pay AVD at the NRSD rate of 15% (i.e. Part 1 of Scale 1) in the first instance; he/she may apply to IRD within the statutory time limit for a partial refund of the AVD paid upon proof that his/her only original property has been disposed of within 12 months from the date of executing the assignment of the new residential property. The amount to be refunded is the difference between stamp duties computed at the rate of 15% and the rates at Scale 2.
The Government understands that the existing mechanism of paying the relevant stamp duty in the first instance and claiming partial refund of stamp duty paid after disposing of the original property may increase the acquisition costs for persons replacing their residential properties. That notwithstanding, if the relevant requirements are relaxed, it may invite some owners without genuine intention to dispose of their original properties to, under the guise of property replacement, defer payment of stamp duty or profit from holding more than one residential property for a longer period of time. This goes against the policy intent of introducing demand-side management measures and may create loopholes, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the measures in reducing investment demand for residential property. In formulating relevant mechanism, the Government has to strike a right balance between taking care of the practical needs of HKPRs in replacing their properties and safeguarding the effectiveness of the demand-side management measures.
(4) The Government has all along been closely monitoring the development and trend of the property market. The Government notices that since the introduction of various demand-side LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7577
management measures, there have been effective results in combating short-term speculative activities, curbing external demand and reducing investment demand. The Government will, as always, remain vigilant and make reference to a series of indicators, including property prices, home purchase affordability ratio, property transaction volume, housing supply, local and global economic changes, etc., and take appropriate actions as and when necessary in response to market changes, with a view to ensuring a healthy development of the property market.
Annex
Applications for partial refund of AVD in relation to replacement of residential properties in the past two financial years
Financial year 2018-2019 Average number of Average days from the amount execution of the Consideration or Number of refunded per instrument to the value of the property cases application application of ($) refund of stamp duty (day) $2,000,000 or below 5 263,150 156 $2,000,001 to $3,000,000 7 345,700 251 $3,000,001 to $4,000,000 12 466,041 272 $4,000,001 to $6,000,000 99 623,422 230 $6,000,001 to $8,000,000 147 806,611 236 $8,000,001 to $10,000,000 172 1,003,448 238 $10,000,001 to $ 20,000,000 322 1,596,215 237 $20,000,001 to $30,000,000 98 2,540,332 280 $30,000,001 to $50,000,000 46 3,918,971 272 $50,000,001 to $100,000,000 19 7,010,395 277 $100,000,000 and above 6 13,287,438 346
7578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Financial year 2019-2020 (as at 29 February 2020) Average number of Average days from the amount execution of the Consideration or Number of refunded per instrument to the value of the property cases application application of ($) refund of stamp duty (day) $2,000,000 or below 3 175,414 251 $2,000,001 to $3,000,000 3 349,183 141 $3,000,001 to $4,000,000 7 441,011 142 $4,000,001 to $6,000,000 44 652,248 155 $6,000,001 to $8,000,000 88 804,981 162 $8,000,001 to $10,000,000 89 1,005,083 181 $10,000,001 to $ 20,000,000 142 1,512,314 184 $20,000,001 to $30,000,000 19 2,628,723 194 $30,000,001 to $50,000,000 16 4,012,755 199 $50,000,001 to $100,000,000 4 5,583,819 118 $100,000,000 and above 3 25,166,968 219
Households affected by the housing developments in Wang Chau
8. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, to take forward the Wang Chau public housing development (Phase 1) in Yuen Long, the Government needs to carry out land resumption work at three villages (i.e. Wing Ning Tsuen, Fung Chi Tsuen and Yeung Uk San Tsuen). Some affected villagers have sought my assistance, saying that while they have been informed by the Government that land resumption will be carried out in mid-July this year, the relevant compensation, rehousing and rehabilitation arrangements have not yet been properly handled. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of households in the aforesaid three villages who have not been rehoused and the reasons for that; whether it will expedite the relevant work, including properly rehousing residents who have not been allocated public rental housing units;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7579
(2) of the number of villagers in the three villages who have applied for rehabilitation and, among them, the number of those whose eligibility has been verified; whether it will expedite the relevant work; and
(3) whether the Government can undertake that it will complete the compensation and rehousing work for all registered households in the three villages before carrying out the land resumption work in mid-July; how the Government will deal with those households who have not moved out when it carries out the land resumption work?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question raised by Ms Alice MAK is as follows:
The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved the funding for the Site Formation and Infrastructure Works for the project of Wang Chau Public Housing Development Phase 1 in March 2020. Subsequently, the Lands Department ("LandsD") posted notices on 15 April 2020 in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, notifying households and other occupants within the works area to leave structures and government land being occupied by them before 15 July 2020. According to the pre-clearance survey conducted by LandsD on 30 October 2015, a total of 250 households (including cases of split households) were affected by the Wang Chau housing project.
According to the information provided by LandsD, 126 eligible households have been rehoused and 14 eligible households were being allocated with rehousing flats as at mid-May 2020. Another 30 households have opted not for rehousing but for applying ex gratia allowances for permitted occupiers, of which 25 households have been verified to be eligible for the allowances, while the remaining 5 households have yet submitted the necessary information for eligibility vetting, despite repeated invitations by LandsD. The remaining 80 households were found not eligible for rehousing due to reasons including the households owning residential properties in Hong Kong; the structures occupied by the households being unauthorized structures (including structures that were not registered in the 1982 Squatter Structure Survey and structures that were not licensed) and households being existing tenants of public rental housing or enjoying or have once enjoyed benefits under subsidized home ownership schemes or related benefits, etc. Among these households, 14 households have 7580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 moved out and 15 households are applying for agricultural resite with their identity as farmers with LandsD. All households covered in the pre-clearance survey will be offered a domestic removal allowance, irrespective of their eligibility for rehousing and compensation. Generally speaking, the Government has to ensure reasonable and equitable use of public resources while taking care of the households affected by any development clearance. LandsD will, in collaboration with relevant departments, continue to adopt a "people-oriented" approach and offer appropriate assistance to those in need as far as practicable. For example, LandsD will, with consent from the relevant persons, refer cases with personal or family welfare needs to the Social Welfare Department for follow-up, explore with the clients the use of other feasible means to resolve their housing needs, and consider recommending compassionate rehousing for cases who, owing to their social and medical needs under specific circumstances, have no other feasible means to solve their housing needs.
For the affected farmers, if they lived in a surveyed squatter or a licensed structure affected by the works when the pre-clearance survey was conducted, they may apply for agricultural resite with LandsD in respect of their structures affected, so that they can build a house and continue farming on private agricultural land they have secured elsewhere. When processing resite applications, LandsD will consult the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") and relevant departments. After confirming the applicants' eligibility and feasibility of their farming proposals, LandsD will, subject to no objections from departments concerned, consider issuing the land owners a short-term waiver, allowing the construction of a domestic structure of prescribed dimensions (consisting of two storeys, with a maximum height of 5.18 m/17 ft, and a maximum roofed-over area of 37.16 sq m/400 sq ft) on the private agricultural land. Farmers with agricultural resite applications approved are not entitled to any other rehousing arrangements.
As for the agricultural resite arrangements, according to the record of LandsD, 37 applications were received as at mid-May 2020. Among them, 3 applications have been withdrawn by the applicants, while 1 application was rejected since the applicant has been rehoused. LandsD is processing the remaining 33 applications, and inspecting the applicants' farming operations and considering the submitted information together with AFCD. The farmer status of 4 applicants has been preliminarily confirmed. Among these 4 applicants, AFCD has accepted the proposal on continuing farming operations submitted by one of them and LandsD is now processing the corresponding application for a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7581 short-term waiver. LandsD has also written to the other 3 applicants requesting the submission of proposals on continuing farming operations. After inspections by LandsD and AFCD, LandsD is reviewing another 16 applications and is awaiting the submission of further information from 10 of the applicants (including proof of residing in the surveyed squatters at the time of the pre-clearance survey, years of farming operations and other supplementary information). LandsD is arranging site inspections for the remaining 13 applications (including 6 new applications received between April and May 2020), with a view to verifying their farming operations and eligibility. LandsD will continue to maintain close communication with these applicants, and process their applications as soon as possible.
Support for the hotel and guesthouse industry
9. MR VINCENT CHENG (in Chinese): President, owing to the dual impacts of social incidents and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong has been falling continuously since the middle of last year. The number of overnight visitor arrivals dropped to 37 000 in March this year, registering a 98.5% drop over that in the same period last year. Quite a number of hotels and guesthouses have reportedly suffered long spells of zero patronage from visitors in the past few months. To date, some 300 guesthouses have closed down and quite a number of guesthouses are on the verge of doing so. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of (i) hotels and (ii) guesthouses having suspended operation or closed down, and the respective resultant numbers of employees dismissed or made redundant, in each month since February this year;
(2) whether, apart from providing licensed guesthouses with a one-off subsidy under the Licensed Guesthouses Subsidy Scheme, the Government will consider providing additional support (including cash subsidies) for the guesthouse industry; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) of the measures that the authorities plan to roll out after the epidemic has died down, so as to revitalize the tourism industry and save the hotel and guesthouse industry;
7582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(4) as some members of the hotel and guesthouse industry have pointed out that the measures referred to in (3) may have to be put in place for a considerable period of time before delivering results, and that the number of Mainland visitor arrivals to Hong Kong may not recover to its previous levels within a short period of time, whether the Government will assess the changes in the visitor sources of the tourism industry of Hong Kong in the latter half of this year and next year and the impacts thereof (particularly those on the hotel and guesthouse industry); and
(5) as some members of the guesthouse industry have pointed out that (i) the subsidies available for guesthouses under the relief measures are less than those for hotels, (ii) due to constraints in the layouts of and the facilities in their rooms, guesthouses have difficulties in recruiting local clients renting on a monthly basis as hotels do, and (iii) there is little room for transformation for the guesthouses as the licensing requirements preclude them from making any changes to the layouts, whether the Government will gain an understanding from members of the industry of their difficulties and study ways to remove the red tape with a view to facilitating the business transformation of members of the industry and assisting them in sustaining their operation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the local social incidents starting last year and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak have taken an unprecedented heavy toll on the tourism sector of Hong Kong. As the Government implemented border control measures to contain the outbreak, the number of visitors dropped significantly. In April 2020, the number of visitor arrivals plummeted by 99.9% year-on-year, with only 140 people arriving daily on average. The businesses of guesthouses and hotels were hard hit as a result. Hotel room rates dropped by 31% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2020 and the drop accelerated to 39% in April. For the occupancy rate, the figure of hotel fell by 52 percentage points year-on-year to 40% in the first quarter of 2020 while it dropped by 55 percentage points to 34% in April. Average room occupancy rate of guesthouse decreased by 45 percentage points year-on-year to 39% in the first quarter of 2020 and the figure dropped by 44 percentage points to 38% in April.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7583
Having consulted the Office of the Licensing Authority of the Home Affairs Department, the reply to the question raised by Mr Vincent CHENG is as follows:
(1) The Government currently does not compile specific statistics on the number of guesthouses and hotels closing down, or figures of dismissal or redundancy related to the suspension of operation or closing down of guesthouses and hotels. Nonetheless, some statistics kept by the Office of the Licensing Authority of the Home Affairs Department may provide reference.
According to the records of the Office of the Licensing Authority of the Home Affairs Department, during the period from 1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020, 22 guesthouse licences and one hotel licence were invalidated due to the licence holders not applying for renewal of licences by the expiry date, withdrawing the submitted licence renewal applications, or requesting for cancellation of their licences. Details are set out in the table below.
Number of licence holder not applying for renewal of licence by the expiry date, withdrawing the submitted Month licence renewal application, or requesting for cancellation of licence Guesthouse Hotel February 7 0 March 0 0 April 4 1 May 11 0
(2) To provide timely relief for the licensed guesthouses and hotels, the Government established the Licensed Guesthouses Subsidy Scheme under the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund, providing each eligible guesthouse with a one-off subsidy of $50,000 or $80,000. The Government also established the Hotel Sector Support Scheme under the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund, providing each eligible hotel with a one-off subsidy of $300,000 or $400,000.
7584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
In addition, the Government has also introduced a series of further relief measures to help businesses stay afloat; keep employment; relieve financial burdens of businesses and individuals; and support the recovery of the economy once the epidemic is contained. Under the new round of relief measures, in addition to dedicated subsidy schemes for particular industries and/or their employees, the Employment Support Scheme and the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, etc., will benefit various industries and sectors. Furthermore, concessionary measures like subsidy for electricity tariff, reduction in profits tax, waiving of rates and business registration fees, would also help enterprises tide over. We trust that the above measures can also provide relief to guesthouses and hotels.
(3) and (4)
The number and mix of visitors to Hong Kong in the latter half of this year and next year will hinge on the development of the epidemic, the border control measures, and the progress of economic recovery in Hong Kong and at different places around the world. As the development of the epidemic globally is still uncertain with multiple variables, it would be difficult to give accurate projections on the situation and the impact on the hotel and guesthouse industry at this stage. Nonetheless, after the epidemic, it is anticipated that the tourism industry will undergo major changes in view of the anti-epidemic efforts, the public health considerations, and the latest travel behaviour. In the early phase of resumption of tourism activities, we foresee that travellers are more likely to consider local trips. Even if they begin to travel abroad, they may prefer regions and cities which give them greater assurance in terms of epidemic prevention and hygiene. Wellness-themed and green itineraries are envisaged to become a possible new trend.
Against such background, the strategy for promoting tourism recovery should start from the local market. In planning the revival of the tourism industry, the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB") will first launch the "Holiday at Home" campaign with the aim of energizing the local community in order to send a positive message worldwide and restore visitors' confidence in visiting Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7585
In addition, HKTB has allocated a budget of $400 million to support the tourism industry, including the hotel sector, in three areas:
(i) Subsidy schemes
- HKTB will roll out a new funding scheme to incentivize hotels in attracting more small-sized corporate meetings and conventions of professional bodies.
- A new campaign, "MeetOn@HongKong", will be rolled out in which participating hotels will offer complimentary meeting or dining packages to meeting and incentive groups while HKTB will step up its promotion efforts in addition to providing various offerings to these groups.
- HKTB will sponsor the bidding of large-scale conventions and exhibitions for their hosting in Hong Kong. We hope this will also benefit the hotel sector.
(ii) Concessionary measures
- Participation fees for market promotion events organized by HKTB will be waived for trade partners (including hotels). HKTB will also provide subsidies for related air tickets and hotel accommodations. Furthermore, HKTB will subsidize trade delegations in full to conduct roadshows in key source markets.
(iii) Step up promotion in source markets
- When the epidemic abates, HKTB will work closely with hotels and other tourism related sectors in tactical promotions, MICE (i.e. meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions) marketing, hosting of world-class conferences and exhibitions, as well as inviting more industry partners to Hong Kong for familiarization trips, so as to revive the tourism market.
7586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
In addition to the promotion plan of HKTB, amongst the various anti-epidemic relief measures launched in stages by the Government since end of last year, over $1.3 billion has been allocated to the tourism sector benefiting the relevant enterprises and practitioners as well as funding various activities. These measures can assist the tourism industry in weathering the current difficulties.
(5) Operation of hotels and guesthouses in Hong Kong is regulated by the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (Cap. 349) ("the Ordinance"). The purpose is to ensure that premises intended to be used as hotels/guesthouses comply with the statutory standards in respect of building structure and fire safety in order to safeguard lodgers and members of the public. The Office of the Licensing Authority under the Home Affairs Department is responsible for administering the Ordinance, including issuing licences and performing enforcement duties.
In accordance with the licence conditions, all licensed hotels/guesthouses, which plan to carry out alterations works, should obtain the formal written agreement of the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Authority. After receiving the alterations proposals, the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Authority would process the applications with pragmatism and flexibility, as well as provide all feasible assistance to concerned hotels/guesthouses as it has always been doing.
Long Term Housing Strategy
10. MR WILSON OR (in Chinese): President, on 16 December 2014, the Government promulgated the Long Term Housing Strategy ("LTHS"). Pursuant to LTHS, the Government updates the long term housing demand projection annually and sets a rolling 10-year housing supply target. Some comments have pointed out that the methodology set out in LTHS for projection of housing demand has failed to reflect genuine housing needs, and LTHS has not incorporated all of the new policies being implemented by the current-term Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7587
(1) whether it will revise the methodology in LTHS for projection of housing demand by, among other things, taking into account the following factors: the sum of all of the annual shortfalls between targeted and actual housing supply since the introduction of LTHS, as well as the fact that the demand for household splitting has been suppressed by the low housing supply;
(2) whether it will incorporate into the vision of LTHS the following housing policy put forward by the current-term Government: to focus on home-ownership and strive to build a housing ladder to rekindle the hope of families in different income brackets to become home-owners; of the latest progress of the implementation of this policy by the Government;
(3) whether it will incorporate into LTHS the supply target for transitional housing units, so as to facilitate progress monitoring; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(4) whether it will reinstate the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee to be tasked with the responsibilities of conducting a comprehensive review on the long term housing strategy, and giving advice on the implementation of the suggestions made in (1) to (3) above; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr Wilson OR is as follows:
Following deliberation of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee and a three-month public consultation, the Government formulated and announced the Long Term Housing Strategy ("LTHS") in December 2014. Under LTHS, the Government takes into account four major housing demand components (i.e. net increase in the number of households, households displaced by redevelopment, inadequately housed households ("IHHs") and miscellaneous factors)(1) and adopts objective data in projecting the gross housing demand (i.e.
(1) Including private permanent living quarters occupied by households with mobile residents only; non-local students who may take up accommodation in Hong Kong; and non-local buyers who take up flats without selling or leasing them. 7588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 the number of new housing units required to provide adequate housing to each and every household) in the next 10-year period in order to determine the total housing supply target for the next 10 years. This updating exercise is conducted annually to capture social, economic and market changes over time, and make timely adjustments where necessary.
Based on the above projection framework, the total housing supply target for the next 10-year period from 2020-2021 to 2029-2030 is 430 000 units. According to the public/private split of 70:30 for new housing supply, the public housing supply target is 301 000 units and the private housing supply target is 129 000 units. When announcing the above housing supply targets, the Government also pointed out that assuming that all sites identified could be smoothly delivered on time for housing development, the estimated public housing production for the above 10-year period would be about 272 000 units. Comparing with the public housing supply target of 301 000 units, the production shortfall is 29 000 units.
Under the LTHS projection model, we update the housing demand projection for the next 10 years annually to reflect the latest situation. The production shortfall represents the housing demand that has yet to be met in the next 10 years. Such unmet housing demand will continue to be counted towards the gross housing demand for the next 10-year period through the rolled-forward projection. For example, the housing needs of households still living in inadequate housing will continue to be reflected in the IHH component in the next round of projection, until such households are adequately housed. Therefore, the annual updating of LTHS has already taken into account all housing demand that has yet to be met.
In addition, we will keep in view the evolving environment and latest data, and consider how best to reflect the latest developments in the housing demand projection methodology and supply targets. Since the announcement of LTHS in 2014, we have enhanced the housing demand projection methodology from time to time as necessary.(2) As in the past, we will take into account the latest
(2) For example, we improved the projection methodology of housing demand arising from public housing redevelopment when updating the housing demand projection in 2018. Given the large number of housing units in aged rental housing estates, we consider it prudent to include in the projection not only the known redevelopment programmes in the next 10 years, but also the potential/possible redevelopment need in the next 10 years. Please refer to the annex to the LTHS Annual Progress Report 2018 for details. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7589 data and relevant developments when updating the housing demand projection for the next 10-year period (i.e. from 2021-2022 to 2030-2031).
Apart from setting a rolling 10-year housing supply target, LTHS has also established three major strategic directions. One of the strategic directions is to provide more subsidized sale flats ("SSFs") in Hong Kong, expand the forms of subsidized home ownership and facilitate market circulation of existing stock. Hence, the strategic direction of LTHS is in line with the Government's vision of striving to build a housing ladder. Over the past few years, the Government and the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") have implemented measures to enrich the housing ladder, including HA's endorsement in November 2017 to regularize the scheme of allowing White Form buyers to purchase SSFs with premium unpaid as the White Form Secondary Market Scheme, HA's endorsement in January 2018 to regularize the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme, as well as the Government's announcement in June 2018 to implement the "Starter Homes" Pilot Project for Hong Kong Residents.
On transitional housing, the Chief Executive announced on 14 January 2020 the provision of 15 000 transitional housing units over the next three years. Given the short-term nature of transitional housing, the timing and amount of its supply are unstable and may be subject to changes in different periods of time. It is therefore not suitable to include transitional housing in the 10-year housing supply target. In fact, one of the demand components to be considered during the annual update of long-term housing demand projection is IHHs, which cover households living in units made up of temporary structures (e.g. huts, squatters and roof-top structures); units located in non-residential buildings (e.g. commercial and industrial buildings); units shared with other households (e.g. rooms, cubicles, bedspaces and cocklofts in private permanent buildings); and subdivided units. As mentioned above, when determining the total housing supply target under LTHS, the Government has already taken into account the housing needs of IHHs.
In conclusion, we consider that the established framework of LTHS enables the Government to continually plan ahead on developing land and housing, in order to meet the housing needs of the community over the long term. Therefore, we currently have no plan to conduct a comprehensive review on LTHS or reinstate the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee.
7590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Application of technology in efforts to combat pandemic
11. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, to tackle the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, the Government has been issuing quarantine orders to persons arriving in Hong Kong, requiring them to undergo a 14 day compulsory quarantine at a designated place (home or other accommodation), and distributing to them an electronic/monitoring wristband that is paired with the "StayHomeSafe" mobile application, in order to ascertain that they are staying at the designated places. Moreover, the Innovation and Technology Commission launched a special call for trial projects under the Public Sector Trial Scheme to support product development and application of technology for the prevention and control of the epidemic. Regarding the application of technology in efforts to combat COVID-19 pandemic, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of arrivals to whom (i) Bluetooth Low Energy ("BLE") positioning electronic wristbands, (ii) reusable BLE positioning electronic wristbands, and (iii) monitoring wristbands were distributed so far; the number of Hong Kong residents among them;
(2) of the types of information collected (including personal data) via the electronic wristbands and the "StayHomeSafe" mobile application and its retention period;
(3) as the Government has stated that the reusable electronic wristbands, upon recovery, may be used by government departments in other services, of a breakdown of the number of recycled wristbands by (i) government department and (ii) use; and
(4) of the number of applications received so far under the special call for trial projects, with a breakdown by (i) type of applicants (e.g. research and development ("R&D") centres, universities, other designated public research institutions, all technology companies conducting R&D activities in Hong Kong) and (ii) progress of processing such applications ((a) being processed, (b) approved, and (c) rejected); the total amount of grants approved so far?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7591
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) Currently, the Government mainly uses Bluetooth Low Energy electronic wristbands paired with the "StayHomeSafe" mobile app for monitoring persons under home quarantine. Surprise video calls are also made to ensure that persons under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places. Disposable monitoring wristbands printed with QR code have only been applied during the period from 19 to 30 March.
Up to 1 June, reusable electronic wristbands have been used by around 9 800 persons subject to home quarantine. Eighty-seven thousand persons under home quarantine have used disposable electronic wristbands and 41 000 persons have used disposable monitoring wristbands printed with QR code. We do not have statistics on whether persons wearing electronic wristbands/monitoring wristbands under home quarantine are Hong Kong residents.
(2) The "StayHomeSafe" mobile app only stores the contact phone number provided by persons under quarantine to the Department of Health upon their arrival for issuing the compulsory quarantine order. It will not collect any personal data during its operation. The electronic wristband will only detect various electronic signals (including Bluetooth signal of the electronic wristband, Wi-Fi and mobile network signals etc.) and their strength and changes in the environment where persons under quarantine are staying. By means of artificial intelligence and big data analytics technologies, the mobile app will determine whether the persons under quarantine are staying at their designated dwelling places. Such data will be destroyed within three months after the completion of the 14-day quarantine period.
(3) The reusable electronic wristbands are still being used to support the home quarantine arrangement. After the epidemic, we will arrange the reusable electronic wristbands for other government departments to apply in other services, such as taking care of the elderly in need in residential care homes.
7592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(4) To tackle the COVID-19 epidemic, the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") launched on 9 March a special call for trial projects under the Public Sector Trial Scheme of the Innovation and Technology Fund to support product development and application of technologies for the prevention and control of the epidemic. The target funding recipients are local research and development ("R&D") centres, universities and other designated public research institutes, as well as all technology companies conducting R&D activities in Hong Kong. The aim of the call is not only to promote the realization and commercialization of local R&D outcomes, but also to encourage the public sector to use technologies for tackling the COVID-19 epidemic in Hong Kong.
The special call ended on 10 April. ITC received a total of 332 applications, amongst which 20 have been approved, involving a funding amount of $35.6 million. Twenty-seven other applications are about to be rejected and three have been withdrawn. ITC is now handling the remaining applications. The breakdown of applications received, approved, to be rejected, withdrawn and under processing by types of applicants is as follows:
(As at 2 June 2020) Approved Applications To be Under Applicant Approved Withdrawn Funding received rejected Processing Amount R&D 11 0 0 0 11 / centres Universities 76 14 3 0 59 About $27.7 million Other 11 0 1 0 10 / designated public research institutes Technology 234 6 23 3 202 About companies $7.9 conducting million R&D activities in Hong Kong Total 332 20 27 3 282 About $35.6 million
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7593
Provision of sign language interpretation services by the Hospital Authority
12. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that earlier on, a deaf-mute patient suffering from depression and with suicidal tendency was referred to the Kwai Chung Hospital for hospitalization. As the Hospital had not arranged sign language interpretation services for that patient, the healthcare personnel could not communicate with him. After the patient's hospitalization for two weeks, the Hospital arranged for his discharge on the grounds that its staff members had not been able to communicate with him and that he had wished to be discharged from hospital. The patient jumped to his death from a building on the next day after discharge from hospital. Regarding the provision of sign language interpretation services by the Hospital Authority ("HA") for the deaf-mute, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) the details of HA's arrangements for the provision of sign language interpretation services, including (i) how long in advance a patient who needs to use the services when seeking consultation has to make a booking for the services, (ii) the circumstances under which a patient at the accident and emergency department will be provided with such services urgently, (iii) the number of sign language interpreters, and (iv) the weekly service timetable;
(2) whether HA allows patients to arrange, on their own, their family members or friends to provide sign language interpretation services, so as to facilitate their communication with healthcare personnel; if HA does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether HA has formulated guidelines specifying that a doctor must take appropriate measures (e.g. arranging for sign language interpretation services or making use of writings) to ensure effective communication with a deaf-mute patient in situations such as diagnosing the patient and explaining the treatment options to the patient; if HA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Hospital Authority ("HA"), I provide the following reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr KWOK Ka-ki.
7594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(1) To cater for patients with special needs, HA arranges sign language interpretation services for persons in need in public hospitals and clinics through various channels, including a service contractor and part-time court interpreters. As at end-May this year, HA's service contractor had engaged a total of 16 sign language interpreters to provide interpretation services for patients from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm (Monday to Sunday including public holidays).
For scheduled services (e.g. medical consultations in general and specialist outpatient clinics), patients may at any time request the concerned hospital or clinic to arrange sign language interpretation services in advance. Staff of the hospital or clinic would contact the service contractor to arrange the services for patients in need. There is no time restriction on the service arrangement. When patients book their follow-up medical appointments, they may request for sign language interpretation services in one go to facilitate communication with health care staff. In urgent cases (e.g. urgent hospital admission), hospital staff would, where necessary, immediately arrange interpreters to the hospital to provide on-site interpretation services as soon as possible. Starting from mid-March this year, hospitals or clinics also provide sign language interpretation services for patients through video communication.
(2) Under normal circumstances, hospitals accept the interpretation arrangement of patients engaging their own sign language interpreter, or their family member or friend who knows sign language, to facilitate communication with health care staff.
(3) In general, health care staff provide optimal services for persons with hearing impairment with regard to the actual circumstances, including the arrangement of HA's sign language interpretation services to facilitate communication between patients and health care staff.
In view of the varying situations of different patients, such as emergencies that require immediate management, it is of paramount importance to HA in ensuring that health care staff can communicate effectively with patients through various channels. To this end, HA has prepared response cue cards, disease information sheets and patient consent forms, covering information about common diseases, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7595
treatment procedures and HA's services, etc. with a view to enhancing the communication between hospital staff and patients in the process of registration and service delivery. Health care staff would communicate effectively with patients having regard to the actual circumstances and provide optimal health care services to cater for patients' needs. Therefore, HA does not recommend mandating health care staff to communicate with the concerned patients through sign language interpretation.
HA will continue to strengthen the promotion of sign language interpretation services to persons in need. Posters have been printed and displayed in public hospitals for publicity to facilitate patients' access to relevant interpretation services.
Trading of animals
13. MS ELIZABETH QUAT: President, from 2007 to 2018, the diversity of species imported into Hong Kong according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora increased by 57%. As pointed out by a study conducted locally, this was likely due to an increasing demand for wildlife rather than the stepping up of law enforcement actions by the authorities. For the exotic pet trade alone, such period saw the import of 4 million live animals comprising at least 580 species, representing a nine-fold increase from 2007. Besides, the total number of animals imported in 2016 for the purpose of pet trading (excluding dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs) amounted to as vast as 1 108 000. Regarding the trading of animals, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number of licensed animal traders (excluding traders of cats and dogs), broken down by the type of animals traded;
(2) of the number of animals traded by licensed animal traders in each of the past 10 years, broken down by the type of animals;
(3) of the number of pet birds traded by licensed animal traders in the past three years, broken down by the species to which the birds belonged; if such information is not available, of the reasons for that, and whether it will keep such statistics in future;
7596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(4) whether there were bulk imports of pet birds in the past three years; if so, of the number of birds involved on each occasion, and whether it knows the number of traders to which the imported birds were subsequently sold;
(5) why the requirement for licensed animal traders to keep a detailed record of transactions is applicable only to pet birds and not other animals;
(6) of the health screening measures put in place to contain the zoonotic risks posted by the trading of exotic pets;
(7) whether the Government has set up a comprehensive database on the import and the trading of animals, including information such as the species, countries of origin and the purposes (such as for re-export and for sale locally); if it has, whether it will make public the database; if it has not, of the reasons for that, and whether it will consider doing so;
(8) whether the Government will review if the current legislation and policies governing the trading of animals are sufficient; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(9) whether the Government will consider banning the import of animal species that are captured illegally in their countries of origin; if not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH: President, having consulted the Environment Bureau, I would like to reply to the question as follows:
(1) to (3) and (5)
Under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Trading and Breeding) Regulations (Cap. 139B), a person must not carry on business as an animal trader unless with a licence (i.e. an Animal Trader Licence ("ATL")) granted by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"). As at 26 May 2020, the number of valid ATLs in Hong Kong is tabulated below:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7597
Type of ATL Number Small mammals 19 (excluding dogs and cats) Reptiles 103 Birds 31 Mixed(1) 26
Note:
(1) These licensees are allowed to sell different types of animals at the premises concerned.
Currently, animal traders who sell dogs, cats and birds are required to provide the relevant transaction records for checking upon request from AFCD for prevention and control of zoonotic diseases, such as rabies and avian influenza ("AI"). Apart from dogs, cats and birds, AFCD does not keep statistics on other types of animals sold by licensed traders. The numbers of birds sold by licensed traders over the past three years are tabulated as follows:
Year Number of birds sold by licensed bird traders (head) 2017 28 975 2018 29 015 2019 28 107
While AFCD does not have the information on the breakdown of species of birds sold by the above traders, it has been closely monitoring the trading of birds in Hong Kong with a view to preventing and controlling AI. AFCD will also continue to ensure that relevant traders comply with the licensing conditions.
(4) A total of 21 licensed bird traders imported birds for sale in the past three years. The number of each consignment of birds imported by these traders during the period is in Annex.
(6), (8) and (9)
Import and trading of live animals are mainly regulated for the prevention of introduction and transmission of zoonotic and animal diseases through enforcing the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139) and the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421), as well 7598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
as their regulations. Under the relevant legislation, a special or import permit should be obtained from AFCD prior to the import of the animals. In consideration of an application for a special or import permit associated with species of animals new to Hong Kong, AFCD will conduct assessments covering, for example, the animal disease situation of the importing country/place, the suitability of the species to be kept as a pet, protection of public health and safety, as well as potential impact on local biodiversity for the animal species. If the species are considered to be acceptable for importation into Hong Kong, AFCD would impose relevant terms pertaining to health of the species to be imported, including requiring veterinary health certification from the importing country/place when issuing the permits, in order to minimize the risk of transmission of animal diseases into Hong Kong. No permit will be issued if that species is considered to be unsuitable for import into Hong Kong. The Government will continue to follow international practices on trading of animals when regulating the import of animals into Hong Kong.
Under Cap. 139B, all licensed animal traders have to comply with public health and animal health practices as stipulated in the licensing conditions. All licensed premises will be inspected by AFCD staff at least once every month to ensure animal health and welfare. Veterinary advice will also be provided to traders on how to improve and monitor animal health to minimize the possible risks of animal diseases. As far as pet birds are concerned, in addition to routine inspections, AFCD staff will also collect environmental samples at the licensed premises for testing of AI, which help monitor and determine the occurrence of AI at these premises.
In 2016, the Government amended Cap. 139B to better regulate animal trading, as well as dog breeding and trading activities with a view to further enhancing animal health and welfare. We will keep under review the effectiveness of the relevant regulation.
(7) The information on the import of animals into Hong Kong, such as the relevant quantity, type, and importing country/place, is available from the Census and Statistics Department's website.(2)
(2)
Annex
Number of birds imported for sale in each consignment by the licensed bird traders in past three years
2017 2018 2019 Consignment Quantity Quantity Quantity Number (head) (head) (head) 1 2 400 80 1 500 2 660 650 1 700 3 160 1 200 2 000 4 100 150 2 300 5 2 000 600 400 6 2 000 140 200 7 700 1 700 1 900 8 700 1 800 230 9 1 200 500 100 10 2 000 1 700 150 11 700 2 000 250 12 250 120 1 550 13 155 350 180 14 2 000 600 200 15 1 000 600 1 900 16 600 1 700 100 17 100 140 100 18 1 800 200 150 19 300 2 100 100 20 600 3 000 50 21 650 600 110 22 650 1 900 2 300 23 600 2 000 2 700 24 600 1 400 25 1 450 150 26 2 000 8 27 2 000 4 28 1 900 1 700 29 2 000 800 30 78 2 500 31 630
7600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Principal payment holiday schemes introduced by financial institutions
14. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that quite a number of banks and finance companies ("financial institutions") have introduced principal payment holiday schemes to assist small and medium enterprises affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic in tackling cash flow problems. However, some owners of commercial vehicles have indicated that such schemes often come with additional conditions (e.g. applicants being required to take out an insurance policy). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows which financial institutions have introduced principal payment holiday schemes for owners of commercial vehicles; the respective numbers of relevant applications received, approved and rejected by such institutions since February this year, with a breakdown by class of vehicles; if there were rejected applications, of the reasons for that;
(2) whether it knows the additional conditions of the various principal payment holiday schemes which are available for application by owners of commercial vehicles; whether the Government will request the relevant financial institutions to cancel the additional conditions, so as to avoid increasing the financial burden of the vehicle owners concerned; and
(3) of the measures in place to encourage financial institutions which have not yet introduced principal payment holiday schemes to roll out such schemes?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) To help corporates in Hong Kong cope with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") launched a Pre-approved Principal Payment Holiday Scheme ("the Scheme") through the Banking Sector SME Lending Coordination Mechanism ("the Coordination Mechanism") in April this year, allowing eligible corporate customers to defer their loan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7601
principal payments. The Scheme is applicable to all industries including the transport sector, and covers all corporate customers that have an annual sales turnover below HK$800 million and that do not have loans severely overdue. Eligible corporate customers can enjoy the deferment without having to file any application; all they have to do is to confirm relevant details with their banks upon the latter's invitation. At HKMA's request, all 103 banks in Hong Kong that provide loans to eligible customers have joined the Scheme.
Of the over 130 000 eligible corporate customers covered by the Scheme, more than 100 000 have received invitations from their banks. We understand that more than 8 000 customers have confirmed their participation in the Scheme, some of which are owners and operators of commercial vehicles (such as taxis, public light buses, trucks, non-franchised buses, coaches, and construction-related vehicles). Save for a small number that do not meet the eligibility requirements (such as having larger scales of operation or loans that are severely overdue) in the first place, customers in need are generally able to join the Scheme with relative ease.
For customers excluded from the Scheme, HKMA has requested banks to adopt an accommodative stance and consider, on a case-by-case basis, if financial assistance can be offered to them within the remit of the banks' risk management principles. HKMA has also reminded banks to follow the guidelines set out in the "Hong Kong Approach to Corporate Difficulties", by being sympathetic to customers encountering financial difficulties, and enhancing communication with these customers to see if they need loan restructuring with a view to tiding them over the current difficulties.
(2) The Scheme does not impose extra conditions on corporate borrowers other than the aforesaid eligibility criteria in respect of sales turnover and repayment performance. If a bank is found to have imposed additional conditions on customers, HKMA will follow up as appropriate.
7602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(3) HKMA has been maintaining close liaison with the banking industry since the outbreak of COVID-19. It has also rolled out several rounds of relief measures through the Coordination Mechanism with a view to helping different industries as far as possible. These measures include the issue of a circular in February to remind banks to favourably consider requests from borrowers for extension of repayment schedules, and the launch of the aforementioned Scheme in April requiring the participation of all banks. As of 15 May, more than 24 000 cases of principal payment holidays and other extensions of repayment schedules have been granted by banks, involving more than HK$257 billion.
In addition, the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited launched in April the Special 100% Loan Guarantee as announced in the 2020-2021 Budget. Banks have received warm response from customers since the commencement of the scheme from 20 April. As of 22 May, 3 300 applications totalling around HK$6.8 billion have already been approved.
Notwithstanding gradual improvements in the local COVID-19 situation in the recent months, we will continue to maintain close liaison with the banking industry and consider appropriate measures as necessary, with a view to helping persons affected by the pandemic weather the adversity.
Distance Business Programme
15. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, to support enterprises to continue their businesses and provide services during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Government has allocated a funding of $500 million from the Anti-epidemic Fund for launching a Distance Business Programme ("the Programme"), under which funding support will be granted through a fast-track approval process for enterprises to adopt information technology ("IT") solutions for developing distance business. The Programme covers 12 IT solution categories relating to distance business (e.g. online business, online order taking and delivery, and smart self-service systems) and opens for applications between 18 May and 31 October this year. In addition, the Government has published an IT Service Providers Reference List ("the List") LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7603 for reference by applicant enterprises. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective to-date numbers of applications received, approved and rejected; a breakdown of the number of enterprises whose applications were approved by (i) the number of employees and (ii) the number of years of operation, the respective numbers of applications received and approved under each IT solution category, as well as a breakdown of the rejected cases (if any) by reason for the rejection; whether it has assessed if the funding is sufficient to provide support for all eligible applicants; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether it will provide additional funding in a timely manner;
(2) of the respective to-date numbers of applications for inclusion in the List received, approved and rejected; a breakdown of the number of service providers whose applications were approved by (i) the number of employees and (ii) the number of years of operation, as well as a breakdown of the rejected cases (if any) by reason for the rejection;
(3) of the details of the publicity efforts made for the Programme, including the means (e.g. holding briefing sessions or placing advertisements on mainstream or online media), number of times, number of participants and expenditure; and
(4) whether it has received complaints that websites with a domain name comprising "D-Biz" (the English abbreviation of the Programme) were found to have disguised as the official website or have misled the public; if so, of the details and the follow-up actions?
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, remote working or service has become a new trend against the backdrop of the epidemic. The Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") has launched the Distance Business Programme ("the Programme") under the Anti-Epidemic Fund to provide funding support to enterprises to continue 7604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 their business and services during the epidemic through adoption of information technology ("IT") solutions. The Hong Kong Productivity Council is the Secretariat of the Programme ("the Secretariat").
The reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) and (2)
The Programme has invited applications from IT service providers to enrol on the IT Service Providers Reference List ("Reference List") from 4 May 2020. As at 6:00 pm on 1 June 2020, the Secretariat has received 3 525 applications. A total of 2 023 IT service providers have been enrolled on the Reference List. Remaining applications are being processed, and no service provider has been rejected from enrolling on the Reference List so far. The Secretariat does not maintain statistics of the years of operation of the service providers on the Reference List, while the number of service providers by a breakdown of their number of employees is tabulated below:
Number of IT service providers Number of employees on the Reference List 1 to 9 1 391 10 to 19 312 20 to 29 103 30 to 39 60 40 to 49 28 50 to 99 62 100 or above 67 Total 2 023
The Programme has invited funding applications from enterprises from 18 May 2020. As at 6:00 pm on 1 June 2020, the Secretariat has received 8 665 applications. The Secretariat is processing the applications received, and has yet to approve or reject any funding applications.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7605
(3) ITC issued a press release on 1 May 2020 to announce the details for IT service providers to apply for enrolling on the Reference List, and subsequently issued another press release on 16 May to announce the details for funding applications by enterprises. It also issued a press release on 30 May to remind service providers who wish to enrol on the Reference List to submit applications before the deadline as soon as possible. The Programme has a dedicated web page with information including the Reference List, Guidance Notes and application forms. In addition, the Secretariat has organized or participated in over 16 webinars with over 15 000 participants from 24 April to 1 June, and has published/broadcasted advertisements on mainstream or online media for over 170 times during the period to promote the Programme. As at 1 June 2020, the Secretariat has spent $270,000 on promoting the Programme.
(4) ITC and the Secretariat have received enquiries and complaints on suspected bogus websites which resemble the official website of the Programme. The Secretariat has issued clarifications on the official website of the Programme and reminded the public to stay vigilant. It has also issued 17 written warnings to those suspected bogus website entities, and furnished information of those websites to the Police for follow-up.
Provision of assistance for people not covered by relief measures
16. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic has caused a substantial drop in the income of quite a number of industries and their practitioners, and pushed up the unemployment rate to a record high in 10 years. Although the Government has implemented two rounds of relief measures, quite a number of employers and employees affected by the epidemic have relayed that they are unable to benefit from such measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that taxi drivers have to hold a valid taxi driver identity card any time during the period between 1 January and 31 March this year for them to be eligible for applying for a subsidy under the relief measures, but it is learnt that currently more than 10 000 taxi 7606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
drivers are ineligible for making application as their taxi driver identity cards have expired, whether the Government will relax the eligibility requirements so that such drivers may apply for the subsidy as long as they are able to produce (i) a valid rental agreement and proof of work in respect of the aforesaid period and (ii) a valid taxi driver identity card replaced after April this year;
(2) as the trade of rental/hire of pleasure vessels, whose business has been hard hit by the epidemic, is unable to benefit from the relief measures, whether the Government will provide a subsidy for this trade;
(3) given that the amounts of subsidy that beauty parlours may receive under the relief measures are divided into three tiers according to the number of employees, but quite a number of beauticians are self-employed persons instead of the employees of beauty parlours, resulting in many relatively large-scale beauty parlours being eligible for applying for a subsidy of a lower amount only, whether the Government will determine the levels of subsidy for which beauty parlours are eligible by the floor areas of their shops;
(4) given that the wage subsidies provided for employers under the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") are calculated on the basis of their numbers of employees with Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") accounts, but quite a number of employees of certain trades are aged 65 or above and without MPF accounts (e.g. each restaurant having two employees of such type on average, and around 30 000 to 40 000 security guards in the territory being such type of employees), whether the Government will enhance ESS to cover this type of employees;
(5) given that as operators of suspended working platforms are not construction workers registered under the relevant legislation, they are unable to benefit from the subsidies disbursed to construction workers under the two rounds of relief measures, of the Government's measures in place to fill the gaps, so as to assist operators of suspended working platforms; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7607
(6) given that no targeted assistance has been provided under the two rounds of relief measures for employees with intellectual disabilities, of the Government's measures to help this type of employees, so that they will not be dismissed or their income will not be reduced as a result of suspension of work, wage cut or reduction in working hours?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, my consolidated response to the Member's question is set out below:
(1) According to the Transport and Housing Bureau, regulation 51 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulation (Cap. 374D) requires a taxi driver to display a valid taxi driver identity plate when providing services in order to validate such person's legal identity as a taxi driver. To facilitate the operation of the taxi trade, the Transport Department ("TD") has extended the validity period of the taxi driver identity plate from 1 year to 10 years since 6 October 2018. Through different channels, including TD's regularly published Taxi Newsletter and trade conference, etc., TD has reminded taxi drivers to replace their driver identity plate in time in order to comply with the legal requirement.
The subsidy provided to taxi drivers under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") aims to provide financial assistance to frontline drivers impacted by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Therefore, the eligibility for such subsidy includes the requirement that the applicant must hold a valid taxi driver identity plate any time during the three-month period between 1 January and 31 March 2020. TD will continue to communicate with the trade on the details of the scheme, and will flexibly handle the issues raised by the trade on the specific details while ensuring the proper use of public funds.
(2) According to the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Government has provided a one-off non-accountable subsidy of $10,000 and a one-off survey fee subsidy for owners of each eligible local commercial vessel, including pleasure vessels let for hire or reward, 7608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
under the first round of AEF. The subsidy has already been paid out starting from mid-March 2020. As at mid-May, over 80% of the eligible vessel owners have received the subsidies.
(3) According to the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office, under the Subsidy Scheme for Beauty Parlours, Massage Establishments and Party Rooms ("the BMP Scheme"), each eligible beauty parlour and massage establishment will receive a one-off tiered subsidy of $30,000, $60,000 or $100,000, depending on their scale of operation based on the number of workers as evidenced by the applicant's Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") remittance statement. Taking into account the fact that some beauty parlours/massage establishments may not need to make MPF contributions for their workers, a practising accountant's certification of the number of workers on payroll is also accepted as proof of number of workers under the BMP Scheme. The application period of the BMP Scheme ended on 17 May 2020.
When devising the BMP Scheme, the Government has considered adopting shop area as the basis of determining the tiered levels of subsidies. However, as opposed to licensed premises such as catering premises where the licensing authority possesses information on shop area, the Government cannot rely on any existing administrative record to determine the shop area of beauty parlours and massage establishments. Neither do lease documents (such as lease agreements, Demands for Rates and/or Government Rent) contain such information. As such, to ensure that public money is used properly, unless an applicant produces a report by an independent third party professional as evidence of its shop area, it would be difficult for the Government to disburse subsidies solely on the basis of information reported by the applicant. Taking into account the need to expediently implement the BMP Scheme in a manner that would facilitate the sector to apply for the subsidy while enabling efficient and effective vetting of applications, the Government considers that requiring an applicant to submit an MPF remittance statement or a practicing accountant's certification as evidence of the number of workers is a more prudent and feasible option.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7609
(4) The Government announced on 12 May adjustments to the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"), including the extension of coverage of ESS to around 60 000 employees aged 65 or above whose employers have made voluntary contributions for them under the MPF Schemes. Employers may apply for wage subsidies for these employees with a view to encouraging employers to retain mature employees.
Apart from the 60 000 employees aged 65 or above covered by ESS, together with around 40 000 employees aged 65 or above under the various sector schemes covering land transportation (i.e. taxi, Red minibuses, Green minibuses and local ferries), laundry, catering and construction sectors which have been, or will be launched under the two rounds of AEF, as well as around 10 000 employees aged 65 or above employed by government outsourced contracts whose wages are not affected by the epidemic, the various measures as referred above will altogether cover more than 110 000 employees aged 65 or above.
Besides, the Government has put in place a host of social security schemes, which include the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, Old Age Living Allowance, Old Age Allowance, etc. Eligible elderly persons may apply for assistance according to their needs and circumstances. Labour Department ("LD") provides comprehensive and free employment services for job seekers (including elderly persons aged 65 or above). LD will enhance the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged in the second half of 2020 to improve the employability of the elderly and help them stay longer in their jobs.
(5) The second-round measures of AEF include the $81 billion ESS, which provides wage subsidy to eligible employers through the MPF system such that job retention can be achieved and redundancy can be avoided within the shortest time frame. Operators of suspended working platforms who are eligible self-employed persons under the MPF Scheme may benefit from ESS.
7610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(6) The Selective Placement Division ("SPD") of LD provides personalized employment counselling, job matching and follow-up services for persons with disabilities (including persons with intellectual disabilities). SPD also administers the Work Orientation and Placement Scheme ("WOPS") which provides allowances to incentivize employers to employ, coach and support persons with disabilities. In view of the current employment situation, LD will enhance WOPS in the second half of 2020 by increasing the maximum amount of allowance from $51,000 to $60,000 payable to employers for employing a person with disabilities.
The Social Welfare Department's "Enhancing Employment of People with Disabilities through Small Enterprise" Project has since end December 2019 launched two relief measures for social enterprises subsidized by the Project, including advancing the payment of the next two operating grant instalments to social enterprises within the funding period to aid their cashflow arrangements; and allowing social enterprises within the contract period which have financial difficulties to apply for supplementary grants to support their operation expenses, thus safeguarding the employment opportunities of employees (especially persons with disabilities).
Maintenance and redevelopment of rental housing estates
17. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, some public rental housing ("PRH") residents residing in Ma Tau Wai Estate, Oi Man Estate, Chun Seen Mei Chuen and Lok Man Sun Chuen of Kowloon City have relayed to me that as quite a number of PRH buildings in Kowloon West are over 40 years of age and are dilapidated, they are very concerned about the structural safety of such buildings. Besides, the Chief Executive stated in the 2018 Policy Address that the Government would firmly support the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited in taking forward the redevelopment project of Tai Hang Sai ("THS") Estate, a private rental housing estate under THS, as soon as possible with a view to improving facilities of the estate and increasing housing supply. Regarding the maintenance and redevelopment of rental housing estates, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7611
(1) given that the first cycle of the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme ("CSIP") conducted by the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") on selected aged public housing estates ("PHEs") was completed in 2018, of the following information on each of the estates for which the structural investigation as well as the required repair and structural strengthening works have been completed (set out in a table):
(i) name of the estate,
(ii) number of flats in the estate,
(iii) date of completion of the estate,
(iv) commencement year of the investigation,
(v) completion year of the investigation,
(vi) scope of the repair and structural strengthening works (i.e. (a) concrete repair, (b) seepage repair, (c) structural strengthening, and (d) structural improvement),
(vii) actual expenditure on the repair and structural strengthening works for each flat on average, and
(viii) average annual maintenance expenditure on each flat after the completion of the required repair and structural strengthening works;
(2) given that HA commenced in 2018 the second cycle of CSIP, which comprised 38 estates the investigation of which was completed under the first cycle of CSIP and which were awaiting re-examination, six factory estates and 33 other estates, of the following information of the second cycle of CSIP:
(i) the name of each of those estates the investigation for which has been completed but the repair and structural strengthening works have not been completed, as well as the latest progress and the expected completion date of such works,
7612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(ii) the name of each of those estates the investigation for which is in progress, and the expected completion date of the investigation, and
(iii) the name of each of those estates the investigation for which has not yet commenced, and the expected commencement date of the investigation;
(3) given that some residents are worried that aged PRH buildings will be ageing and their conditions will deteriorate more quickly and drastically, whether HA will consider shortening the cycle for conducting comprehensive structural investigation for aged estates from the existing cycle of once every 15 years to once every 10 years, so as to align it with the cycle for conducting building inspection for aged private buildings by owners as required by the Buildings Department; if not, of the reasons for that;
(4) of the details of the redevelopment projects for PHEs which are being redeveloped or have been planned for redevelopment (including Tung Tau Estate Block 22, Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung Estate):
(i) name of the estate,
(ii) number of flats before redevelopment,
(iii) rehousing arrangements for affected households (including details of the reception estates accommodating these households),
(iv) the way in which the estate is being/will be redeveloped,
(v) number of flats after redevelopment, and
(vi) expected completion date;
(5) of the details (including the timetables) of the redevelopment projects for HA's estates in Kowloon West that are approaching or over 40 years of age (e.g. Ma Tau Wai Estate, Oi Man Estate, Nam Shan Estate, Lai Kok Estate, Chak On Estate, Tai Hang Tung Estate and Shek Kip Mei Estate (for the remaining 9 blocks)); if LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7613
redevelopment projects have not been contemplated, of the details of the strengthening and improvement works to be carried out; whether it will consider formulating a rolling programme for large scale redevelopment of aged estates so as to facilitate the smooth and orderly implementation of the redevelopment projects;
(6) whether it knows the details (including the timetables) of the redevelopment projects for the estates in Kowloon West under the Hong Kong Housing Society that are over 40 years of age (e.g. Chun Seen Mei Chuen and Lok Man Sun Chuen); and
(7) given that the validity period of the planning permission granted by the Town Planning Board for the redevelopment of THS Estate will expire by the end of June this year, whether it knows the progress of the redevelopment project for this estate and the rehousing arrangements for the affected tenants?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Long Term Housing Strategy ("LTHS") published in 2014 has indicated that while redevelopment of aged public rental housing ("PRH") estates may increase PRH supply over the long term, it will, in the short term, reduce PRH stock available for allocation. This will inevitably add further pressure on the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA")'s target in maintaining the average waiting time ("AWT") at about three years. With the persistently strong demand for PRH, a massive redevelopment programme will freeze a large number of PRH units that may otherwise be allocated to households in need, causing an instant adverse effect on AWT. Hence, it is not a desirable option.
Based on the directions set out in LTHS, HA will consider whether to redevelop individual PRH estates prudently by taking into account the actual circumstances according to the four basic principles, namely, structural conditions of buildings, cost-effectiveness of repair works, availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates to be redeveloped and build-back potential upon redevelopment, under HA's "Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged Public Rental Housing Estates" formulated in 2011. In the last decade, HA conducted redevelopment projects for 15 PRH estates, and is conducting redevelopment programme in Pak Tin Estate (older part) and Mei Tung Estates (older part).
7614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
My reply to the question raised by the Dr Helena WONG is as follows:
(1) HA launched the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme ("CSIP") in 2005 to ascertain the structural safety of PRH estates with buildings approaching or over 40 years old, with a view to assessing the repair works needed for sustaining these estates for 15 years or above and their cost-effectiveness. Under the first round of CSIP, investigation of 42 PRH estates was completed in 2018. The number of PRH units involved in estates with structural investigations completed(1) is about 166 500. The relevant cost of works is about $1.1655 billion, which is equivalent to about $7,000 per unit on average. Information of these estates is set out in Annex 1.
Details of repair works for PRH buildings and the corresponding expenditure are affected by various factors. Apart from the building age, they also depend on the building design, structural condition, location, maintenance status as well as other site conditions, etc. Hence, it is not suitable to compare the repair expenditure solely by building age. After the completion of the necessary structural repairs and strengthening works, the maintenance expenditure of the above mentioned 38 PRH estates in 2019-2020 was around $750 million, which is equivalent to about $4,500 per unit on average.
(2) HA is conducting the second round of CSIP. PRH estates with investigation completed include Wah Fu Estate, Lai Kok Estate and Shui Pin Wai Estate. HA is preparing the structural repairs and improvement works required for these estates and will formulate detailed works programme shortly. The PRH estates currently under investigation include Sai Wan Estate, Choi Hung Estate, Kai Yip Estate, Choi Yuen Estate and Lower Wong Tai Sin Estate. The investigations are estimated to be completed within this year.
HA will continue to conduct detailed investigation for buildings aged at about 40 or above, and plans to conduct structural investigations for Wo Lok Estate, Model Housing Estate, Ping Shek Estate, Ma
(1) As 4 PRH estates are confirmed to be redeveloped, only 38 PRH estates are included. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7615
Tau Wai Estate, Fuk Loi Estate, Mei Lam Estate, Hing Man Estate, Chak On Estate and Shun Tin Estate in the next two years. As for the other estates, currently there is no confirmed investigation timetable.
(3) In addition to implementing CSIP, HA has also implemented other measures and programmes to improve the building conditions of PRH estates, such as the Estate Improvement Programme to optimize recreational facilities, common areas and the landscape; the Total Maintenance Scheme to provide in-flat inspection and maintenance services; the Responsive In-flat Maintenance Services to provide timely indoor maintenance services to tenants, etc. Therefore, we consider that the prevailing 15-year investigation cycle is a suitable arrangement.
(4) Information of PRH estates under redevelopment or with planned redevelopment (including the estates for receiving affected tenants for rehousing) is set out in Annex 2. The information does not include Tung Tau Estate Block 22 (also known as Tung Tau Estate Phase 8) as the redevelopment programme has already been completed in 2019-2020. HA will provide adequate rehousing resources to the PRH tenants affected by redevelopment projects. Major arrangements include:
(i) allowing affected tenants to move out early such that they can be rehoused to refurbished units in the district of their choice, or units in new estates which are expected to be ready for intake;
(ii) setting up major reception estates so that affected tenants can move to these estates when they are completed and ready for intake; and
(iii) allowing affected tenants who wish to purchase Subsidised Sale Flats ("SSF") in lieu of PRH be accorded priority in flat selection in the SSF sale exercise(s) launched before the target clearance date.
7616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(5) Apart from the redevelopment programme of Pak Tin Estate (older part) and Mei Tung Estates (older part) that are currently being implemented by HA, the Government also announced its intention to redevelop Wah Fu Estate in 2014. As for other aged estates, their building conditions are structurally safe as of now and there is no need for redevelopment. HA will continue to implement various programmes and measures to maintain and improve the building conditions so as to provide residents with a safe and suitable living environment.
(6) The Government announced on 29 June 2018 the reallocation of nine sites at Kai Tak and Anderson Road Quarry, which were originally intended for sale in the coming few years, for public housing. One of the sites in Kai Tak would be allocated to the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") for the redevelopment of Chun Seen Mei Chuen and other rehousing purposes. HKHS can then make use of the original site of Chun Seen Mei Chuen to redevelop Lok Man Sun Chuen by phases. HKHS is now formulating details of the redevelopment programmes of Chun Seen Mei Chuen and Lok Man Sun Chuen.
(7) Tai Hang Sai Estate ("THSE") was built and has been managed by the Hong Kong Settler's Housing Corporation Limited ("HKSHCL") for the purpose of providing rental flats for low-income families. HKSHCL is planning to redevelop THSE at its original site by phases. Regarding the planning approval in relation to the redevelopment of THSE, the Director of Planning, under the delegated authority of the Town Planning Board and in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance, approved on 6 April 2020 HKSHCL's application for extension of time for commencing the development. The planning approval is valid until 24 June 2024.
The Government will continue to keep in view the progress of the redevelopment project. We will also support HKSHCL in taking forward the redevelopment project as soon as possible and provide required assistance as far as practicable, with a view to improving estate facilities and increasing housing supply at the site concerned, on the premise that it will make proper rehousing arrangement for its tenants.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7617
Annex 1 First Cycle of CSIP
Structural Repair and Improvement Works involved Commencement Completion (1: Concrete Estate Number Completion Note Year of Year of Repair, Name of Flats Year Investigation Investigation 2: Seepage Repair; 3: Structural Strengthening; 4: Structural Improvement) 1 Sai Wan 636 1958 2005 2006 1, 2, 4 Estate 2 Choi 7 455 1962 2006 2006 1, 2, 3, 4 Hung Estate 3 Model 667 1954 2006 2006 1, 2, 4 Housing Estate 4 Wo Lok 1 941 1962 2006 2007 1, 2, 4 Estate 5 Ma Tau 2 075 1962 2006 2007 1, 2, 4 Wai Estate 6 Fuk Loi 3 129 1963 2007 2007 2, 4 Estate 7 Wah Fu 9 147 1967 2007 2008 1, 2, 3, 4 Estate 8 Ping 4 575 1970 2008 2008 1, 2, 3, 4 Shek Estate 9 Kwai 5 387 1975 2009 2009 1, 2, 4 Shing West Estate 10 Oi Man 6 293 1974 2009 2009 1, 2, 4 Estate 11 Lek 3 320 1975 2009 2009 1, 2, 4 Yuen Estate 7618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Structural Repair and Improvement Works involved Commencement Completion (1: Concrete Estate Number Completion Note Year of Year of Repair, Name of Flats Year Investigation Investigation 2: Seepage Repair; 3: Structural Strengthening; 4: Structural Improvement) 12 Lei Muk 4 315 1975 2010 2010 1, 2, 4 Shue (II) Estate 13 Lai King 4 218 1975 2010 2010 1, 2, 4 Estate 14 Lai Yiu 2 843 1976 2009 2010 1, 2, 4 Estate 15 Hing 3 671 1976 2011 2011 1, 2, 4 Wah (II) Estate 16 Cheung 5 079 1977 2011 2011 1, 2, 4 Ching Estate 17 Nam 3 176 1977 2011 2012 1, 2 Shan Estate 18 Yue 2 182 1977 2011 2012 1, 2, 4 Wan Estate 19 Tai Hing 8 641 1977 2012 2012 1, 2 Estate 20 Wo Che 6 291 1977 2012 2012 1, 2, 4 Estate 21 Cheung 1 728 1978 2012 2013 1, 2, 4 Shan Estate 22 Fu Shan 1 670 1978 2013 2013 1, 2, 4 Estate 23 Shun 4 590 1978 2013 2014 1, 2, 4 Lee Estate 24 Choi 3 017 1978 2013 2014 1, 2, 4 Wan (II) Estate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7619
Structural Repair and Improvement Works involved Commencement Completion (1: Concrete Estate Number Completion Note Year of Year of Repair, Name of Flats Year Investigation Investigation 2: Seepage Repair; 3: Structural Strengthening; 4: Structural Improvement) 25 Shek 3 153 1979 2014 2014 1, 2, 4 Kip Mei Estate 26 Choi 5 922 1979 2014 2014 1, 2, 4 Wan (I) Estate 27 Cheung 8 420 1979 2014 2015 1, 2, 4 Hong Estate 28 Shun On 3 002 1978 2014 2016 1, 2, 4 Estate 29 Wan 3 678 1979 2015 2016 1, 2, 4 Tsui Estate 30 Tai Wo 7 861 1979 2016 2016 1, 2, 4 Hau Estate 31 Shek 6 471 1980 2016 2016 1, 2, 4 Wai Kok Estate 32 Lung 472 1980 2016 2017 1, 2, 4 Tin Estate 33 Sha Kok 6 370 1980 2017 2018 1, 2, 4 Estate 34 Tai 4 877 1980 2017 2018 1, 2, 4 Yuen Estate 35 Sam 1 834 1980 2017 2018 1, 2, 4 Shing Estate 36 Ap Lei 4 451 1980 2017 2018 1, 2, 4 Chau Estate 7620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Structural Repair and Improvement Works involved Commencement Completion (1: Concrete Estate Number Completion Note Year of Year of Repair, Name of Flats Year Investigation Investigation 2: Seepage Repair; 3: Structural Strengthening; 4: Structural Improvement) 37 Yau Oi 9 096 1980 2018 2018 1, 2, 4 Estate 38 On Ting 5 049 1980 2018 2018 1, 2, 4 Estate
Note:
The Completion year is based on the block with the earliest completion year within the same estate.
Annex 2
PRH estates under redevelopment or with planned redevelopment
Older Portion of Pak Tin Estate Older Portion of (Blocks 1-3, 9-13, the Pak Tin Mei Tung Estate Estate Name Commercial Centre and (Mei Tung House and Community Hall) Mei Bo House) Number of units about 3 500 665 before redevelopment Reception estates for So Uk Estate (Phase 2) On Tai Estate early rehousing arrangement Major reception Redeveloped portion of Pak Tin Tung Tau Estate estates Estate Mode of Demolition and Redevelopment Demolition and redevelopment Redevelopment Number of units after About 6 400 About 2 800 redevelopment Estimated completion 2026-2027 2027-2028 time
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7621
The fifth generation mobile communications and technology
18. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, three mobile network operators ("MNOs") already launched the commercial fifth generation ("5G") mobile communications services on 1 April this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current coverage of 5G mobile communications services;
(2) of its plan to extend the coverage of 5G mobile communications services and the relevant timetable;
(3) of the current number of 5G radio base stations across the territory and, among them, the number and percentage of those provided in government premises;
(4) as the Government has indicated that it is proactively exploring with satellite operators the feasibility of relocating the satellite earth stations from Tai Po to Chung Hom Kok Teleport to enable MNOs to make wider use of all 5G bands (including the 3.5 GHz band) in Hong Kong for the provision of services, of the progress of the relevant exploration;
(5) whether it knows the current number of 5G cybersecurity specialists in Hong Kong; of the Government's measures to increase the number of such specialists to help promote the development of 5G mobile communications services; and
(6) as the Office of the Communications Authority launched the "Subsidy Scheme for Encouraging Early Deployment of 5G" under the Anti-epidemic Fund last month to encourage the various sectors to deploy 5G technology to foster innovation and smart city applications, of the effectiveness of the Scheme as envisaged by the Government?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, our reply to the Member's question is as follows:
7622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(1) to (3)
Mobile network operators in Hong Kong launched 5G services in April 2020. The strategies and timetables for the rollout of 5G networks are commercial decisions of the operators. Experience shows that in developing a new generation of mobile services, operators generally adopt a gradual and orderly approach in rolling out networks, usually with coverage first provided to hotspots with high pedestrian flow or high usage and then gradually extended to other locations in the territory.
As at end May 2020, the Office of the Communications Authority examined applications for the use of a total of over 3 800 5G base stations, about 5% of which located at government premises.
(4) To resolve the issue of the 5G restriction zone in Tai Po in the long run, the Government is proactively discussing with the related satellite operators about relocation of their satellite earth stations from Tai Po to Chung Hom Kok. Since relocation of the facilities of satellite earth stations involves complex land allocation and technical issues, including site selection, land grant, site formation, construction works and establishment of another set of satellite antennae, as well as the need to ensure that operation of the existing satellites in orbit will not be affected, the related relocation is expected to take several years to complete.
The restriction zone only affects 5G base stations of the 3.5 GHz band. Operators can still make use of the radio spectrum in other bands (e.g. the 3.3 GHz, 4.9 GHz and 26/28 GHz bands), and re-farm their existing spectrum used for providing the second to the fourth generation mobile services to provide 5G services in Tai Po district.
(5) According to the information of the Information Systems Audit and Control Association as well as the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium, Inc. (ISC)², there were over 5 300 personnel with major professional qualifications in cybersecurity in Hong Kong as at the end of 2019. Considering that some may possess more than one relevant qualification concurrently, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7623
estimated number of personnel undertaking information security and related duties was over 4 000.
The Government is committed to facilitating the development and manpower training of the information technology ("IT") security industry in Hong Kong by providing support in organizing events, including conferences and professional training (e.g. cloud security professional certification, certification courses on information security and the annual Information Security Summit), promoting security certification and professional qualification among enterprises, organizations and IT personnel, and encouraging tertiary institutions to provide more relevant programmes in IT-related disciplines.
Moreover, to attract talent from around the world to Hong Kong, the Government has launched a Technology Talent Admission Scheme in 2018 to provide a fast-track arrangement for admission of overseas and Mainland research and development talent (including cybersecurity specialists) so as to meet the needs of local economic and technological development.
(6) The Subsidy Scheme for Encouraging Early Deployment of 5G under the Anti-epidemic Fund launched on 5 May 2020 aims to foster innovative communications technology and smart city applications so as to improve operational efficiency and service quality, thereby enhancing Hong Kong's overall competitiveness.
Approved projects under the Scheme should be able to bring substantive benefits (such as enhancement of efficiency, productivity and service quality) to the business or sector concerned and demonstrate innovation or cross-sectoral synergy through the deployment of 5G technology. The Government will subsidize 50% of the actual cost directly relevant to the deployment of 5G technology in a project, subject to a cap of $500,000. Around 100 qualified projects will be subsidized. As at end May 2020, 50 applications have been received. We anticipate that the first batch of applications will be approved and the first portion of subsidy will be disbursed by the end of June.
7624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
We will require the grantees to share and exchange with the trade and industry their experiences in the enhancement of operational efficiency and services through the deployment of 5G technology upon completion of their projects so as to benefit different sectors and facilitate the continuous innovation of the Hong Kong economy.
Using unoccupied public housing estates as quarantine facilities
19. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, to cope with the epidemic, the Government announced on 25 January this year its intention to use the unoccupied Fai Ming Estate in Fanling as quarantine facilities and temporary accommodation for healthcare staff in need. On the following day, a number of facilities in the Estate were vandalized by some persons who were opposed to the arrangement. Since the restoration works concerned would take at least six to eight months to complete, the Government instead requisitioned in early February the unoccupied Chun Yeung Estate in Fo Tan for use as quarantine facilities. Some prospective tenants who have accepted advance allocation offers of units in these two public rental housing ("PRH") estates have indicated that the above situation has disrupted their arrangements for relocation, and those prospective tenants living in subdivided units even need to continue to live in deplorable conditions and pay exorbitant rents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following information on each of the various quarantine facilities since January this year:
(i) name,
(ii) address,
(iii) total number of quarantine units,
(iv) dates on which operation commenced and ceased (if applicable), and
(v) monthly numbers of units used and numbers of persons admitted thereto;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7625
(2) of the progress of the construction of quarantine facilities by the Government at a government site at Penny's Bay, and the respective anticipated dates of completion and commissioning; whether it will, upon completion of those quarantine facilities, forthwith return Chun Yeung Estate to the Hong Kong Housing Authority to enable prospective tenants to move in; if so, of the expected duration between the date of returning the Estate and the handing-over date of the units to the prospective tenants;
(3) of the number of prospective tenants who have accepted advance allocation offers of units in Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate and the total number of persons involved, with a breakdown by the number of family members of the prospective tenants; the respective numbers of prospective tenants who have chosen the following arrangements after learning that the intake would be deferred:
(i) admission to Po Tin Interim Housing,
(ii) acceptance of allocation of another unit in a new PRH estate,
(iii) acceptance of allocation of another unit in an old PRH estate,
(iv) continuing to wait for the originally allocated PRH unit, and
(v) other arrangements;
(4) given that at present some hotels have indicated willingness to provide their rooms for use as quarantine facilities, of the reasons why the Government still uses unoccupied PRH estates as quarantine facilities;
(5) given that some prospective tenants of Chun Yeung Estate and Fai Ming Estate have indicated that the one-off ex-gratia allowance of $6,000 per household granted by the Government to them is insufficient to compensate for the losses incurred on them due to the delay in intake, whether the Government will provide additional allowance, e.g. an extra allowance of $6,000 per month per household from the date on which the letter on advance flat allocation was issued to the date of intake;
7626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
(6) of the respective numbers of PRH units in Sha Tin District and the North District which are available for allocation, with a breakdown by name of housing estate and type of units; whether it will offer to the prospective tenants of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate the choice of residing temporarily in PRH units in the same districts; and
(7) of the average duration in the past five financial years between the time when a prospective tenant completed the intake formalities in an estate office and the time when the unit was handed over to the tenant; how such duration is expected to compare with the relevant duration concerning the prospective tenants of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Food and Health Bureau, my reply to the question raised by Mr Andrew WAN is as follows:
(1) Coronavirus Disease-2019 ("COVID-19") is an unprecedented disease that is highly contagious and fast-spreading, and the outbreak situation is evolving rapidly. Apart from admitting patients confirmed or suspected to be infected to hospitals for isolation and treatment, another equally important element of the Government's strategy is to put close contacts who may have been exposed to the risk of contracting COVID-19 (including close contacts of confirmed patients) under compulsory quarantine at quarantine centres, including Chun Yeung Estate. Since January 2020, the Government has set up quarantine centres consecutively at the following locations:
(a) Lady MacLehose Holiday Village, providing 45 units;
(b) Po Leung Kuk Jockey Club Pak Tam Chung Holiday Camp, providing 25 units;
(c) Lei Yue Mun Park and Holiday Village in Chai Wan (including the extra constructed units at basketball court and football field), providing 379 units in total;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7627
(d) Heritage Lodge of Jao Tsung-I Academy, providing 53 units;
(e) Junior Police Call Permanent Activity Centre in Pat Heung, providing 208 units; and
(f) Chun Yeung Estate, currently providing 3 121 units among 4 846 units.
In order to deploy manpower more effectively and make good use of the facilities, two relatively smaller quarantine facilities, namely the Lady MacLehose Holiday Village and the Po Leung Kuk Jockey Club Pak Tam Chung Holiday Camp have no longer been in used for housing close contacts since early March 2020.
From January 2020 till now, over 6 000 persons have been accommodated at quarantine centres, among whom 114 persons showed symptoms during their stay and were affirmed as confirmed cases subsequently. This demonstrates the effectiveness of quarantine centres in preventing community outbreaks. Owing to various factors such as the development of outbreak and operational arrangements, as well as the quarantine period being 14 days in general, the occupancy rate of each quarantine centre varied at different periods. While the outbreak has slightly eased recently, over 200 units were used each day on average over the past month. As at 9:00 am of 28 May, 257 units were occupied, involving 574 persons.
(2) While the outbreak of COVID-19 in Hong Kong has slightly eased recently, it has already become a global pandemic and its future development is difficult to predict. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to keep these quarantine facilities in order to cope with the quarantine need that may arise. The Government has been setting up additional quarantine facilities through construction works. It is expected that the construction works at the government site and the site reserved for future tourism development at Penny's Bay would be completed by phase between July and September 2020, providing some 1 500 additional units. If the epidemic situation stabilizes and there is no local community outbreak with unknown sources by then, the Government will cease the use of 7628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Chun Yeung Estate as quarantine centre as soon as possible, and complete thorough disinfection and relevant repair works such that the prospective tenants can move in as soon as possible.
(3) In order to utilize public rental housing ("PRH") resources more effectively, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has implemented the Modified Advance Allocation Scheme ("MAAS") since 2000. Under MAAS, before a newly completed PRH estate has been issued occupation permit ("OP"), its units will be allocated in advance to eligible PRH applicants, enabling them to complete the intake formalities as soon as possible after OP is issued. HA allocated the uncompleted Chun Yeung Estate and Fai Ming Estate in late 2019 under MAAS. About 4 700 PRH application households involving about 11 400 persons have accepted the advance offer.
As with other letters issued under MAAS, the offer letters in respect of Chun Yeung Estate and Fai Ming Estate clearly reminded all PRH applicants that the intake date of the units under advance allocation could not be confirmed, and they were recommended not to make premature arrangements for moving to the district of allocation such as switching jobs or schools. Nonetheless, HA understands that applicants who have accepted the advance housing offer of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate may experience inconvenience or problems due to the deferred intake. HA hence issued letters to the concerned prospective tenants on 20 February this year, informing them of the special arrangements, under which they may opt to (1) retain the advance allocated unit until flat intake and, where necessary, apply for admission to Po Tin Interim Housing ("IH") in Tuen Mun District in the New Territories during the period; or (2) cancel the current offer and be reallocated to another suitable unit in other housing estates in their original chosen district. HA will endeavour to meet and accord priority to their needs, subject to public housing resources available for deployment and availability of suitable vacant PRH units.
Among the 4 700 prospective tenants, 3 450 have chosen to wait for intake of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate without applying for IH. Another 330 households who have decided to wait for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7629
intake of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate have applied for Po Tin IH in Tuen Mun (of which 180 households have accepted the IH offer). The remaining about 920 households have applied for a unit in other estates (of which 210 households have accepted housing offer in other PRH estates).
(4) The Department of Health has earlier touched base with the hotel industry to explore the feasibility of using hotels as quarantine facilities, but it involves consideration from various aspects. While a number of hotels have indicated willingness to support the anti-epidemic work, they specified that the hotel rooms could only be used as temporary accommodation for health care staff and expressed major reservations about the use of hotels as quarantine facilities for close contacts. Even though a few hotels were willing to make their rooms available for use as quarantine facilities, they generally indicated that manpower for supporting the operation could not be provided, and most of the hotels concerned were close to residential buildings. In addition, facilities for use as quarantine centres must fulfil infection control requirements, including the availability of independent air-conditioning, fresh air ventilation, and that the interior and environment and facilities should be friendly for cleansing and disinfection, etc. In general, hotels are not designed for the purpose of quarantine. Most of the rooms are enclosed and equipped with central air-conditioning, and fitted with carpet that could hardly be thoroughly disinfected on a daily basis. Therefore, hotels may not be able to meet the above requirements.
(5) Under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("the Fund") set up by the Government, a one-off ex gratia allowance of $6,000 per household has been granted to eligible PRH applicants who have accepted the advance allocation offer of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate, so as to help them tide over the problems and inconvenience caused by the deferred intake. We understand that the ex gratia allowance under the Fund may not be able to resolve all the problems of the prospective tenants but hope that this could provide some relief to meet their pressing needs. Cheques for the payment of the ex gratia allowance have been issued to all the affected prospective tenants.
(6) At present, there are about 390 and 130 recovered PRH units in Sha Tin District and North District respectively which can be used for 7630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
reallocation. HA will endeavour to meet and accord priority to the requests for flat allocation in other estates in the same chosen district from the prospective tenants of Fai Ming Estate and Chun Yeung Estate. For applicants with temporary housing need, they could apply for accommodation in Po Tin IH in Tuen Mun District in the New Territories.
(7) Once a PRH applicant is allocated a recovered PRH unit, HA will arrange contractors to conduct "Simple Touch-up Works". In general, the contractor will complete the works within 44 days after taking over the flat. The applicant could then proceed with flat intake after completion of the refurbishment.
For PRH units in estate to be completed, as PRH applicants can only proceed with flat intake after these newly completed buildings have been issued with OP, the time of physical intake for applicants accepting advance housing offer cannot be generalized.
Job creation for architectural, surveying, town planning and landscape sectors
20. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, the second-round relief measures launched by the Government include the provision of $6 billion to create around 30 000 time-limited jobs in both public and private bodies in the coming two years. Such jobs include (i) positions for seasoned professionals in the architectural sector, (ii) positions for technicians and supporting staff of construction projects as well as repair and maintenance works, and (iii) trainee positions for fresh graduates in professions such as building surveying, town planning, estate surveying and land surveying. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the newly created positions in the four sectors of architecture, surveying, town planning and landscape, including (i) the number of positions, job nature and entry requirements (with a breakdown by sector), and (ii) the mode by which funding is provided by the Government; the latest progress for the implementation of such measures;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7631
(2) of the specific approaches adopted by the Government for facilitating the creation of the aforesaid positions by the various public and private bodies, as well as the details; and
(3) of the measures put in place to ensure that the job contents of the trainee positions will be recognized by the relevant professional bodies as the graduate training contents required for acquiring the professional qualifications, so that the years of relevant working experience can be converted into the required number of graduate training hours?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President, with a view to relieving the worsening unemployment situation due to the epidemic, the Government has earmarked $6 billion under the Anti-epidemic Fund to create around 30 000 time-limited jobs in both the public and private sectors in the coming two years for people of different skill sets and academic qualifications. The time-limited jobs created under this measure will normally not exceed 12 months. Bureaux and departments concerned are actively planning and implementing related preparatory and recruitment work. Regarding the question raised by Mr Tony TSE in relation to the time-limited positions created under the Anti-epidemic Fund in the sectors of architecture, surveying, town planning and landscape, our consolidated reply which is prepared in consultation with the Development Bureau as well as the Transport and Housing Bureau is as follows:
(1) and (2)
Relevant bureaux and works departments will create more job opportunities through expediting implementation of new plans and enhancing existing services. The Development Bureau announced in April this year that it would create some 4 700 additional time-limited jobs for people of different fields, skill sets and academic qualifications, including professionals, technicians and logistic staff providing support. Among the 4 700 time-limited jobs, it is estimated that over 100 are for professionals in architectural, surveying, planning and landscape architectural sectors and that over 300 are for technicians and other supporting staff members of these sectors. The Transport and Housing Bureau will also create time-limited jobs in the sectors of architecture, surveying, 7632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
town planning and landscape to provide professional and technical support services for the quality control and the safety management system of public projects works sites, highway maintenance works and roadwork projects, highway vegetation maintenance and landscape works, etc.
The majority of these additional jobs would be created by procurement of services from private consultants or contractors through contractual arrangements. It increases the demand for manpower which in turn drives the private sectors to recruit more staff. Besides, the Government will arrange open recruitment of Non-Civil Service Contract positions in relevant departments. These additional jobs would be realized progressively, within three months at the soonest.
The Government is also very concerned about the "Hard to get hired" condition of graduates. For graduates in the architectural, surveying, planning and landscape architectural sectors, the Development Bureau and its family departments would provide an addition of over 40 professional training places in 2020, from 79 in 2019, representing an increase of over 50%. This will not only provide more employment and training opportunities for graduates, but will also help to maintain the professional succession in the relevant sectors through training up successors and retaining abilities for future infrastructure development.
The unemployment rate has been soaring recently, especially in those sectors that are directly hit by the epidemic. For example, the unemployment rate of the construction sector has risen from 6.8% for the period from December 2019 to February 2020 to the 10-year record high of 10% for the period from February 2020 to April 2020. In view of the persistent impacts of the epidemic, it is inevitable that the labour market will continue to be under tremendous pressure in the short run. In this regard, the Government is actively exploring initiatives to swiftly create more jobs in meeting the needs of the sectors, thus improving employment and maintaining a vibrant economy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7633
(3) Different professional institutions will formulate the required professional training guidelines and training plans according to the distinctive conditions of the sectors to ensure that the trainees can receive the appropriate professional training and practice. The professional training of government departments meets the relevant requirements all along. The appointed trainees will receive practical training that meets the requirements of the relevant professional institutions under professional guidance, facilitating them to obtain the relevant professional qualifications. By expediting the implementation of new plans and enhancing existing services, bureaux and departments concerned help the private sector to create the necessary workload for their trainees such that the trainees can accumulate the relevant experience and complete the professional training.
GOVERNMENT BILLS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill.
Council became committee of the whole Council.
Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the National Anthem Bill.
Stand-over item: National Anthem Bill (standing over from the meeting of 27 May 2020)
NATIONAL ANTHEM BILL
(Dr KWOK Ka-Ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?
7634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move a motion for the adjournment of the Council under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and the wording of the motion is as follows: "That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issues: in view of the growing number of confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (commonly known as "Wuhan pneumonia") in recent days, the emergence of a cluster of local cases and even a possible small-scale outbreak in Hong Kong as anticipated by the Secretary for Food and Health; the government announcement made yesterday on extending the social gathering restrictions on public social gatherings and freedom of assembly while on the other hand, exempting some business operators and the likes arriving from specified places from the 14-day compulsory quarantine, and the imminent implementation of the tripartite prevention and control mechanism among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to relax the movement of people among the three places; the Government should address people's concerns and ensure that a relaxation of entry measures will not increase the risk of an outbreak of Wuhan pneumonia in Hong Kong."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have moved a motion for the adjournment of the Council under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. But I do not consider the matter you have raised so urgent that it must be debated in this Council meeting. Therefore, I do not allow your request.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may refer to the Appendix to the Script for the debate arrangement for the Bill.
(Dr KWOK Ka-Ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): There is a lack of quorum in the Chamber.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, the Chairman noticed that a quorum was present in the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7635
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council has become committee of the whole Council. A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will the Clerk please stop ringing the summoning bell.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, this Council passed the Second Reading motion on the National Anthem Bill before adjournment last week. But due to the grossly disorderly conduct of some Members who had also repeatedly raised procedural matters, this Council had to suspend the meeting repeatedly, losing over six hours of meeting time, thereby increasing the time spent on the entire Second Reading procedure from the originally allocated 8 hours to 14 hours.
As Members are aware, I have reserved about 30 hours for this Council to consider the National Anthem Bill. I have also repeatedly reminded Members that, during the consideration of the Bill, the time spent on headcount and dealing with other procedural matters will be counted in the 30 hours. Given that an additional six hours have been spent on the Second Reading procedure, the time for consideration by committee of the whole Council will be correspondingly adjusted to about 10 hours and the time for dealing with the Third Reading procedure will remain unchanged, i.e. six hours.
I once again appeal to Members to make the best use of the meeting time of this Council to complete the consideration of the Bill as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members have been informed that the committee will conduct a joint debate on the clauses, Schedules and amendments.
I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses and Schedules stand part of the Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 14 and Schedules 1 to 3.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Four Members will move a total of 21 amendments which seek to amend clauses 5 to 7 and 9 to 11.
Members may refer to the Appendix to the Script for details of the amendments.
7636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the clauses, Schedules and amendments.
I will call upon the four Members who have proposed amendments to speak in sequence, but they are not required to move their amendments at this stage. Then I will call upon other Members to speak.
Upon the conclusion of the joint debate, the committee will vote on the amendments in sequence.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Andrew LEUNG, I make the strongest protest against your compression of the time for consideration by committee of the whole Council. In order to put the Bill to the vote in the evening of 4 June, you did not hesitate to inhibit Members' speaking time. I have proposed altogether 16 amendments. In fact, in 16 hours, the 16 amendments … many Members did not have the chance to speak in the Second Reading debate, and I anticipate that I can speak for only three or four times in the committee stage of the whole Council. You have originally arranged 16 hours for the debate and voting of amendments in the committee stage of the whole Council, but now there are only 10 hours left. As regards this draconian law, not only will it be passed by you and others once enough votes have been secured, Members are not even given a chance to explain why they oppose it. What is the value of the Legislative Council? Members are not allowed to even debate or speak seriously. We made painstaking efforts to draft the amendments, you should …
(The timer stopped)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please hold on.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am speaking. What do you want me to do?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the timer has stopped, I have to ask the staff to restart the timer so as to time your speech. Mr CHAN, now please continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7637
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): We drafted the amendments in a very serious manner. I have proposed 20 amendments, the majority of which are opposed by the Government. At last, 16 of my amendments have been ruled admissible. Despite our differences in political stance, I believe you, Andrew LEUNG, should give recognition to the earnest attitude of our team in drafting the amendments. As the amendments we drafted have been ruled admissible, I should be given time to explain them to the public. Though I anticipate that, as far as my amendments are concerned, no matter how reasonable my arguments are and how much painstaking efforts my colleagues have made in drafting them, in the end, the pro-establishment camp would vote against them with their eyes closed and negative them all. You have picked 4 June as the date and time for the voting. The 4 June rally will not be held this year but on this very day, you still put the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") to vote. Why can the procedure be not postponed to allow a little bit more time for Members to debate until the meeting next week? How will it affect the operation of the entire Legislative Council? Andrew LEUNG, I have proposed 16 amendments, and for how long do you think I can speak? Can you guarantee that I can speak four times?
I truly wish to ask: what is the value of the Legislative Council nowadays? You said some Members' behaviour was grossly disorderly, but why was it so? The reason is that even if we rise to give our speeches in a decent manner, you would not allow us to do so. We have drafted and proposed amendments, and wish to explain them―it is not about filibuster anymore as my amendments are all well-reasoned; if they are frivolous, you would have ruled them inadmissible long ago―but you would not even give us the chance to explain our amendments calmly under the rules. Why have there been so many conflicts outside? Why those "peaceful, rational and non-violent" protesters in the past have now become valiant ones? Exactly because the Government has taught us it is useless to be "peaceful, rational and non-violent" protesters. And you have taught us it is useless to propose amendments. My colleagues have expended assiduous efforts in drafting the amendments, among which 16 have been ruled admissible. Still, it is useless because I will not even have the chance to speak on and explain them. Some colleagues persuaded me, "boss, as I have put my heart into them, do not allow yourself to be kicked out of the Chamber. You really have to clearly explain our reasoning, and it is best that you can move the amendments for Members to vote on them and have the division put on record, so that people would know which pro-establishment Members speak with a forked tongue." For example, my first amendment is about religious services. There are more Christians in the pro-Government camp than ours, and they all wear crosses. 7638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
How will they vote during voting? After hearing what my colleague said, I once thought: should I elaborate my amendments in a decent manner so that the whole world will hear my arguments and hence, the amendments will be likely to put to vote and have the division put on record? However, it has now become meaningless to do so because, even I give a decent speech, how much can I elaborate?
I wish to cover three salient points in the coming speaking time. Nonetheless, that will be the future of the Council. Not to mention the next Legislative Council, in this remaining one month or so of this Legislative Council, you still have to compress the time for us to state our reasons for objection and force Members to finish speaking in 10 hours. Is it necessary?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you should understand the arrangement of 30 hours best.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Thirty hours were your words …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You had stated in your speech that this Council should reserve two weeks' meetings for Members' consideration of the Bill. I had taken heed of your opinions and made such arrangements. You said in the meeting that 30 hours should be allowed for the consideration of the Bill. I had taken your advice …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I did not advise you …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have full knowledge of the time arrangement.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): … I merely surmised that you would allocate two weeks' meeting time for dealing with the proceedings of the Bill, meaning you would allow at most two weeks' meeting time for Members to debate it. Back then, we could sink the "Internet Article 23" because the then President, Mr Jasper TSANG, at least pretended to allow us to speak. He did LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7639 not impose a time limit nor trim the duration, and allowed Members to speak. That was how we could exert pressure on the Government and eventually sink that bill. And, today, you have already delineated the framework for the proceedings of the Bill. You have to retract what you have just said. I did not request you to set the time limit on dealing with the proceedings of the Bill at two weeks' meetings. I only surmised that you would arrange for it to be dealt with in two weeks' meetings―I surmised that you would arrange two weeks' meetings at most. We said that, in the Council, there are both verbal and physical struggles in the Council. In terms of physical struggles, we have already thrown caution to the winds and taken a great deal of legal risks. You need not remind nor threaten us. We will weigh the risks ourselves. When I truly want to speak on my amendments decently, you did not allow it.
I propose three groups of amendments today and wish to explain them in the remaining speaking time I can hopefully strive for. Now, I have to press the "Request to speak" button first, meaning before I complete my first speech, I have to secure the next turn to speak. The first group of amendments is about the clause that the occasions of religious services must not be set out in Schedule 3 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung). The second group of amendments is to provide that calling for not attending or taking part in the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung is not regarded as insulting the national anthem. The third group of amendments is pertinent to inclusion of the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer of the national anthem.
In this speech, I will first discuss the issue of religious services. First of all, I have to thank my team for, when drafting this amendment, not setting religious services as the occasions on which the national anthem needs not be played, but only not to be set out in Schedule 3. The reason is that such drafting will neither be in conflict with the Bill nor outside its scope. Pursuant to clause 5, the Government, at present, can make additions or deletions to the contents of Schedule 3 at will in respect of the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. The additions or deletions of the contents of Schedule 3 basically arise under two situations. The first situation is that the Chinese Government amends the National Anthem Law to increase or reduce the occasions on which the national anthem must be played or sung. Accordingly, the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government must increase or reduce 7640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 the occasions on which the national anthem must be played or sung as set out in Schedule 3 following the amendments to the National Anthem Law made by the Mainland. As regards another situation, the Chief Executive may take the initiative to amend Schedule 3 in the light of the circumstances in Hong Kong. In this case, the Chief Executive will probably merely make additions to the contents of Schedule 3 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung).
In accordance with the Bill, the Government can make additions or deletions to the contents of Schedule 3 by negative vetting. It may add other occasions to Schedule 3 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung) arbitrarily without any public consultation. And on such occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, everyone must stand solemnly while the national anthem is being played and sung. Any person whose behaviour is deemed by the Chinese Government, the SAR Government or the future national security personnel stationed in Hong Kong disrespectful to the national anthem may be criminally liable or be subject to imprisonment for breaching the National Anthem Law or the national security law for the Hong Kong SAR.
On such a premise, why did I especially propose an amendment to provide that religious services must not be set out in Schedule 3 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung)? Because I foresee that in the near future, the Chinese Government will very likely provide in the Mainland National Anthem Law that religious services are the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, thereby compelling Hong Kong to likewise set out religious services in Schedule 3 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung). At present, the Chinese Government does not stipulate that the national anthem must be played and sung before the commencement of religious services, but many three-self churches―do Honourable colleagues know what three-self churches are? "Three-self" is "self-governance, self-support and self-propagation", meaning preaching by Chinese churches, not by foreign missionaries. The national anthem is sung at worships held by such churches.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7641
Under XI Jinping's new era of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, China has attached more importance to combining religious services with the Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era. Therefore, my worries are very valid and clear. The Communist Party of China has to make lawful religious organizations more loyal to the party leadership. Such three-self churches have to pledge allegiance to the party and so there are examples of the national anthem being played and sung at religious services. The Chinese Government has stepped up its control over religious organizations and gradually strengthened its control over the ideologies of various kinds of religious organizations in Hong Kong.
I fear that in the days to come, the Chinese Government may increase the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung as stated in the National Anthem Law and list religious services among the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, in order that the national anthem must be played and sung during rituals or worships of all religious organizations, be it Christian or Islamic or even Buddhist, with a view to promoting patriotism. We also know that religious leaders are patriotic too. As regards the national security law for the Hong Kong SAR, Christian leaders, whatever society … I saw that a Buddhist monk came out to show support for the passage of the national security law for the Hong Kong SAR by the National People's Congress, which bypasses local legislation by Hong Kong. If the Government can, on its own initiative, list religious services among the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung by way of amending Schedule 3, many problems will arise.
Not to mention religious services, the Government having the power to amend Schedule 3 on its own initiative to add other occasions alone is undesirable, which will definitely arouse some controversies in society. At first, I thought that the Government should exercise self-restraint when using such power. If it is really to increase the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, such as screenings of movies―Thailand also has such a requirement to require audience to stand up when the image of the king of Thailand is shown or its national anthem is played during a movie, should Hong Kong do the same, public consultation is a must and negative vetting should not be pursued. For instance, after the related amendment has been gazetted this morning, people must stand solemnly and sing the national anthem before 7642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 watching a movie at 5:30 pm. It is common knowledge that many genuine believers―whether they are Christians or Muslims and whether the god they worship is Jesus Christ or Allah―all put religious services or worship rituals first. If one thing has to be added before their religious services―it is the playing and singing of the national anthem under the Bill―it would be a great shock to them and can also be regarded as an insult. Some people may find it an act-first-report-later practice to amend the Schedule in order to require them to play and sing the national anthem on some occasions, as public consultation is not a prerequisite for amending the Schedule.
Even if this amendment is not passed today, I very much hope that the Secretary will give a response. In the future, if there are some additional occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, despite the absence of such restriction in the legislation, will he restrain his power and conduct public consultation first to gauge if people have strong opinions before amending Schedule 3? Of course, if the Mainland has already amended its National Anthem Law, Hongkongers certainly have no choice but to follow suit and public consultation and whatnot would then be futile. But at least, when the SAR Government initiates amendments to Schedule 3, can it give people a bit more respect―not to say a bit more―just simply respect the will of Hong Kong people, otherwise its result would be counterproductive.
The spirit of the entire Bill is to make people respect the national anthem, not to mention patriotism which is something intrinsic, at least formally and appear to respect the national anthem. I often quote the remark by the previous Secretary for Mainland and Constitutional Affairs, Patrick NIP: "to state the obvious". Simply put, it means "do not mess with the song". However, if some ordinances or approaches have to be resorted to forcibly require people to play and sing the national anthem before an event, such as religious services, aversion or reaction will result. They would protest, boo or even drown out the national anthem with singing of hymns, or stage a collective walk-out, or express discontent on social media. Will such behaviour constitute an alleged insult to the national anthem in the future? Or will it even become an offence of subversion of state power after the enactment of the national security law for the Hong Kong SAR? Such situations have arisen from people being subject to escalated coercion. Under the existing clauses, booing the national anthem itself may only constitute an insult to the national anthem. But when an act becomes an activity, combined with the gathering of a crowd, it may very likely constitute LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7643 subversion of state power. Therefore, those in power, be it law enforcers or legislators, should narrow down the scope of their power as far as possible, exercise restraint and refrain from exhausting such power.
In accordance with Article 32 of the Basic Law (Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of conscience), "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of religious belief and freedom to preach and to conduct and participate in religious activities in public." As a matter of fact, from this article I see that "freedom of conscience" and "participate in religious activities" are not qualified by "in accordance with law", meaning Hong Kong people have freedom to participate in religious activities so long as they do not break other law. Therefore, if the national anthem is to be played and sung before religious services, it will restrict the contents of religious activities. Is the freedom of religion curtailed and reduced? Is it a violation of Article 32 of the Basic Law?
For this reason, on legal grounds, I propose this amendment today against the inclusion of religious services in Schedule 3. Certainly, notwithstanding the passage of this amendment, if the Government eventually wants to effect the increase of the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, it can be done by introducing an amendment bill to the Legislative Council under the enacted ordinance. I consider it a more appropriate approach.
There are many devout Christians in the Chamber. They are very devout, much more so than us―but I am a Buddhist and had become a monk―are they worthy of the cross? I hope they will support my amendment. Were Hong Kong to take such a step to put religious services under the party and prescribe that the national anthem be played and sung before rituals, I hope the Government will go back to the Legislative Council and present an amendment bill, rather than amend the contents of Schedule 3 by way of negative vetting to ride roughshod over people, who would be forced to do something which they may not be willingly to do.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed three amendments. The first group of amendments seeks to amend clauses 5(2) and 6(5), and the second group of amendments seeks to amend clause 7(6).
First of all, I would like to talk about the two amendments proposed to clauses 5(2) and 6(5). Under this National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), clauses 5(2) 7644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 and 6(5) concern the amendment of Schedule 3 and prescription made for the purposes of clause 6(1)(c), which would be subject to the negative vetting procedure.
These two amendments that I have proposed to clauses 5(2) and 6(5) seek to add "subject to the approval of the Legislative Council" to the clauses. If these amendments are passed, according to section 35 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1), the subsidiary legislation will be made subject to the positive vetting procedure, not the negative vetting procedure.
Of course, regarding these two amendments that I have proposed, the Government said that the positive vetting procedure usually takes longer whereas the negative vetting procedure also allow the Legislative Council to scrutinize the subsidiary legislation and to amend it if necessary. The Government opposed my amendments on the ground that the time required would be too long. However, the amendment to the "Occasions on which National Anthem must be Played and Sung" as prescribed in Schedule 3 is a matter of great importance and besides, what urgency is there in terms of timing? I do not see any urgency because the most important occasions are already set out in Schedule 3. Therefore, I think there is nothing wrong to adopt the positive vetting procedure because after all, the legislature has greater credibility and keeps tabs on public sentiments more closely than the Executive Authorities. Such being the case, deliberations should be conducted before any amendment is made to Schedule 3.
In fact, there is another advantage for the Legislative Council to take up the gate-keeping role. Think about this: If the subsidiary legislation enacted through the negative vetting procedure would meet opposition in the Legislative Council, or in other words, even if the amendments are made and if we oppose them, it would then be embarrassing for the Government, and it would be embarrassing for the Central Authorities too. It is because even if the negative vetting procedure are adopted, we still have the power to veto the subsidiary legislation enacted through the negative vetting procedure. Therefore, I cannot see why the positive vetting procedure would take longer time. Another advantage of doing so is that it would show full respect to the Legislative Council.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7645
The second group of my amendments has to do with clause 7(6). Clause 7(6) of the Bill provides that a person who commits an offence relating to insulting the national anthem is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5, i.e. $50,000, and to imprisonment for three years. But in my view, the provisions on the definition of insulting the national anthem are very vague and loose, thus making it easy for members of the public to contravene the law inadvertently. The Government pointed out that this level of penalty is the same as the level of penalty for the offence of desecrating the national flag or national emblem under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO"). However, if we compare the Bill with NFNEO, we will find that whether in the Bill or the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), there is entirely no definition―let me stress again that there is no definition―on the behaviours that can be considered as insulting the national anthem. Insofar as insult is concerned, is it determined by the subjective behaviour of the offender or by the court based on regulations in which objective standards are set out? Is it subjective or objective? Or is it 50% subjective and 50% objective? How exactly is this line drawn? I hope that the Secretary will later on explain this clearly: If an offender subjectively considers that his behaviour constitutes an insult to the national anthem, does it mean that he has committed an offence? Because he committed this act with mens rea and he also subjectively considers that such an act is insulting the national anthem. Or, is it necessary for the court to examine the whole case and then make a determination based on objective standards that his act constitutes an insult to the national anthem? Which approach should be taken? Is it "a" or "b"? Or should both standards in "a" and "b" co-exist?
Article 15 of the National Anthem Law and clause 7 of the Bill respectively provide that a person commits an offence if the person publicly and intentionally alters the lyrics or score of the national anthem, or plays and sings the national anthem in a distorted or disrespectful way, or insults the national anthem in any other manner, or publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way.
In its Joint Statement on Local Legislation for the National Anthem Law, the Progressive Lawyers Group said that the scope of "insulting the national anthem in any other manner" can be open to boundless interpretation to encompass other non-criminal acts in the National Anthem Law. This is 7646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 absolutely likely to happen and has aroused concerns that the Bill may be used as a tool to suppress the freedom of speech in future. When a law enforcement officer or a policeman subjectively thinks that a certain act or omission is insulting the national anthem, say, when a person falls asleep and does not wake up while the national anthem is played and sung and if such a behaviour is considered to be insulting the national anthem, this may be brought to the attention of the Department of Justice which may then institute prosecution against this person. If this is considered a behaviour insulting the national anthem out of a person's subjective opinion, with regard to our expression of views in future … I mean if that person really forgot it and did not wake up, is that subjectively or objectively considered a behaviour insulting the national anthem? I maintain that the Bill has not made clear any of these circumstances and so, this is a reason why I have proposed an amendment to the penalty.
Let us take a look at Singapore, a city or country similar to Hong Kong. Singapore is a city state similar to Hong Kong in terms of population or from a geographical point of view. It is smaller than Hong Kong both in population and in size. The Singaporean authorities have stipulated the behaviours expected of the people when the national anthem is played and sung but the maximum penalty, i.e. S$1,000, is imposed only on people who deliberately―deliberately―acted against the stipulations. Members, it is merely S$1,000 or HK$5,480. Another example is Malaysia. We all know that the Malaysian Government is even more conservative than the Singaporean Government, and under the law in Malaysia, the maximum penalty is 100 Ringgits. Chairman, I think you may not know how much it is approximately in Hong Kong dollars. It is HK$185, and of course, the offender is also liable to imprisonment for one month.
As regards other major Western democracies, such as the United States, Canada, and so on, their laws for protecting the national anthem do not provide for any penalty on law-breakers, meaning that people acting against the provisions will not be punished. Moreover, in countries such as Britain and Australia, their laws or regulations in this respect are neither main legislation nor subsidiary legislation but only protocols, or in other words, they are only charters or rules for compliance by the citizens, and they do not provide for any penalty.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7647
I have read the Annex to LC Paper No. CB(2)995/18-19(01), which listed out the penalties for behaviours insulting the national anthem in other countries, but the levels of penalty in these countries are generally far lower than the $50,000 fine and three years' imprisonment as provided for in the Bill. Some people said that our country is strong and powerful and we certainly have to respect the national anthem. But why should it still be necessary to impose on the people an imprisonment for three years? Is that actually meant to be a kind of intimidation to make the people abide by the law?
As I pointed out during the resumed Second Reading debate last Tuesday, respect is two-way, and it has to be mutual. When the state respects the people, the people will respect the state. Moreover, both NFNEO and the Bill actually want to make the people give face to the state, and let me say once again that as a Cantonese saying goes, "others can bestow honours on you but humiliation is always the result of one's own making". The Government can impose heavier penalty to serve its purpose, but I wish to cite an example because at this time here, the rule of law in Hong Kong is probably at a level equivalent to that in Iran or North Korea since these two countries are supportive of putting in place national security legislation in Hong Kong.
On a previous occasion I gave the Secretary the task of finding out what penalty is imposed on insulting the national flag, national emblem or national anthem in Iran. Let us take a look at the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, Book 5, Chapter 2, "Insulting the Religious Sanctities or State Officials". First, let me declare that this is only the translation because I do not know Persian. Article 513："Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities or any of the imams or her excellency … should be executed if his insult equals to speaking disparagingly of Prophet Muhammad. Otherwise, should be imprisoned from one to five years." Chairman, this can be sentenced to death. Why do we not follow the practice of Iran? Iran has been most supportive of many things that China has done in Hong Kong.
In the final analysis, respect should be reciprocal, and it should come from the heart. Therefore, Chairman, my amendment seeks to delete the penalty of imprisonment because a fine of $50,000 is already a very heavy penalty, whereas in overseas countries, the fine is only a few hundred dollars or some $1,000. I hope that colleagues in this Council will support my three amendments.
7648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I have proposed an amendment to the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") to delete clause 7(7) concerning the prosecution time bar. Members may ask whether deletion of the clause about the prosecution time bar means to do away with prosecution. No, because according to the laws of Hong Kong, prosecution for this kind of summary offences generally has to be completed within six months. After the time limit, the person in question will not be criminally liable.
Clause 7(7) of the Bill provides, "Proceedings may only be commenced for an offence under this section before whichever is the earlier of the following―(a) the end of the period of 1 year after the date on which the offence is discovered by, or comes to the notice of, the Commissioner of Police; (b) the end of the period of 2 years after the date on which the offence is committed." A time bar is obviously in place. On the surface, there seems to be two time limits, but in fact, it is almost the same as extending the relevant time bar to two years. That is, prosecution can be instituted within two years in respect of behaviour which may constitute an insult to and disrespect for the national anthem. Why did the Administration set such a long prosecution time bar? According to its explanation, contraventions of the Bill are likely to involve large crowds or the use of the Internet, thus requiring more time for investigation and collection of evidence. To strike a balance between effective law enforcement and a reasonable prosecution time bar, although prosecution for violation of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") shall be instituted within six months from the time when the matter involved in the case arose, the prosecution time bar in the Bill really needs to be extended. As I mentioned in my speech last week, the Bill involves sound broadcasting which entails a lot of subjective judgment. If the Government, the political regime and the Police which Hongkongers mistrust are allowed such a long period to initiate prosecution, it is extremely worrying whether the Bill will become another set of laws and regulations which further empower the Police.
Actually, I think today we are considering the Bill in a world which is out of time and out of space, since we are going to face an even more vicious law, the national security law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). Compared with the national security law of HKSAR which we have to face in the future, perhaps the criminal liability under the Bill is indeed so minor that it is not worth mentioning. However, the Government's logic of thinking reflected by the Bill can precisely explain why members of the public are so gravely concerned about the national security law of HKSAR. It is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7649 because during this period, the corresponding laws and regulations restricting freedom of speech in Hong Kong have time and again vested the Police in their capacity as a law enforcement agency with such dominating power that they can subjectively affirm whether a person has committed a crime and then put that person under investigation. If that person raises any views or puts up a defence, the case will be passed to the court for trial. Is this actually the way of governance in a modern civilized society? I believe the SAR Government should give it some serious thoughts. When a society can only rely on oppression, using the law to restrict or suppress people's room for actions and expression of comments, what will happen? If it resorts to such stern laws and harsh punishment even when the people have simply expressed their discontent with the Government, what will happen? As history has told us, when a government is so oppressive that it is even fiercer than a tiger, it precisely means that the political regime will inevitably face its downfall and elimination. Certainly, during the process, the people will endure immense suffering. The Government should not be mistaken that it can always settle problems by relying on oppression rather than adopting a civilized and political approach to ease off the confrontational atmosphere in society, which is the only effective way of governance. I can only say that under a high-handed approach, oppression will eventually turn the city into a lifeless territory where all voices are silenced. Perhaps a city with no voice is one which the Government is most eager to see. However, if only praises of flattery and window dressing remain, it actually means this city will not have any kind of vitality. Neither will it be an international city which merits people's attention because this city has chosen a high-handed approach to silence members of the public.
Regarding the arrangements laid down in the Bill, I have noticed the Government's response that according to case authorities, the Commissioner of Police may have knowledge, based on credible information, of the relevant and material facts that found the essential elements of the offence (including the identity of the offender). What does it mean? That is to say, with a longer prosecution time bar, when there may be grudges among the masses, they may make use of the Bill to snitch on each other anytime. For example, I hold a grudge against someone. At a certain moment when the national anthem is being played and sung, we should behave solemnly and follow the etiquette, but that person dozes off. So I furnish the Police with that person's name, and then the Police may commence an investigation. The original objective of this piece of legislation is to secure people's respect for the national anthem and the country, but since the legislation provides a lengthy prosecution time bar, firstly, it will 7650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 become a means and a tool used by people holding grudges against each other, thus affecting other people. Secondly, of course it will also allow the Police to spend a long time digging around with a magnifying glass during the course of investigation. Is this necessary? What is the actual objective we wish to achieve? If the Police is empowered to carry out investigation under a magnifying glass, does it mean the enacted law can most effectively make the people respect the country and the national anthem? If it cannot achieve this effect at all, it will only turn out to be a tool for the Police to abuse power. That means there are problems with the law per se.
As mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, the sentencing under NFNEO is quite similar to that under the Bill. Certainly, we have noted that cases relating to NFNEO are handled in accordance with the Summary Offences Ordinance ("SOO"), in that court trial must commence within six months. Why is there such a difference between the two? According to the explanation of the Police, since the number of people involved is large, they need to investigate with a magnifying glass. However, there were also a lot of people who casually waved, inverted or scrawled on the national flag. Is it that these cases can be handled by applying SOO, but cases involving sound cannot? Such logic does not hold water because cases of casually waving, defiling or mutilating the national flag may involve large crowds too. Should we determine on the basis of the size of the crowds whether the prosecution time bar ought to be set as six months as in SOO, or two years as in the present approach allowing the Police to investigate a case under a magnifying glass? Why did the Government not choose the approach of summary offence? Why did it formulate such provisions? It exactly illustrates that this law was in fact formulated with a purpose far exceeding a mere wish that the people in the city can respect the performance of the national anthem and the symbol of the country. It makes the masses feel that this is another tactic used by the Government to oppress the community.
Lastly, I would like to point out that as a matter of fact, this national anthem itself carries a strong political message, which is the wish that people who refuse to be slaves will arise. The call for people refusing to be slaves to arise, during the Anti-Japanese War, was certainly directed at Japan's invasion of China, and during the liberation period, at the Chinese people suffering political persecution at that time because during the civil war between Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), this song reflected the oppression of the people by the then political regime, and it was hoped that social cohesion could LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7651 be attained through this song. This song originally carried the spirit of resistance against the government, which is also the essence of the national anthem. However, the SAR Government has distorted the original intent of the national anthem. If the Government wants people to respect the national anthem, it should respect their basic rights, that is, people can resist the Government's injustice and unfairness.
However, under the rule of CPC, the standards for everything are set by it. It may then "move the goalpost" anytime, not to mention it has the assistance of the organizer and the referee. Hence, its words always stand above all else with supreme authority. It is exactly the reason why even Mr TIAN Han, the lyricist of this song, died in prison under the rule of CPC. Come to think about it. Against this background, to gain the respect of the masses for this national anthem, we need to let them know its underlying meaning. We need to tell the authoritarian regime and those in power that the essence of this song is to encourage people to arise and resist the political regime when they refuse to be slaves.
What are the SAR Government and CPC thinking? They want to hold people down forever such that they can only serve as slaves. The Bill put forward against this background did not give any regard to such historical significance. The lengthy prosecution time bar under clause 7 precisely reflects the disrespect of the SAR Government for the essence and significance of this song. It just resorts to formalism to force people who refuse to be a slave to submit themselves to this song. Judging from this angle, people's resistance against this song does not mean their disrespect for the country. They only do not accept this political regime and wish to resist it. It is also crystal clear that the Communist regime is not worthy of this song because it is totalitarian, holding people down and treating them as slaves. The meaning of this song lies in "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves". We have got to brave the gunfire. Even if it will take our flesh and blood, we have to arise and fight in order not to be slaves. Such is the original meaning of this song which should not be turned into a tool for oppressing people.
(Ms Claudia MO indicated her wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?
7652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MS CLAUDIA MO: Can we have the quorum please?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please speak.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, my amendment seeks to amend clause 11 of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") by adding subclause (1A) to provide that "the provisions in this Ordinance should be governed by and interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong". Chairman, I am going to present my arguments afterwards from three inter-related perspectives. My argument is based on the fact that the passage of the Bill, similar to the forcible enactment of the national security law in Hong Kong by Beijing, is intended to be bulldozed through amidst bitter controversies in the absence of a consensus in society.
Chairman, the first reason that I wish to raise is, as I have mentioned earlier, for this type of bills, including the Bill or the national security law in Hong Kong, or even the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") which stirred up considerable uproar last year and is still vivid in our memory, no broad consensus has in fact been reached in society prior to their presentation to this Council for scrutiny. Chief Executive Carrie LAM vowed last year that she had learnt a lesson from the amendment exercise of FOO, and that she would listen carefully to public opinions in the future. But what is the fact? Chairman, it is just the opposite. What we can see is that, soon after there is some improvement in the epidemic and it seems that the social atmosphere seems to have been relaxed with the epidemic, the SAR Government could not wait but make Ms Starry LEE the Chairman of the House Committee. They then hastily presented the Bill to the Legislative Council again for resumption of the Second Reading. Has Carrie LAM really listened to public opinions as she claimed? Has she learnt a lesson indeed?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7653
Chairman, I am going to cite an example to highlight how hypocritic Carrie LAM is. SIMA Rui, Emperor Yuan of Jin who was the first emperor of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, was very fond of drinking wine. His good friend WANG Dao often advised him to give up alcohol before he ascended the throne. WANG Dao persuaded him to give up alcohol again with tearful pleas after SIMA Rui had officially ascended the throne. SIMA Rui then suddenly said, "Okay, give me some wine", he turned the glass upside down after drinking the wine and never touched a drop since then.
Chairman, even an autocratic emperor in ancient times was willing to listen to other's advice and understood what a ruler should do and what he should not. What did Carrie LAM mean by self-reflection and retrospection? By saying that she had learnt a lesson, did she actually mean that she blamed herself for not having done ruthlessly and recklessly enough in the past few years, especially in last year?
Chairman, the experience of FOO reveals to us that even if the Government manages to secure more than half of the votes in the Legislative Council, Hongkongers would still exert their best to express their voices and dissatisfaction in their own way, including taking to the streets. Nevertheless, perhaps what disappoints Hongkongers the most is not the SAR Government's bulldozing through the Bill in the absence of a consensus. Instead, it is the broken promises made by the SAR Government time and again. They have repeatedly vowed to the general public that they would conduct thorough reviews and reflection on themselves, but what they did has given no regard to Hongkongers over and over again.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, the committee is now deliberating on the National Anthem Bill, please come back to the question of the debate.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, as I have said earlier, I will take my time to expound my arguments. We can see clearly that the SAR Government has adopted the same attitude when ignoring Hongkongers' opinions and dealing with their demands perfunctorily. I wish to point out in particular that around this time last year, i.e. in early June, we can recall that millions of Hongkongers took to the streets to voice out their demands, but the 7654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SAR Government turned a deaf ear to them. In fact, they, including the pro-Government camp, must have heard such a large voice of opposition unequivocally. Nowadays, perhaps due to the epidemic, it might not be possible for Hongkongers to take to the streets as actively as they did in the past to express their opposition against the Bill. That said, I believe that anyone with a discerning eye would see clearly that even if the pro-Government camp can win the appreciation of their master at this moment, they have actually destroyed their reputation as well as Hongkongers' trust in them with their own hands once and again.
Chairman, the second reason that I wish to point out is actually more frustrating and saddening, since the SAR Government and the pro-Government camp now even do not bother to pretend to Hongkongers that they are practising procedural justice. Now the Civic Party can only propose one amendment, as the President has ruled that the nine amendments proposed by Members of the Civic Party, including me, are inadmissible on the ground that deleting the provisions would compromise the legislative intent. As in the past, the President has not provided us with any detailed reasons to explain how the legislative intent would be compromised by the deletion of provisions as proposed by the Civic Party.
However, I would like to point out that we can draw a simple and clear conclusion after reading the theme and preamble of the Bill carefully. The Bill has several purposes, which include setting out the meaning and principles of playing and singing the national anthem, as well as educating the people of Hong Kong to respect the national anthem and love the country, etc. To begin with, regardless of whether we agree with the aforesaid points, but speaking of our amendments which have been ruled inadmissible by the President, and taking the "offence of insulting behaviour" as an example, would the deletion of this penalty provision proposed by us affect the theme and preamble of the Bill in reason and logic? In fact, this amendment will not affect any other provisions in the Bill, such as the provisions in relation to educating Hongkongers to respect the national anthem and those propagating a patriotic spirit. If the reason is that other Members would consider the deterrent effect of the Bill to be insufficient after deleting the penalty provision, actually Members can veto the amendments proposed by the Civic Party instead of having the President rule that our relevant amendments are inadmissible.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7655
I believe the Chairman should also remember clearly that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved a motion in this Council on 22 November 2018, urging the Government to enable homosexual couples to enjoy equal rights as heterosexual couples. Back then, Dr Priscilla LEUNG proposed an amendment to this motion by changing the wording to "marriage institution based on 'one man and one woman' and 'one husband and one wife'". This amendment has not only affected the original intent of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in proposing the motion, but it has also completely altered the meaning of the motion to exactly the opposite. Yet, while also serving as the President at that time, you still ruled such an amendment proposed by Dr Priscilla LEUNG admissible. What is the reason for that? This is simply because you were biased and unfair.
The third argument that I wish to put forward concerns about clause 7 of the Bill, which is the "offence of insulting behaviour" that I have referred to earlier. The Civic Party considers this provision totally unacceptable. Just as several Members have mentioned in their earlier remarks, insofar as the national flag or the regional flag is concerned, we can still point out in an objective manner what constitutes the behaviours of burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on the flag, etc., as we can see and touch the national flag so that there are objective and clear standards for such behaviours. Yet, if we take a look at clause 7(2) of the Bill, it provides that "a person commits an offence if the person publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way". It is then explained in clause 7(8) that in relation to the national anthem, "insult" means to undermine the dignity of the national anthem as a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China.
Chairman, assuming that a person who knows nothing about law but has only common sense or a basic understanding of the Chinese language reads this provision, he will surely agree that the relevant wording is extremely vague indeed. What exactly does "insult the national anthem" refer to? What does "undermine the dignity of the national anthem as a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China" mean? In fact, there is no objective standard for the term "insult". Chairman, let me take what happened in this Council last week as an example. Back then, the Chairman ruled that the phrase "Starry LEE, the best Chairman" should not continue to be displayed in the legislature anymore, actually this is also your subjective judgment, Chairman …
7656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, please come back to the question of the debate. I have to remind you that the President's ruling is not subject to debate.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am not debating your ruling, I just try to cite it as an example …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If Members have any queries on my ruling, you may follow it up on other occasions.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is certainly necessary to give examples during a debate, and it is also certainly necessary to elaborate …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Being a professional, you should understand the regulations under the Rules of Procedure. Please respect your profession.
(Dr Fernando CHEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, please advise which rule under the Rules of Procedure stipulates that the President's ruling is not subject to debate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Dr CHEUNG, will you please stop dwelling on this.
Mr YEUNG, please continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7657
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I am just quoting this unique example, I am not debating anything, nor fighting for displaying the same placard again on behalf of anyone. Yet, what I would like to bring out is that the term "insult" precisely reflects that people can have different viewpoints and draw different conclusions. I believe this should certainly be allowed by the Chairman, right?
In fact, this renders it more difficult for us to have some objective standards for judging what "insult the national anthem" means. What is even more ridiculous? Clause 7(8) ought to assist readers in understanding the wording of the provisions, but it provides an even more vague explanation which is subject to arbitrary judgment by those who enforce the law. We can imagine that there can be different interpretations on the phrase even in the legislature which is such a civilized place. Supposing that this happens in real life, will the Chairman please give it a thought, the intelligence quotient, experience and status of those law enforcement officers are not comparable to that of the Chairman. How dangerous it is to let them judge what "insult the national anthem" is, and to allow these people on the streets―there is no need for me to point out where they have received education―to judge whether a person has insulted the national anthem, Chairman? In this legislature, only the 60 to 70 of us may have different opinions on some wording, but when we are talking about the entire society, it will then involve the rights of 7 million people. If we just allow that 30 000 police officers to make judgment, Chairman, do you think it is really proper and safe to do so?
As a matter of fact, the most worrying part is whether the relevant judgment will be made on the basis of political stance? Law enforcement officers certainly do not need to tell you, but if people with different political views performing different acts on different occasions are eventually subject to different outcomes, this is actually where the problem lies.
One of the important basic requirements of the rule of law is that the laws must be clear, simple and easy to understand. In fact, it is definitely not difficult to understand, because the general public of Hong Kong, regardless of their education level and background, need to know in advance which behaviour will incur legal liability when living in the Hong Kong society. What leaves people on tenterhooks? Clause 7(7) of the Bill even allows the SAR Government to initiate prosecution against those who have allegedly insulted the national anthem within two years. Of course, the pro-Government camp may suggest that people 7658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 will not be affected by this provision as long as they do not intend to insult the national anthem. Yet, we must never forget that, first, this provision catches all Hongkongers. Second, the provision concerned is vague on the right to interpretation, thus giving the law enforcement agencies plenty of room to interpret the behaviours of members of the public. Third, will the two-year period be spent on interpreting the behaviours of any members of the public according to their preferences? It is actually full of risks, making people extremely worried.
The amendment proposed by me stipulates that "the provisions in this Ordinance should be governed by and interpreted in accordance with 'solely' the laws of Hong Kong". In fact, the word "solely" is particularly important as it requires that during law enforcement, interpretation should be made and actions should be taken in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong. In addition, only the practices and case laws of Hong Kong courts should be adopted for trial and sentencing. As a matter of fact, sentencing in respect of law enforcement actions taken in Hong Kong should of course be decided in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. But what do we worry about then? If we do not spell out something very clearly, it may lead to distortion by someone. In particular, the Bill is introduced in Hong Kong by means of Annex 3 to the Basic Law. As such, will those behaviours which are unlawful at north of the Shenzhen River be regarded as unlawful in Hong Kong as well? This is what we are so worried about, and this is precisely the reason why we want to spell out something which goes without saying like "my mother is a woman". We seek to protect the basic rights of Hongkongers in the future by simply adding the word "solely" to the provision. It is because we are really worried that if we do not make it more specific, will those law enforcement officers who are ambitious but incompetent take advantage of it? This amendment is actually proposed from the perspective of protecting the public, it definitely has no effect of distorting the principle of the Bill.
Therefore, if Members of the pro-Government camp would oppose an amendment with such an obvious aim, I really have no idea what is on their mind. Chairman, the Civic Party opposes the Bill, and I also consider it utterly meaningless to regulate patriotism by means of legislation. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7659
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, as I have pointed out very early on, it is actually a show of weakness to oblige Hong Kong people to respect the national anthem by means of legislation. For this reason, I support all the amendments proposed by pro-democracy Members.
Let us take a look at the "past and present lives" of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). If a great and powerful country is recognized by its people, everyone will sing the national anthem voluntarily, right? Who wants to be a slave? Hong Kong people are now forced to be slaves. Yesterday, TAM Yiu-chung even said that Members who oppose the Hong Kong national security law should be disqualified from office. Not only did people become slaves, Members of the Legislative Council also became slaves. There are many slaves here. Hong Kong has come to this stage at which everyone has to become slaves. So, it is right for us to sing the national anthem, actually. Let us sing it together. No Hongkonger wants to be a slave, but the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong precisely aims at turning all of us into slaves.
The present situation is that Hong Kong people are forced to respect the national anthem by the Bill. Who has betrayed the great Motherland? Why is there a need for legislation if everything is fine? Thanks to the pro-establishment, pro-Government camp―actually they are not yet qualified―the main culprit is "777 Carrie LAM". Everyone should recall that before the introduction of the "China extradition bill" by the Government last year, Hong Kong people felt neither particularly positive nor particularly negative about the Central Government and "one country, two systems". There is adequate leeway and reasonable doubts that changes might still be possible. I clearly remember Hong Kong people's confidence level in "one country, two systems" before the reunification was about 40%, which rose to 67% at one point after the reunification. How about now? More than 62% of people have no confidence in "one country, two systems", while only some 30% of people have confidence in it. That means the majority of Hong Kong people do not have confidence in "one country, two systems" and the Central Government. Who is the culprit of this situation? It is Carrie LAM and her good-for-nothing team harboured by the pro-establishment, pro-Government camp. Actually, at the beginning of last year when everything was fine …
7660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please return to the subject under debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am discussing the past and present lives of the Bill. I support the amendments …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, then please talk more about the present life and less about the past life.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Okay, whatever you say. I cannot argue with you, or else you will ask me to sit down soon. So, as I said, thanks to Carrie LAM and the pro-establishment, pro-Government camp who are making things worse, we have to debate the Bill today. Let us not forget under what circumstances the national anthem was disrespected back then. It was because of the "China extradition bill" and the incident between the fans of the Hong Kong football team and the national football team. Fans of the national football team criticized foreign players in the Hong Kong team. Those who stirred things up first are always wrong. Chairman, I am not going to spend more time on this. As a result, we are forced to debate the Bill today. This bunch of good-for-nothing should think about why they have to create chaos for the Central Government by pushing through the Bill. They dragged the entire Hong Kong, in particular the business sector, into deep troubles. Is Mr Tommy CHEUNG not present? They said that they are in deep troubles. In fact, they should blame Carrie LAM for pushing through the Bill. The present situation is indeed ironic since the next generation is taught to "refuse to be slaves", yet Hong Kong people are actually being turned into slaves while singing "refuse to be slaves" …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the committee of the whole Council is now considering the Bill. Please focus your discussion on the clauses and amendments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7661
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will talk about them next. I support the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeking to delete clause 5(2) on the Chief Executive in Council amending Schedule 3 by notice published in the Gazette. This clause is really ridiculous. The occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung are set out in Schedule 3. However, it will be a problem if "777 Carrie LAM" or the next Chief Executive suddenly thinks it is not right and decides that the national anthem must be sung first thing in the morning, in school and at work every single day. The singing should not stop even for a short while. Then it will give rise to a problem, which is the lack of places in prisons. There are several million people in Hong Kong. What can be done if they all violate the Bill? They all have to go to prison. In that case, 30 000 "dirty cops" are not sufficient. They will need to hire 300 000 of them to investigate if everyone sings the national anthem when they wake up in the morning. Those who are caught on camera not singing it will be arrested and jailed. What kind of a world will it be? The amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen can actually protect everyone. Otherwise, they will take this opportunity to claim that 30 000 "dirty cops" are not sufficient and 300 000 "dirty cops" are needed. Therefore, it is important not to allow too many grey areas in the Bill, including Schedule 3 that I mentioned as it is very terrifying.
As we all know, many people indeed respect their national anthem. People in democratic countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea and Taiwan, respect their national anthem naturally even without any national anthem law. Relevant penalties have been abolished in some places. For instance, in Taiwan, the provision on the fine penalty for not rising when the national anthem is sung was abolished in 1991. Relevant penalties in many places are not as heavy. In Malaysia, it is a fine of $190 and imprisonment for one month. In Europe, the penalty in France (imprisonment for six months and a fine of €7,500) is the heaviest. However, we have to understand that most of these countries are democracies in which people can "fire" presidents, prime ministers or parliament members whom they do not like so that they cannot be re-elected …
7662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you again that Members should discuss the details instead of the principles of the Bill. The principles of the Bill are outside the scope of this debate. Please return to the subject under debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, I will discuss the details now. Chairman, the details are that many occasions can be added to Schedule 3, hence my great concern. It is disproportionate and problematic that a Chief Executive lacking legitimacy and returned by small-circle election of some 1 000 people is given such great powers. To put it bluntly, do we have to add dozens pieces of legislation if riots break out all over Hong Kong then? That will be bad as the Motherland will lose face. Therefore, I proposed that the Chief Executive should not be given excessive powers with which she can act arbitrarily. Many Hong Kong people and the business sector have suffered a lot last year because of Carrie LAM. Why should she be given such great powers still? She may amend Schedule 3 arbitrarily by notice published in the Gazette. How is it possible? Therefore, we must restrict her powers.
Secondly, I would like to discuss the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeking to amend clause 5(2) so that the occasion of religious services must not be included in Schedule 3 by the Chief Executive in Council. In fact, an amendment proposed by me was ruled inadmissible by the President. My amendment sought to exclude the oath-taking ceremonies for Judicial and Legislative Council Oaths, as well as the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year from the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. But I will not talk about these. I mainly want to talk about religions. As everyone knows, many people in Hong Kong follow different religions, such as Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Taoism and Islam. Hong Kong attaches great importance to the freedom of religion.
Nevertheless, we are also a bit worried because Mr XIA Baolong, the incumbent Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, is known for demolishing the crosses in the churches in Zhejiang province. So, why did Mr CHAN Chi-chuen propose this amendment? Perhaps he was really afraid that religious occasions will be included in Schedule 3 in the future because XIA Baolong, who demolished all the crosses by force, is in charge now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7663
Therefore, it is important to stipulate that occasion of religious services must not be included in Schedule 3 in order to avoid situations similar to that happened in Mainland China. There are some rather interesting videos showing the statue of XI Jinping next to the statue of Buddha or Jesus. It was an interesting discovery and a great invention of the Motherland, but it did not look good. How can a state leader enjoy equal status with God? As everyone knows, the Communist Party of China is atheistic. Even as prestigious as the General Secretary, he is on an equal footing with civilians, in theory. How can his statue be put together with the statue of God? The cult of personality does not work. MAO Zedong has also said that the cult of personality is not acceptable. Therefore, it is actually against the thoughts of Chairman MAO to display the statue of XI Jinping on religious occasions. I do not know why there is no punishment now.
Hence, it is important for us to protect religions from political persecution. Are there not enough persecutions now? There have been persecutions against so many people, against the Legislative Council and against so many young people. Do they have to persecute religions, too? What on earth is going on? Please do not make more political persecutions. It is very simple to gain the confidence of Hong Kong people and make them respect the national anthem. The first step is to respect "one country, two systems". Patrick NIP was fired and replaced by Erick TSANG because of the "Article 22 of the Basic Law incident", right? Erick TSANG may be fired too if he says something wrong, although one would rather not take up this kind of posts.
We do not want to see these practices do harm to Hong Kong again. Does everyone believe the current situation is bad enough? The worst has yet to come. The situation will be even worse once the national security law is implemented. It is even said that foreign judges will not be allowed to try relevant cases, Mainland authorities will come to enforce the law and so on. Tens of thousands of items can be added to Schedule 3 when the time comes. Perhaps the People's Liberation Army should also come to Hong Kong too, or military law should be in force …
7664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please return to the subject under debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): No, Chairman, I am saying that the current situation can only get worse, so we hope these amendments can rectify the mistakes and avoid the terrible situations mentioned just now. All these amendments were proposed with good intentions. Come to think of it, if "777 Carrie LAM" or any future Chief Executives may amend Schedule 3 arbitrarily and require everyone to sing the national anthem articulately, how will the "Mainland Aunties" be able to do so as they speak Cantonese with an accent … no, the national anthem is in Putonghua, so actually we will be the ones in trouble because we may be jailed for singing it in poor Putonghua. We have to learn Putonghua fast, or else we will probably be jailed for three years. Do not worry. We may learn Putonghua from the Chief Executive of Macao whose Putonghua level is still acceptable to the leaders.
The Bill looks awful and undermines the dignity of the country because people in other countries respect their national anthem in the absence of any legislation. Now, because of Carrie LAM, the good-for-nothing officials and the pro-establishment, pro-Government camp, legislation is necessary and those who breach the law will be sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. Why do such heavy penalties have to be imposed? Does respect not come from the bottom of people's heart? Will it be better to follow the "red sun" and chairman MAO during the Cultural Revolution? The introduction of heavy penalties is indeed awful and ugly, as well as a show of weakness. Let me repeat: it is a show of weakness, not strength.
Therefore, I hope these amendments can make the Bill look less awful and the Government not as ridiculous as to penalizing lots of people using nearly unrestricted powers through the Bill. If the country respects the spirit of contract, acts in good faith and abides by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, why do we have to enact this piece of legislation? I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7665
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), the President's decision shall be final, but there is no mention in RoP that no debate may arise on it. You have your decision, and we have our views. Are we not allowed to disagree with your views? Are we not allowed to think independently? Are we not allowed to propose a debate in this legislature? RoP make no mention of such things. Your decision is final, and you are the highest authority in the same way as the Communist Party is the highest authority. The Executive Authorities are the highest authorities. An executive-hegemonic government has to turn the Legislative Council and even the Judiciary into its subordinates. At the very least we can still enjoy freedom of debate, and we can represent our constituents and make their voices heard. RoP make no mention that a Member shall raise no objection, and this is true even in the case of the President's ruling.
You have ruled all but one of my amendments inadmissible. The only admissible amendment concerns Part 5 "Supplementary Provisions" and seeks to delete subclause (1) under clause 11 "Application of laws of Hong Kong": "Offences in relation to the national anthem in Hong Kong are investigated, and persons are prosecuted, according to the laws of Hong Kong". Why do I propose to delete this subclause? The reason is that my amendments ruled inadmissible seek to delete all relevant offences and penalties, and prevent the criminalization of relevant acts under the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill").
The Government can enact legislation to command respect for the national anthem, but there is no need to impose any penalty. A person can only win the respect of others only if he is well-behaved. If you do not respect me, I will beat you up. Can one win respect by doing so? If you do not respect me, I will arrest you. Can one win respect by doing so? One cannot make Hong Kong people or those from the rest of the world who have set foot in Hong Kong respect the national anthem by way of beating them up or arresting them.
For this reason, my other amendments seek to delete all penalties, and this amendment seeks to delete this subclause for the sake of consistency. However, my other amendments have been ruled inadmissible, and only this amendment has been ruled admissible. In this way, this amendment will only achieve the opposite effect. In other words, if this subclause is deleted, offences concerned may not be investigated, and persons may not be prosecuted, according to the 7666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 laws of Hong Kong. This is by no means my intention. As this is tantamount to doing injustice to me, I have had to withdraw this amendment of mine.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
As far as the Bill is concerned, my other amendments have been ruled inadmissible for the reason that they contravene its legislative intent. How can my amendments contravene its legislative intent when they seek to delete the penalties? The Bill states its intent as follows: "A Bill to provide for the playing and singing of the national anthem, for the protection of the national anthem, and for the promotion of the national anthem, in Hong Kong; and for incidental matters". There is no mention of punishing anyone. There is no mention of criminalizing acts concerning the playing and singing of the national anthem, the protection of the national anthem, and the promotion of the national anthem.
Next I would like to talk about the Preamble, which is divided into three parts. "(1) The national anthem of the People's Republic of China is a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China", which is fine. "(2) All individuals and organizations should respect the national anthem, preserve the dignity of the national anthem, and play and sing the national anthem on appropriate occasions", which is also fine. "(3) An Ordinance is to be enacted to preserve the dignity of the national anthem, to regulate the playing and singing, the broadcast and the use of the national anthem, to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China, and to promote patriotism". In this regard, I have proposed an amendment to delete "and to promote patriotism". This is not in contradiction to the legislative intent, but my amendment has been ruled inadmissible.
As the legislative intent and the three parts of the Preamble I referred to just now make no mention of punishing anyone, why does the Bill incorporate penalties? Chinese citizens and people inside Hong Kong, whether they be Chinese or sojourners or businessmen, shall not contravene this law under any circumstances. They must help with promoting patriotism and follow the etiquette for playing and singing, or else they will risk being penalized. The penalties are not light, as a person is liable on conviction to imprisonment for three years and a fine of $50,000. Can a country win the respect of the world by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7667 enacting a piece of draconian legislation? As far as I am concerned, the answer is certainly no. If one wants to win the respect of others, he should not ask people whether they respect him with a gun or a rod and beat them up if the answer is no.
There is no need for a great country to force people to respect the national anthem. This is intimidation instead of respect. This aims to frighten people by way of penalties. One will likely break the law if he inadvertently sings or plays the national anthem in a wrong way, or fails to follow the etiquette properly. Why must it be that way? Someone says that Part 2 "Playing and Singing of National Anthem" involves the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem or the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. No penalties are involved, and there are only general guidelines that advise on people's behaviour. This is good, but why is there Part 3, which sets out all the offences? Why must the Government invariably resort to intimidation? Apart from intimidating people, what else can the Government do? If the Government implements good policies and provides people with support, people will naturally respect the national anthem as they feel the Government is good and the country is good.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please note that pursuant to Rule 56(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Members shall not discuss the principles of the clauses of the bill and amendments thereto but only their details at the Committee stage. I hope Members will take note of this.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, I am exactly discussing the details. Part 2 of the Bill is "Playing and Singing of National Anthem", and Part 3 involves offences. We have amendments that seek to delete the offences or revise the time limits for prosecution. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments propose that the occasion of religious services must not be set out in Schedule 3, and that calling for not attending the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung is not regarded as insulting the national anthem. All these amendments are related to penalties. People who fail to play and sing the national anthem on occasions set out in Schedule 3 will likely break the law, and be liable to imprisonment and a fine. Is there anything wrong with what I am saying at this moment?
7668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
As indicated by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, the national anthem will possibly need to be played and sung on the occasion of religious services. Such requirement will soon be put in place on the Mainland. Why should there be any requirement on who must play and sing the national anthem on what occasions? As far as the occasion of religious services is concerned, the followers of a religion have their own traditions and beliefs. In fact, many followers consider that the requirement may constitute blasphemy and encroach religious freedom. Why does the Government, instead of taking into account these factors, forcibly require that the Chief Executive may, through the negative vetting procedure, include into Schedule 3 occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung? As such, I think Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment is reasonable. I think Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment is also reasonable. Why must we confer all the power upon the Chief Executive? Why is it that they can arbitrarily stipulate when or the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung?
One of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments proposes to educate the students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem. This is even more important. I believe there is no other national anthem that is more self-contradictory and absurd than this one. The reason why I say it is absurd is that the lyricist of our national anthem was tortured to death by the regime. Their biography and cause of death absolutely have educative value. The Education Bureau shall not abruptly remove all the information and seek to conceal this period of history.
TIAN Han died a tragic death. The story of his life is worthy of our appreciation. Children of Troubled Times was a film that championed war of resistance at a time when not everyone was calling for resistance. TIAN Han joined the Communist Party in the face of great difficulties. The Government of the Republic of China insisted on the policy of "first internal pacification, then external resistance", namely fighting the civil war before fighting against the Japanese. This policy dealt a severe blow to the country. TIAN Han was a hot-blooded and idealistic youth. NIE Er was even younger and died at the age of 20 or so. TIAN Han was even the head screenwriter of Children of Troubled Times.
There are many tales about the lyrics of the national anthem. The most popular one is that following his arrest and imprisonment, TIAN Han wrote down the lyrics on the back of a cigarette packet. Tragedies awaited him. During the Cultural Revolution, he was struggled against by the Red Guards before being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7669 arrested and imprisoned. He was later seriously ill and died in a prison-like hospital ward in a similar way as LIU Xiaobo did. TIAN Han was representative of many young people in China who insisted on pursuing their ideals. This is similar to the situation in Hong Kong society nowadays. Many of our young people have their ideals, but the regime keeps suppressing them. This was the case with the May Fourth Movement and the June Fourth Incident at Tiananmen Square, and this is also the case with Hong Kong nowadays. This represents the sad destiny of the Chinese, a problem left over from history, and the scourge of authoritarianism.
This period of history together with such a spirit is worthy of studying and reflecting on by all young people. Why is it not included in the school curriculum? I think that there is certainly such a need. We should further take TIAN Han as a role model, as his lyrics exactly convey the message that Hong Kong people today need to fight. "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!" We exactly do not want to be slaves. We do not want to be slaves of the Communist Party, and thus we must arise and fight. We must not be like a group of people who sit here and do whatever their overlord, the Communist Party, asks them to do. If they are asked to press the button, they will press the button; if they are asked to leave, they will leave; if they are asked to stand up, they will stand up. The national anthem should not be used to punish people (The buzzer sounded) … The Government should do good things to command respect for the national anthem.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, your speaking time is up.
MS CLAUDIA MO: I quite agree with my honourable friend, Mr Ray CHAN, better known as "slow beat", when he, in his speech earlier, expressed his lamentation over the fact that he simply did not have enough room, let alone time, to thoroughly explain what his amendments are about because this legislature has become a little cage complete with zoo politics, of course, so full of political grubs.
Mr Ray CHAN was saying that at least in the previous term of this legislature, we managed to take down "Online Article 23", basically thanks to the then President, Mr Jasper TSANG, your very political mentor. But there have 7670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 been consequences, of course. Poor Mr Jasper TSANG now seems to be getting rather lonely if not becoming irrelevant, and he has been said to have lost clout. Never mind.
Now, Mrs Carrie LAM and her government as well are very good at comparing Hong Kong to Western countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, arguing that those foreign countries too have national security laws and so, what is wrong with Hong Kong having one? Now we are talking about the national anthem law. Can I remind Carrie LAM that the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, of course, have some code about their national icons and things but it is not a crime to show disrespect to the national anthem, let alone the national flag in those countries. OK? There is no such thing as criminalization of the national anthem. So, do the comparison and do your homework.
I speak, of course, in support of the 21 amendments, now being divided into six groups. And I, in particular, support all the amendments by Mr Ray CHAN. In group C, he was saying that we need to amend clause 7(6) to provide that the person who commits an offence under clause 7 (Offence of insulting behaviour) is liable on conviction to a fine at level 1 instead of level 5―that is to reduce the fine, of course―and to imprisonment for one month only; one month instead of three years.
I found this perfectly agreeable because as I just said, in the really civilized countries where democracy is in practice, they do not just have the separation of powers complete with checks and balances, they have very robust, conventional press and they have a very lively online websites and forums and things.
But then, when I looked at Mr Kenneth LEUNG's following amendment, I found that even more agreeable. In short, he was saying that, "OK, let us keep the fine to HK$50,000 but then, please, no imprisonment." Not to imprisonment. He said that very clearly there.
Why do you need to impose a maximum of three years behind bars? Well, the idea is to scare. Of course, it is to scare. We are living in the politics of fear in Hong Kong. If you do not obey, I will beat you into obedience; you have to subdue.
For the other amendments in group C, I would not go through them one by one. They are basically demanding a reduction in the criminal sentences. Now LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7671 the Bill itself is supposed to talk about the standards of behaviour when a national anthem is being played, and the officials last year kept assuring us, or reassuring us as well, and they said, "Do not worry; as long as you are not publicly plus wilfully displaying disrespect, you would not be in any problem, any trouble at all."
But then, if you look at the Bill, how do you define "insult"? What exactly is being derogatory? What is the definition? It is all so vague and ambiguous, and that is the idea, and it is quite deliberate. It is all vague and ambiguous, so that they are very applicable when necessary. Freedom of expression? Ha ha!
When Carrie LAM was asked how she defines what an insult is, she said, and I quote, "I believe this is common sense". Ha! A law can be common sense, just applicable to common sense. And she went on to say, "It is very difficult to state clearly what an insult is." So, there you are. It is really all up to the authorities or whoever is in charge. It could be all arbitrary. This is an insult because I say so, because I am the law.
In talking about his amendment, Mr Kenneth LEUNG asked earlier what if somebody genuinely, truthfully just fell asleep when the national anthem was played. What if he did not know that he fell asleep but he was doing it publicly and willfully? His eyes were shut; he may not be snoring but he was not standing up because nobody could sleep while standing up, right? The whole thing is just preposterous, and then the maximum penalty is HK$50,000 and three years in jail. This is completely preposterous. Why do you have to choose to frighten the people, to scare the people? This is just not right.
Then, to go back to those countries that are quite so comparable to Hong Kong, according to Carrie LAM, namely, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia. We all know that in the United States, when the national anthem is playing, you would expect at least the footballers and the officials to display hand on heart, a kind of gesture, but it is not a crime if you do not, OK? There may be other consequences, or you may be considered inappropriate, impolite, indecent, or you could be considered rude or disrespectful. You can find a number of adjectives and that sort of case, but you would not be caught as a criminal, and that makes a huge difference.
And when it comes to national anthem, well, the application off in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was a British colony before 1997, and we had God Save the Queen, the United Kingdom's national anthem as sort of the "national" anthem 7672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 here. Those were the colonial days, of course, and God Save the Queen? Ha ha. My generation did not know anything about this United Kingdom national anthem lyrics, but most of us do know the first line in Chinese, and that is something like "everyone's holding a begging bowl" (個個揸住個兜). Did the Brits find that very derogatory or insulting? They just chose to ignore because it is essentially harmless when Hong Kong people at the time could be just lamenting about the poverty situation in Hong Kong. God Save the Queen is again essentially some deep expression of patriotism on the part of the United Kingdom citizens and also to express the wishing of long life of the monarch. You go and ask young people in the United Kingdom these days whether they care about the longevity of the monarch. Not the young, thank you very much.
And what about the French? The French are a bit more draconian, and they are more stringent. For the French national anthem, if you dare to show disrespect to it, you could face a maximum fine of €7,500―that is a lot of money―which is equivalent to HK$63,000, so it is more expensive than the Hong Kong fine. But then, even for the French, and as you know about the "yellow vests movement" and all that, the maximum is only six months in jail. It is a very extremely, profoundly powerful and patriotic anthem the French have, La Marseillaise, and it would talk about "impure blood watering our fields", but do the French really mind or bother or care? The French are the most liberal-minded, especially when it comes to design and creativity, and they have got this global recognition. Why would they have this very ancient anthem? It does not matter, right? The French would just, you know, hunch their shoulders and say this is no big deal. But with an authoritarian regime like what is in Hong Kong and Beijing, the national anthem is a big, big deal, because face―let me stress, face―is such a big, big deal in Chinese politics.
I also very much agree with Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment. Of course, we need that, we need this anthem law to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong. We have a common law system in Hong Kong. We do not get interpretation from Beijing because they claimed they are the law and they can do anything they want. But this amendment is clearly just wishful thinking because we knew that the national security law is actually technically unconstitutional, as our legal experts say. But then, what are you going to challenge? Beijing itself is the constitution.
Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7673
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak in support for the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). I oppose the 21 amendments proposed by the opposition camp. I support the Bill for the very simple reason that I am Chinese. The national anthem symbolizes the country and it is incumbent upon every Chinese to respect our own country and national anthem. The clauses of the Bill are very simple and clear. The legislative intent is to provide for the preservation of the dignity of the country and the national anthem, the regulation of the playing, singing and use of the national anthem, the enhancement of citizen awareness of the country and the promotion of patriotism. As regards a bill with the core spirit of respecting the country and the national anthem, I truly cannot find any reason for objection.
Next, I want to discuss why I oppose those 21 amendments. First of all, I want to talk about the amendments relating to the offence of insulting behaviour. I note that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Kenneth LEUNG have proposed amendments to respectively reduce the penalties for the offence of insulting the national anthem from being liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and imprisonment for three years to a fine at level 1 and imprisonment for one month, and a fine at level 5 but no imprisonment. Deputy Chairman, I cannot support such amendments at all. The national anthem is the symbol of the country. Insulting the national anthem and trampling on national dignity are grave offences, for which deterrent penalties should be meted out. I do not see any reason that offenders committing such offences are liable on conviction to only imprisonment of one month, or even no imprisonment. Moreover, rightly as the Administration has repeatedly explained, the national anthem, national flag and national emblem are all symbols of the country. I find it highly appropriate that the penalties for insulting the national anthem as provided for in the Bill are consistent with those for insulting the national flag and national emblem under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance.
I notice that many Members from the opposition camp have drawn comparisons of penalties for similar offences between Hong Kong and foreign countries, and they consider the penalties in Hong Kong too harsh. In this regard, I think we can draw reference from the penalties of foreign countries, but not make comparisons with them. After all, every country or place has different legal systems and actual situations. And, according to my observations, the majority of people in the world will not insult their own national anthems. Yet in Hong Kong, a handful of people boo the national anthem and insult the 7674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 national flag and national emblem. Therefore, I consider the penalties for the offence of insulting the national anthem provided for in the Bill appropriate and consistent with the realities of Hong Kong. I also consider that true rule of law and justice should mean that mistakes are punished for and liability is pursued for violation of the law. If people deliberately abuse the national anthem or even insult the national anthem, they should bear the consequences of their own actions.
Lastly, I also wish to discuss the clause relating to the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education and the amendments thereto. Deputy Chairman, I very much agree with clause 9 in Part 4 of the Bill which provides for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. LIANG Qichao once said, "If the young are intelligent, the country will be intelligent; if the young are strong, the country will be strong". Young people are the future of society. Educating young people to respect the country and the national anthem from an early age is the bedrock of education. After all, people who do not even respect their own country, however remarkable their academic levels and career achievements are, do not deserve others' respect. Moreover, judging by the actual situations in Hong Kong, the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education is a must. I will put aside the fact that, in recent years, some young people in Hong Kong have become increasingly radical and found joy in insulting the country. In the public hearings of the Bill alone, many young people or even secondary students held viewpoints that caused alarm and concerns. For example, some secondary students said the Bill forces people to be patriotic, and some said they have the freedom and right to not be patriotic. Such preposterous remarks of young students not only reflect their misconception of the legislation on the national anthem but also prove that it is necessary to include the national anthem in primary and secondary education. I consider that cultivation of respect for the national anthem should begin with education. I further hope that, after the national anthem is included in primary and secondary education, not only will primary and secondary students learn to respect the national anthem, but their patriotic sentiments will also be nurtured.
As regards the amendment requiring that students be educated on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer of the national anthem, I consider it not only superfluous and redundant but also a move to make an issue to play a political piggyback. I remember that, during the scrutiny by the Bills Committee, the opposition camp over and again requested the authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7675 not to interfere with the matters of national anthem education in schools. While such words are still ringing in our ears, the opposition camp has proposed an amendment to the Bill to require that the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer of the national anthem be educated in schools. I have no intention to speculate on the motives behind the Member making such a move, but I consider such backtracking behaviour very laughable.
On the subject of the lyricist and the composer of the national anthem, I also notice that, during the Second Reading debate, many Members of the opposition camp had vehemently criticized the Cultural Revolution in China and given a vivid and sensational account of the ordeal of TIAN Han, the lyricist of the national anthem. It seems that, in the entire culture of China that spans 5 000 years, all they know is only the Cultural Revolution. Does the Cultural Revolution have anything directly to do with the national anthem? I had no idea at all. Does it mean that, because of the Cultural Revolution and the ordeal of TIAN Han, we can insult the national anthem and trample on the dignity of the national anthem and the country? It is obviously beyond any reason. Therefore, I steadfastly oppose this amendment. And I all the more hope that the opposition camp can look at the development of the country from a broad and objective perspective and refrain from focussing on the inadequacies of the country in certain respects and categorically denying our country, and even harbouring hatred for and attacking our own country.
Deputy Chairman, in the course of scrutinizing the Bill, what I found the most regretful was that the opposition camp had spared no effort to demonize the Bill and even refer to it as an evil law. I have tried so hard but still failed to figure out and understand why, in the eyes of the opposition camp, those black-clad rioters who blockaded roads, hurled bricks, committed arson, carried out assaults and vandalism, perpetrated violent vigilante attacks, set a living person on fire, killed a person by hurling bricks at him, etc., have not committed any deeds which are considered as evil. However, when we seek to enact an ordinance that promotes respect for the national anthem of our own country, it would be an evil law. I wish to ask Members of the opposition camp to clearly and directly explain this notion to the people. We cannot wake up someone who pretends to be asleep, so I do not want to waste my breath to criticize the opposition camp. But I sincerely hope that the opposition camp would understand, regardless of their political views, whether they speak English more fluently than Chinese, whoever foreigners they married, or to which countries they will emigrate in the future, they will never be able to change the fact that they are Chinese and their Motherland is China. Therefore, if they are still 7676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 aware that they are Chinese, please not to distort the Bill deliberately, not to "burn together" with the Bill and not to commit any act to insult and harm their own country anymore. One ought to understand that only in a strong country will people be free from abuse. If China is bullied, they will not get any benefits eventually and will not even be qualified as second-class citizens. Finally, I look forward to the early implementation of the Bill.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China was composed against the background of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. The national anthem has accompanied and carried the development of the history of China. The Chinese people project their love for the country into the national anthem. It also reminds us to remain true to our original aspiration, keep our mission firmly in mind and cherish the fruits of development of the country.
In November 2017, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed the decision to add the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), which was adopted by the Central Government in September in the same year, to Annex III to the Basic Law. Since the National Anthem Law is a national law, the HKSAR, pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Basic Law, shall apply the law in Hong Kong by way of local legislation consistent with the constitutional and legal framework of HKSAR. Hence, I speak in support of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") which preserves the dignity of the national anthem so that members of the community would respect it. Also, I oppose the 21 amendments proposed by four Members.
Deputy Chairman, if the legislation is enacted successfully in Hong Kong this time around, those who break the laws in future will have to pay for their acts. The national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem are the symbols of a country. Every citizen should preserve the dignity of the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem. This is a civil obligation which embodies the spirit of patriotism.
Deputy Chairman, since the Second Reading debate resumed last week, we have heard the brainwashing lessons and non-stop smearing of patriotism by many Members from the opposition camp. In their eyes, "patriotism" has become an evil word which means an infringement of individual freedom and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7677 suppression of individual interest. They often say they love Hong Kong and respect the law and the Basic Law, yet they repeatedly trample on the dignity of the country, challenge the bottom line of the law, call a stag a horse and talk black into white, and also renounce directly and indirectly that Hong Kong is part of China. These rootless thinking and behaviour have rightly revealed the ignorance of certain people.
I would like to talk about the amendments. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is sitting behind me now. One of his amendments concerns clause 5. He seeks to add clause 5(5) to the Bill to stipulate that for the purpose of section 7 (Offence of insulting behaviour), calling for not attending or taking part in the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung is not regarded as insulting the national anthem. Obviously, he seeks to grant exemption for certain occasions by stipulating that those occasions should not be regarded as insulting the national anthem. Nonetheless, this obviously encourages the public to break the law while not being liable to legal punishment. Such practice exactly challenges the bottom line of the law and calling for more people to break the law. Hence, I will not support this amendment.
The brainwashing education of the opposition camp is blatantly inciting the violent radicals, as well as supporting and rallying for them. The opposition camp assists the radicals in terms of coordination, guidance and subsidy both openly and behind the screen, including the amendments proposed today. They are trying to mislead the public gradually, causing them to confuse right and wrong and invert the truth, so that they may consider the act of calling for others to break law and to commit an offence is not unlawful. Such practice, which they presented nobly as "civil disobedience" and "achieving justice by violating the law", is indeed using violence to deal with the problems, as well as beautifying and inciting radical violent activities. Hence, we should in no way support them to continue with such practice.
I must point out unequivocally that Hong Kong is now in a shambles. Those on the front line are definitely a handful of violent radicals. Yet, many among them are good citizens, young people and even kids who have been misled and hijacked. Those inciting them to support the violent radicals behind the screen are people opposing China and stirring up all kinds of chaos in Hong Kong. Hence, we must tackle the problem at root, which is to teach the next generation to respect the country and the national anthem and to respect others and themselves.
7678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Last week, many Members said that national anthem laws had been put in place in certain countries, so Hong Kong should also follow suit. In fact, this is not the reason. Many countries put in place their own national anthem laws long time ago because they recognize the importance of respecting the national anthem to the country, rather than the existence of such laws in other countries. Hong Kong has started late, so we must act immediately and take this step. It is completely justified for Hong Kong, being part of China, to implement the National Anthem Law by way of local legislation.
The crux of the Bill is two-pronged. First, it states that the national anthem is the symbol and sign of the country and leads people to respect the national anthem by directional provisions. Second, it introduces penalties for people who publicly and intentionally insult the national anthem or misuse the national anthem. Regarding the 21 amendments proposed this time around, they are mainly related to the following clauses in the Bill: clause 5 (Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung); clause 6 (Offence of misuse of national anthem); clause 7 (Offence of insulting behaviour); clause 9 (Inclusion in primary and secondary education); clause 10 (Inclusion in sound broadcasting and domestic television programme services) and clause 11 (Application of laws of Hong Kong).
Deputy Chairman, regarding clauses 6 to 8 on prohibiting the misuse of the national anthem and the lyrics or score of the national anthem, as well as insulting the national anthem publicly and intentionally, I have the following observations.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen considers that breaches of clause 7 of the Bill should be liable to a fine at level 1 and imprisonment of one month instead of a fine at level 5 and imprisonment of three years.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment stipulates that a person committing an offence under this clause would only be liable to a fine but not imprisonment.
The proposals of these amendments have diminished the status, as well as the importance, of the national anthem. The Bureau has pointed out the reason for pitching the relevant penalty at a level on a par with that of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, for insulting the national anthem is tantamount to insulting the national flag, which are the exact reflection of a country itself. Hence, I consider that the levels of penalty should commensurate with the gravity of the relevant offences.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7679
Some Members consider the time limit for prosecution under the Bill too long and propose to amend or delete clause 7(7). Since cases involving breaches of clause 7 will very likely involve a large number of people or the use of Internet, it will take more time to conduct investigation and collect evidence. This is understandable. Hence, by setting the time limit for prosecution at a date before the end of the period of one year after the date on which the offence is discovered by, or comes to the notice of, the Commissioner of Police, or the end of the period of two years after the date on which the offence is committed, it can meet the practical need, while at the same time facilitate effective law enforcement. I do not see any reason for shortening the time limit.
Moreover, Part 4 of the Bill, that is, clauses 9 to 10, mainly includes provisions on the promotion of the national anthem. Clause 9 stipulates that, "The Secretary for Education must give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary education and in secondary education―(a) to enable the students to learn to sing the national anthem; and (b) to educate the students―(i) on the history and spirit of the national anthem; and (ii) on the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem." Yet, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment proposes to amend clause 9(1)(b) by adding subclause (iii) to require the Secretary for Education to give directions to educate students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer of the national emblem. Is it necessary to go into such details in the provisions by including the biography of the lyricist and the composer? Just now, I have read some historic record. In fact, the history relating to the national anthem is set out in detail, which is part of the history of our country. If the biography of the lyricist and the composer is to be included, should the efforts made and the insults suffered by China in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression also be written in the Bill? Should laws be drafted to include such details? In my view, the provisions of the present Bill have provided clear directions for the Education Bureau in educating students to respect and preserve our national anthem.
It is very important to teach students about the national anthem and to respect the national anthem rather than simply telling them the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer. I believe people also care about this, and students or those who study have the responsibility and need to know this. Yet, I doubt whether it is necessary to include this in the Bill as part of the legislation.
7680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
The Education Bureau says that the learning contents of the national anthem have been incorporated in the existing curricula of primary and secondary schools. For example, General Studies in primary schools, Music, as well as Moral, Civic and National Education in primary and secondary schools. These curricula are designed by the Curriculum Development Council and have to be updated from time to time. As to how to teach students to respect the national anthem, it is a matter of learning and teaching, which is exactly the issue of how students are taught under school-based education. In my view, upon the passage of the Bill, the Education Bureau needs to teach students about the content of the Bill.
I think it is necessary to reinforce the concept of national anthem among students. The Education Bureau should prepare the teaching materials for the coming year as soon as possible, so as to prevent untrue and misleading information from being disseminated through biased teaching materials. In comparison with the past situation prior to the enactment of the Bill and the setting up of the legal framework, Hong Kong will take a big step forward in national education as a whole for there will be laws to follow.
Deputy Chairman, the principal spirit of the Bill is respect. Showing respect for others required the cultivation of moral traits. As the moral character of a person has to be developed in early childhood, so schools and teachers are definitely the key to moral education for students. Requiring the public to respect the national anthem by means of laws is merely a palliative. We must reinforce the cultivation of moral traits through education, so that children can develop from an early age the important and necessary ethical values of being trustworthy, polite, responsible and respectful.
Deputy Chairman, with these remarks, I support the Bill and oppose the 21 amendments of four Members.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, on behalf of the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk, I speak in support of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") and in opposition to all the amendments.
National anthem represents a country. It is a solemn and sacred sign symbolizing the dignity of the country. As a part of the country, Hong Kong should actively preserve national sovereignty and dignity. It is the due LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7681 obligation and responsibility of Hong Kong to enact the Bill. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") was adopted at the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in September 2017, and has come into force nationwide since 1 October 2017. In November 2017, NPCSC adopted the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III to the Basic Law. The SAR Government then announced the implementation of the National Anthem Law in Hong Kong by way of local legislation consistent with Hong Kong's constitutional and legal framework in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Law.
However, the local legislation of the National Anthem Law has encountered many twists and turns. The Bills Committee on National Anthem Bill ("the Bills Committee") has held 17 meetings, including a public hearing, since its formation in February 2019. Although the Bills Committee has completed the scrutiny of the Bill in May last year, the Second Reading debate on the Bill could not be resumed before the recess of the Council due to the controversy arising from the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Social unrest caused by the anti-amendments movement in June last year has been troubling Hong Kong and the Legislative Council Complex was vandalized by radical protesters. Thanks to the efforts made by the Secretariat, essential facilities of the Complex have been repaired, though not easy, so that the Council could resume in October this year. Unfortunately, as the House Committee had been unable to elect its chairman after half a year due to the malicious filibustering staged by the opposition camp, scrutiny of Government Bills has come to a prolonged halt. The opposition camp attempted to obstruct the tabling of the Bill to the Council. After almost a year, the Second Reading debate on the Bill was finally resumed last week. Regrettably, the opposition camp has exhausted all means to obstruct the debate on the Bill. A Member even went so far as to throw a foul-smelling pot towards the President's podium, causing the entire Chamber to be filled with stench and as a result, the meeting was suspended for a few hours. An Honourable colleague had to be sent to hospital upon inhaling the stench. This nasty behaviour undermining the solemnity of the Council should be severely reprimanded. I originally intended to speak during the Second Reading debate, but only 19 Members eventually succeeded to do so in the two-day debate session. The time of the Council has been wasted for nothing.
7682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Deputy Chairman, I return to the subject under discussion. Four Members have proposed 21 amendments concerning occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, offence of misuse of national anthem, offence of insulting behaviour, inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education and inclusion of the national anthem in broadcasting service. I understand that there are still a small number of people opposing the legislation of the National Anthem Law in the society for two reasons. First, they are concerned that the public will contravene the law inadvertently or the Government will thereby incriminate someone for expressing his views as the provisions are not clear enough. Second, the inclusion of the history and etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem in primary and secondary education is "brainwashing education" according to them. I will refute these arguments one by one.
Section 7(2) of the Bill stipulates that "A person commits an offence if the person publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way." Objectors opine that, as the definitions of "in any way" and "insults" are ambiguous, the public will contravene the law inadvertently. Conspiracy theorists even claim that the Government may arbitrarily incriminate people for expressing their views and suppress the freedom of speech by virtue of the Bill. Deputy Chairman, we must understand that it is impossible to specify all the prohibited ways of insulting the national anthem exhaustively in the Bill. Moreover, insult is defined as "undermine the dignity of the national anthem as a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China" in the Bill. The Bill only targets those who misuse the lyrics and score of the national anthem and those who publicly and intentionally insult the national anthem. I am aware that there are many misunderstandings in the society. For example, some people claimed that it is an offence not to rise when the national anthem is broadcast on television in restaurants, for passers-by outside the venue not to stand at attention when the national anthem is played in ceremonies; or to sing the national anthem with inaccurate pronunciation. I would like to point out solemnly that none of the above mentioned scenarios is an offence because the main spirit of the Bill is whether the national anthem is respected when it is played and sung. I believe anyone with common sense can differentiate respect, intentional insult and disrespect. How can booing the national anthem by football fans during a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7683 football match in a stadium be considered respectful? Therefore, it is totally unfounded to say that the Bill seeks to suppress the freedom of speech. People who respect the national anthem need not worry at all.
Secondly, I have heard a handful of people stigmatize and oppose the Bill by calling it "brainwashing". According to them, directions given by the Secretary for Education for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education is undermining educational independence and promoting "brainwashing education". I find this argument groundless and misleading. As a matter of fact, Article 9 of the Bill stipulates that the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education aims at teaching students to sing the national anthem, educating them on the history and spirit of the national anthem, as well as the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem. Which country around the world does not teach its people to be patriotic and to sing the national anthem? In the United States, the law on the national anthem is included in the United States Flag Code which stipulates that all persons present should face the national flag or toward the music, stand at attention and remove their headdress during a rendition of the national anthem. Similar requirements also exist in Canada. It is nothing but normal to teach the national anthem in schools. I have not seen any citizens of other countries oppose this. Some people with ulterior motives demonize the local legislation of the National Anthem Law by calling it "brainwashing". Previously, they have also caused disruptions wantonly in opposing the national security law in Hong Kong and the Bill. These people should be reprimanded.
Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong has suffered a lot under "black-clad violence" in the past year which has affected all sectors and caused social division. The crux of the problem is that, due to a lack of understanding of the country, young people tend to be easily manipulated by advocates of "Hong Kong independence" who incited them to commit illegal acts. There will be no way out for Hong Kong if this situation continues in the long run. I am convinced that there will be no soil for "Hong Kong independence" to grow if young people develop a stronger sense of national identity and pride. As an organization that loves the country and Hong Kong, the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk will absolutely not tolerate anyone who plays or sings the national anthem in a distorted or 7684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 disrespectful manner or even insults the national anthem. We have to provide legal protection for the solemn national anthem and the dignity of the country.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
Therefore, I support the Bill introduced by the Government and oppose all the amendments. I so submit.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to first talk about the debating time today. Some of my colleagues, such as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, said that the Chairman has restrained Members' discussion time today. This is exactly a show of "a thief crying 'stop thief '" constantly put up by the opposition in this Council and even Hong Kong society. They consider Hong Kong people forgetful. Buddy, I honestly dare not forget and do not want to recollect one incident, namely the hurling by Mr HUI Chi-fung last week of a "stink bomb" or "poisonous gas bomb" that emitted a strong smell. Chairman, as I said previously, I used to be a student nurse and faeces and urine can by no means deter me. However, Chairman, you must vividly remember that stench. A person with an ulterior motive threw an object that emitted a foul smell and poisonous gases. Its concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide was not low, and even firefighters said that a high concentration could be lethal. He has staged such a farce, and such poisonous gases and stench exactly represent the decadence and corruption of the Democratic Party and the "mutual destruction camp". As our discussion time today is very limited, I will make good use of my time …
(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please hold on. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, may I ask whether the contents of Mr LUK Chung-hung's speech at this moment are related to the subject of this debate?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7685
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): They may not be related, but he has only been speaking for a little while, and I will first allow him to continue with his speech. If he has deviated from the subject, I will give him a reminder.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): He has been speaking for more than one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Quite a few Members also deviated from the subject in their speeches, but I invariably first allowed them to speak for two or three minutes before giving them a reminder. Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
Mr LUK, please note that you should not deviate from the subject in your speech. Now please continue.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): OK, members of the public clearly know that a person who would throw a "stink bomb" is incapable of making any valid points. The road to the enactment of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") has been full of twists and turns. In the current legislative session in particular, Mr Dennis KWOK had, since last October, blatantly played the filibuster game in the election of the Chairman of the House Committee. With the support of all Members of the opposition or the "mutual destruction camp", 17 meetings in total had been held over some seven months, and the Chairman of the House Committee had yet to be elected. In fact, many cases involving mutual destruction can be directly attributed to the "mutual destruction camp". The "mutual destruction camp" has even succeeded in striving for the national security law in Hong Kong. If they had not championed "Hong Kong independence" or resorted to even terrorism, the Central Authorities would not have intervened.
Regarding the Bill, there are views that the intentional insult of the national anthem by some people in Hong Kong several years ago prompted the Central Authorities to consider the need to enact legislation. Although very few among the 1.4 billion people of China would insult the national anthem, and people on the Mainland very much respect the national anthem given their good understanding of the history of the country and national grief, a small fraction of people in Hong Kong constantly insult the national anthem. As a football fan, I very much support the Hong Kong team in football matches. However, I feel 7686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 really helpless in a football stadium when certain fans disgrace the Hong Kong team. When the Hong Kong team plays a match and the national anthem of the People's Republic of China is played, some people would boo the national anthem or turn their back on the football pitch. The occurrence of such an incident in an international event not only disgraces Hong Kong people and Chinese people at large, but also hurts the feelings of Chinese people. For this reason, the Central Authorities had perhaps enacted the national anthem law having particular regard to the needs of Hong Kong. I dare not say the national anthem law had been enacted solely for this reason, but this is probably one of the considerations. Many things will not have happened if not the efforts of the opposition and it is they who put us through all this.
In the debate, opposition Members are equivocal, their stances are ambiguous, and their arguments are confusing. Perhaps it is because they have sworn allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and dare not deny the legitimacy and significance of the national anthem. However, it is absurd that they have let people insult the national anthem. While they have sworn allegiance to the SAR, they do not mind the national anthem being trampled on. What sort of love is it? Will Members please give me an explanation. People can clearly see how far their allegiance goes.
Chairman, before discussing the amendments, I would like to continue to offer some background information. I will talk about the significance of the national anthem of various countries. Regarding the Star-Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States, Francis Scott KEY, a poet at the time of the Second War of American Independence, depicted the star-spangled banner waving in the war, and lauded the longing of Americans some 200 years ago for the land of the free and the home of the brave in the new American continent. La Marseillaise, the well-known national anthem of France, was used during the French Revolution to call on French people to bravely fight foreign invaders and tyrants. These are all war songs …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, I would like to remind you that the committee is now scrutinizing the Bill. Please return to the subject of this debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7687
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have got it. Given that at the time of Second Reading, the meeting was adjourned due to their mutually destructive campaign, I must offer some background information before going into the details of the amendments.
It is widely known that our national anthem was an anti-fascist song during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, and the theme song of the film Children of Troubled Times. Its lyrics depict the lofty sentiments of the Chinese who were united as one to resist the Japanese aggressors when China was at stake. Only after fighting bloody battles for 14 years and paying a heavy price of 30 million military and civilian casualties did the Chinese gain the peace, freedom and liberation that we enjoy today. As such, the March of the Volunteers represents the universal values of peace, freedom and liberation and is certainly not, as someone claims, used for toadying up to the regime.
Ms Tanya CHAN said that the Preamble to the Bill is highly ideological. But are there any words that are of an ideological nature? Thinking that people will not read the contents of the Bill, they have quoted certain words, to which Hong Kong people are sensitive, as a straw man to scare them. Furthermore, the saying that the Bill forces people to be patriotic is completely nonsensical. Understandably, the Bill encourages people to uphold patriotism, but it is purely encouraging in nature. People cannot be forced to be patriotic. One who feigns patriotism can hardly be exposed as does one who has feigned allegiance at the time of oath taking.
The Bill prohibits any person from publicly and intentionally altering the lyrics or score of the national anthem; or playing and singing the national anthem in a distorted or disrespectful way. In other words, people break the law only if they publicly and intentionally do so. There will be no problem as long as a spoof on the national anthem they did at home is not posted online or sung publicly. Someone says that the Bill will facilitate the prosecution of people by their expression of opinions, but I think this will be impossible as there must be a proven motive. In addition, the Bill safeguards people's freedoms, which are all subject to limitations and the interest of others shall not be jeopardized. The overall interest of others represents national interest, including national sentiment, national cohesion, and respect for and protection of history. The Bill encourages public respect, while at the same time forbids malicious spoofing.
7688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Some people have said that they are patriotic. In particular, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting expressed his love for the Motherland at the Second Reading debate on the Bill last week. Certainly, many netizens later queried whether he was telling the truth. If he is truly patriotic, we certainly welcome it. Chairman, there is no first or last in patriotism, but only whether one is a true patriot, right? For this reason, I hope that if Mr LAM is truly patriotic, he should refrain from vilifying the Bill. He said that the Bill would bring to Hong Kong the Mainland's definition of patriotism, which probably includes support for the ruling Communist Party. Since when has "one country, one system" been implemented in Hong Kong? Or, do they aspire to "one country, one system"? Hong Kong implements "one country, two systems". Given the special history of Hong Kong, our definition of patriotism may be slightly different from the official definition on the Mainland. For this reason, we have had to list the national law in Annex III to the Basic Law pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Law, and make adaptive changes by way of local legislation, right? Mr LAM Cheuk-ting vilifies others by constantly referring to the straw man that patriotism under the Bill will be equal to loving the Party. But the Bill makes no mention of such. Certainly, those who are best at vilifying others must be Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr Kenneth LEUNG. Mr Kenneth LEUNG has referred to a case in which a person accidentally falls asleep when the national anthem is being played or sung …
(Mr CHU Hoi-dick indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr LUK Chung-hung has been speaking for some 10 minutes, but I have yet to hear his discussion about the amendments concerned.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, I remind you again to return to the subject of this debate.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): OK. An amendment to which I am very much opposed is proposed by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, who proposes that a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7689 person should only be liable to a fine instead of imprisonment when it comes to penalties. Chairman, as I am a representative of the labour sector, what I loathe most is the idea that people can be arrogant if they are rich. This is a very bad idea. Is it that if people are rich, they can insult the national anthem, spoof the national anthem, disregard the feelings of 1.4 billion people, vilify martyrs to the cause of resisting Japanese aggression, and vilify our country's pursuit of the ideals of freedom, liberation and equality? Is it that people can be arrogant if they are rich? Mr Kenneth LEUNG, who started off as an accountant, is well versed in calculation, but there are certain things that cannot be measured in money terms―the Secretary is nodding―you cannot solve the problem by simply taking out thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and hurling the banknotes at a person. The dignity of the Chinese can by no means be bought with money.
As such, many amendments would distort the legislative intent. Someone has said that there is no need to introduce any penalties. If penalties are not necessary, there will be no need to enact legislation, right, Chairman? The formulation of guidelines would suffice. I think that penalties must be introduced for many laws, particularly modern laws. Well, someone has referred to winning people over by virtue, which is a very idealistic scenario. In the course of development, our country indeed used to take the wrong path and suffer setbacks, and there were people who committed mistakes. Contrary to expectations, however, our country has been faring quite well over the recent decades, and in the area of poverty alleviation, social equality and justice are upheld to a large extent. However, there are still people who insist on pursuing "Hong Kong independence" and insulting their own country. Is it that they cannot be punished? They are jeopardizing the foundation of our society. A sense of belonging to one nation or to one state is the foundation of society and a consensus in various places of the world. If our social foundation is shaken, what is happening now in Hong Kong will naturally happen. Sedition, subversion, acts of terrorism and "Hong Kong independence" can take place. These are fully reflected in the disrespect towards the national anthem. One tiny clue reveals the general trend. Some people are promoting their illegitimate thoughts by way of spoofing the national anthem, and hence there is indeed a need to introduce proper penalties. A simple remark on "winning people over by virtue" will not do, not to mention the fact that I do not think Dr KWOK Ka-ki, who has mentioned "winning people over by virtue", has any virtue to speak of.
7690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Chairman, many amendments would ruin the integrity of the legislation and be detrimental to the legislative exercise. As I said just now, someone has said that since the Bill may give rise to inadvertent contravention, the penalties had better be less severe, such as imprisonment of one month at the very most. They have even raised a very absurd query as to what will happen to someone who accidentally falls asleep when the national anthem is being played and sung. Certainly nothing will happen to him, as he is not intentional in doing so, and conviction must be based on proof of motive and objective evidence. The courts in Hong Kong exercise judicial power independently, and the standard of proof is also upheld. These people keep vilifying the Bill. In the light of their example of a person falling asleep, I would like to tell them: You cannot wake a person who is pretending to be asleep, and there is no use reasoning with the blind opposition.
As such, I will oppose all the 21 amendments today. We hope that the Bill can be implemented in its entirely. On the one hand, we must promote the public's understanding through education and publicity campaigns. On the other hand, we must, through suitable penalties and clear definitions, affirm the dignity of the national anthem, foster the respect for our country, our nation and our martyrs, as well as a sense of national identity among everyone in our country, including Hong Kong people. Thank you, Chairman. (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please stop speaking immediately.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): At the meeting last week, many Members said that the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") was a draconian law. Not only would it undermine the spirit of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" under "one country, two systems" but it would also wreck the core values of human rights and freedom of Hong Kong. This is even more important and fearful as if the Pandora's Box has been opened. Once the draconian law is introduced, a loophole is created and there will be no turning back. Hence, I still oppose the Bill.
The Second Reading of the Bill was passed last week and we are now in the Committee stage. We have no alternative but to support the 21 amendments proposed by four Members, making the last ditch effort to minimize the harm LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7691 done by the Bill to society. I think three of the amendments are more important and would like to point out here in particular my reasons for supporting these amendments.
First, it is the amendment proposed by Mr Alvin YEUNG. He proposes to amend clause 11 under Part 5 "Supplementary Provisions" by adding clause 11(1A) to stipulate that "the provisions in this Ordinance should be governed by and interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong", meaning that the provisions of the Bill can be interpreted solely under the legal framework of Hong Kong.
Why do I support this amendment? We all know that with the support of the pro-establishment camp, the Bill will definitely be passed. If this amendment is passed, it may barely plug the loophole. Yet, I know I am too naïve to think so. How would this amendment be passed?
Anyway, the Bill is introduced in Hong Kong because the Communist Party of China ("CPC") regime enacted the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") in 2017 and the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress passed the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III to the Basic Law. Pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Law, the SAR Government must implement the law in Hong Kong by way of local legislation. Nonetheless, the National Anthem Law is a law formulated by the Central Authorities unilaterally and forced to add to Annex III by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), and Hong Kong is then forced to implement the law by way of local legislation. Against this background, how would the people of Hong Kong not worry that the legal concepts of China will penetrate the legal system of Hong Kong? Will the legal system of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems" be seriously challenged? Will it collapse completely?
In fact, the legal systems of the two places are different, and the legal terms and understanding of laws are also different. Regarding the provisions of the National Anthem Law, Mainland's interpretation of the behaviours which are disrespectful to the national anthem may be completely different from that of Hong Kong. Though the legal system of Hong Kong cannot be regarded as perfect and flawless, the existing legal system of Hong Kong, under which the fundamental rights and interests of the people of Hong Kong are still safeguarded, is not too bad in comparison with the rule-by-man society of China. For 7692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 instance, we will not be convicted for our expression of opinions even if we criticize the Government or government officials. We will not be charged for "picking quarrels and provoking troubles" arbitrarily for the time being―I am saying for the time being. We will not be falsely accused of treason or secession for shouting "End one-party dictatorship, build a democratic China".
On the contrary, if the Bill is neither subject to the laws of Hong Kong nor interpreted under the legal framework of Hong Kong but allowed to be interpreted freely by Mainland China, it will inevitably arouse anxiety and worries. Why do I say so? Let me cite an example. It is stipulated under clause 7 (Offence of insulting behaviour) of the Bill that "a person commits an offence if, with intent to insult the national anthem, the person publicly and intentionally: (a) alters the lyrics or score of the national anthem; or (b) plays and sings the national anthem in a distorted or disrespectful way". What would be regarded as insulting? What is the definition? What would be regarded as undermining the dignity of the country? What behaviours would constitute an insult to the national anthem? Terms like distorted, disrespectful and insulting involve extremely subjective judgment, yet clear definition is not provided in the provisions. Worse still, the Government adds the phrase "insulting the national anthem in any way" to cover all behaviours. I think this is a blanket approach with extremely extensive coverage which significantly increases the possibility of law enforcement and indiscriminate prosecution.
On the other hand, why do I consider the wording of legal provisions so important? We would understand the reason by looking at the case of LIU Xiaobo. We all know that as far as the legal system is concerned, the Chinese Government often suppresses dissidents by "moving the goalposts". LIU Xiaobo drafted Charter 08 in 2008 and was charged for suspicion of inciting subversion of state power. In the judgment handed down by a Beijing court, it is said that he has written seditious articles and an excerpt from his articles was cited as follows, "since the Communist Party of China ("CPC") assumed power, the successive dictators of CPC were most concerned about the power in their hands but not the lives of the people" …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please return to the subject of this debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7693
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): What?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have deviated from the subject. Please return to the subject of this debate.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I am citing examples to illustrate the reasons for our worries and the importance of Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment.
The CPC Government accused LIU Xiaobo of spreading rumour and slanders and said that they had explained the case clearly. However, this is not the case. Indeed, their perception is most ambiguous and subjective. We are gravely concerned about this kind of so-called "spreading rumour". In other words, it is spreading rumour and sedition as long as they say so. We worry that they can always trump up a charge against somebody in the future. As we all know, LIU Xiaobo was eventually sentenced to 11-year imprisonment, yet the court has never explained how he had incited the people. This is a major cause of concern.
Today, our primary worries, as I mentioned just now, are the fact that behaviours regarded as insulting and disrespecting the national anthem also hinge on subjective judgment. If the provisions are not interpreted and elucidated according to the legal framework of Hong Kong, we worry that they will "move the goalposts" arbitrarily and find anyone guilty as they please. We are most worried about such practice. That is why I said earlier that we must support Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment, which proposes that the Bill must be interpreted in accordance with the legal framework and concepts of Hong Kong.
Moreover, we know that the Bill will surely be passed. We consider that we do not merely need to let the public know the content of the Bill but should also let them know about the history of the national anthem, particularly the background of the composer and the lyricist. This is a simple and common thing. Why should not it be done? Hence, I support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment that the biography and cause of death of the composer and the lyricist of the national anthem should be included in the Bill.
In fact, we have the obligation to tell the next generation that the lyricist of the national anthem, TIAN Han, was a loyal member of CPC. Yet, during the 7694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Cultural Revolution, he was labelled as a capitalistic and counter-revolutionary academic authority. He had been criticized and denounced publicly for two years, enduring all kinds of torture and humiliation, and even his son denounced him publicly. In the end, he died distressingly in a ward comparable to a jail. When people collected his corpse, a false name was used for him. Why young people are not given to know and understand this history? After all, the first verse of the national anthem written by TIAN Han reads, "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves". It encourages people to be brave to rise against injustice and not to stoop to compromise. Resistance is the core spirit and value of the March of the Volunteers. Hence, this episode in history is extremely important, for this is per se the greatest irony of the CPC regime. To enable primary and secondary students to understand the situation of China, I think this is extremely valuable and meaningful, and it is worthwhile to let secondary students learn more. As the saying goes, the lessons of history teach us about the situation today, and students will see clearly the true colours of the evil CPC regime. Yet, I know that people regard their own sore point as a taboo subject and it is next to impossible that the amendment will be passed. Hence, today, we can merely express our support and the amendment will eventually be vetoed.
Chairman, after talking about the issue on the history of the national anthem, I would like to speak on the other two amendments I would support, both of which are proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. One of his amendments seeks to delete clause 5(2), which states that "The Chief Executive in Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, amend Schedule 3". Another amendment seeks to delete clause 6(5), which states that "The Chief Executive in Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, prescribe an occasion, place or purpose, for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)". In gist, these two amendments are about removing the power of the Chief Executive in Council to amend the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung as stipulated currently.
In fact, Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out certain occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, such as an oath-taking ceremony, a national flat rising ceremony and the National Day Reception, and so on. Yet, clause 5(2) confers the Chief Executive in Council the power to amend Schedule 3 at any time. I think this approach will expand the power infinitely, which is not merely extremely improper but extremely dangerous. First, the Chief Executive in Council is not returned by direct election. It is known to all that they are appointed by the Central Government. Be it the Chief Executive or Members of the Executive Council whom the Chief Executive is authorized to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7695 appoint, all the procedures are done in the dark, lacking a mandate and representativeness. Besides, we do not see any possibility of universal suffrage of the Chief Executive in future. Against this background, how can the Chief Executive without a mandate and credibility be conferred with such power?
Moreover, in the past, candidates of the Chief Executive election from the pro-establishment camp would often engage in apple polishing. In the Chief Executive election in future, they may talk a lot of nonsense and make a lot of commitments casually, saying that the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung can be amended in order to win support of the officials of CPC's central authorities. Such practices will constitute abuse of power. How can we allow them to do so?
On the other hand, the Bill restricts the freedom of the people of Hong Kong in using the national anthem but giving more power to the Chief Executive. In my view, unless the Chief Executive is genuinely elected by "one man, one vote", otherwise, in the absence of universal suffrage, how can we check and balance the Chief Executive's power? Hence, I support this amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.
Most important of all, we consider that respect of the national anthem should come from the bottom of our hearts rather than being forced to do so by legislation, and we are opposed to imposing penalty on people who are accused of being disrespectful to the national anthem. Actually, such practice merely exposes the cowardice of the State or the regime. As they know their actions have failed to win the respect or admiration of the people, they resort to imposing punishment by way of legislation to prevent people from taking disrespectful actions. I consider that this approach is putting the cart before the horse. To nurture genuine patriots, people should be allowed to follow their hearts rather than having their behaviours restricted by way of legislation and penalty as this will merely produce a batch of machines which blindly obey authority. In view of this, I think if they really want people to genuinely respect the national anthem, the regime as well as the State should do their part properly, so that the people and the general public will respect it wholeheartedly.
Chairman, with these remarks, I support the 21 amendments proposed by four Members. I so submit.
7696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, since the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), which is a national law, was added to Annex III of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Government is under a constitutional obligation to initiate the procedure for local legislation for the National Anthem Law. After a long period of consultation and incubation, the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") has entered the final straight stretch of its consideration in recent days. The Liberal Party supports the Bill and opposes all amendments, and also considers that the national anthem and the national flag are both symbols of national sovereignty, to which respect should be accorded.
As regards the amendments relating to the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung, I want to point out that Hong Kong is part of China. Indeed, people should respect not only our own country. Even when the national anthem of another country is being played, we should show our respect. It is the practice expected of civilized peoples and cities. Not long ago, when the national anthem was being played before a football match, a small number of people turned their back towards the stadium and booed the anthem. No country will allow such behaviour.
I studied in the United States when I was young. Back then, every time I went to see a football match in the United States, even many spectators were not American, myself included, they all rose to show respect when the national anthem was being played. It was basic manners. In 2016, in the United States, a black player knelt on one knee during the national anthem before kick-off, in a bid to protest against the police's violent shootings of black people and against social injustice. Afterwards, many more players followed suit and were rebuked by the United States President, Donald TRUMP, that taking a knee during the national anthem was disrespectful to the nation. The United States, which the "mutual destruction camp" put on a pedestal, had also made such criticisms against disrespect for the national anthem, particularly by its own president. It sufficiently substantiates that no place in the world will allow such disrespectful behaviour, regardless of how lofty the ideal behind it is. At the time, TRUMP even asked the owner of the team to fire that group of players.
I am aware that Hong Kong used to be a colony of the United Kingdom, and so the country has tolerance for Hongkongers' possible lack of understanding of the national anthem, but indeed it should not be tolerated. Citing Thailand as an example, as an Honourable colleague has just done so, before a movie screening, the national anthem will be played and the picture of the king will be shown, or a video about the recent work of the king will be played, and during the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7697 course of it the audience will all stand solemnly. People in Thailand fairly respect their own country, especially the king of Thailand. If people do not stand properly during the national anthem, or show disrespect when the image of the king of Thailand is being shown, they will be arrested and treated with violence by the relevant personnel.
The aforementioned example illustrates that indeed every place has put in place different legislation to ensure respect for the national anthem. Anyone, whatever beliefs he beholds, should show respect when the national anthem of any country is being played. Respect for the national anthem, national flag and national emblem and so on, is not only an accepted international norm but also the duty and responsibility of citizens. Moreover, the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance has been in effect for years and the national anthem carries meanings similar to those of the national flag and national emblem. As such, it is natural and conforms to reality for the Hong Kong Government to legislate for the National Anthem Law.
However, many people having ulterior motives have wantonly distorted the Bill, claiming that the implementation of the Bill is tantamount to suppression of freedom of speech and muzzling of voices of dissent. Such accusations are downright nonsense and gibberish. The Liberal Party expresses deep regret at such irresponsible comments. As a matter of fact, freedom of speech is not absolute. People can never, in the name of freedom of speech, insult and diminish the dignity of the country and, at the same time, that of Hong Kong. In recent years, many radicals have blatantly insulted the national flag and booed the national anthem on various public occasions, such as international football events. It not only hurts the dignity of the country but also severely tarnishes the international reputation of Hong Kong.
Given that the People's Republic of China resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and that Hong Kong has a different constitutional order, it is of paramount importance to carry through "one country, two systems", exactly as it is also of paramount importance to uphold national unity and territorial integrity. As the national flag and regional flag both carry symbolic meanings, protecting these two flags against insults is highly instrumental …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, the committee is now considering the Bill. Please focus on the clauses and amendments when expressing your views.
7698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am explaining why we do not support the amendments.
Protecting these two flags against insults is highly instrumental to achieving the goal of preserving public order, and the same applies to respecting the national anthem to prevent it from being insulted.
Chairman, as in recent years there have been many discussions in the society of Hong Kong on whether the National Anthem Law should be applied locally or relevant legislation should be enacted, the Liberal Party conducted a questionnaire survey on the relevant subjects as early as in 2018. In the survey, we collected the opinions of altogether 3 541 respondents. The results indicated that 60% of respondents agreed that the National Anthem Law should be applied in Hong Kong, and over 70% further supported the enforcement of the National Anthem Law through local legislation. When asked if they considered that the National Anthem Law would have negative effects on the freedoms of speech and behaviour in Hong Kong, only 40% of them expressed relevant concerns, and close to 65% agreed that the national anthem should be included in the teaching materials of primary and secondary education, and that primary and secondary schools should organize students to sing the national anthem and teach them to follow the etiquette of playing and singing. Such data showed that people who were in favour of the application of the National Anthem Law in Hong Kong were in the majority. Considering that the survey was conducted before the "black-clad violent" incidents that have taken place in recent months, we strongly believe that the mainstream opinion now will incline more towards supporting the application of the National Anthem Law than as indicated by the survey results.
On a different note, pursuant to the Bill, the authorities have set out clear guidelines on the misuse of the national anthem and the related penalty. Among them, clause 6 provides for the "Offence of misuse of national anthem", including using the national anthem or the lyrics or score of the national anthem in a trade mark or commercial advertisement, at a private funeral event, or on an occasion, at a place, or for a purpose prescribed by the Chief Executive in Council by notice published in the Gazette. At the same time, the national anthem must not be used as background music in a public place. Moreover, the Bill also provides that behaviour that insults the national anthem is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 (i.e $50,000) and to imprisonment for three years. The offence of misuse LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7699 of the national anthem, such as using the national anthem in a trade mark or commercial advertisement, is liable to a maximum fine at level 5 and, in other circumstances, to a maximum fine at level 2, which is $20,000.
The Liberal Party considers the clauses clear and definite without any doubt. For this reason, I disagree to all amendments. In fact, many foreign countries have enacted national anthem laws, such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, India, Japan and the United States. Singapore and Malaysia, in addition to requiring their nationals to stand upon hearing the national anthems, also impose penalties on disrespect for the national anthems. For example, the former imposes a fine of S$1,000 but no imprisonment while the latter imposes a fine of 100 Ringgits (Malaysian dollars) and a maximum term of imprisonment of one month. The penalties are not applicable to offences like those behaviours that blatantly insult the national anthem as we can see in Hong Kong. Therefore, Hong Kong's legislation in this respect is indeed not harsh. This point is beyond dispute.
Furthermore, the Liberal Party very much supports the inclusion of the national anthem in the teaching materials of primary and secondary education. Yet I do not approve of the relevant amendments by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China and it is incumbent upon schools in Hong Kong to educate students on playing and singing the national anthem since childhood. It will not only deepen the next generation's understanding of the national anthem and national affairs but also strengthen their sense of national identity. The Liberal Party recommends that the Education Bureau should lay down teaching requirements regarding education of the national anthem in primary and secondary schools so as to systemize the content of such education. Meanwhile, the authorities also need to provide teacher training support to enable teachers to have a more accurate grasp of teaching methods and better understanding of matters relating to the country, with a view to meeting teaching needs and providing students with the most suitable education.
Chairman, since the Occupy Central movement, the young generation of Hong Kong and some people have, in numerous demonstration locations, waved the "Hong Kong independence" flag and the flags of other western countries and sung their self-created "Hong Kong independence" songs in an unruly manner. It proves that some Hongkongers are still in strong defiance of the Chinese national flag and national anthem. It is an absurd phenomenon that cannot be ignored. Despite the many severe condemnations coming from the Central 7700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Authorities and the Hong Kong Government, those situations have not mitigated. Therefore, it is necessary for society to enact laws and criminalize such uncivilized insulting behaviour so as to stop such behaviour from spreading. We do not wish to see the continued dissension in society and cannot tolerate Members of individual political parties and members of the public to continue to condone insults to the national flag and national anthem by rioters and "Hong Kong independence" advocates. The Liberal Party must stress that the legislative exercise is not only a constitutional right under the systems in Hong Kong but also consistent with the principle of "one country, two systems". Such a move is no different from applying the Law on the National Flag and the Law on the National Emblem in Hong Kong, which is line with the enactment of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. There is no dissimilarity.
For the various aforementioned reasons, the Liberal Party supports the HKSAR Government in tabling the Bill and applying the National Anthem Law, and opposes all amendments.
Chairman, I so submit.
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I did not have a chance to speak during the Second Reading debate but today, as the 21 amendments proposed by four Members are under deliberation in the Committee stage, I very much wish to express my views and put on record that I support the passage of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill").
In fact, we all know that the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") already came into force in the Mainland on 1 October 2017. It came into force on 1 October 2017 after it was adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and subsequently it was added to Annex III to the Basic Law. It has been two and a half years since September 2017. In Hong Kong, the Bill was published in the Gazette in early 2019, and extensive consultation had been conducted on it. So, it is not true that the National Anthem Law is entirely new to us. If you purposely take exception to it, that is purely your point of view, not a question of your knowledge or awareness of it. It is because the Bill itself is very simple, with only 14 clauses, whereas the National Anthem Law has only 16 articles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7701
The Secretariat has made a very detailed comparison on most of the provisions. The provisions basically seek to promote patriotism, which is an important spirit. We must understand our identities as Chinese, and there is nothing wrong with it. So why do we need to argue about it? If you are a Chinese, then you must love your country, and this is a matter of course. Some people said that although they are Chinese, they find a lot of things in the country disagreeable. This is fine. But the National Anthem Law seeks to promote patriotism and insofar as the Bill is concerned, the most important point is that even though you do not love the country, you cannot insult the national anthem. This certainly applies to how we live our lives too. I may not necessarily like you, Chairman, and I actually dislike those pan-democratic fools, but this does not mean that I will insult them arbitrarily, though they may insult themselves. Therefore, the most important or the very core spirit is that you cannot insult the national anthem. Likewise, you cannot insult the national anthems of other people.
Therefore, this spirit is very simple but I do not quite understand … Not that I do not understand it; actually I understand it, for these people in the opposition camp simply oppose everything, and especially when it comes to matters relating to patriotism, Ms Claudia MO most likes to bang on the bench and said, "Don't ever force me to be patriotic; nonsense", and so on and so forth. If you do not love the country, no one can force you to love it; but if you verbally insult the national anthem, no one would have forced you into doing so; and if you verbally insult the national anthem, then you have to bear criminal responsibility for that, and it is just this simple.
Education is very important. Why do we have to go to school? There is a saying which goes like this: Getting along with righteous people is like entering a room full of orchids, and we would not be aware of the pleasing fragrance; Getting along with evil people is like entering a shop that sells salted fish, and we would not be aware of the stench. What does it mean? If you curse the country and insult the national anthem every day, your way of thinking will follow these lines and over time, society will be plunged into turmoil. At first it was said that Hong Kong independence was impossible, and that basically there was no such conditions, environment or ideology. While these words still ring in our ears and the opposition Members had vowed to reject Hong Kong independence, but as time goes by, even they themselves are led by "black-clad violence" and by people shouting "Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times" every day and calling each other "brothers and sisters". They are all 7702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 adults, including Mr LAM Cheuk-ting who is 6 feet 4 inches tall. Despite his high education level, he is still hijacked by those "black rioters" and drawn to their side. Think about this: Are youngsters or teenagers not even more vulnerable to these bad influences? A man who is 6 feet 4 inches tall is still led by other people like a cow. Is it not even easier for those who are young at age to be exploited and manipulated? Therefore, I think it is only natural and reasonable to pass the Bill.
The 21 amendments being proposed now can be divided into four parts. The amendments put forward by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr WU Chi-wai basically involve four parts. The first part is about Part 2 of the Bill―Playing and Singing of National Anthem. The national anthem must be played and sung in a solemn manner. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked whether a person can discourage other people from attending an occasion where the national anthem is played and sung. Actually, it would be fine if you personally do not attend that occasion, and it would fine even if you do a somersault at the men's room or ladies' room outside it, because the national anthem is not played and sung there.
However, if the national anthem is played and sung in this place and you have shown up here, and if, at the moment when the national anthem is about to be played and sung or when "奏國歌" (play national anthem) is announced in Putonghua, you nevertheless tell people to leave or you take the lead to walk out of the place, that would definitely amount to aiding and abetting, and that would violate the spirit of clause 4 of the Bill, which provided that the national anthem must be played and sung in a solemn manner. On an occasion where the national anthem is played and sung, and once the music starts to play, you cannot lead other people to leave the place, for you must stand solemnly. He proposed an amendment to the first part by adding a subclause regarding people's attitude when the national anthem is played and sung and stating that it is not a crime to encourage others to leave the place. I think it does not matter if he knows nothing about the law, but he does not even understand the basic logic. If he is not present on the occasion, nobody would care about what he does because he is not there. But if he is present on the occasion and if he leads other people to leave the place when the national anthem is played and sung, it would mean that he did not stand solemnly and did not treat the occasion in a solemn manner and therefore, he did not act in line with the requirements under clause 4 and in that case, should he not be facing legal consequences? Surely he should.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7703
The second part to which amendments are proposed concerns the protection of national anthem. How should we protect the national anthem? As I said just now, your love for the country or otherwise comes from the heart. But even if you dislike the United States, when the national anthem of the United States is played, you have no right, no moral obligation, and no reason to insult the national anthem of other people. Therefore, as regards the question raised by them on whether the time limit on commencement of legal proceedings can be shortened, I do not see this need and so, I will not support it.
The third part concerns promotion of the national anthem and this, of course, involves the issue of education. Education is very important because as I said just now, instilling bad knowledge to students will result in bad consequences. You reap what you sow, and you will not get taros if you plant seeds for sweet potatoes. For this reason, education on the national anthem should be promoted in primary and secondary schools and such being the case, the Education Bureau should take up this task. Similarly, publicity is very important too. If publicity can be conducted effectively and as people can be unconsciously influenced by what they constantly hear and see, when they listen to the national anthem over and over again, they will get to know about the national anthem and then naturally fall in love with it. This is just normal, right? This is a matter of knowledge. Therefore, regarding their amendments to the third part, which proposed to forbid this and that, or to forbid the Chief Executive from doing this and that, such as not allowing the Chief Executive to add or delete the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung as set out in Schedule 3, I think they are meant as a straitjacket to restrain the Chief Executive and the Government. These amendments are unnecessary and therefore, I do not agree to them.
Regarding the fourth part, Mr Alvin YEUNG raised the question of whether, with regard to the enforcement of this law, interpretation can be made according to the laws of Hong Kong. Clause 11 of the Bill already provides that the relevant offences are investigated and the persons are prosecuted according to the laws of Hong Kong. Why does he have to add a superfluous provision stating that no other laws except the laws of Hong Kong should be used? I think this is unnecessary. Therefore, it is unnecessary to add clause 11(1A) under clause 11. His amendment states that the provisions shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong. The word "interpreted" is the real key word. Under the laws of Hong Kong, for cases handled by the courts in Hong Kong and cases in which prosecution is instituted, 7704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 the interpretation of the laws is definitely made by Hong Kong judges in the courts of Hong Kong. However, in deliberately using the word "interpreted" in his amendment, his intention is to attempt the impossible though knowing well that it stands no chance of success. His objective is to make it impossible for NPCSC to interpret this law of Hong Kong, so that NPCSC can only interpret the provisions of the Basic Law and cannot interpret the domestic legislation of Hong Kong. He wanted to impose this restriction which is unnecessary, and he is not going to succeed. It is because if the interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law is necessary and if the interpretation will touch on the domestic legislation of Hong Kong, NPCSC still has the power to make an interpretation.
The Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11) is a case in point. In this Chamber on 12 October 2016, Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching insulted the Legislative Council, insulted the People's Republic of China and insulted our compatriots all over the world. They used foul language and at that time, all of them could hear it but they did not voice any opposition. Later I repeated those remarks made by YAU Wai-ching in this Chamber of the Legislative Council and Mr IP Kin-yuen immediately rose to complain about Dr Junius HO speaking foul language. When YAU Wai-ching swore, he did not rise to raise objection; and when Junius HO cited her words, he complained that it was not pleasing to his ears. Fortunately we still have a brilliant President in the Legislative Council who ruled that Junius HO was only making citations.
This is proof that their standard is entirely rebellious and deviating from the norm. In short, they simply oppose China on every front and praise the United States in all circumstances. Even when Donald TRUMP is saying that he will send in the army and shoot the people, they have not said a word about it, adding that they would not interfere with the internal affairs of the United States. Yet, they are more than happy to present Hong Kong's internal affairs as a gift to Washington D.C., inviting their interference, and I wonder if this person is WU Sangui or KWOK Sangui. I do not know. But in a nutshell, this is so ugly. Mr Alvin YEUNG proposed this addition to provide that the courts of Hong Kong are responsible for the interpretation of this law. I would describe his proposal as "taking off the pants to fart". What a pity that he has studied law for years and is a barrister himself and yet, he does not even see this point and wants to put it down in the amendment, which is meaningless.
Moreover, if we look at his amendment from the other angle that I have just mentioned and that is, if he attempted to restrict NPCSC's power to interpret the Basic Law, I would say that his attempt would be futile and is completely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7705 meaningless. If he intended to attempt the impossible though knowing that it stands no chance of success and purposely proposed this addition, his amendment would not even be passed by the Legislative Council. Give some serious thoughts to it. He is an adult and yet he is simple and naïve. His amendment cannot even be passed in the Legislative Council, so how can he achieve his purpose? Bear in mind that NPCSC can reject any legislation passed in Hong Kong that is not in line with the Basic Law.
Therefore, we must understand that it may be possible for patriotic sentiments to be nurtured gradually in Hong Kong. It is like chasing a girlfriend. At first, you may think that she looks beautiful only at a glance and you may not like her very much. But as you keep seeing her, you become more in love with her and eventually marry her. This is how things go. Love is the same as a person's knowledge of something in that it takes time to gradually enhance and refine the feelings for each other. This is definitely how things go. Actually the most important guiding spirit of the Bill is to promote patriotism. We must respect our national identity and this is certainly important. But more importantly, you people are not allowed to talk nonsense here to insult your national anthem.
With these remarks, Chairman, I support the passage of the Bill and I am all against the 21 amendments.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that in accordance with the scheduled meeting arrangement, the Committee stage procedures will end in about 6.5 hours. I will call upon official to speak at around 10 am tomorrow. Then I will call upon the four Members who have proposed amendments to speak again, after which the debate will come to a close. We will immediately put the amendments to vote and deal with the remaining procedures of the committee of the whole Council. After that, we will proceed to the Third Reading procedures.
Members who wish to speak, especially those who have not yet spoken, please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.
Mr IP Kin-yuen, please speak.
7706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, on the first day when the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") was resumed, I already pressed the "Request to speak" button. However, since you limited the debate time, I was unable to speak during the resumption of the Second Reading debate and can only speak at this stage.
I must make my stand clear. We should respect the national anthem and also those of other countries. This is perfectly clear. The question is whether the provisions in the Bill currently submitted have improperly restricted people's rights and freedom. In terms of definition, is it too abstract and vague? Most importantly, in terms of enforcement, will it allow abuse of power and indiscriminate prosecution by the law enforcement agency?
Four Members have proposed a total of 21 amendments with the purpose of making up for the inadequacies of the original provisions. As a matter of fact, the Bill we now see is roughly of the same length as the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"). The National Anthem Law of the Mainland consists of 16 articles, whereas our Bill comprises 14 clauses and three schedules. In the Legislative Council Brief submitted at the outset, the Government stated that having regard to the common law system practised in Hong Kong, as well as the actual local circumstances, it proposed to implement the National Anthem Law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by local legislation instead of promulgation. That is why the Bill under our consideration now came into being.
Compared with the present approach of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") of directly enacting a Hong Kong national security law to be implemented in Hong Kong, bypassing the scrutiny process of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the manner of legislation of the Bill is relatively discreet and prudent.
Chairman, let me first take this opportunity to correct some information given by Dr Priscilla LEUNG in her speech last week. Just now Mr LUK Chung-hung also made a similar mistake. Dr Priscilla LEUNG said the reason why the Central Authorities formulated the nationwide National Anthem Law was that some Hong Kong people did not pay enough respect to the national anthem. I am afraid Dr Priscilla LEUNG did not do her homework thoroughly. NPCSC formulated the National Anthem Law because some nationals had little LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7707 knowledge of the national anthem and were not solemn enough when singing the national anthem.
According to press reports, since 2008, YU Hai, a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC") and also a conductor of the military band of the People's Liberation Army, had proposed to legislate for the National Anthem Law for 10 consecutive years. He saw that cases of disrespect for and abuse of the national anthem, as well as playing the wrong notes during the performance of the national anthem, occasionally happened in daily life. For example, in 2012, in the uniform examination of Hubei University on Outline of Modern Chinese History, only one third of the candidates could accurately recite and write the lyrics of the national anthem. Another example was a questionnaire survey in 2013 which found out that some primary school students thought the lyricist of the national anthem was MAO Zedong and the composer, Beethoven. Such cases had caused him to unswervingly submit the proposal on legislation, in the hope of regulating the use of the national anthem. Then in 2015, YAN Gongda, another member of the National Committee of CPPCC, also felt the lack of national awareness of the young generation. He thus drafted the proposal on the enactment of a national anthem law, which became the embryonic form of the National Anthem Law. I hope Dr Priscilla LEUNG will be clear about this point. NPCSC did not enact a national law because of Hong Kong. Please do not make any assumption lightly as a matter of course.
Besides, Chairman, I have noted Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposed amendments to the Bill. One of them seeks to include the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and the composer of the national anthem in the education on the national anthem. Previously, this amendment has been particularly covered by the news. The reason is that the Government considered the amendment irrelevant to the history of the national anthem, and hence requested the Chairman to rule it inadmissible.
Chairman, how will the provisions possibly be irrelevant to history? All of us know the history of March of the Volunteers. During this debate, many Members have mentioned that it is the theme song of the film Children of Troubled Times in 1935. During the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, it boosted the morale of the suffering masses. TIAN Han and NIE Er were actually in the opposition in the eyes of the Government at that time. 7708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
TIAN Han wrote the lyrics in prison. After composing the score, NIE Er had to flee to Japan, the enemy state which had invaded the north of the Great Wall, and was accidentally drowned there in the end.
After the Anti-Japanese War, March of the Volunteers was even banned by the then Kuomintang Government. It was not until the establishment of the People's Republic of China that it was adopted as the provisional national anthem. The twists and turns of March of the Volunteers as the national anthem, as well as the subsequent tragic experience of TIAN Han―as we all know, he was later subjected to scathing criticisms, was even accused of being a traitor and died a tragic death in prison in the end―reflect a piece of modern Chinese history which should not be forgotten. Hence, education on the national anthem should be comprehensive and multi-faceted. Compared with one-sided indoctrination, I believe students will have deeper knowledge of March of the Volunteers in this way.
Chairman, just now I said that the national anthem should be respected. However, during legislation, it is imperative to protect people's rights and freedom from infringement. These two principles must complement each other. It is also an important manifestation of "one country, two systems".
One of the more controversial points in the Bill is the definition of "insult" in clause 7. Among the amendments, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr WU Chi-wai have proposed a total of five amendments regarding the offence of insulting behaviour. Despite the explanation in the Bill that "insult, in relation to the national anthem, means to undermine the dignity of the national anthem as a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China", specifically, what behaviours does insult include? Which of them do not fall under the scope of insult? The present definition is still too abstract and vague.
I have cited some examples at the meeting of the Bills Committee. For instance, there have been four versions of March of the Volunteers in the past, namely, the theme song of the film Children of Troubled Times, the present statutory version, the version during the Cultural Revolution and the one when HUA Guofeng was in power. If someone now publishes a version other than the one adopted by the Bill today, does it amount to "altering the lyrics or score of the national anthem"? Suppose someone analyses or comments on the current lyrics of the national anthem, or criticizes the score for being outdated; considering that there should be a version which catches up with the times, he rewrites the lyrics LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7709 or composes the score anew and proposes them to the Central Government. Are these behaviours "with intent to insult the national anthem"?
Regrettably, the Government simply responded that it would be "assessed based on the actual circumstances of each case". If the provisions are not strictly defined, will it lead to inconsistency in the criteria adopted by enforcement officers or even selective enforcement?
Chairman, being a representative of the education sector, I am certainly very concerned about the impact of the Bill on schools. According to clause 9(1) of the Bill, the Secretary for Education must give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary education and in secondary education to enable the students to learn to sing the national anthem, and understand the history and spirit of the national anthem and the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem.
I am gravely concerned about the definition and actual effect of the "directions" referred to in the Bill because in the past, when the Education Bureau briefed the schools about a policy and details of the arrangements, usually a document would be issued by the Permanent Secretary rather than the Secretary. The relevant documents, in general, are known as "circulars" rather than "directions" as stated in the Bill. For this reason, I spent much time seeking clarifications from the Administration in the Bills Committee. The Government eventually indicated verbally that it would issue the directions to schools across the territory in the form of circulars but there would not be explicit stipulations. While the Administration is yet to provide a copy of the future circular, schools are still concerned whether there will be any deviation in the actual implementation.
Clause 7 of the Bill provides, "A person commits an offence if the person publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way." Hence, I am very concerned how the teaching staff should handle the matter if there is any suspected or alleged act of insulting the national anthem on campus. The Administration responded that schools should handle any act of intentionally insulting the national anthem within the school premises according to the spirit of school-based management. As regards under which circumstances a case should be handled by the school or reported to the Police, it is more or less the same as the way of handling other behavioural issues on campus.
7710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
However, such a reply is rather ambiguous. In the past, reasons for schools filing reports with the Police were mostly theft, food poisoning, fistfight, etc., which involved physical harm or damage to property. Yet suspected insult to the national anthem does not involve such harm or damage. Moreover, knowledge of the intent of the person in question is required. Now are there enough guidelines or criteria which enable the teaching staff to make the relevant judgment? This is highly doubtful. The Government also indicated that any occasion which could be observed by other people might be construed as a public occasion. Does it imply that graduation ceremonies, open days and assemblies on open playgrounds in schools are also what is called "public occasions"? If someone makes an accusation that some students have insulted the national anthem on such an occasion, can the school handle it by itself? If someone lodges a complaint and the Police thus go to the school to investigate, will the investigation work bring any unnecessary adverse impact on the daily teaching work in the school?
I must emphasize that the direction issued by the Education Bureau will have a profound impact on the daily educational work of the schools. It may become a tool assisting teachers in educating students, or a weapon disrupting educational work. As advised by the Education Bureau, the relevant directions will not be formulated until the legislative exercise of the Bill has been completed. I do not understand why we have to wait. I hope the Government can respond to the concerns raised by me just now on behalf of the education sector and set out the directions specifically in writing.
At present, Chairman, schools have in general taught the national anthem, and will play and sing the national anthem on different occasions. According to the usual practice in Hong Kong, curriculums are bound by the relevant papers of the Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council rather than the law. As the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, enacted on the day of the reunification, does not carry any stipulation in respect of school education on the national flag, we always consider it unnecessary to legislate for the teaching of the national anthem in schools.
In May, I conducted a survey to seek the views of members of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union on the legislative issues of the Bill. It is because I have long undertaken to consult members before deciding my stance regarding the legislative work on the Bill or other major issues. Quite a number of teachers raised queries about requiring schools to teach the national anthem by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7711 legislation. Over 70% of the teacher respondents worried that they might break the law inadvertently. Lastly, of the 2 700-odd members surveyed, 22% supported the Bill while more than 73% opposed it. Their stand was quite clear.
Chairman, to a large extent, our current discussion about the legislative issues of the Bill is affected by changes in the social environment. In light of the social environment, members of the public lack confidence and trust in the Government's law enforcement. I think this is one of the main reasons why many people oppose this legislative exercise.
Originally, under normal circumstances, we should respect the national anthem. Many people agree with this. The call for respect for the national anthem is understandable. However, in the present confrontational and divisive social environment, if the Government makes any moves involving politics and ideology, dealing with problems by legislation and punishment, it will be called into question by members of the public. Therefore, the problem faced by us now concerns not only the legislative issues of the Bill. More importantly, it concerns whether the entire society can properly deal with the core problems in Hong Kong, such as abuse of power and indiscriminate prosecution, at root, and how to convince members of the public to continue to connect with the Government.
Yesterday, Carrie LAM asked whether Hong Kong society implemented the rule of law or the rule of fear. We are indeed apprehensive about the rule of fear, worried that during its governance, the Government will exploit the law to intimidate the public, including turning the social gathering restrictions into a kind of control to achieve purposes other than containing the epidemic. We are also worried that we can no longer express our opinions freely. These are problems we need to squarely address.
Chairman, I so submit.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in opposition to all the 21 amendments proposed by four Members. First, I had pressed the button and waited to speak at the Second Reading debate, but I was unable to speak at the Second Reading debate given the obstruction of the "mutual destruction camp". For example, Mr CHU Hoi-dick displayed a banner and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen debated with the President before they were evicted from 7712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 the Chamber. Some two hours were spent in this way. The hurling of a "stink bomb" by Mr HUI Chi-fung further caused the meeting to be suspended for some five hours. In the debate on the amendments, I will keep my speech as concise as possible, but I will also touch on the general merits of the bill.
Chairman, the Preamble to the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") has only three lines: "(1) the national anthem of the People's Republic of China is a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China; (2) all individuals and organizations should respect the national anthem, preserve the dignity of the national anthem, and play and sing the national anthem on appropriate occasions; and (3) an Ordinance is to be enacted to preserve the dignity of the national anthem, to regulate the playing and singing, the broadcast and the use of the national anthem, to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China, and to promote patriotism".
Chairman, the Preamble already clearly states the overall objective of the Bill and clearly explains that the national anthem represents the People's Republic of China; and the national anthem is inviolable, as are the national flag and the national emblem. For this reason, the penalties set out in the ensuing clauses of the Bill are almost aligned with those under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. Many Members have referred to hypothetical scenarios and asked whether the terms of imprisonment or the amounts of fines can be reduced. Why is it that the level of penalty shall not be reduced? Since the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem are accorded equal status, no further argument should arise. Reducing the level of penalty under the National Anthem Ordinance is tantamount to treating the national anthem with less importance and treating the national flag and the national emblem with more importance. The fact, however, is that the three enjoy equal status.
In addition, the four Members who are amendment proposers have asked coincidentally or concertedly how to assess whether one respects the national anthem, and why legislation must be enacted on respecting the national anthem. In fact, the Preamble I specifically read out just now offers a clear explanation. As we can see from the national law, namely the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), the national anthem, like the national emblem and the national flag, should be respected. This has nothing to do with whether one is patriotic or whether his respect really comes from his heart. I hope Members can clearly see the difference.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7713
Certainly, Members from the "mutual destruction camp" have further said that when it comes to respect, it is sincerity which matters most, and there is no use scaring people. Correct, no one knows what you think deep in your heart, but the Bill clearly provides that insulting the national anthem refers to altering its lyrics or score or behaving in a disrespectful way. For example, when the national anthem is played or sung on a designated occasion, one fails to behave in a way respectful to the national anthem, such as standing solemnly. In fact, all the requirements are explained clearly and unequivocally, but if people have a dirty mind, they will consider the clauses ambiguous, or they would rather the clauses be ambiguous. I have just heard a Member from the "mutual destruction camp" raising a query as to whether exemption can be granted to someone who falls asleep when the national anthem is played and sung. But I think if such a scenario is provided for under the law, it will become their defence in the future. When they watch a football match, they may feign sleeping even if they are standing. Can they get away with the charges by doing so? No way. For this reason, I think the clauses of the Bill have already been thoroughly and properly considered.
In fact, why must we enact a piece of local legislation? We clearly know that a national law can be implemented in Hong Kong by way of promulgation or local legislation under the Basic Law. As Hong Kong has no such a penalty as administrative detention like the Mainland does, we need to enact a piece of local legislation in respect of the National Anthem Law under the Hong Kong system. This should be respected. In this day and age, the Bill is obviously a piece of local legislation, but the "mutual destruction camp" still insists on opposing it. Is it that they intend to thwart the Bill, so as to enable the National People's Congress to enact and promulgate a national law? They often "refused a toast only to be forced to drink a forteit", and turned Hong Kong into a mess. As the "mutual destruction camp" has been delaying the enactment of legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, it has succeeded in striving for the Hong Kong national security law. This is the actual situation of Hong Kong.
Chairman, I have just heard a Member from the "mutual destruction camp" saying that his amendment proposes to delete the penalties. However, the problem is that if there are no penalties, it cannot be a law. It will become a "toothless tiger" or a set of guidelines. As indicated by Mr IP Kin-yuen just now, he is concerned that notices or guidelines issued by the Education Bureau may not be effectively implemented at schools. If the law is stripped of its 7714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 penalties, it can hardly be implemented in Hong Kong. In addition, the lack of penalties will lead to serious consequences, and one may become a scapegoat.
Chairman, why do I say so? The Hong Kong Football Association ("HKFA") was fined for three times as fans had booed the national anthem. HKFA was actually treated unjustly as it was not in the wrong. Fans booed the national anthem but HKFA had to pay the fine. It was fined SFr10,000 the first time, SFr15,000 the second time, and SFr30,000, which was equivalent to HK$238,000, the third time. Chairman, if those who boo the national anthem are not penalized, but HKFA is instead held liable, how much more money does HKFA have to spend on the fine? As it is already very difficult to promote football in Hong Kong, the rights, interests and remunerations of football players will be virtually jeopardized if HKFA is fined for pointless reasons. Therefore, fans who want to watch football matches should refrain from doing a disservice and causing harm to football players and HKFA.
In fact, Chairman, I have to refer to the fact that President Donald TRUMP of the United States blasted a football player who refused to stand solemnly and took a knee in protest when the national anthem of the United States was played. He even flexed his bureaucratic muscles by saying that the player should be suspended for one game the first time kneeling, and for the entire season after a second offense. It is thus clear that any country attaches a great deal of importance to its national anthem. Certainly, some Members from the "mutual destruction camp" have said that certain countries have not legislated on the national anthem. But the problem lies in whether there are people who have the intention to insult the national anthem. I believe such a thing will not happen in many countries, but it has indeed happened in Hong Kong. The three cases of HKFA being fined I have mentioned just now illustrate that Hong Kong needs to implement the Bill.
The national anthem signifies China's bitter process of nation building. As the military anthem of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army, it was composed during wartime and exudes an aura of struggle. Someone once asked whether during peacetime it could be replaced with another national anthem of which the lyrics were less aggressive, but our state leaders clearly indicated that the military anthem of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army should be retained, as every Chinese should remember our bitter past, particularly the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. If we had not succeeded in fighting against the Japanese, we would really have become "people who are slaves" LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7715 today. As Dr KWOK Ka-ki has asked just now whether there are Members present who are slaves, I wonder whether he has time to come back to clarify his point. As Members present have all sworn allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, he will end up vilifying himself if he intends to vilify any other Member.
Chairman, another point I want to make concerns the deterrent effect of the penalties. As I said just now, a person who threw the national flag into a rubbish bin before hurling it into the sea last October was first imposed a light penalty of a community service order by the magistrate, and was later sentenced to immediate imprisonment following an appeal filed by the Department of Justice. This has reflected the importance of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") and the soon-to-be-implemented National Anthem Ordinance. I hope young people will refrain from acting in defiance of the law. Upon the enactment of the legislation, lawbreakers will have no one to turn to and must be held criminally liable.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is unhappy that the Chief Executive in Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, amend Schedule 3. However, as society progresses, we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be additional official and high-level rituals or ceremonies where the national anthem needs to be played and sung. We therefore need to maintain flexibility.
In addition, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has also remarked that the introduction of severe penalties under the Bill manifests the weakness of a nation. That said, penalties under the Bill are only aligned with those under NFNEO. Chairman, his remarks are absurd. I wonder whether he is not strong enough psychologically and thus needs to insult the Bill with irony. In fact, in this day and age, we in the People's Republic of China have full confidence and capability in defending our national unity and territorial integrity. When it comes to national territory, our country does not budge an inch. This is already the reflection of a superpower. At the same time, as our country grows increasingly stronger in terms of national power, the overall quality of life of the 1.4 billion people keeps improving, and our level of education keeps increasing, there has been an increase in people's understanding of international politics and social or world affairs. In general, we have an increasingly bigger say in the international community. Since our national territory is well defended and we have a say in the international community, the protection of the national anthem, apart from the protection of the national flag and the national emblem, is certainly a reflection of 7716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 strength rather than the so-called weakness. I wonder how his thinking goes. His remarks sounded a bit strange to me, but I have still given a reply to him.
Chairman, the speech of Mr IP Kin-yuen just now can serve as a wake-up call. He has said that among members of the education sector, only 22% support the Bill and 73% oppose it. Chairman, the Bill states that education and publicity campaigns must be strengthened in primary and secondary schools. As Mr IP Kin-yuen represents the entire education sector, how can we properly implement the Bill in primary and secondary schools if as many as 73% of members of the education sector oppose it? This should exactly be a matter of concern to us all. I wonder whether the Secretary for Education will give a reply in the ensuing reply session. If the Secretary will give a reply in a moment, I would like to urge him to offer an explanation in this aspect, which I am very much concerned about.
Finally, Chairman, I know that "Hong Kong independence" will not cease in a short time, and the incoming Hong Kong national security law will properly address the issue. At the same time, I would like to tell Members from the "mutual destruction camp" who overtly or covertly support "Hong Kong independence" or valiant protesters in society that they should not mistakenly believe that when they do not hear the national anthem, they can champion "Hong Kong independence", or when they disregard the Hong Kong national security law, they can champion "Hong Kong independence". Nor should they believe that under "one country, two systems", they can continue to champion "Hong Kong independence" by only referring to "two systems" and disregarding "one country". The Hong Kong national security law covers the entire Hong Kong, and any senseless thought will only make one end up behind prison bars. I hope that people will think twice and be alert.
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), and in opposition to the 21 amendments proposed by Honourable Members.
Chairman, I wish to make it clear at the very beginning that the main theme of the Bill is very simple, and it is the hope that people would respect the national anthem and the country while refraining from engaging in behaviours which will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7717 insult the national anthem. As to whether some people would love the national anthem, no one can force them to do so, but basically we enact the Bill to require people not to engage in any absurd behaviours which will insult the national anthem.
In fact, we have witnessed in the past that some people in society deliberately engaged in some insulting behaviours when the national anthem was played and sung, including booing the national anthem during that time, which made members of the public who saw such behaviours extremely angry indeed. Second, members of the public also queried why those people would not be subject to any penalties after showing such behaviours, this is tantamount to conniving at those people to continue to insult the national anthem.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
The national anthem is also an important symbol representing national sovereignty, I thus have to repeat once and again here that the Bill only aims to ensure that people would respect the national anthem and the country, and would not engage in some absurd behaviours to insult the national anthem. As a matter of fact, this is also a perfectly justified arrangement.
Deputy Chairman, during this period of time, I have heard the smears and scaremongering about the Bill by many people of the "mutual destruction camp". They might claim that upon passage of the Bill, members of the public would immediately be subject to criminal prosecution and so on if they are a bit off-key when singing the national anthem. They have completely ignored the fact that it is clearly spelt out in the provisions of the Bill that the criminal arrangement of common law is adopted under the Bill. There must be the element of intention, such that a person would only be convicted of a criminal offence if he has insulted the national anthem intentionally. But obviously, we can see Members or people of the "mutual destruction camp" keep ignoring this, they even resort to scaremongering and deceive the public by claiming that once the Bill is passed, they would immediately be subject to criminal prosecution if they are a bit off-key when playing and singing the national anthem. These are sheer threatening tactics, hence I hope to take this opportunity to make it clear.
7718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Deputy Chairman, today we have seen some Honourable colleagues … I really find it very ridiculous and ludicrous after listening to their speeches just now. Deputy Chairman, I really find the earlier remarks made by Mr IP Kin-yuen very ridiculous and ludicrous. He said that if the Government gave directions to primary and secondary schools for the sake of promoting the national anthem through education―this is also one of the arrangements under the Bill―will bring about disruptions to education. I wish to ask Mr IP Kin-yuen, in the past almost one year, some people led students to chant aloud the slogan "Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times" together during the morning assembly of many schools, and they also chanted the slogan "Hong Kong independence". Perhaps the Education Bureau might not have given adequate directions to schools, and therefore it ends up in conniving at them to keep chanting those slogans. Are these not disruptions to education?
I would like to point out to Mr IP Kin-yuen that it is precisely because we have not seen the Administration provide specific and appropriate directions to schools in the past, hence some people deliberately connive at these evil acts in schools, and lead young people astray as a result. These are indeed disruptions to education. Therefore, I hope Mr IP Kin-yuen would keep his eyes wide open to see clearly who is actually disrupting education. They should be those who connive at these evil acts.
Deputy Chairman, I wish to point out in particular that with regard to the amendments being discussed today, including the one proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to substantially reduce the penalties prescribed under the Bill, or to shorten the actionable period of one year or two years for initiating criminal prosecution to 30 days or 60 days respectively, such amendments would obviously make people think that the intention is to reduce the penalties for committing the criminal offences prescribed under the Bill, or to shorten significantly the actionable period for initiating criminal prosecution. In fact, there is only one purpose, that is, to turn the Bill into a paper tiger, making it difficult for the authorities to enforce the law and rendering the Bill lacking in deterrent effect. In this way, they can continue to connive at those evil acts of insulting the national anthem. We must oppose these amendments explicitly, and also tell the public clearly that if these amendments are passed, it will be tantamount to turning the Bill into a paper tiger, making it virtually impossible for the authorities to enforce the law. Besides, the Bill will not have any deterrent effect and the various kinds of evil acts to insult the national anthem will continue to be connived at. I believe the public would never want to see this happen.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7719
Here I must also point out that it has come to my notice that an amendment even seeks to limit the number of times or days for the Government to broadcast the national anthem, which is significantly reduced to no more than 36 days in a year. To put it simply, if I have not got it wrong, the number of days that the Government can broadcast the national anthem by a promotional video will be greatly reduced to no more than 36 days per year upon passage of this amendment. I find it really ludicrous since we now hope that, by enacting the Bill, people will pay respect to the national anthem and will no longer engage in any behaviours which insult the national anthem. Yet, we would be confined by such an amendment even if we wish to promote the national anthem, or to educate people on knowledge about national sovereignty in a correct manner. Hong Kong is a part of our country, yet they wish to confine the number concerned to no more than 36 days in a year even if we wish to promote the national anthem and launch education on understanding national sovereignty positively. I think it is really ridiculous. Certainly, I believe when Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposes such an amendment, it would only give people the feeling that he does not want the Administration to have any opportunity to enhance its publicity efforts in enabling people to understand our country, the basic knowledge of national sovereignty and the principle of "one country, two systems". I think this would run counter to the most essential objective for us to enact the Bill, or the fact that we should educate people to understand our country and national sovereignty since Hong Kong is a part of our country. Such being the case, I have the responsibility to point out the problems with this amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, and oppose this amendment explicitly.
Lastly, Deputy Chairman, as we see a basket of such amendments today, I have clearly pointed out and highlighted the absurdities just now. I also wish to explain to all of you that if these amendments are passed, they would exactly run counter to the objective of enacting the Bill. We do not want to see this happen, so we have to express clearly our viewpoint in this respect. Nevertheless, I also wish to take this opportunity to reiterate to the people of Hong Kong once and again that the reason for us to enact the Bill now is that we have clearly witnessed that evil acts to insult the national anthem on public occasions have indeed taken place one after another over the past period of time. We are also aware that members of the public hold that we should not connive at this kind of behaviour. In addition, the state has already added the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") to the national laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. Being a part of our country, Hong Kong has the 7720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 right and responsibility to enact local legislation in respect of the National Anthem Law. Therefore, I wish to state this point clearly here, and also hope that members of the public will no longer be misled or constantly intimidated by Members of the "mutual destruction camp". They would only talk nonsense, claiming that upon passage of the Bill, people would immediately be arrested or considered as having committed a criminal offence, etc. even if they are just a bit off-key when singing the national anthem. I think we are duty-bound to refute sternly such claims of intimidation, so that members of the public will not be misled by them anymore.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the "mutual destruction camp" questioned that the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") and the Hong Kong national security law will infringe upon rights and freedoms as well as undermine "one country, two systems". However, judging from their actual words and deeds in the past few years, it seems that the "mutual destruction camp" is actually the one that really wants to restrict the freedoms of Hong Kong people and destroy "one country, two systems". For instance, according to the Basic Law, principal officials and Members of the Executive Council must not have right of abode in any foreign country, but a maximum of 20% of the total membership of the Legislative Council may have the right of abode in foreign countries. Even Hong Kong permanent residents who are not of Chinese nationality may also be elected Members. This is a rather unique circumstance which shows that the central government has given Hong Kong the highest degree of freedom taking full account of Hong Kong's unique history and actual situation. During the Second Reading debate of the Bill, some Members of the opposition camp have rehashed the old news about my right of abode in Britain, which seemed to mean that those who have the right of abode in Britain are not patriotic. They have also mentioned the issue of traitors that I referred to in my previous speech.
Deputy Chairman, whether or not someone is a traitor depends on his deeds. Some Members of the "mutual destruction camp" went to foreign countries to beg for intervention by external forces and beg foreign governments and congresses to sanction Hong Kong and China. Many people considered such deeds traitorous. The "mutual destruction camp" recently claimed that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7721 judicial independence will be undermined if foreign judges are not allowed to try national security cases. I wonder whether their rehash of the question on the right of abode in Britain is a personal attack against me, or that they wanted to restrict our freedom by not allowing Members to have the right of abode in Britain or foreign nationality.
Another example concerns the National Security Law of the People's Republic of China. Article 23 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own to protect national security with a view to allowing Hong Kong the highest degree of freedom under "one country, two systems" and "high degree of autonomy". However, as relevant legislation could not be enacted after 23 years, secession and subversion activities in Hong Kong were left to aggravate and external forces were free to interfere with Hong Kong affairs. As a result, the central government had no choice but to enact relevant legislation for us so as to plug the legal loopholes. Learning from the previous controversy over the universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the enactment of the Hong Kong national security law this time, I hope the "mutual destruction camp" will really do some soul-searching and avoid going down the wrong path in their struggles which leads to nowhere or even loss or reduction of what we originally had.
Deputy Chairman, concerning the amendments proposed by Members of the "mutual destruction camp", as I have mentioned during the Second Reading debate, I find clause 9 of the Bill on the inclusion of the nation anthem in primary and secondary education very important. March of the Volunteers, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China, was originally the theme song of the film Children of Troubled Times about the resistance against Japanese invasion. The song called on all Chinese to fight against Japanese invasion and defend the country. Primary and secondary students in Hong Kong should indeed study this piece of history written with blood and tears and the meaning brought out by the lyrics of the song, especially since a recent question from the Diploma of Secondary Education history examination was considered by many as glorifying Japanese invasion of China. The Japanese invasion certainly did nothing but harm to China, yet the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") turned a true or false question into an open question asking candidates to discuss whether Japanese invasion did more good than harm to China. Not only did HKEAA set a wrong question, it also provided students with biased and misleading materials. In the end, as many as 38% of the 7722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 candidates answered that Japan did "more good than harm" to China from 1900 to 1945. It has reflected that the problem does not lie in HKEAA only as some parents, students, educators and politicians still insisted that the question and answers were fine after the fact, which is really shocking. I really want to ask them to answer the question from a "more good than harm" perspective, so that I can see how they will quibble and distort history and if their answers will get 5**. This incident showed that some teachers, students, parents and politicians in Hong Kong have poor, one-sided, biased or even completely wrong understanding of the historical facts during the Japanese invasion of China, such as the eight-year war of resistance, Nanjing Massacre and Japanese occupation of Hong Kong lasting for three years and eight months. I wonder how Mr TIAN Han and Mr NIE Er, the lyricist and composer of March of the Volunteers, would feel about this in heaven.
The amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to include the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. I have given careful consideration to the actual need of this proposal. Mr TIAN Han, the lyricist of the national anthem, died under persecution during the Cultural Revolution and Mr NIE Er, the composer of the national anthem, was drown at the age of 23 during exile in Japan in order to escape persecution by the Kuomintang government. Another claim is that he was assassinated by Japanese secret agents. I personally find it appropriate and positive to teach high school students the biography and causes of death of the two patriots, Mr TIAN Han and Mr NIE Er, as high school students already have some knowledge of modern Chinese history. This will help young people in Hong Kong get a more in-depth understanding of the tragic history during the Japanese invasion, including the massacring of Chinese people, and the serious harms caused by the 10-year Cultural Revolution, so as to prevent the country from being ravaged by external forces again. Meanwhile, it will also alert society to avoid extreme ideological struggles which may cause a lot of young people to give up their studies and resort to demonstrations and political denouncements just like the red guards, or even persecute compatriots with different political opinions and backgrounds through illegal and violent means, resulting in huge damage to life, property and economy.
However, as the reference materials in the history examination paper provided by HKEAA have indicated, this piece of history is too difficult for some students, in particular primary students, whose understanding can easily be rendered one-sided and misled. As a matter of fact, even though the teaching of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7723 this content is not made a statutory requirement by the Bill, I believe schools will make their own choice about teaching this piece of history according to the level and interest of their students. Hence, I have great reservation about this amendment.
Deputy Chairman, at the end of the day, I think what matters most is not the legislation or the curriculum guidelines given by the Education Bureau, but rather how and by whom it is taught in schools. If it is taught by teachers who agree that the Japanese invasion did "more good than harm" to China while relevant schools and the Education Bureau fail to regulate it whatsoever, the teaching will only be one-sided, biased, distorted, misleading and even disastrous to the country and the people regardless of the provisions in the Bill.
With these remarks, Deputy Chairman, I oppose all the amendments proposed by Members.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has requested a headcount.
Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in this Council. The meeting now continues.
Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.
7724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Thank you, Ms Starry LEE. Right at the start of the Second Reading last week, I was removed from the Chamber by President Andrew LEUNG and had no chance to speak. In fact, it is quite ironic. We are now talking about love for the country, national anthem law and respect for the country, yet the one who removed me from the Chamber is a person with the right of abode in the United Kingdom―I should say he used to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom for he had renounced his right in 2016 when he stood for the election of the President. The mention of this may have touched the nerve of certain people. Just now, when Mr Tony TSE was named by someone concerning this issue, he responded seriously as if it was really a big deal.
Why are we suddenly discussing this topic now? In fact, from 1997 or the earlier transition period to the present, the social environment has been relatively free and relaxed. We, including many Members present, have been growing up in such an environment. Yet, all of a sudden, everyone is playing the "Wolf Warrior" and has a "heart of glass", who are always charged with ferocious emotions. This is where the problem lies. They are challenged for holding a number of passports to try to win in all circumstances. Their children or relatives are found holding foreign passports, whereas their capital is placed in Europe or other unknown places.
Now, we come to the examination of amendments. Simply put, the amendments proposed by the four colleagues seek to reduce the impact. Indeed, the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") should not be enacted in the first place, and I hope I will have time to elaborate on this shortly. Since we are in the Committee stage, these few colleagues can merely make efforts to identify areas where amendments can be proposed to reduce the harm or to prevent the Bill to be passed from conferring excessive power to the Executive Authorities.
The amendments can be divided into several parts. The first part involves the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. For members of the public who have not read the provisions of the Bill in detail, they may not know that the Chief Executive is empowered under the Bill to specify occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung by negative vetting. This may give rise to the scenario where the Chief Executive has specified many occasions which the public have never expected that the national anthem must be played and sung, including occasions involving offices, societies or schools. In fact, the Chief Executive has such power. The amendments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7725 proposed by the few colleagues have put forth several proposals. First, such power should not be conferred to the Chief Executive in Council solely but should be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council. Second, as in Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment, the Bill must stipulate clearly that certain occasions will be excluded. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has mentioned particularly the occasion of religious services, which is obviously based on the freedom of religious belief safeguarded by the Basic Law. After all, the freedom of religious belief aspired to practise by the people of Hong Kong differs from that implemented in Mainland China currently. He has also cited the cases of "Three-Self Churches" as an example. Actually, on every assembly of churches, the national anthem must be played and sung before the hymns are sung, which means religion is completely subject to the party and the State. In view of this trend, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed to exclude the occasion of religious services. In other words, the Chief Executive cannot specify that the churches or religious groups which must play the national anthem.
The second part is about clause 7 of the Bill on the offence of insulting behaviour. The direction of the amendments proposed by the few Members seeks to reduce the penalty of the relevant provisions under the Bill. Just now, I heard Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr Holden CHOW saying respectively that any reduction in penalty would put the national anthem below the national flag and the national emblem. They say that since the penalty under the Bill is prescribed according to the existing National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO"), if the penalty under the Bill is reduced by the amendment, it would mean belittling the national anthem. In this connection, we do not have to interpret the case in the direction stated by Ms YUNG Hoi-yan. Now, while we propose to reduce the penalty under the Bill, it does not mean that we do not want to reduce the penalty under NFNEO accordingly. In fact, the penalty under the two ordinances can be reduced simultaneously, not as the case in Iraq cited by Mr Kenneth LEUNG earlier. According to their logic, does it mean that if an issue is very important, it would warrant the penalty of a death sentence to safeguard its dignity? If penalty is to be increased following their logic, it will eventually lead to the outcome mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG earlier. I believe neither Members nor the people of Hong Kong would like to see this happen.
Hence, what is wrong with reducing the overall penalty for breaches of laws on national anthem, national flag, national emblem, regional flag and regional emblem? We differ with them in one major principle. They consider severe punishment should be imposed. The sword must be drawn to put their 7726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 enemies to death. They consider this the only way to bring long-term stability to society and to nib the so-called opposition force in the bud. This "Wolf-Warrior" mentality may be the one advocated by Dr Junius HO recently. In my view, "one country, two systems" has proved to be ineffective by its implementation in the past 23 years. What is regrettable is that the Communist Party of China ("CPC") merely resorts to this approach. They, as CPC's spokespersons, have to identify reasons to justify this "Wolf-Warrior" mentality. I think the outcome is obvious. As for things they consider must be safeguarded by severe punishment, it will often create more conflicts in society.
This thinking of imposing severe punishment is generally reflected in the speeches of all colleagues from the pro-establishment camp. I would like to respond to Mr KWOK Wai-keung in particular, for as far as I remember, this is the first time I heard of the phrase "refusing a toast only to be forced to drink a forfeit" at the Legislative Council. Of course, there is no big deal about this phrase, for it is a common saying. Nonetheless, if this is applied to the relationship between Beijing and CPC and the people of Hong Kong, I think this can reflect whether or not CPC and its supporters intend to return to people-based governance and governance respecting the people of Hong Kong and "one country, two systems".
What does it mean to "refuse a toast only to be forced to drink a forfeit"? To put it in a more vulgar or impolite way, it is to say, "I have to rape you, and if you refuse, I will use a more violent way to rape you." What Mr KWOK Wai-keung meant to say earlier is that if we make further comments about the Bill and propose amendments to reduce it to a "toothless tiger", the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will eventually step in again, forcing us to accept the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), as it is unilaterally forcing the people of Hong Kong to accept the national security law now. Actually, if this saying of "refusing a toast only to be forced to drink a forfeit" is taken further, primarily, the existence of the Legislative Council will no longer be meaningful. For whenever Beijing requires Hong Kong to do certain things, it will find an alternative way to force us to do as per its request despite our opposition. What is the point of further discussion then? How can we deliberate issues? Why bother to conduct consultation then? In my view, when the people of Hong Kong hear the phrase "refusing a toast only to be forced to drink a forfeit", an overwhelming majority of them understand that after all, CPC relies on brute force, violence and severe punishment rather than really trying to win the support of the people of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7727
Also, they often mention the population of 1.4 billion. I recall a number of colleagues saying that we have hurt the feelings of the 1.4 billion people and that the Hong Kong national security law and the National Anthem Law are inevitable. In this connection, our direct response is that if CPC really allows the 1.4 billion people to decide whether or not the National Anthem Law should be included in Annex III and whether or not the people of Hong Kong should be forced to implement the Hong Kong national security law, please let the 1.4 billion people make the decision. Yet, when they hear this, they keep silent. They are struck dumb. For we all know that in reality, CPC's decision is final.
As for other amendments, they include Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments seeking to include the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem and provisions on broadcasting services, as well as Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment seeking to include a phrase stipulating that provisions in the Bill "should be governed by and interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong". In my view, these amendments seek to amend the details of the Bill―not to make it more acceptable but to impose additional constraints on the Executive Authorities and to make the Bill fairer. We cannot merely think about using the Bill for patriotism education, which means promoting the practices of CPC. Why does Mr CHAN Chi-chuen have to propose the inclusion of the lyricist's biography? He has spoken for so long because every issue has to be considered from both sides. Hong Kong is a free and open place, we cannot merely think about indoctrination. For the time being, they can neither block the Internet nor prohibit us from using Facebook. Even if they desire to delete certain posts on Facebook, the request will not be entertained as Facebook is headquartered in the United States. As they cannot do that, they should not assume that they can achieve the purpose of brainwashing through these stupid approaches of presenting one-sided views.
Finally, I would like to respond to the remarks of Mr LUK Chung-hung. Just now, Mr LUK Chung-hung has toed the official line, saying that CPC may have gone astray, experienced failure and made mistakes over past years, yet the key is that the crucial part of the State system should not be infringed upon, which warrants the enactment of the National Anthem Law. I invite Members to look at the history of CPC. It will be 4 June tomorrow. Why would the people of Hong Kong oppose the Bill and the Hong Kong national security law fundamentally at the sight of them? It is because we have seen the CPC ruling authority killing people in the 4 June incident. A ruling authority that killed people is not qualified for ruling this place. Worse still, in the 30 years after the 7728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 killing, it keeps resorting to wrongdoings and lies to cover up its violent acts. How would not a majority of the people of Hong Kong―provided that their memory and conscience remain sober―consider that CPC is now forcing us to accept the Hong Kong national security law and the National Anthem Law so that we will bow in worship before it? Do they find this disgusting?
After all, it concerns whether or not CPC knows its position in Hong Kong. Does it know what kind of ruling authority it is? If it wants to force these things on us, we can do nothing about it. Yet, when they are forcing these things on us, they should not pretend that their actions are justified and accepted by many people. This is the exact opposite of the aspiration of the people of Hong Kong. Hence, I will support all the amendments.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak in support of the amendments proposed by the pro-democracy Members to the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill").
Deputy Chairman, the Democratic Party cannot support the Bill in principle. The purpose or the original intent of the Bill is to preserve the dignity of the national anthem and inspire public respect for the national anthem. Besides, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has enacted the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") which has also been incorporated into Annex III to the Basic Law, thus making it necessary for the Legislative Council to enact local legislation on the National Anthem Law. But the question is whether it is necessary to enact legislation on the national anthem to govern the behaviours of the people. The pro-establishment Members said that when the people know that there will be punishment, they will not dare to act rashly and hence, the national anthem and the country's dignity can be protected. However, when we said that we would like the people to be patriotic, we cannot rely on stringent laws and harsh penalty to make Hong Kong people patriotic or otherwise and so, we still have to respect the people of Hong Kong. As to whether they love the country, in what way they love the country, and how patriotic or unpatriotic they are, should we not allow the people to have free will to make their own decisions? As to what it means to be patriotic and how to be patriotic, Hong Kong people actually have a lot of struggles at different times.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7729
Many Hong Kong people came to Hong Kong from the Mainland because the Communist Party of China ("CPC") came to power and founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. They had a lot of worries about CPC and so, they voted with their feet by leaving the Mainland for Hong Kong. So, many Hong Kong people can be said as anti-communist because their ancestors would not have come to Hong Kong from the Mainland if they were not anti-communist and if they did not flee from the CPC regime. Now, Hong Kong is reunited with China but there is the view that the people's hearts have yet to be reunited. The question is: Can the people's hearts be reunited through the enactment of the Bill? Is it that the playing and singing of the national anthem will command great respect from the people, hence making them patriotic?
In fact, what does it mean to be patriotic? After all, Hong Kong people have varying standards. When we talk about loving our country, do we mean loving China geographically or culturally or historically, or do we mean loving the CPC regime currently in power? If the definition should be narrowed to the extent that the people must support the CPC regime, including everything championed by it, the national security law and the Bill under discussion now, and people who do not give their support are considered unpatriotic, and if the definition should be narrowed to such an extent and has to be so leftist, many Hong Kong people can be considered unpatriotic, including the business community. I said so not only because of their views on the Bill but even with regard to the enactment of a national security law, we found that many members of the business sector do not support it, not to mention that the public have a lot of concerns about it, just that Beijing is trying to force it through.
Deputy Chairman, I would like to come back to the reasons why the Democratic Party cannot support the Bill. As I said just now, if you want the people to love the country, please state clearly what you want them to love. Second, a person's love for the country should come from the heart, and it cannot be achieved by stringent laws and harsh penalty. Many Members have proposed amendments to the Bill. At first, I also wished to propose an amendment but as my amendment is very similar to those proposed by my party members and other Members, I, therefore, did not propose it. Deputy Chairman, Mr WU Chi-wai, Chairman of the Democratic Party, has proposed an amendment to clause 7(7) of the Bill concerning the prosecution time bar.
Deputy Chairman, clause 7(7) provides that prosecution can be instituted within one year after the date on which the offence is discovered by, or comes to 7730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 the notice of, the Commissioner of Police, or within two years after the date on which the offence is committed. This is obviously inconsistent with the practices in the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") in that the period for the Government to prosecute people for offences under the Bill is extended. At present, offences under NFNEO are summary offences and the prosecution time bar is usually six months after the date on which the offence is committed. When comparing offences relating to the national flag or national emblem, we do not see why the Government should extend the prosecution time bar to two years for offences relating to the national anthem. Obviously, the approach adopted in the Bill is different from and even harsher than that in NFNEO, with the purpose of deliberately allow more time for the Government to examine a case slowly like studying it with a magnifying glass and keep watch on the words and deeds of the people on occasions including all occasions on which the national anthem is played and sung, whether at sports stadiums or when sports competitions are held. I wonder if cameras are already installed there for surveillance and face recognition, so that the Government can take its time in carrying out its work because after all, they have two years to lay charges. This is actually a tool to step up monitoring and surveillance and to instil fear in society. Therefore, we also support the amendment put forward by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, proposing to shorten the period for commencement of proceedings.
Deputy Chairman, the Bill is even harsher than NFNEO not only in respect of the prosecution time bar. With regard to the penalty, actually we have expressed our views many times in the course of the deliberation on the Bill. The Bill provides that any person who commits an offence under the Bill is liable on conviction to a maximum fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for up to three years. I noticed that some Members, including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Kenneth LEUNG, have proposed amendments to reduce the penalty. During the deliberation on the Bill, I also put forward this view and hoped to put forward an amendment to reduce the penalty. But I finally withdrew my amendment on learning that Mr HUI Chi-fung would propose the deletion of clause 7 direct. However, it is most regrettable that the President ultimately did not allow Mr HUI Chi-fung to propose his amendment on the deletion of clause 7.
Deputy Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Kenneth LEUNG have now proposed amendments with the effect of reducing the penalty. Be it reducing the prison sentence from three years to one month or lowering the level 5 fine, the Democratic Party supports the principle of reducing the penalty.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7731
In the course of the deliberation, we asked the Government whether studies had been conducted to find out if legislation was enacted on the national anthem in other countries and if so, what the penalty was; and among countries where laws were enacted on the national anthem, in how many countries the people would be arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for as long as three years. We found that only a small number of countries in the world have put in place such a harsh provision.
In France, a person who commits an offence under the national anthem law can be jailed for six months and fined €7,500. In Germany where the penalty is the harshest, a person who commits an offence can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three years. In Austria, the punishment is a jail term for up to one year or up to six months; and in Portugal, the penalty is imprisonment for no more than two years.
As for Singapore, while Hong Kong people expect its penalty to be harsher than that in Hong Kong, the fact is that in Singapore, a person who commits this offence will not be sentenced to jail, because the law only states that any person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes rule 12 of the national anthem act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding S$1,000. We really cannot see why this Bill to be enacted in Hong Kong has to stipulate such heavy penalty of a standard which is the harshest worldwide in providing for a prison term for up to three years and a fine of level 5. This is definitely stringent and harsh. Although some pro-establishment Members said that this is only the maximum penalty and that an offender may not necessarily receive the highest punishment, we really must ask what objective the Government wishes to achieve. Is it that in order to promote patriotic sentiments among the people, imposing a heavier penalty and a prison sentence can make the people love the country? I think the result is just the opposite. This will only arouse greater resentment from the people. So, is it that the people will become more patriotic when a more high-handed approach is adopted with heavier penalty and a longer jail term? Deputy Chairman, I really think that the result is just the opposite, and it would be impossible to achieve the original intent of enacting the Bill and that is, to preserve the dignity of the national anthem and inspire public respect for the national anthem.
Moreover, the Bill specifically mentions the need to include education on the national anthem in primary and secondary education in Hong Kong. This is stipulated in clause 9 of the Bill and Deputy Chairman, even international schools 7732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 and special schools are covered under this provision. Of course, the Secretary for Education has reminded us that concerning the stipulation that education on the national anthem shall be provided in primary and secondary schools, including schools providing special education, international schools, and so on, schools will not have criminal responsibility, or in other words, the penalty is not applicable. But we still do not understand why the Bill must be linked up with the education system if, in this Bill introduced by the Government, the penalty is not applicable to schools.
I think the Bill is meaningless and unnecessary. It is because even though the Secretary for Education, Kevin YEUNG, had come to the Legislative Council to give us an explanation, the fact is that teaching students to sing the national anthem and enabling them to understand the background of the national anthem are already covered in the existing primary and secondary curricula. No student who has completed primary and secondary studies in Hong Kong does not know the music or lyrics of the national anthem. Of course, some of the details may not be mentioned in schools, such as the background of TIAN Han, but since the formal curricula already cover these contents, why is it still necessary to enact the Bill to purposely highlight these matters? And then the Government is not prepared to impose penalty because otherwise, there would certainly be stronger reactions and greater public opposition to the Bill. Even if the teachers have done their part in teaching but the students do not listen to the teachers and deliberately sing out of tune, will there be any trouble? We certainly do not wish that the Bill would eventually render it easy for schools, teachers and students to get the blame. Therefore, I think since work is already being carried out in this area, it is unnecessary to make these stipulations in the Bill.
Deputy Chairman, we need and wish Hongkongers to be patriotic. But as I said at the outset of my speech, it is increasingly difficult for Hong Kong people to love the country. Why? Because this political regime now focuses on making it incumbent on all the people to preserve the dignity of the national anthem, but the problem is that this very regime has not made the utmost effort to preserve the human rights and dignity of all Hong Kong people, even less so in preserving the dignity of Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. We are deprived of our legislative power for no reason because Beijing intended to enact a national security law for Hong Kong. When Members of the Legislative Council cannot even defend their dignity in enacting legislation, and when Hong Kong people cannot even defend their right to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage of "one person, one vote", not to mention the fact LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7733 that we do not have the power to elect the local deputies to the National People's Congress ("NPC"), and then these 2 800-odd deputies to NPC have decided on the fate of Hong Kong by pressing a button … Therefore, what we actually need is a country that upholds human rights, freedom and democracy, and only such a country can command support and respect truly from the hearts of Hongkongers (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in November 2017, the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress ("NPCSC") adopted the decision to add the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") to Annex III to the Basic Law. Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that "the laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region." The Liberal Party is of the view that Hong Kong must respect the constitutional procedures and implement the National Anthem Law simultaneously.
When taking forward the local legislation of the National Anthem Law, which is a national law, the common law system of Hong Kong and the legislative intent of the National Anthem Law have to be considered. Five Members of the pro-democracy camp have proposed 22 amendments today. The Liberal Party believes that the passage of these amendments will violate the legislative intent of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") and render the effectiveness of the National Anthem Law questionable. For example, the two amendments proposed by Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seek to reduce the penalty for the offence of insulting the national anthem. The Liberal Party finds these amendments unreasonable.
National anthem, national flag and national emblem are all symbols of a country representing its sovereignty, independence and dignity. The National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance has come into effect at the time of the reunification in 1997. It specifies the organizations which must display or use the national flag and the national emblem, the conditions under which the national flag and the national emblem must be displayed or used, and offences in 7734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 relation to desecrating the national flag and the national emblem, as well as the regional flag and regional emblem. Similarly, the Bill seeks to protect the national anthem and preserve its dignity. Therefore, relevant penalty should be equivalent to that under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, and that is, a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years on conviction, so as to treat the national anthem on par with the national flag and the national emblem and address the inadequacy of the existing legislation.
In fact, it is clearly stated in the Preamble of the Bill that one of the objectives of the Bill is to respect the national anthem, which is the fundamental responsibility and obligation of every citizen. Regrettably, some people not only did not show any respect for the national anthem, but even insulted it. A few years ago, some football fans booed, made insulting gestures and even displayed "Hong Kong independence" slogans when the national anthem was played during a number of international football matches. Such actions have severely undermined the country's dignity. These reckless football fans also brought the Hong Kong Football Association into trouble as it was fined $240,000 by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association. Evidently, showing respect for the national anthem is an internationally recognized etiquette.
If the penalty for insulting the national anthem is not aligned with that for the national flag and national emblem, the Liberal Party is worried that a wrong message will be conveyed to the public, making people mistakenly believe that insulting the country bears no consequence, which will thus encourage similar irresponsible behaviour and run contrary to the legislative intent of the National Anthem Law to respect the national anthem. Moreover, the Bill per se is not very harsh. Most of the provisions are directional in nature so as to inspire public respect for the national anthem. There will not be any prosecution as long as people show basic respect for the national anthem and refrain from insulting it arbitrarily. In Macao, the other special administrative region of the country, the National Anthem Law has been enacted in the middle of last year and the daily life of the public seems not to be affected at all.
Deputy Chairman, another key point of the Bill is the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education, so that students can learn the national anthem, its history and spirit and to respect it from an early age. If we read the National Anthem Law and the Bill introduced by the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7735 carefully, we will find that the Bill has accurately reflected the legislative intent of the National Anthem Law in relation to national anthem education. Hence, the Liberal Party does not find any amendment necessary in this regard.
In fact, the national anthem is already included in the current curriculum guides for primary and secondary schools. Many music textbooks also cover the score and background of the national anthem. It can thus be seen that national anthem education is nothing new. The Bill simply seeks to make the established practice a statutory requirement. I believe its implementation will not be difficult and will not affect daily teaching. In addition, national anthem education teaches the next generation the rules and etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem, so as to prevent them from violating the National Anthem Law. That, coupled with the other provisions in the Bill, is conducive to achieving the object of the National Anthem Law to respect the national anthem.
Deputy Chairman, it is a matter of course for us Chinese to respect the national anthem, national flag and national emblem as they are symbols of our country. The Bill, which is actually straightforward, has all along been distorted by people with ulterior motives to attack the Bill on all fronts, used it as a pretext to incite anti-China and "Hong Kong independence" sentiments in society and even caused social division. As a result, the Bill has been dragged on for many years. Thus, the legislative work should be completed without delay.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
I support the Bill introduced by the Government and oppose all the amendments today. I hope the National Anthem Law will be implemented in Hong Kong as soon as possible so that Hong Kong can fulfil its constitutional responsibility and Hong Kong people will have a law to follow when the national anthem is played and sung with a view to preserving the dignity of the national anthem.
Chairman, I so submit.
7736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, during the legislative process of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") last week and this week, I finally got the opportunity to speak on the Bill for the first time. It is because the Chairman had limited the debate time. Be it in the Second Reading debate or the adjournment debate, I had pressed the "Request to speak" button. During the consideration of the adjournment motion, I pressed the button even before I sat down. Even though I had done so, it was useless because I could not speak within the time limit set by the Chairman. Hence, I hope the Chairman will understand that in my following speech, I will speak not only on the amendments and other matters will definitely be included too. I hope the Chairman can treat me with the same criteria adopted when handling the speeches made by other Members in the pro-establishment camp just now.
First of all, I would like to point out that the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") is a national law which will subsequently be implemented in Hong Kong through local legislation. As a matter of fact, the Basic Law allows such an approach. As we can see, first, a national law was enacted, followed by local legislation in Hong Kong. Whether we support it or not is another issue, but at least this approach tallies with the procedures literally stated in the Basic Law. It is absolutely different from the National Security Law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") about which we have been gravely concerned these few weeks because the HKSAR National Security Law is only directed at HKSAR but is treated as a national law. Anyway, I now come back to the debate on this Bill. We have heard many people raise a lot of views. In the earlier Second Reading debate, there were also queries why not even a single word or note can be changed. Some people say this is vilification of the national anthem. Regarding this, there can actually be another perspective. My script was prepared for me by my assistant. He is a young man who loves music. He wishes me to read out the whole script so that people will understand that sometimes changes are made to a score without any derogative meaning.
In the hot summer between 15 and 18 August 1969, nearly 500 000 people attended a spectacular music festival of love and peace. Four smart youngsters saw that in the 1960s, rock music had become the greatest strength of youth culture. They noted that love and peace had become the zeitgeist. So they planned to organize a Woodstock Music and Art Fair in a small town called LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7737
Woodstock in the north of New York State. The Woodstock Music and Art Fair attracted 500 000 participants, among whom there were superstars of folk music and rock music, including Rolling Stones, Beatles and Bob DYLAN, with whom we are familiar. Woodstock then became a foothold of counter-culture. This was the most magnificent performance of youth culture in the 1960s and an eternal legend in the history of rock music which has been extoled by people around the world since then. When Jimi HENDRIX, recognized as one of the greatest guitarists having the most superb skills in history, went on stage to present the closing performance in the festival, he played the national anthem of the United States. However, it was not an ordinary American national anthem. Using amplifiers and reverb equipment invented and developed by himself, he played the national anthem with ingenious techniques, mixing it with the sounds of bombs, bombers flying at low altitude, being shot down and burnt in flames, bullets of machine guns shooting through the air, screams of the common people, etc. That time happened to be the peak of the Vietnam War. This version of the national anthem was regarded as an anti-war declaration and even aroused a huge controversy. A month after the performance, he attended an interview and explained how he created this version of the American national anthem afresh with imagination. Was it aimed at conveying an anti-war message, a protest or resistance? He said, "I don't know man. It is not unorthodox. I thought it was beautiful." What he meant was this creation was wonderful. It was not too unconventional. It was beautiful.
So much about the story. What I wish to say is that people who play music may have this kind of feelings too. In fact, very often, how they perform and improvise is not based on any well-thought-out reasons. It may be simply out of feelings which suddenly run high, just like this guitarist. Considering it beautiful, he just performed without deliberately creating anything. We say that people are unique in that they have their own talents. Not all people are able to express their inner thoughts, in writing or in speeches, in the way approved or recognized by the political regime. Even their impressions of things or personal feelings can only be expressed through art or music. If they are asked why they express themselves in such a way, they may be unable to explain it. Therefore, it is not as stated by the Government, that any discontent with the political regime can be expressed in other ways. There are things which really cannot be replaced. As in his case, he kept replying at that time that he really had no idea what it meant. On many occasions, a certain line of lyrics or a certain song might be written casually on a pizza box at midnight after the creator got drunk. 7738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
We have got to understand that if standard answers are provided, we will stop analysing, stop exploring, stop imagining and stop thinking. My point is, many acts of improvisation or revising the score on the spot are not derogatory. They only seek to express feelings. As I mentioned just now, that time happened to be the anti-war period. When playing the national anthem, he applied ingenious techniques to produce screams, the sounds of bullets and bombers, etc. These were all impromptu without any derogative meaning.
Let me cut to the chase. We have seen many unreasonable points in the Bill. That is why our Honourable colleagues have proposed amendments. As I have pointed out, we cannot allow the Chief Executive to have the power to add or delete anything in Schedule 3 at will. In fact, there is an important reason behind. During the scrutiny of this Bill, we spent a lot of time discussing on what occasions the national anthem may―it should be must―be played and sung. The so-called "playing and singing" will be bound by the newly enacted legislation. If people do not abide by the rules on the relevant occasions, they commit an offence. What occasions are actually included? The occasions currently set out in Schedule 3 include the oath-taking ceremonies of principal officials. Will more occasions be included in the future? Will primary schools be required to play and sing the national anthem every time they hold a sports day or swimming gala? Will the MTR Corporation Limited be required to broadcast the national anthem before the first train sets off every day? Of course, this is not uncommon in foreign countries. In the past, the television stations in Hong Kong would also broadcast the national anthem of the United Kingdom before signing off, and the entire screen would only display the portrait of the Queen, but that was not legally binding. What kind of behaviour on that occasion would be subjected to punishment was not stipulated. However, if this occasion is added to the schedule, it will be regulated by the law. The Bill empowers the Chief Executive to amend Schedule 3 … Sorry. Let me say it again clearly. Just now I said that any amendment to the provisions in Schedule 3 shall be made by way of an amendment exercise. Yet concerning Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposal to "amend clause 10(4) and delete clause 10(5) to provide that regarding the requirement for the licensee to broadcast the national anthem, the Chief Executive in Council (instead of the Chief Executive) may, by notice published in the Gazette, stipulate the relevant date", it refers to such circumstances as broadcasting the national anthem by the television stations before signing off as mentioned by me just now. Why does the Chief Executive have such discretion LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7739 to act in this way? Upon enactment of the Bill, the examples cited by me just now may become occasions subjected to regulation. It can be done by amending Schedule 3. Why is Carrie LAM granted such immense power? Is this a logical approach to vest her with such immense power today? It can even be said that not only is it tailor-made for Carrie LAM. Chief Executives in the future will also have such power.
Besides, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to require the Secretary for Education to give directions to educate the students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem, and to make corresponding textual amendments. Just now I cited the example of the guitarist playing the American national anthem during the anti-war period. If I did not mention the background of his performance of the national anthem, other people would not understand why he did so. They would be mistaken that he vilified the national anthem. Hence, very often, we need to explain the causes and reasons behind.
We have already mentioned the background information on the composer and lyricist many times. The Government wishes to propagate the national anthem. Yet the national anthem did not come from nowhere. It has its background and history. Who created the national anthem and what happened in their lives can be expounded to students from the angle of education such that they will have a clear understanding. How will this be wrong? Why does the Government so strongly oppose adding this point? If the Government attaches so much importance to the Bill, these matters should actually be included without the need for Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to propose it.
Moreover, why did Mr Alvin YEUNG propose an amendment to provide that the provisions shall be interpreted in accordance with solely the laws of Hong Kong? Hongkongers are gravely concerned. Will it do if we just follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") every time there is a problem with the law? Of course, such interpretation is based on the Basic Law. When there is any conflict between the Basic Law and Hong Kong's legislation, NPCSC may give an interpretation. Frankly, nowadays, NPCSC may interpret any law whenever it pleases, and its interpretation is in fact tantamount to amending the whole law and then forcing it on us. Such an approach has worried the people of Hong Kong. It is also exactly the reason why Mr Alvin YEUNG wishes to add the restrictions. Since 7740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 this is a law locally enacted in respect of the National Anthem Law, it is necessary to explain explicitly that it is something within Hong Kong's jurisdiction, and the enforcement should also fall within the ambit of Hong Kong's autonomy. For this reason, if the provisions are written expressly, we need not worry whether the situation will be similar to the present case of the HKSAR national security law. Anything we do may be construed as subversion or secession anytime. In that case, what can we do? More importantly, the amendment has spelt out the provisions more clearly, thus making Hongkongers feel more assured. I do not consider it superfluous. Rather, it provides Hongkongers with extra confidence.
Certainly, as I stated at the outset, after all, the enactment of the Bill will not make people more patriotic. It is putting the cart before the horse. People's love for the country must grow truly from their hearts. I do not understand why some Members said that hearing more and seeing more every day would inspire love. I can hardly imagine, for example … I had better not give any example. Otherwise, I would be accused of defaming other Members. Having worked with the President of the Legislative Council for four years, would I possibly have any feelings for him? No. Even though I often see him, I will not have any feelings for him. Therefore, I do not think people will gradually love the national anthem if a law is enacted to make them hear it day and night. This is not the right way of working. People need to have their own observations and experience through other means. Only then will they love the country. Legislation is only something superficial. (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, please stop speaking immediately.
Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.
(Mr Andrew WAN was not present)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since Mr Andrew WAN is not present, I now call upon Prof Joseph LEE to speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7741
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") is nothing new. Every country has enacted its own law on the national anthem. But the interesting thing about our drafting of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") is that it stipulates the time, occasion and etiquette regarding the playing and singing of the national anthem and how to play and sing it. I have checked some literature and found out that such requirements seem to be less common in other countries. Though I did not have the chance to speak during the Second Reading debate―pardon me―I now wish to raise some salient points about the amendments and explain why I support Honourable colleagues' amendments.
In fact, to legislate for the National Anthem Law with the spirit of common law seeks to make people respect the anthem through legislation. I believe the Bill is introduced to make people respect the national anthem. As regards whether people are patriotic or not, it is another matter. Many clauses in the Bill are unclear. I was a member of the Bills Committee and held that the changes introduced by the Government have given rise to many ambiguities in the Bill, as well as legal uncertainties. For these very reasons, the Bill arouses the concerns of many people, and so Honourable colleagues have proposed corresponding amendments. In fact, the legislative process or the legislative intent seeks to dispel uncertainties so that people may avoid doing things which they should not do. This is the objective we wish to achieve.
Amendments in group (A) concern the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. As a matter of fact, the playing and singing of the national anthem involve many issues. Until now, I still do not quite understand―despite relevant amendments proposed by Honourable colleagues―why "playing and singing" are specified. It means it has not only to be played but also sung. I reckon that some Members had already mentioned this question during the Second Reading debate. Honourable colleagues had asked a question when explaining their amendments in their speeches: Must people sing the national anthem when it is being played? If the law provides that it must be sung, then the problem arises: How should it be sung? If it is not sung well, will there be a problem? Or if the lip-sync is off―but it could be an exaggeration―will it be all right? In the case of lip-sync, if people are to lip-sync when the national anthem is being played without actually singing it, is it allowed? Similar questions are abundant. Indeed, it is not unnecessary. Can it be played only but not sung? But it is so provided for in the Bill. After it is passed, people may be punished for not singing, then what should they do?
7742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
I recall an example but am not sure if my memory is correct. In December last year, on an occasion where the national anthem was not played, a Mr LAM, when the song Ode to the Motherland ("歌唱祖國") was being played, only stood but did not sing or clap his hands. People had various views on that. Fortunately, legislation for the National Anthem Law was not enacted at the time and the music played was not the national anthem, otherwise would he be arrested and punished? After the legislation on the National Anthem Law is enacted, will it be the case then? Many questions of such kind arouse a lot of worries among people. Why can the national anthem not be only played? Why is it provided that it must be played and sung? It is a huge problem.
Among the amendments in group (A), the amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Kenneth LEUNG both seek to amend Schedule 3 "Occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung". Moreover, clause 4 of Part 2 of the Bill provides for the etiquette to be followed when the national anthem is being played and sung, such as deporting with dignity. Actually, such clauses are very ambiguous. Chairman, is it a good thing for some Honourable colleagues to propose amendments to such clauses? I certainly think so. However, it still fails to solve the problem, namely whether it is a must to sing the national anthem and only playing but not singing is not allowed. Does it have to be forced on people in this way? This question awaits clarification. Therefore, I have reservation about this.
In addition, I wish to discuss the amendments relating to insulting behaviour. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of the definition of insult in the law … my Honourable colleagues have proposed amendments in this regard, i.e. amendments in group (C). Chairman, I wish to point out that the definition of insult in the Bill is highly ambiguous. On the contrary, the term insult is very clearly defined in the enactment of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO"). Notwithstanding the amendments proposed by Honourable colleagues to this end, I consider such amendments unable to clarify this point. I remember that, in the NFNEO, insult is defined as "[desecration of] the national flag or national emblem by […] burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it". It is a very objective yardstick. However, the definition of insult in the Bill is ambiguous, failing to clearly set out what constitutes insulting behaviour. And I also do not see that Honourable colleagues' amendments can make the relevant clauses clearer. Of course, having improvements is better than none. But it is hugely problematic to give such a subjective definition to behaviour that insults the national anthem. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7743
Chairman, will people be punished for slurring? It also involves personal judgments. What should law enforcement officers do when enforcing the law? There are considerable difficulties―indeed, it is very difficult. For example, whether my singing of the national anthem is pleasing to the ear may have big consequences, and in fact my singing may not be unpleasing.
Another point is publicly insulting behaviour. Exactly what is "publicly"? An example comes to mind. What if I sing the national anthem unpleasantly in a park, will the law enforcement officers consider that misbehaviour and arrest me? Such clauses are all ambiguous. Especially, given the immense popularity of social media nowadays, will sharing on social media certain behaviour during the playing and singing of the national anthem be regarded as "public"? It is also unclear, making people inadvertently break the law. The legislative intent is good, which originally seeks to clarity matters relating to the national anthem. But now the clauses are ambiguous, rendering people prone to being caught by the law.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Kenneth LEUNG have proposed amendments to amend the penalties for insulting the national anthem. The Bill provides that a person who commits an offence of insulting the national anthem is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for three years. Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment is very clear. If a person has violated the ordinance inadvertently, given the ambiguous definition therein, the penalty concerned should be amended to no imprisonment. Of course, these amendments will likely be negatived. However, despite the good intention of Mr Kenneth LEUNG in proposing the amendment, whether the amended clause will dispel doubts is up to Honourable colleagues to make the judgment. All in all, I find the definition of insulting behaviour ambiguous and hope that the amendments can improve the relevant clauses so as to allay public concerns.
Moreover, I wish to discuss the amendments in group (D), which concern the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. This group involves clause 9 in Part 4 (Promotion of national anthem) of the Bill. Obviously, it is common knowledge that the Education Bureau has already set out very clear guidelines with respect to how national education should be conducted, how students' patriotic sentiments should be cultivated, how the understanding of the national anthem and national flag should be deepened, etc. in the existing primary school curriculum. Why made such superfluous addition to the Bill and "hardcoded" this part? It is very undesirable that schools may break the law by 7744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 not introducing national anthem education. In particular, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed an amendment to clause 9(1)(b). Is the amended approach better? I find Mr CHAN's amendment able to make the clause clearer and by no means an superfluous addition, but, to my dismay, I believe Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment will be negatived.
And yet, in addition to the three groups of amendments I have just mentioned, namely playing and singing of the national anthem, behaviour insulting the national anthem and national anthem education in primary and secondary schools, Chairman, I still have a little bit of speaking time, allow me to talk about another ambiguities in the Bill. In clause 4 of Part 2, for example, I notice a big problem. Generally speaking, legislation prescribes what people cannot do, but interestingly this piece of legislation stipulates what people must do. Is it the general principle of legislation under common law? Though not a legal expert, I find it strange: Why does the Bill require people to do something, instead of requiring them not to do something? And does the Bill clearly enumerate each and every requirement? And as Honourable colleagues just said, can amendment be made whenever a doubt arises? For instance, is it possible to keep amending Schedule 3? And does the Chief Executive have such a great power to keep adding different requirements to the occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung? If so, will it not take a lot of time and efforts? I see a big problem with this part, which indeed arouses lots of doubts. In view of the plethora of ambiguities in the Bill, its passage will further obscure people's understanding of the national anthem and make it more difficult to discern what should not be done.
Chairman, I wish to especially mention that after the passage of the Bill―of course our amendments may not be passed―in the light of so many uncertainties and ambiguities, coupled with the fact that nowadays law enforcement officers have made indiscriminate arrests and failed to enforce the law in accordance with the law, will more discriminate arrests which are unjust and unnecessary arise after the enactment? I reckon that this issue warrants discreet handling.
If these amendments are negatived and such a bill with so many ambiguous clauses is passed … As we can see, the social distancing restrictions are still in effect. Though it is irrelevant to the Bill, we can see the Police make use of the social distancing restrictions to randomly enforce the law, coupled with the many grey areas in the Bill, they can interpret on their own the meanings of insult, the playing and singing of the national anthem, etc. Despite the relevant amendments we have proposed―given the ambiguous clauses, they may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7745 randomly enforce the law, making it harder for people to grasp the meanings of the law.
Undeniably, the Bill is mainly introduced to hopefully make people respect the national anthem. However, given the ambiguous clauses, law enforcement personnel may enforce the law on the basis of their subjective judgments. I believe the legislation will be counterproductive. I hope the authorities can discern this point. Notwithstanding our amendments being negatived, we do not wish that the Bill will become a trap: The general public may be subject to the random arrests by law enforcement officers who interpret the law on their own and even imprisonment―Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment on penalty will definitely not be passed―for some of their behaviour in everyday life. It can absolutely be avoided and is absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, I support the amendments proposed by my Honourable colleagues. Thank you, Chairman.
MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as I said at the resumption of the Second Reading debate, I think Hong Kong needs not and should not enact a national anthem law. The most important reason is that the regime has never respected itself, never does any self-reflection, and will never win the respect of the people. A draconian law will only give the authoritarian regime another weapon to persecute the people. The definitions and clauses under the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") are so ambiguous and vague that they can be easily taken advantage of by the regime. Under the Bill, people who disrespect or insult, so to speak, the national anthem may be liable to a fine and imprisonment of three years. This penalty is very severe in comparison with those under national anthem laws enacted in other democracies. The United States and Canada require their nationals to respect their national anthems, but no penalty will be imposed on anyone who contravenes the requirement. This reflects that the Bill is unreasonable.
Chairman, showing respect to the national anthem does not mean to enact a national anthem law, and enacting a national anthem law does not mean to criminalize the national anthem law. I originally intended to decriminalize the Bill, but Mr LEUNG, you have, for the reason of their being out of order, ruled inadmissible all amendments that seek to decriminalize the Bill. As a result, decriminalization cannot be discussed in this legislature. I can only reiterate at this juncture that it is unjust for the regime to use a draconian law to force members of the public to respect the national anthem. For this reason, regarding amendments proposed by pro-democracy Members to mitigate the penalties 7746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 under the Bill, I would like to say that while I understand their good intention, the enactment by an authoritarian government of a bill that can be arbitrarily interpreted should not be allowed in principle. Even lighter penalties cannot justify such a draconian law, and therefore I can hardly render my support.
Next I will elaborate on one amendment which I believe is worthy of discussion. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed an amendment to clause 9 to require the Secretary for Education to give directions to educate the students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem. Clause 9 of Part 4 of the Bill stipulates that the Secretary for Education must give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary education and in secondary education: (1) to enable the students to learn to sing the national anthem; and (2) to educate the students on the history and spirit of the national anthem, and on the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen probably believes that it is not clear enough to merely propose teaching the history and spirit of the national anthem, and thus he proposes the addition of educating the students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem. As for whether I should agree to this amendment of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, I have tried to do some research on the background for the creation of the national anthem and the story of its selection as the national anthem. It has occurred to me that to promote the national anthem to, by way of educating the students on the history and spirit of the national anthem, achieve the objective of inspiring respect for the national anthem and preserving the dignity of the national anthem, so to speak, as set out in the Bill, is probably a very difficult thing which does more harm than good. I hope that the Government will think twice about the possible negative impact of teaching the history of the national anthem.
Mr IP Kin-yuen has said in his speech just now that there are four versions of the national anthem. As Members may probably know, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China is March of the Volunteers, which was the theme song of Children of Troubled Times, a 1935 film that championed resistance against Japanese aggression. Its lyrics were written by TIAN Han, a Hunan playwright, and NIE Er, a Yunnan musician, set them to music. As a member of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), TIAN Han also introduced NIE Er to CPC. In April 1949, CPC, which had yet to become the governing party, went to Czech in the name of China to attend the World Congress of Defenders of Peace initiated by the Communist Bloc. When delegations of various countries entered the venue, their own national anthems were played. When CPC that represented China entered the venue, the national anthem of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7747
Republic of China, which started with "San Min Chu-I, Our aim shall be", could certainly not be played truthfully. They adopted a temporary expedient of using March of the Volunteers as the national anthem. The CPC delegation further reviewed the lyrics of March of the Volunteers and discovered that one line, "the peoples of China are at their most critical time", was no longer opportune. The reason was that the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression had come to an end, and a new China was about to be established. Given the promising outlook, it should be only alright to say that "the peoples of China are about to embrace a bright future". How could one say that "the peoples of China are at their most critical time"? For this reason, CPC decided to revise the lyrics, so that they could throw their weight around in the international community. As such, GUO Moruo, a CPC literary hack, changed "the peoples of China are at their most critical time" to "the peoples of China are at a time of their great emancipation".
That said, history could really be playing a joke on us sometimes. While the Hong Kong Government is enacting legislation on the national anthem today, CPC was probably the first to break the national anthem law years back when it clandestinely passed off March of the Volunteers as the legitimate national anthem of the Republic of China in the international community. It even revised the lyrics of March of the Volunteers to suit its needs. As CPC failed to set a good example and there was such a history of the national anthem, how can we teach the students to respect March of the Volunteers? How can we teach the students not to alter the lyrics of the national anthem?
In September 1949, the national anthem still had not been decided when the founding ceremony of the People's Republic of China was just five more days away. MA Xulun, the leader of a team for selecting the national anthem therefore said to MAO Zedong and ZHOU Enlai, "As our Government is about to be established, and, under the current circumstances, the national anthem cannot be created in an instant, should we temporarily adopt March of the Volunteers as the tentative national anthem?" At the meeting, people debated over whether a line of the lyrics should be revised, and one representative indicated, "The music is very good, but the lyrics contain the line 'the peoples of China are at their most critical time', which is not that good, and the lyrics had better be revised." GUO Moruo also indicated his support for revising the lyrics. Subsequently, TIAN Han, who was the lyricist and considered to have the final say, indicated, "The music is good. The lyrics written by me had their historic significance in the past, but now they should give way to the new lyrics."
7748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
It turned out that March of the Volunteers was only a tentative national anthem, TIAN Han also considered it necessary to revise the lyrics, but the lyrics were not revised in the end. And people kept singing the song for 17 years. In 1966, the Cultural Revolution started, and, with the support of MAO Zedong, the Gang of Four succeeded in struggling against a large number of senior writers and artists. As lines such as "pleading on behalf of the people" and "water that floats a boat can also capsize it" which appeared in Beijing Opera Xie Yaohuan were taken out of context and distorted, TIAN Han was unscrupulously labelled as "poisonous weeds" of an "anti-party, anti-socialist" nature before being struggled against. He was forced to drink urine, tortured and paraded through the streets. He received no treatment despite being seriously ill, and ended up dying tragically in the prison due to the lack of medical treatment.
During the 10-year Cultural Revolution, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China became a song with no lyrics. TIAN Han was banned, and his lyrics were also banned. The national anthem could be played but not be sung. People could only sing it in their heart. Not only were people not allowed to sing it decently while standing solemnly as required under the Bill, but they were not even allowed to sing it aloud, or else they would probably be settled accounts with and struggled against. The lyricist considered the lyrics inopportune and out of touch with the times, and there was a need to revise the lyrics. However, we have not revised the lyrics, and we have kept singing the song. We are now even enacting legislation to require people to respect the national anthem. The lyricist was later struggled against, the so-called national anthem became a song with no lyrics, and its lyrics were banned. Given such a history of the national anthem, how should teachers teach students to respect the nation and love the Communist Party? Given such a history, how should they teach students to respect the national anthem? Is clause 9 of the Bill in contravention of the legislative intent?
In 1976, the Gang of Four were crushed, TIAN Han had yet to be vindicated, and the national anthem still could not be sung. Subsequently, a new round of invitation for submission of the lyrics of the national anthem started. The new lyrics of the national anthem were adopted at the First Session of the Fifth National People's Congress ("NPC") in March 1978. The reference to the writer of the new version of the national anthem was changed to "music by NIE Er, lyrics written collectively". The lyrics were as follows: "March on! Heroes of every race! The great Communist Party leads us in continuing the Long March! Millions with but one heart toward a communist tomorrow bravely struggle to develop and protect the motherland. March on! March on, March on! We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7749 will for many generations raise high MAO Zedong's banner! March on! Raise high MAO Zedong's banner! March on! March on! March on! On!"
Following the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee in 1978, many unjust, false and wrong cases were vindicated. In 1982, the Fifth Session of the Fifth NPC approved the restoration of March of the Volunteers as the national anthem of the People's Republic of China, and revoked the decision of the then current NPC made on the national anthem in 1978. The lyrics of TIAN Han were officially put to use again. NPC approved again the use of the lyrics of TIAN Han.
As we can see from the history of selecting the national anthem, the selection of the national anthem had been highly political and arbitrary, serving exactly as an irony of respecting the national anthem and preserving the dignity of the national anthem. The regime had arbitrarily altered the lyrics in a shameless way. When it is enacting a national anthem law under such a historical background, and the law provides for educating the students on the history of the national anthem, does it actually want the students to satirize the present by referring to the past, and make use of historical mistakes to rectify the brazenness of the regime today? Or, does it want to spoon-feed the students and require them to thoughtlessly engage in rote learning and respect the national anthem?
Regarding the amendment of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, if we are to educate the students on the history of the national anthem and teach them to respect the national anthem, rather than engage in rote learning and thoughtlessly love the Party and love the national anthem as do royalist Members, the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem as well as the background for its creation will certainly be the contents that have to be taught. As such, I have no reason to not support the amendment to clause 9 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.
The problem is as follows. In reviewing the history of the selection of March of the Volunteers as the national anthem, I have seen the reactionary and authoritarian nature of the regime, how it had treated March of the Volunteers as a political means, and how it had put the stability of the regime before all truths and historical and cultural values. If we truthfully teach this history of the national anthem and educate the students on the biography and cause of death of the lyricist and composer of the national anthem, I am afraid this history will only make the students despise our regime even more and hold our national dignity in 7750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 contempt even more. The students will therefore find it difficult to sincerely respect the national anthem and preserve its dignity.
I have no reason to not support the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to clause 9, but I am even more concerned about how the regime will interpret and educate the students on the history of the national anthem. There is no need for me to speak further on the track record of the regime in altering history. But in view of the history of the selection of the national anthem by the regime and the death of the lyricist, I can well imagine that the regime can resort to every possible means for the sake of its stability. When "one country, two systems" has come to an end and "one country, one system" prevails, the Secretary for Education, who could not even put up with a history exam question, will certainly cater to the political needs of the regime. For this reason, I believe that even if Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment is successfully passed, the Secretary for Education will not cooperate.
Let me reiterate that Article 2 of the Constitution of China states, "All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people." However, if power belongs to the people, why is the Chief Executive not elected by all the people? If power belongs to the people, why is the Government not required to be accountable to the people? If power belongs to the people, why are policemen who beat up innocent people not held liable? China has never properly implemented its Constitution.
How dare a regime, which fails to respect its Constitution, itself and its people and even abuses its power to persecute upright persons and suppress dissidents, requests Hong Kong people and the Legislative Council to render support for its enactment of a piece of legislation that requires its people to respect the nation, introduce an additional law to suppress people's freedom of expression, and establish a so-called legal basis for its authoritarian acts? How preposterous! I urge the regime and its various lackeys, including officials present today, to look at themselves in the mirror, see how the regime had appropriated, selected and altered March of the Volunteers, as well as what an end TIAN Han had come to, and get a clear understanding of the modern history of China. Then they will understand the meaning of "disgrace" and "demise".
Chairman, I so submit.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7751
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please speak.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, the committee of the whole Council is now considering the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). Basically, the Bill will definitely be passed after everyone has spoken since the pro-establishment camp will vote for the Bill as told by the Government. There is no room for opposition. The Bill will eventually be passed for sure, no matter how ambiguous the provisions are or how relatively heavy the penalties are, Chairman, because efficiency is of paramount importance.
Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux said we should be patriotic. Senior government officials said we should be patriotic. But then, why have they all sent their children abroad for studies? The children of Carrie LAM and senior government officials have all studied abroad. Why did they not go to Beijing, Shanghai or Hangzhou for studies? They have sent their children abroad, while the children of Hong Kong people have to stay in Hong Kong to receive national education and national anthem education. If they are so patriotic, why did their children not stay in Hong Kong or return to the great Motherland for studies? Chairman, studying abroad per se is not a problem but just a matter of choice. Yet, how many people do not have a choice? Hong Kong people have no choice. As Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux, they earn as high as $10,000 a day, that is, more than $300,000 a month. So, they have a choice, of course. But Hong Kong people have no choice. Even when it comes to the Bill which will be passed soon, Hong Kong people have no choice.
7752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
As I have always said, patriotism should come from people's hearts. We have to maintain critical thinking if we want the country to improve. We have to voice out if we want the country to progress and to become freer and stronger. The will of the people is crucial for the betterment of a place. Freedom should not be suppressed. We are very worried that people will not dare to speak out and be forced to declare patriotism out of fear of the penalties imposed by the Government. In scrutinizing the Bill, we are worried that it will become a warning for the suppression of freedom.
Mr HU Shi said, "To fight for your individual freedom is to fight for the freedom of your nation; to fight for your individual rights is to fight for the rights of your nation, for a free and equal society cannot be built by a group of servile subjects". It still rings true after so many years. We should have the freedom to express our opinions for the betterment of this place, without having to worry about being convicted for expression of opinions or crossing the red line inadvertently.
Chairman, generally speaking, there are two types of countries in the world: those which put the power of the authority first and those which put the power of the people first. Should the people or the authority come first? We can achieve efficiency simply by putting the authority first and passing everything direct without any discussion. However, we uphold universal values and aspire to freedom for the people. This is a step forward and the unstoppable tide of democracy.
However, in the face of the Bill today and the Hong Kong national security law, we are very worried that Hong Kong is backpedalling. Why must the Government frighten people with penalties? Why must it make people extra cautious on occasions where the national anthem is played and sung? People might be respectful anyway, but they will become cautious and fearful in the future. For this season, some Honourable colleagues proposed amendments with a view to easing off the impact. The amendments proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen mainly concern the phrases "the end of the period of 1 year after the date on which the offence is discovered by, or comes to the notice of, the Commissioner of Police" and "the end of the period of 2 years after the date on which the offence is committed", that is, the length of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7753 retrospective period upon the discovery of the offence. Generally speaking, the retrospective period upon summary conviction under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance is six months. Yet, the retrospective period under the Bill is one to two years―one year after the date on which the offence is discovered by, or comes to the notice of, the Commissioner of Police; and two years after the date on which the offence is committed. What should people do if they have to appear in court for alleged breaches of the Bill in future? The retrospective period is quite long.
In view of that, Members proposed amendments in the hope of mitigating the penalties under the Bill. Actually, Honourable colleagues did not only want to call for less severe penalties. It is preferable to not enact the legislation at all because respect should better come from people's hearts, which is not the case now. Penalties are being imposed now, which may result in inadvertent violation of the law by the public. In addition, there is the problem of unfair law enforcement. The social gathering restrictions, which are neither fish, flesh nor fowl, are a perfect example. How will the Bill be enforced in the future?
Chairman, if we have a robust system in place and the social atmosphere is not as tense, the introduction of legislation will probably not cause such upheavals. However, the Bill has to be passed right now for the sake of speed and efficiency even though there are many ambiguities in the provisions, from the date to the overly heavy penalties, which we cannot ignore. Offenders are only fined S$1,000 under the law in Singapore, while in Hong Kong, they will be sentenced to imprisonment. Come to think about it. Why people have to challenge the national anthem even at the risk of imprisonment? Have we ever thought about why people disrespected the national anthem? Can we come up with ways to make people respect the national anthem sincerely instead of intimidating them with penalties and extended prosecution period, and thus escalating their fear unnecessarily? The two-year retrospective period provided under the Bill will make people worry all the time. People may be put in fear for merely a post on Facebook or a voice message in WhatsApp groups. As a Member of the Legislative Council, we have to examine if the penalties are too heavy and whether they can be made more lenient.
7754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Chairman, as we all know, the Bill covers the inclusion of the nation anthem in school education. We have asked many times in the Bills Committee: What if students report their schoolmates for not singing the national anthem or teachers for not teaching the national anthem correctly? Will TIAN Han be mentioned? Many Honourable colleagues referred to TIAN Han. Will he be mentioned? Will there be a red line? Will people break the law or cross the red line inadvertently by mentioning him? A well-known example of crossing the red line recently is the case of Secretary Patrick NIP who has been transferred to another same-level position. He had no idea what was wrong about his remark on Article 22 of the Basic Law. How can teachers teach students by that time? If students ask who wrote the lyrics of the national anthem, they will be told it was TIAN Han. Then, what has happened to TIAN Han? Was he very patriotic? How will teachers teach this? We have no idea. Of course, I have to tell everyone here that TIAN Han was denounced as a bourgeois reactionary academic authority at the time. How miserable was his situation? The historical fact was that he had to drink his own urine. How miserable! Will teachers have to teach these facts? The answers change with time. Even though teachers are said to have freedom today, they are not protected if they have taught the facts according to history and then something happens.
As a matter of fact, the Bill and the Hong Kong national security law introduced at the same time are the causes of the restlessness among Hong Kong people. What will happen then? Who can we ask if anything happens? No one will understand the situation as responsible senior officials may have retired and moved overseas by then. Heaven help us all, for Hong Kong people cannot even express opinions on this law. The Bill implemented through Annex III of the Basic Law is slightly better, as it is a local legislation on which we can still hold discussions. On the contrary, there is simply no room for discussion in the case of the Hong Kong national security law.
Summarizing the views expressed just now, the Bill gives the impression that the retrospective period is endless, the penalties are too heavy and the provisions are ambiguous, so that people may be caught by the law inadvertently. People do not know when they will break the law, or cannot be certain that they have carried themselves with enough dignity when the national anthem is played on specific occasions. No one can say for sure. Things said today can be overruled tomorrow and things said this year can be changed next year. No one dares to say that the Bill has zero impact on freedom. Even pro-establishment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7755
Members will not say so, yet they insist on enacting the legislation in spite of the impacts.
It is already 2020, but we still have to be so pathetic as to ask the Government to stop enacting legislation to restrict our freedoms. No, there is no need to do so. Can we instead make people patriotic from the bottom of their heart? This is not what is happening in real life. We are resorting to penalties.
The scope of discussion at the Committee stage is very narrow. Honourable colleagues have tried their best to propose amendments. My amendments were ruled inadmissible by the President. The amendments to be dealt with now seek to mitigate the impact of the Bill where possible. As I have said, legislation can hardly cultivate love. It usually cultivates hate. The heavier the penalties, the deeper the hate. It runs counter to the purpose of promoting public respect for the national anthem.
In fact, the Government must think about this: the impacts of the legislation affecting Hong Kong freedom being implemented one after another are not visible immediately but are made imperceptibly. Changes will emerge imperceptibly. Perhaps in a few years, people will lament that these pieces of legislation were merely a start and Hong Kong has changed slowly upon their implementation. It will be too late when they want to turn things around eventually. We are discussing the national anthem today. Many people believe that they will be fine if they respect the national anthem and avoid secondary creation. However, it will be too late to think about this if the legislation affects them one day or if they are caught by the law.
As a matter of fact, in the history of mankind, people in any city and country will only enjoy more and more freedom. Democracy means everyone has a vote and does not have to worry about being persecuted for his opinion. Everyone may express their views freely. No regime in the history of mankind could go against the norm. Regimes and political parties which chose to turn themselves into an enemy of the people will eventually be condemned by history. This is indisputable.
This meeting will be adjourned at 8:00 pm today and resume at 9:00 am tomorrow. The Bill will be voted on sometime tomorrow. But after the voting, does this mean Hong Kong people will be truly convinced? Or will they just pretend to be convinced out of fear of the penalties? As I often say, the Bill is merely an appetizer compared with the Hong Kong national security law.
7756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
In fact, as elected Members, we can still voice out here what we think are public opinions as we are protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance in this chamber. But what if speaking out will be a crime one day? We can actually imagine countless possible scenarios that people may cross the red line and violate the law―not as many as the Hong Kong national security law, of course, but we are not discussing the Hong Kong national security law today―I cannot help but wonder why do we have to draw more and more red lines in this city and make people live in fear day in and day out? Can we think about it the other way around? If those in power are willing to think about it the other way around, perhaps things will change for the better. Perhaps there will be no need to impose any penalty and respect will come from people's hearts. If the country becomes a better country, people will respect it sincerely.
I so submit.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the national anthem, the national flag and the national emblem are all the symbol and sign of a country, which should be respected by each and every citizen.
The Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"), being a national law, has been added to Annex III of the Basic Law. Hong Kong has a constitutional duty to enact local legislation in respect of the provisions. After the reunification, the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance has also been implemented by virtue of the same legislative procedures. Therefore, I support the enactment of local legislation in respect of the National Anthem Law and oppose all the amendments.
Chairman, the Preamble of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") sets out the relevant background and legislative principles by adapting Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the National Anthem Law to provide a context for people to understand the background of enacting local legislation in respect of the National Anthem Law. It is not uncommon to enact legislation to ensure respect for the national anthem. There are relevant laws around the world that regulate the behaviour of the citizens. For instance, the national anthem law in the United States is included in the National Flag Act, which stipulates that all persons should face the national flag or face toward the music, stand solemnly and remove their headdress with their right hand over the heart when the national anthem is played and sung. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7757
President of the United States Donald TRUMP once danced with joy, pretending that he was the conductor when the national anthem was played on a public occasion. His act was criticized by the public who alleged that he did not respect the national anthem. Russia criminalized insult of the national anthem in 2016, so that people who intentionally distort the lyrics or score of the national anthem on public occasions and the Internet will be penalized. In 2003, France enacted legislation against acts of desecrating the national anthem and the national flag, which stipulates that people who disrespect the national anthem or the national flag of France publicly will be fined €7,500, and they may be jailed if the case is of a serious nature. There are also questions regarding the national flag and the national anthem in the citizenship and naturalization test of many countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Applicants are also required to understand the values of the country. There is also a session in the naturalization ceremony during which the national anthem is played and sung.
Speaking of respect for the national anthem, it is actually not confined to showing respect for the national anthem of our own country. In the opening ceremony and awards ceremony of some large-scale competitions, there are often occasions where national flags are raised and national anthems were played. It is because these ceremonies are held not only to congratulate the winners, but they are also a token of respect for the countries that they represent. Whenever a national anthem is played, the audience will not perform any evil acts of insulting a national anthem or a country out of respect. This is the most basic manner and attitude when dealing with people or doing things.
Hong Kong is a part of the Chinese territory, we must respect any symbol which serves as a sign of the country. This is the responsibility of every citizen. Regrettably, some people in Hong Kong still refuse to admit that they are Chinese up to the present. They have not only exhausted every means to discredit their own country, but also booed their own national anthem in international competitions. Such acts have brought disgrace to Hong Kong in the international community, whereas the Fédération Internationale de Football Association has imposed a fine on the Hong Kong Football Association several times. Against this background, it is fair and reasonable as well as perfectly justified for Hong Kong to enact legislation on the National Anthem Law.
Chairman, Part 2 of the Bill contains the definition of "national anthem" as well as the basic requirements of playing and singing the national anthem. 7758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Part 3 contains provisions relating to offences of misuse of the national anthem and insulting behaviour in relation to the national anthem. In my opinion, the content of the provisions has made it crystal clear that "respect" is the main spirit of the National Anthem Law. People will definitely not break the law as long as they act respectfully. Yet, if they adopt a hostile attitude and intend to insult the country in every way, they may have to face other penalties even if they do not breach the National Anthem Law. I believe that most Hong Kong people respect their own country, so the law virtually will not affect the daily life of the public.
The authorities kick-started the legislative process of the Bill in early 2018. After a year of discussion, the opposition camp has deliberately depicted the Bill as a draconian law imposing restrictions on the behaviour of the public, which is a tool to suppress the freedom of creativity. They have even raised a lot of hypothetical questions and scenarios. For instance, if the national anthem is played and sung when horse-racing fans are reading horse-racing news, what should they do? Should people stand solemnly upon hearing the national anthem when they are in the toilet or dining, or even when they are driving? Would teachers break the law for making a mistake when teaching the national anthem? They ask these questions merely for the purpose of creating panic, instead of being unclear about which behaviour is disrespectful to the national anthem.
The Bill provides that on occasions when the national anthem is publicly played and sung, the people present is required to stand up solemnly to show respect. The most important element of conviction is the intention to insult the national anthem, for example, committing acts of booing and insulting the national anthem during the flag-raising ceremony of a football match, or engaging in secondary creation by intentionally altering the lyrics or score of the national anthem, and parodying. In fact, even an ordinary person can judge by common sense that the aforesaid behaviours are sheer intentional insults to the national anthem, and one would only break the law for committing such behaviours. The conviction threshold under the Bill is actually very clear. Only when the insulting behaviour is committed publicly, deliberately and intentionally, and the law enforcement authorities need to collect evidence and provide sufficient evidence, it will then be possible for the case to be referred to the court for judgment. It is not a simple process for someone to be caught by the law. The Bill is enacted by local legislation and will be interpreted under common law in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7759 case there is any dispute, which is in line with the general procedures of enacting local legislation in Hong Kong. Members of the public thus need not be worried at all.
Chairman, clause 9 of the Bill requires the Secretary for Education to give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary education and in secondary education. Some people of the opposition camp hold that promoting and teaching the national anthem is equivalent to "brainwashing", such remarks are indeed extremely ridiculous. Hong Kong is a part of China, there is absolutely no problem to learn the national anthem, learn the history, understand our country and nation, and teach students to be patriotic, which is a normal education requirement, just as we would teach students to shoulder social responsibilities, respect teachers, and care the earth and their family. Certainly, every country has it shortcomings, but in any case, it is very normal in education to require teachers to teach students to understand their country, nation and history. We must also make objective analysis in the course of understanding our country. If we continue to allow any incorrect and one-sided interpretations of China's past, present and future to brew, it will definitely influence young people's views on our country and nation. As a result, they will misjudge the future development of Mainland China and will miss the opportunity to develop their career in the Mainland in the future.
Insofar as the oversight in national education is concerned, I think that the Education Bureau, schools and educational workers all have an unshirkable responsibility. Recently, the teacher of a primary school, when explaining the First Opium War between China and Britain which broke out in 1840, claimed that Britain initiated this war in order to eliminate opium, and said that Britain wished to send troops to attack China on the ground of banning opium. What was taught is obviously untrue and simply unacceptable.
In the history paper for the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination this year, a question required candidates to discuss if "Japan did more good than harm to China between 1900 and 1945". This exam question has caused a great uproar in society. The Chinese people suffered great pain during the Japanese invasion, such an exam question has seriously hurt the feelings and dignity of our people. In the end, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority dared to face reality and withdrew the exam question, which was a responsible move.
7760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
Some school teachers have made use of the Liberal Studies subject to mislead their students with teaching materials that are biased against the Government and Mainlanders. In order to follow teachers' ideology and achieve high scores, students will naturally choose to focus on criticisms when answering questions. Under such subtle influence, the seed of dissatisfaction with and distrust in the Government has gradually been sowed among the youth. This explains why young people participated in the anti-national education movement, the anti-express rail link movement and the occupying movement, and why they stood in the front line amidst the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, during which they waved the national flag of the country they thought they belonged to, and committed acts of insulting the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem of China.
Chairman, during the scrutiny of the Bill, the opposition camp has created a lot of obstacles in order to manifest themselves to the outside world. The Bills Committee alone has held 17 meetings and spent more than 50 hours on scrutiny. In addition to putting forward a lot of unnecessary questions in the Bills Committee, the opposition camp has also proposed a large number of amendments when the Bill is considered by the committee of the whole Council―I oppose all the relevant amendments―Why has such a natural behaviour as respecting the national anthem given rise to so many disturbances? In these few days during which the Legislative Council is deliberating on the provisions of the Bill, thousands of police officers are required to be deployed for fear that a large number of rioters would storm this Council. As we can see in some recent news reports, quite a number of these so-called rioters are teenagers. Why would they take to the streets to engage in the violent struggles which they deem reasonable without being afraid of breaking the law? Apart from the masterminds behind the scene who add fuel to the fire, in the final analysis, it is the outcome of the smears of those irresponsible media in Hong Kong over the years.
Chairman, 23 years have passed since the reunification of Hong Kong, quite a number of media with prejudice against the Mainland have never mentioned anything about the progress of the Mainland on various fronts and its achievement in poverty alleviation, as well as its contribution of assisting in aspects such as Hong Kong's economy, employment and people's livelihood over the years. Instead, what they have reported are lopsided on the negative news of the Mainland, whereas they have used the term "locusts" to label Mainland LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020 7761 travellers, and put the blame of the "parallel traders" problem on Mainlanders. In a bid to reinforce their justifications, these media have also selectively whitewashed the democratic and liberal systems of European and American countries, making people believe that everything will end up in success as long as there is freedom and democracy, and even administrative malpractices are forgivable. Therefore, we rarely see they report negative news of European and American countries from a critical angle, including the recent riots in the United States. European and American countries―especially the United States―have apparently made mistakes when dealing with the recent epidemic, including the riot this time, yet we seldom see the opposition camp publicly criticize them bitterly or demand sanctions against the United States or to close the door. On the contrary, if the Mainland has made a slight mistake in handling the epidemic, or if the Hong Kong Government has implemented some measures at a slightly later time, the opposition camp will immediately criticize them bitterly and bluntly. They have even demanded to close the border completely without paying regard to the actual situation. They have also ignored the life or death of the patients by encouraging health care personnel to go on strike in an attempt to force the Government to give in, so as to achieve their goal of undermining the authority of the Government. Facts have proven that it is a correct decision for the Government to close the border partially, which can help those Hong Kong people in need.
For these reasons, we should realize that the hostile attitude of a handful of Hong Kong people towards our country can hardly be reversed in the short term. I reckon that unlawful incidents in breach of "one country, two systems" will continue to take place. Since it is impossible to resolve the issue of showing disrespect for the national anthem through self-discipline, we can only resort to legislation to regulate such improper behaviours.
Chairman, the content of the Bill is fair, reasonable and legitimate, whereas it will not restrict the rights for members of the public to express their opinions freely. It is our hope that through legislation, members of the public can understand our country in a positive way and treat people, things and our country with the correct attitude.
Chairman, I so submit.
7762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 June 2020
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7:54 pm.