LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9295

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 3 May 2018

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

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 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, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9297

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

9298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

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 GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9299

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE JOSHUA LAW CHI-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR LIU CHUN-SAN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

DR CHOI YUK-LIN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

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

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

9300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee continues to consider the Appropriation Bill 2018.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2018

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, today I am going to propose Amendment No. 2 to cut half of the emoluments of Chief Executive Carrie LAM. Some people asked: why did I not propose to cut the full emoluments? There is indeed a hidden meaning. As we all know, Carrie LAM is a very calculating official, who has been hiding behind the scene in many controversial issues. She thought if she hid behind the scene and stayed out of people's view, she would be fine. For example, she said the disqualification of Agnes CHOW and the demonstration against the funding for the North East Territories New Development Project had nothing to do with her. And over the years, due to widespread public grievances arising from wrong policies or policies reliant on the Mainland, some members of the public took to the streets to demonstrate but were thus prosecuted by the Government and sent to jail. As regards their predicament, she also said it had nothing to do with her. Carrie LAM is truly very smart. But do Hongkongers see through it? Actually people are not foolish apparently.

The results of the latest opinion poll indicate that people gave a popularity rating of 53.9 to Carrie LAM, with 45% approval rate, 41% disapproval rate and a net popularity of +4%, making her one of the least popular among the several Chief Executives. Of course, people compare her to "689", but it seems rather inappropriate to draw a comparison between her and the worst Chief Executive. However, some people evaluate her together with the several former Chief Executives. In comparison, I find certain things quite intriguing.

The first Chief Executive was TUNG Chee-hwa. It is common knowledge that he resigned for reasons of leg pain. TUNG Chee-hwa had his strengths: he at least took responsibility and was prepared to assume responsibility. Even being battered due to the introduction of the "85 000" LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9301 housing policy, he did not hide but came forward to admit that the "85 000" policy was introduced by him. He also truly tended to and made strenuous efforts for the people who were yet to be allocated public rental housing ("PRH"). Next came "Greedy TSANG". It is well known that his housing policy tilted to real estate developers. And I do not wish to mention what happened next. He was followed by "689". People saw him say one thing but do quite another. Taking phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Wang Chau project as an example, he discussed with some "officials, businessmen, villagers and triads"―some bigwigs in the New Territories and then the three phases of the Wang Chau project became one phase. But it does not matter. The subject of our discussion today is Carrie LAM.

Carrie LAM is very smart. As everyone knows, in the Chief Executive Election in 2017, not many people wanted her to be elected. At the time, "Moustache TSANG" John TSANG had the highest popularity rating and Carrie LAM took office with low popularity. However, she did better than "689" because she obtained 777 votes―99 votes more. Some people said: "Forget it. With these extra 99 votes, let us wait and see how she will fare". Many Hongkongers wrongly harbour the fantasy that Carrie LAM is truly a "good fighter" and that she is capable of solving many problems for Hong Kong.

I will first discuss the housing policy or the land policy referred by Carrie LAM as the top priority. As everyone knows, the land or housing problem in Hong Kong did not come up just yesterday. At the time of having freshly assumed office, Carrie LAM repeated the remark of "689" and said that it was the top priority. Then what has she done? Before taking office, she had already mentioned public-private partnership. Indeed, at the very mention of public-private partnership, we all understand that it means the Government would give favours to developers. Carrie LAM was very shrewd that she did not do so herself but made two moves―first, she was all talk; second, she "killed with a borrowed knife" and assigned such a controversial land problem to Chairman Stanley WONG and the members of the Task Force on Land Supply.

I will not surmise that Stanley WONG and other members have a hidden agenda because I think many of them do not quite understand the land problem. They commented that there must be housing for people, in a way similar to what HO Hei-wah or members of the Federation of Public Housing Estates said: "yes, we do not have properties so it is necessary to find land; when there is land there will be properties." It is not true, nothing but a lie. Land has never ever been lacking in Hong Kong, but what is our land used for? The Government simply 9302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 has no planning. What has the Task Force on Land Supply or the Government stated? Hong Kong has 1 300 hectares of brownfields, 540 hectares of which are included in the new development areas, namely North Kwu Tung, Fanling and Hung Shui Kiu. As for the remaining some 700 hectares, the Government said those land sites are scattered all over the territory and too small to be noteworthy. If people believe it, they are running into bad luck.

In fact, such brownfield sites are not scattered all over the territory. According to our observations and studies conducted by some think tanks, including the Liber Research Community, in the remaining some 700 hectares of land, the size of the smallest site is 2 hectares and that of the largest is over 20 hectares. Such brownfield sites are absolutely not small as suggested by the Government. This is the first point.

Second, the Government has reserved a total of 3 300 hectares of land for the development of small houses. Moreover, the farmland hoarded by developers amounts to 1 000 hectares. Yet the Task Force on Land Supply told us that up to 2026, there will be a shortfall of 108 hectares of land for residential use, and up to 2046, the shortfall will be 200 hectares of land for residential use. One Fanling Golf Course already measures 171 hectares, which can meet the need for residential land up to 2026. How will there be any land problem? Brownfields, land for small houses …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the committee is conducting a debate on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018 …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am explaining why there is a need to cut the emoluments of Carrie LAM.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, when you elaborate the reasons for proposing a cut in the emoluments of the Chief Executive, you should not discuss in detail government policies. Please continue.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am saying why her emoluments should be cut and it is because she "killed with a borrowed knife" and was all talk. I wish to explain why I have such an opinion of Carrie LAM. She is awesome. Early this year, she and Secretary for Development Michael WONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9303 enjoyed an aerial view of Hong Kong in a helicopter ride. After inspecting land on board the helicopter, she had an inspiration and said public-private partnership should be introduced. Moreover, the Government should first build proper infrastructure so that developers can exchange land sites to pretend to be good guys. Did she think we are three-year-olds?

Let us refer to Carrie LAM's curriculum vitae. She held the positions of Chief Secretary for Administration, Secretary for Development for five years and Permanent Secretary for Development. She has been engaging herself in this area of work for over 10 years and still she had to gain inspiration during a helicopter ride? Is she so unrealistic to such "height"? She is so "highly" unrealistic that she has to fly in a helicopter to get inspired, otherwise the land problem of Hong Kong will remain unsolved. She is awesome indeed. Carrie LAM is aware that if she is in charge of finding solutions to the land problem, she would be accused of getting involved in collusion between the Government and the business sector. For this reason, she found a group of scapegoats, some of whom may be genuinely dim-witted while some others truly think that there is a shortage of land and housing in Hong Kong. Such people then shield her from criticisms and pressure. Afterwards, should suitable land sites be identified, she can say it is not her doing but as all parties agree, she is forced to engage in a "government-business collusion". It would even be better if no suitable land sites could be located because it would also have nothing to do with her. And the issue has aroused a lot of controversies, it is better left unsettled. Because there is no problem leaving it unsettled. Why? All along, all land and housing policies in Hong Kong have been heading in the direction of high land premium―which rises just higher and higher. Some people disagree and maintain that the Government often talks about solving the housing problem for citizens.

Let us look at the figures which tell no lies. In the latest quarter of land sale, land sites sold can provide 2 400 flats. Are you kidding me? The Government is indeed so mindful of our needs that in the latest land sale programme for this year, it is forecast that only 15 000 residential flats can be provided and in the new quarter of land sale, only 2 400 flats will be provided. We should be grateful for the royal grace. Those land sites are deserted and left to idle under the sun and yet the Government would not release them for sale all in one go but one by one like squeezing a tube of toothpaste.

People all know that the Government and real estate developers are allies of interests. However, at times the allies of interests may not be on speaking terms as sometimes real estate developers will think that the Government has not 9304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 taken it to the extreme, for they sometimes just want to sell more flats and make enough profits. Indeed, the biggest beneficiary is of course the Government, and Carrie LAM knows it full well. Given the persistent high land premium policy, revenue from land sale will be transferred to the Capital Works Reserve Fund for infrastructural development. Everyone knows that it is certainly a good fortune to engage in infrastructure construction. Yet the fortunate ones are not the people, but the many major construction companies, many of which are China-funded, sharing the pie.

Carrie LAM said 2018 is a year of joy because three infrastructure projects will see completion one after the other: Liantong Control Point, the Express Rail Link and the Hong Kong-Zhuha-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"). Ask Hongkongers if any of them want such "white elephant" projects? Who will benefit from them? Is the Government not happy that the prices of land in Hong Kong are not high enough and does it want to attract more rich men from the Mainland to Hong Kong to buy land? Is the Government not happy that Hong Kong is not crowded enough and does it want to attract more people to Hong Kong? Frankly, all of the "white elephant" infrastructure is not constructed for Hongkongers. Even more shopping malls will be built so that more businesses can be operated, ultimately the big real estate developers will benefit. Some people ask: why did the Government do so? Among all the votes "777" received, how many were cast by her bosses? People know it full well that they were cast by the major landlords, indigenous residents of the New Territories and the powers that be in Hong Kong. It will be awful to say it bluntly, so she did not do it herself.

We note that, to obtain 108 hectares of land, the entire Task Force on Land Supply has come up with many ways: mountain excavation and reclamation, eyeing the country parks, or even saying properties can be built atop the container terminals. Do people know who are such landlords? They are all real estate developers. What the Government should really do is to recover the Fanling Golf Course. I have already stated that just the golf course alone can fully satisfy the needs for residential land up to 2026. However, the Government is very good at making "calculations". It told people that, even using the 171-hectare golf course for housing construction, only some 10 000 flats can be supplied. The Government is truly awesome: the golf course is as big as several Tsuen Wans but only 17 000 flats can be built on it?

It is the most powerful thing the Government is capable of. Why do we sometimes think Carrie LAM is awesome? She manipulates procedures. Other people will never be as shrewd as Administrative Officers when it comes to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9305 manipulating procedures. They refer to procedures almost over everything. Is there available land? Let us first take the time to do some research for two years, then it can be procrastinated for two more years. Any controversy would be none of her business. It would be good that the plan will come to fruition but it is not her responsibility if otherwise. Such are the means by which she manipulates procedures. Moreover, on the recovery of the golf course for housing construction, she has just been manipulating the data on hand. Using a metaphor, she has made a "cake" but says it cannot be eaten because if it is eaten only some 10 000 flats can be provided. Carrie LAM is truly awesome. She is not schizophrenic. Hongkongers are schizophrenic because people who truly believe her logic will feel how much the Government cares about us―it genuinely loves its subjects like its own children. I have not yet mentioned the 2 700 hectares of military sites under the People's Liberation Army. As a matter of fact, as Carrie LAM is so awesome and trusted by the Central Authorities, the People's Liberation Army needs not hand over all of its sites but only half (1 300 hectares) to completely rid Hong Kong of any land problem.

It is really unnecessary for the People's Liberation Army to be stationed in Hong Kong. It takes less than an hour to arrive at Hong Kong taking the Express Rail from Shenzhen or travelling via HZMB. Moreover, Hong Kong has the powerful Police so there will not be any disturbance. If the Government is really to suppress opposition, machine guns, tanks and the like can quickly be shipped from the Mainland to Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been building highways and so tanks can arrive at Central in less than an hour. Therefore, will the Government please not lie to us. Even on the grounds of national security it does not make sense

Carrie LAM has failed the many "genuinely dim-witted supporters" who believe in her, as well as 100 000 or 200 000 subdivided unit dwellers and the nearly 300 000 people on the PRH Waiting List. She says one thing but does quite another. Not only so, she even has said one thing and then handed the knife of execution to someone else. You tell me how shrewd and cunning she is. However, to let her have a taste of her own potion, I do not propose a cut in her total emoluments because she said she has get certain things done. What has she done then?

Chairman, I have run out of speaking time. Later on, I will explain what she has done to exacerbate the downfall of Hong Kong. Due to insufficient speaking time, I now wrap up my speech in this session for the time being. With these remarks, I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

9306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, my amendment seeks to reduce head 22 by $1 million in respect of subhead 000, equivalent to the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") on euthanasia of animals.

In the next 10-odd minutes, I must go through the whole story right from the beginning. Why does AFCD of Hong Kong handle animals by way of inhumane euthanasia every year? Look at the figures. How many cats and dogs were euthanized last year? According to the figures I have on hand, 1 400 dogs and some 300 cats were euthanized last year, and the expenditure on disposing of them amounted to $1 million. How are they disposed of? They are euthanized by injections. I have been told by my friends what euthanasia is. An injection is performed in the muscle first and then in the heart. It just takes 10-odd seconds for an animal, heart still beating, to die. The problem is then considered solved because they no longer exist. Is this the best way to handle animals? Absolutely not, but it has been getting taxpayers' money to do this year after year.

Chairman, there is something even more ridiculous and ironic. I see that AFCD has, on the other hand, been providing subvention to animal welfare organizations since 2011, and in 2017-2018, the applications for subvention from 11 animal welfare organizations were approved to assist in animal rescue, and the amount of subvention was $600,000. While $1 million went to euthanasia, the subvention for such groups and organizations amounted to $600,000, meaning that the work on euthanasia was more than that done by such organizations. Chairman, it is by no means an easy task to get our amendments passed here, and yesterday I also said that we were striving for the impossible. We really cannot allow AFCD to repeat this year after year. Does it consider any other options? Yes, it does, because we know that AFCD will submit the latest "trap-neuter-vaccinate-return" programme next week. We will see how things fare by then. But the progress has been rather slow because the Policy Address 2010-2011 already stated that the programme would be piloted in three trial sites in Hong Kong, and today in 2018, it is still under trial and a report has to be submitted to the Legislative Council. I am also worried about whether the "trap-neuter-vaccinate-return" programme can be launched in all the 18 districts.

But then again, we are actually sitting and watching such a large number of animals have their lives taken by euthanasia every year under the AFCD rules which, in our view, are hardly transparent and aboveboard. As far as we know, under such requirements, animals will be kept for four days. Animals caught, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9307 irrespective of the reasons for abandonment, will be sent to an Animal Management Centre ("AMC") of AFCD and temporarily kept for four days, and if they are not claimed after four days, they may be subject to the euthanasia procedure. In their world, they do not know what is going on in those four days. Do we think AFCD of Hong Kong is doing a great job in promoting the adoption service? Certainly not, and AMCs have attracted widespread criticisms.

To digress a bit, let us talk about the outdated Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421). One of the points is that it gave rise to the incident of the cat "Porsche", dubbed "store manager", last year. At that time, the cat manager was alleged to have scratched the son of a woman from the Mainland. AFCD then invoked the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) to arrest it, thereby revealing that the Ordinance was utterly outdated. Why is it said to be outdated? We must note that while the last rabies case occurred in the 1980s, this Ordinance is still in effect, which provides that the subject animal shall be put in quarantine. Hence, it was caught outright. What drew criticisms at that time was that the cat "Porsche" was sent to an AMC, one of the places where lots of animals have had their lives taken every year. Yet we have no idea what has happened there as it is operating in the dark with no transparency. It is wrong to think that the incident of the cat "Porsche" is just a trivial matter. Back then, AFCD's groundless arrest was halted thanks to the 80 000 signatures from enthusiastic members of the public collected in a petition. In the end, it was released and returned to the pharmacy without being placed under arrest. The ridiculous part is how the cat responded when it was told by the AFCD team that it was under arrest. It just responded with a meow. How can we expect a cat to know what is going on in the human world? This shows that the Ordinance is outdated.

Outdated legislation has also given rise to another issue. The prevailing issue may be addressed by euthanasia. But Chairman, various pieces of animal-related legislation are actually scattered among 10-odd ordinances that relate to animals in Hong Kong. Enacted in 1935, the best known Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) was adapted from the Protection of Animals Act 1911 of the United Kingdom. How many years has it been in place? Eighty years. While amendments were made to it in 2006, they just raised the penalties without incorporating the most important duty of care. At present, which ordinances have clearly provided for the duty of care? Again, it is the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421), which provides that anyone, without a reasonable excuse, abandons an animal, shall be subject to criminal liability. Nevertheless, the Rabies Ordinance was enacted not for the sake of the lives of animals, but because of the potential threat of a rabies outbreak posed by possible 9308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 congregation of abandoned animals as it might spread germs. This is simply ironic. In a word, I noted that none of the many animal-related legislation currently scattered among various ordinances in Hong Kong centres around the lives of animals.

We call for legislative amendments, and as we all know, an earlier petition has collected 50 000 signatures and members of the public have voluntarily taken to the streets one after another, with the common aim of working out an improved system for animals incapable of speaking the human tongue to get themselves heard. How many pieces of existing legislation in Hong Kong are seriously outdated? I have earlier mentioned that Cap. 169 is seriously outdated, so is Cap. 421. Even the Road Traffic Ordinance is also outdated because, in the absence of criminal liability, drivers are not required to stop on encountering any cat or dog. But they shall stop on encountering any pig, cattle, sheep or goat. Why? Because the then legislative intent was to treat those animals as the property of men which could make money for them, and a report had to be made if such animals were hit, but cats and dogs fell outside the scope of protection. Such background has given us a better understanding of the way the departments handle animal issues in Hong Kong. When animals are sent to an AMC, the most straightforward approach is to kill those left unclaimed after four days, thereby solving the problem. Do we consider it the best approach?

Every time I speak on animals, I will cite a famous quote of Mr Mahatma GANDHI that goes: "The greatness of a city can be judged by the way its animals are treated". The fact before us has shown that we are back to the most primitive life, in a really serious lag. Every year, we provide AFCD with a funding of $1 million to kill animals. But when we asked for figures, we could come to know about the number of abandoned animals euthanized only after much pressing. As to the number of animals caught on the streets, we have no way to know as it is by no means transparent. Even if the figures are available in a transparent manner, so what? The prevailing public opinion is clear. Is it time we made changes to such outdated and pedantic policies? The first step of such changes is to stop the funding for AFCD, so that it will not have an easy time. Some may say this is happening year after year, Mr KWONG. This is not the first year euthanasia is administered. Right, this is not the first year euthanasia is administered, but starting this year, we should stop it and cease to address the problem in this direction. Can we gradually reduce such practice? And can we consider other options?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9309

On the other hand, in this Budget, there is a passage on the renovation works of vacant school premises. This seems to be getting far off the subject, but in fact, it should be good if part of the $1 billion set aside for the renovation works of vacant school premises can be allocated to animal rescue organizations. The Government may provide to those organizations eager to rescue cats and dogs premises farther away from residential areas. They have no way to rescue animals due to a lack of premises, and they have also found themselves engaged in street wrestles with frontline AFCD officers. I do not know how AFCD officers think. Perhaps some of them also think that they are killing too many cats and dogs. In fact, we can ask those frontline officers who have to administer euthanasia every day. Will they feel good? Definitely not. One thousand and four hundred dogs and some 300 cats are euthanized, and there are some 300 days in a year. It is not known how many cats and dogs they have to kill on a daily basis. Will they feel good? But they are forced to do so under the system. Why is there such a system? Because of government funding, and every year, they have to get this sum of $1 million from the Budget little by little leaving no trace. Would it not be better if the $1 million were spent on something else? What can we do? We always ask whether we may introduce the message of protecting the lives of animals in textbooks to teach children from an early age and strive to do well in community education and animal-friendly policies.

The way how money is used and how it is put to good use is important. Perhaps the Department is used to such well-established practice, which may have been put in place for a few decades. But no matter what, it is the very reason I have proposed this amendment today. My amendment is straightforward, seeking to deduct this sum of $1 million so as to stop euthanasia of cats and dogs by the Department because it is actually by no means humane. Moreover, instead of merely cutting the budget estimate, I wish to get a point across, that the animal-related legislation in Hong Kong is clearly very much outdated.

I have mentioned the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) earlier, and over the past period, we have read news reports about cruel killing of animals every couple of days, the magnitude of which has been growing. Members may be aware of an earlier case in which 10 dogs were found dead at Wah Ming Estate, and the suspect is still at large. While the maximum penalty under the Ordinance has currently been raised to three years of imprisonment and a fine of $200,000, does it mean much? According to the sentencing tariffs of the Court, in general, the maximum penalty will not be 9310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 meted out. Even if the case falls into the worst category, the penalty will just be one year or so behind bars. The prisoner will be released a year later. I certainly hope that they will not relapse. But is such deterrence sufficient? Can the duty of care be consolidated into a new ordinance? For example, we may single out those animal-related provisions scattered around various ordinances and consolidate them into a new law on animal protection, which may cover the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, the Rabies Ordinance, the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance or anything else, and raise the corresponding penalties to meet changing needs. Instead of condoning those who, hidden in the dark in society, take pleasure in bullying cats and dogs, we must punish them. Meanwhile, the Government should also enhance public education, directly introducing the message into textbooks, which will be in any way better than teaching them whether Hong Kong is located to the south of China. We should teach good things, such as teaching children to protect the lives of animals from an early age because they will also feel pain. It is good to let children know we should not harm animals even if we may not like them. Nevertheless, I do not see any concrete views of the Government on the resources that go to this area every year.

Early this year, our Chief Executive Carrie LAM checked in on Facebook. She admitted that she was less concerned about animal rights in the past, and said she would pay more attention to it in the future. Fifty thousand people signed a petition to the Chief Executive earlier calling for legislative amendments to protect animals. In response, Ms Carrie LAM said thrice that it was good to protect animals. We know that changes have taken place afterwards. The number of police districts with a dedicated team to handle animal cases has been expanded from 13 to 22 across the territory. But let me tell you all that this is not enough because while on the one hand, the Police step up their effort in investigating animal cases and tracking down suspects, on the other, our AFCD, due to institutional problems, continues to kill animals to the extent that it has become emotionless. I understand that it is certainly easy for us to speak here, asking them to kill no more and look for other ways. Feeling wronged, AFCD may say that this is not true. They also have a hard time killing animals. If so, they should look for other ways and try to explore other options, such as identifying sites or anything else. One option is the vacant school premises mentioned earlier. It may also consider assisting community animal organizations so as to open the channel of communication, instead of doing nothing despite seeing the rising figures year on year. Certainly, I understand that the origin of the problem is abandonment. Abandonment is one of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9311 origins, and another one is those loyal dogs guarding construction sites all becoming stray dogs upon the completion of works. Hence, we should tackle the issue at source.

Chairman, I am a social worker. There is a must-teach topic in the social work programme that we have studied. One of the stories goes like this: Once upon a time, there was a village where a dead body would fall off a waterfall at regular time intervals every day. When the ground was full of dead bodies, the villagers would then dispose of them. While things went on and on, no one had ever taken the trouble to check the source to see why people would fall to death from the waterfall every day. From this story, we learn that we must identify the origin instead of being preoccupied with handling the dead bodies downstream without checking the upstream to see where the dead bodies are from. We should come up with ways to protect them, and above all, we should come up with ways to spare them such deaths.

Hence, concerning the significance of this amendment, Chairman, while the deduction of this sum of $1 million actually means little to the Budget, I earnestly hope to launch this discussion taking the opportunity presented at these crucial moments. Is AFCD's euthanasia of animals humane? Is there any other way out, and is the other way out really out of reach? I think not.

Chairman, allow me to make a brief summary. First, enhanced transparency is needed for the aforesaid AMCs to connect more with the public for easier adoption because it has long been subject to condemnation and criticisms, and animal organizations attempting to rescue animals at the centres also have no idea how they may gain access. In a word, they have to face numerous hurdles. Second, the criminal liability of carers for animal abandonment is currently stipulated in the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421). Will the penalties be increased? Over the past decade, there have only been less than 10 cases of keepers abandoning their animals being prosecuted under the Rabies Ordinance for failure to meet the duty of care. Furthermore, now 12 years have flown by since the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) in 2006. What is its legislative intent? Are the laws in Hong Kong enacted in the interest of animals? We must take their lives into our consideration. In seeking to deduct this sum of $1 million today, I wish to get across the point that AFCD will definitely be able to find an alternative to euthanasia. Killing all the animals is not the answer. By the same token, killing the person who questions does not mean that the question no longer exists.

Chairman, I so submit. 9312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, according to the debate arrangement, this debate session covers all heads with amendments. In past years, the President would divide the debate into sessions so as to allow Members to have more focused discussions on the expenditures of different areas in separate sessions. This year, the President, on the one hand, said that it was impossible for the Council to debate each and every amendment proposed by Members meaningfully while on the other, made a debate arrangement that will make the discussion lose its focus. Members have to jump from discussing power abuse by the Police to land development issues. Any slightly sensible member of the public will know who is the culprit of the lack of focus of the discussion.

In this session, I wish to focus my discussion on education. Carrie LAM vigorously promoted the new resources for education upon her assumption of office, which did give people the impression that she was determined to solve the education problems in Hong Kong. However, the Budget has clearly shown that the Government is still seriously in lack of a vision in this regard. In fact, the education system in Hong Kong …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, I remind you that committee is now debating the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018, not discussing government policies.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am about to talk about Amendment No. 57.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members should speak on the heads involved in the amendments and explain whether they support or oppose the reductions, rather than discussing the overall policy. Mr AU, please continue.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I am speaking on a number of amendments in respect of education, to which I have also proposed amendments.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9313

I have proposed six amendments in respect of primary and secondary education expenditures (head 156) involving curriculum development, sister schools and Chinese history education. I must point out that these amendments touch on different aspects of education and the estimated expenditures concern various policy agenda. As the President used "one amendment to one subhead" as an excuse to force Members to reduce the number of amendments, Members cannot hold meaningful discussions on various aspects of education. I believe the Deputy Chairman also holds a strong view about that.

In respect of subhead 000, only one of my proposed amendments was approved eventually, and that is, "to deduct the amount equivalent to the estimated expenditure of the Curriculum Development Institute of the Education Bureau in 2018-2019". Is this a particularly good reflection of the education problems in Hong Kong? No, it is not. Is this issue a concern to particularly more Members? Neither. So what was the reason for approving this amendment? It was because this amendment involves the largest amount. This is precisely what I said earlier, that the President said Members' debate meaningless on the one hand, while haphazardly drew the line and rejected Members' amendments on the other, making a proper debate in the Council impossible.

Deputy Chairman, next, I will talk about Amendment No. 54 in respect of the Curriculum Development Institute. My proposal to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Curriculum Development Institute stemmed from the controversy over the revisions to textbooks. Some well-established descriptions in history textbooks of sensitive historical events, such as the transfer of sovereignty, were suddenly requested to revise. The Government refused to openly explain the revision criteria or provide a list of textbook reviewers. Instead, it tried to twist the timeline with some ambiguous historical comments, such as "Hong Kong is in the south of China" which I believe everyone has heard of.

During the Sino-British negotiations, although the positions of both parties on Hong Kong's sovereignty were very different, local history education was not affected. We have always had a well-established account in regard to the transfer of sovereignty, the influx of refugees from the Mainland, etc. which fairly presents the historical development. By requesting publishers to revise the wording, the Education Bureau is now replacing "historical correctness" with "political correctness" and sparking off ideological struggles. This political intervention in history will do no good to students.

9314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

I have also noticed that the Education Bureau is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the curriculum design of Liberal Studies. There have been discussions in society on Liberal Studies. Some Members of the pro-establishment camp even consider Liberal Studies the origin of young student's radical behaviour, and that the subject "brainwashes" and overly focuses on political issues. According to the news report on Now TV last night, Beijing regards Liberal Studies as one of the causes of the Occupation Movement, as pointed out by Members of the pro-establishment camp. Students have learnt about the development and system of Hong Kong politics through Liberal Studies, thus giving rise to their dissatisfaction with society.

Deputy Chairman, I have also studied Liberal Studies. Back then, the "3-3-4" academic system had not yet been adopted and students took the Advanced Level Examination. I did better in Chinese History than in Liberal Studies, attaining an A in the former and a B in the latter. I would like to point out that, thanks to Liberal Studies, I have learnt a lot about the actual situation in China. I have learnt what do "three represents" and "four cardinal principles" mean. Through Liberal Studies, I have learnt that the five starred red flag of China represents the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the patriotic capitalists, but not scholar-gentry, peasants, artisans and merchants, as mentioned by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. The Liberal Studies subject has always been criticized by academics for only laying out different arguments in society and blaming both sides without discrimination on every issue. But in fact, students will eventually form their own viewpoints. If diverse views are not allowed in society, Beijing's intention of turning Hong Kong into an autocracy filled only with political propaganda of the Communist Party and eliminating the pursuit of truth is thus crystal clear.

The political system in Hong Kong is unfair in that the representatives of the majority become the minority in the legislature. What is the problem with students learning this well-known fact through Liberal Studies? Faced with people's grievances and students' heart-felt queries about the political system, the Government not only did not improve this unfair political system and realize a truly democratic election, it went so far as to attribute the problems to education which is an utter distortion. If Liberal Studies were eliminated and marginalized because of this, education in Hong Kong would completely be made to serve politics.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9315

One of the original intentions of introducing Liberal Studies is to enable students to develop critical thinking and care for society. The education system in Hong Kong has always been criticized for being a spoon-feeding one, putting too much emphasis on rote learning. The introduction of Liberal Studies sought to improve the situation and provide secondary students with more than knowledge by rote learning. Eliminating the Liberal Studies subject is tantamount to getting the eggs by killing the hen. A mandatory subject for examination is eliminated, but the excessive learning pressure exerted on students is not relieved. On the contrary, the elimination will reduce students' exposure to current affairs, and thus students will focus even more on rote learning. The loss will outweigh the gain at the end.

Deputy Chairman, I have proposed Amendment No. 54 in respect of the Curriculum Development Institute because the latter should give more professional views on the curriculum so as to give students a better learning experience, instead of turning the curriculum reform and development into a political tool of the Government or Beijing.

Next, I would like to talk about Amendment No. 57 which seeks to "deduct the amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the 'Pilot Scheme on Promoting Interflows between Sister Schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland' in primary and secondary schools of the Education Bureau in 2018-2019". Apart from curriculum development, there are other serious problems with education in Hong Kong, one of which is that our education is turning completely to the North. Whether national education, using Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject, sister schools scheme or the large number of exchange programmes with the Mainland organized by the Home Affairs Bureau, the Government is pushing students northward so as to integrate with the culture and values in the Mainland. I think basically no one will oppose the incorporation of learning about the country into the education system, but we must be keenly alert when a large number of officials from the Central Government and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong claimed one after another that education is a matter of sovereignty and national security. Did they want to interfere with education which is clearly within Hong Kong's autonomy?

Deputy Chairman, I believe nobody will object to the idea that students should reach out more, but reaching out does not mean only going northward. Report No. 70 of the Director of Audit released a few weeks ago criticized the approval procedure of the exchange programmes organized by the Home Affairs 9316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Bureau for being so careless as if dumping money into the sea. This is the result of the Government's education and youth policies blindly turning northward and lacking a vetting process. We can see that the Budget this year not only fails to reflect on this issue, but continues instead to increase the relevant funding. It has not reviewed whether money was properly spent before increasing the resources for pushing students and young people onto a northward trail.

Deputy Chairman, when I proposed this amendment, I was well aware that, even if passed in the Council, it will make next to no impact on the Government as it has planned to allocate $170 million each year to regularizing the sister schools scheme and the pilot scheme involved in this amendment will come to an end. Initially, I proposed this amendment in the hope of cutting the expenditure of the pilot scheme as well as the expenditure of the regularized scheme so as to give schools a real choice. If sister schools can really help students engage in better exchanges with Mainland students, I believe many schools will still be prepared to so do without any government subsidy. However, the reality is that many schools participated in the scheme purely for the funding because the government subsidy can help relieve the manpower shortage in schools. Without this subsidy, will the sister schools scheme really achieve good education results? I could not see its results yet. Will there be so many schools participating? I think the question warrants some pondering.

Unfortunately, this is the strategy adopted by the Government in implementing its education policy. First, the Government proposes controversial and political education projects. When there is opposition in society, the Government uses principals and teachers as a shield because there is the school-based determination policy which forces schools to make their own decisions and let principals and teachers be "sandwiched" in between. The same approach was used for all initiatives: national education, using Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject, one social worker for each school, Basic Competency Assessments, to name but a few. Carrie LAM often advocated "Led by Professionals" and "Listening to Views Directly", but is she actually "exonerating herself in the name of professionals" and "shirking her responsibilities directly"?

Deputy Chairman, the school-based determination policy is not something I made out of thin air. The Government often says self-determination is out of question, but school-based determination is not the case. School-based determination should be implemented and I support it. However, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9317

Government is not taking forward genuine self-determination but an entirely fake one. The recurrent subsidies granted to schools are lagging far behind their actual needs. As a result, schools must rely on one-off grants, additional allowances and other subsidies in order to hire sufficient teaching staff. What the Government claims to be school-based determination now is actually withdrawing resources on the one hand, while requesting schools to follow its policies in order to receive grants on the other. Those who do not follow its policies will not receive any grants. Deputy Chairman, this is not self-determination but extortion. This is using the carrot and the stick to make schools follow its policies.

I believe the Deputy Chairman will also agree that the recurrent resources invested in education by the Government are insufficient as she has also spoken on this issue before. In particular, the serious shortage of permanent teachers in primary and secondary schools has been a long-standing problem. Carrie LAM has increased the recurrent provision for education and increased the teacher-to-class ratio for primary and secondary schools by 0.1 immediately upon her assumption of office. What seemed a significant increase in resources was actually a band-aid on the education system with cuts and bruises. If the Government invested more sources to further improve the teacher-to-class ratio in the Budget this year, I would call it committed and determined to improve education. Unfortunately, the additional resources in the Budget this year are not allocated to primary and secondary schools direct and there are no concrete policies as support. Just like the new resources for education advocated by Carrie LAM last year, without the support of other policies, it is nothing but a mere public relations show upon Carrie LAM's assumption of office.

Deputy Chairman, the education issues that I talked about today are actualy just the tip of the iceberg. There are more education issues at the tertiary level and other issues with the Budget that I wish to discuss in detail in my next speech. I hope I will have the time to do so later on.

I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in my first speech of this session, I will focus on discussing resolving that head 137 be reduced by $335,100 in respect of subhead 000 to reduce an amount approximately equivalent to one-month salary of the Secretary for the Environment.

9318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

I hope to focus on discussing issues related to the Environment Bureau in this speech but, unfortunately, both the Secretary for the Environment and the Under Secretary for the Environment are absent. I hope they will hear my speech, too. Why do I propose slashing the Secretary's salary? Actually, I merely wish to put forward this proposal for Members' discussion as environmental issues in Hong Kong are often regarded as secondary. Compared to the assistance offered to us by the Development Bureau and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau in seeking business opportunities, research and development of robots, artificial intelligence, and so on, it appears that environmental issues will be dealt with only when there is nothing better to do.

Deputy Chairman, this is not the case, actually. Environmental issues are no longer simply confined to bringing our own bags, changing our living habit, and so on, as were discussed two or three decades ago. They have now become big matters of life and death.

Yesterday I read a media report, saying Tai O might become Hong Kong's first climate-induced refugee village as it was confronted with a major flood when Hong Kong was hit by a typhoon last year. Instead of encountering a major storm probably once every five decades in the past, Tai O villagers have been hit by a major storm once every decade in recent years. In the future, will they be hit by a storm once every year or even more frequently? Besides extending the wooden panels to prevent electrical appliances from being damaged by the flood easily, they should consider whether all people in the village should evacuate.

When the climate refugee problem begins to surface in Hong Kong, you can imagine the situation should you adopt a wider perspective. For instance, many Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp are concerned about the "bogus refugee" problem. From a broader perspective, Members can actually appreciate the plight of South Asia. Why do many people leave their hometowns and go to China, Hong Kong and even other places to make a living though they are not political refugees? It is because the climate problem has made it impossible for them to remain in their own countries or homes. According to the present classification, they are certainly not regarded as being subjected to political persecution. So, Members can pretend to be blind to them. In reality, however, they are facing a problem that none of us can evade.

Under the framework of the Hong Kong Government, what will the Development Bureau, for instance, say in the face of such problems as global climate change and rapid deterioration of the environment? It will simply deal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9319 with these problems from a technical angle. For instance, if the sea level is expected to rise in the future, then we will raise the level of reclaimed land, whereas the Drainage Services Department will make its sewers larger. As far as I know, such efforts are being made.

What will the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau say then? It will ask: Are there any new business opportunities amid this climate change crisis? The issuance of green bonds proposed in the Policy Address and the Budget this year is a case in point. This time around, the authorities are seeking to make profits out of green bonds, not the dead. Given that it is fashionable to talk about "going green", the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is going to launch green bonds. The issuance of green bonds has actually nothing to do with the environment, environmental protection or addressing problems. Instead, abundant capital is now available and it must be injected into certain places. For some people, the injection of capital into green bonds sounds quite good. Actually, only the Environment Bureau in the Government is really addressing the issue in a positive manner, rather than choosing to evade it, resorting to window-dressing or playing gimmicks. Nevertheless, is the Environment Bureau helping us or leading Hong Kong society to address these environmental problems in a positive manner? Deputy Chairman, I do not think so, either.

Deputy Chairman, we have been told by the Environment Bureau year after year that it has done a lot. For instance, had Members attended the previous discussions held by the Finance Committee this year, they would have known that the opening speech delivered by the Secretary for the Environment was the longest, containing 23 paragraphs. It was so long that some colleagues even stopped him from finishing reading it. Apparently, he had made a lot of effort in various areas. However, Members will find that he tends to avoid disputes in dealing with everything, including addressing environmental protection issues in a "Buddha-like" manner. For instance, he appealed to Hong Kong people to reduce emissions given the signing of the Paris Agreement, and he also unveiled an emissions reduction blueprint. Nevertheless, I believe the public in general and even many colleagues may be unawares. Judging from the blueprint, although the Government appears to be very ambitious, setting a carbon intensity target of 65%, which is equivalent to 20% to 30% absolute reduction, why am I not required to do anything? Apparently, there is no need for the ordinary public to make any change. Except for the Secretary who can compete with LAM Chiu-ying in minimizing electricity consumption―because he will really take concrete actions―the general public is simply not required to do anything. 9320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Why? According to his emissions blueprint, however, the Government is merely required to negotiate with the two power companies. In other words, the power companies should just switch to natural gas and stop buying more nuclear power. This explains why the general public is not required to do anything.

Although renewable energy is a heated topic around the world, our Government says that our potential ratio is expected to be around 3% or 4% by 2030. While renewable energy is forecast to account for 80% of energy in other places, we are still talking about switching to natural gas or purchasing more nuclear power.

Secondly, the Secretary for the Environment has been advocating in his working report the imposition of a ban on ivory trade. Deputy Chairman, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong should also be able to vote in favour of imposing such a ban, belated for more than two decades. Can the ban still be regarded as an achievement? Actually, the much-hyped ban should have been imposed a long time ago. There followed many major environmental protection infrastructure projects, such as a large treatment plant for waste electrical and electronic equipment, food waste recycling facilities and incinerators. Actually, progress will be made only when major consortia consider that these facilities can bring business opportunities. The Government will then award them with exorbitant tender prices. A news report has recently disclosed that inflation was not included in the operating cost of the incinerator, or so-called integrated waste management facilities. As a result, though the Legislative Council of the last term said that only $6 billion or so would be required, more than $10 billion is required actually. Although this payment has not yet been calculated clearly, the Government has already identified a major consortium to deal with all refuse and recycling problems. Apparently, the public is not required to do anything as the Government is very rich.

Some frequently mentioned initiatives, such as the development of Community Green Stations, are obviously window-dressing gestures. In order to implement the initiative, the Government has to fight for land with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and award the lot so acquired to non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"), so that the latter can carry out mild recycling and probably recycle several hundred kilograms of plastics after a couple of months. The Government is actually providing some sites for NGOs to do some window-dressing work or putting up a show, to be followed by the submission of a lengthy report. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9321

Deputy Chairman, Members listening to my speech will probably find that we should do more than slashing one-month salary of the "Buddha-like" Secretary for the Environment. Judging from what he has done, and upon further compression, we might even slash months of salary of his. If the problems facing the Environment Bureau are crucial to the entire society, region and world, what can we do to prevent the Government from behaving in such a "detached" manner? I will make several points from the air-sea-land perspective. I hope the Secretary can seize the opportunity as the Government of the current term still has a couple of years' time … his "Buddha-like" attitude is evident to all. He is doing something; no one says he is loafing. But the Environment Bureau must not avoid disputes. The Chief Executive often advises us to rise to the challenges ahead and not to avoid disputes. The Environment Bureau is supposed to rise to the disputes. What disputes am I referring to? Deputy Chairman, let me express my view from the air-sea-land perspective.

Regarding the disputes on the seas, our seas are actually filled with large quantities of marine waste, much of which is attributed to illegal dumping in the Pearl River Delta Region. This year should originally be the reproductive year of green turtles, but they are nowhere to be found in Sham Wan, Lamma. On the contrary, dead green turtles are seen in many places. In the face of this problem, will the Secretary for the Environment please make his voice heard. Even the ivory problem has been resolved. Will he please also resolve the green turtles and marine pollution problems.

There are even more disputes when it comes to land as the Environment Bureau must dare confront those consortia with vested interests in land, be they country squires or landlords in the New Territories or real estate developers. The Waste Disposal Ordinance has now become obsolete, for real estate developers and country squires can turn their own land into private landfills. Why did the Government not do anything about the occurrence of repeated fires in Nam Sang Wai? Similarly, owing to the fact that the land belongs to a major real estate developer, the Government dared not apply the same method as well as precedents used to deal with Long Valley and Sha Lo Tung. More than 1 000 hectares of the 4 000-hectare remaining farmland in Hong Kong are now hoarded by real estate developers, and country parks are similarly under their watchful eyes. However, this Secretary for the Environment has never uttered a word. He will only wait for the Development Bureau to finish its work and see if there is any loophole waiting to be plugged and do something that will not 9322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 attract criticisms. The Secretary must address this problem. Despite the hoarding of large expanses of land by real estate developers and further damage caused, the Secretary did not utter a sound.

During the Labour Day holiday that has just passed, many people could see a large number of Mainland tourists paying $250 to $300 to join tours and setting up tents on beaches in our country parks. Not only were these tourists unregulated, but they had also produced heaps of rubbish. At these times, the public would expect the Secretary for the Environment not to avoid disputes and not to remain silent for fear of Beijing and political disputes. We expect him to make his voice heard. Everyone should respect our countryside. We cannot say that tourists are consumers and so they should be allowed to freely litter, cause damage and destroy river courses. The Secretary should make his voice heard.

Lastly, air pollution. I wonder if the place where the Secretary lives is for the well-off class and has fresher air. Actually, air pollution has long been a problem for many grass-roots people. The standard in Hong Kong has all along been lagging behind that of the World Health Organization, and air pollution is to blame for the premature deaths of more than 1 000 people per annum in Hong Kong. This is a problem facing grass-roots people, Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman, when it comes to electric vehicles, we are still debating whether a tax rebate should be offered to private vehicle owners after much dispute. Private vehicles are actually not the culprit for roadside air pollution. To promote the use of electric vehicles, the Government should begin with public transport by promoting cycling. Will the Secretary for the Environment please address these disputes in the year to come and effectively perform his gate-keeping role.

I so submit.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): With respect to Amendment No. 67 that seeks to reduce the sum for head 194 in respect of subhead 223, I explain my justification for reducing the estimated expenditure of the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") on purchasing potable water from Guangdong Province in 2018.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9323

I have originally proposed 10 amendments in total to the Budget, involving a number of concrete policy areas. Nevertheless, in a ruling made last Friday, the President pointed out that the principle of allowing only one Committee stage amendment ("CSA") to be proposed for one subhead had to be adopted for all Members of the Legislative Council rather than individual Members. In other words, all Legislative Council Members can propose only one CSA to the expenses involving a government department. Although the President claims that the number of admissible CSAs represents up to 28% of the CSAs submitted and is higher than the numbers of CSAs admitted in 2015, 2016 and 2017, Deputy Chairman, only 20% of the CSAs proposed by me were admitted, which is lower than 28%, the average ratio mentioned by the President. The President is actually moving the goalposts, applying the principle of allowing only one CSA to be proposed for one subhead in dealing with the CSAs proposed by Members.

The eight inadmissible CSAs proposed by me involved seven different government departments with no repetition. Neither did they overlap with the 65 CSAs admitted by the President. I consider the principle adopted by the President problematic. Not only will it drastically reduce Members' right to propose amendments, but it will also indirectly undermine the Legislative Council's power to monitor government expenditure, thereby setting a very bad precedent. Actually, none of the CSAs proposed by me to, for instance, reduce the annual expenditure incurred by the Transport and Housing Bureau on promoting the co-location of clearance for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and reduce the annual estimated expenditure on taking forward the inshore reclamation project in Ma Liu Shui and the preparatory work for the study, overlaps with the CSAs proposed by other Members. I find it very regrettable indeed. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to criticize the President's way of handling the CSAs.

Deputy Chairman, I will now explain my justification for reducing WSD's estimated expenditure on purchasing potable water from Guangdong Province in 2018. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") has since 2006 adopted the "package deal lump sum" payment model in purchasing Dongjiang water from the Mainland. Despite calls for reform over the years, the Government will, according to the latest agreement signed for the supply of Dongjiang water, continue to spend more than $14.4 billion, 6.9% higher than the total payment of more than $13.4 billion made in the previous agreement, on the purchase of potable water from the Mainland for consumption now and for the next two years.

9324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Deputy Chairman, despite the Government's annual spending of an enormous amount of money, Hong Kong can simply not fully utilize Dongjiang water. According to government figures, during the period from 2010 to 2016, the volume of unused potable water in Hong Kong reached 14%. Just by some simple reckoning, there was a wastage of 0.8 billion cu m of potable water over a seven-year period due to the "package deal lump sum" payment model. In other words, there was a wastage of more than $3.7 billion public money which is Hong Kong people's hard-earned money and taxes paid by them.

Deputy Chairman, owing to our long-term reliance on Dongjiang water for supply of potable water, Hong Kong is incapable of bargaining with the Mainland. The price we pay for Dongjiang water can also be described as sky-high, which is several times higher than the price paid by neighbouring cities such as Shenzhen, Dongguan and Macao. Compared with Singapore, the price we pay for Dongjiang water is unimaginably high.

Actually, the total demand for Dongjiang water in Guangdong Province has been falling since 2012 due to the shift of industries northward and the utilization of irrigation water in a more efficient manner. The Hong Kong Government should therefore stop using "stabilizing water supply" as an excuse and adopting this unreasonable "package deal lump sum" payment model. Instead, the agreement should be revised and switched to the unit water price approach, with a view to reducing the wastage of public money and water resources.

Deputy Chairman, despite its effort at promoting the concept of using less water among Hong Kong people, WSD has been wasting water. According to a survey conducted earlier by the Office of The Ombudsman on the leakage of water mains managed by WSD, the rate of water mains leakage in Hong Kong was as much as 15.2%, two times higher than that in Singapore. Compared with many other cities, the leakage rate in Hong Kong is considered to be high, too. Furthermore, some spots in Hong Kong have even become "water mains burst hotspots". For instance, in its report, the Office pointed out that a total of 14 incidents involving the bursting of fresh water and flush water pipes have been recorded in City Garden, North Point since 2012. Furthermore, nine incidents involving the bursting of flush water pipes were recorded in Tai Ha Street, which is situated near the Tai Wo Hau Estate in Tsuen Wan, during the period between 2014 and 2015, causing great inconvenience to the public. In my opinion, WSD should formulate initiatives to enhance the monitoring of leakage of water mains in Hong Kong while drawing reference from the introduction of more advanced LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9325 technology by other places in order to reduce water mains leakage. In addition to aged water mains, contractors who cause damage to water mains inadvertently should also be blamed for the leakage and bursting of water mains in Hong Kong. The Government should therefore increase the penalties for these contractors as the exceedingly low penalties currently imposed cannot achieve any deterrent effect.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please explain if your present speech is relevant to the subhead under "Head 194―Water Supplies Department" that seeks to deduct an amount which is roughly equivalent to the WSD's estimated annual expenditure for the purchase of potable water.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy Chairman. Under subhead 223, the purchase by WSD …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If so, please focus on discussing the subject. The speech delivered by you just now mainly surrounds the leakage of water mains. However, the reduction of estimated expenditure on the purchase of potable water has nothing to do with the handling of water mains leakage.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): It is meant to be an indirect footnote to explain the justification for reducing WSD's estimated expenditure on the purchase of Dongjiang water. Members must examine the operation of WSD before they can reach this conclusion and understand why I oppose the purchase by WSD of large volumes of potable water from Guangdong Province, for public money will thus be wasted. This logic is tenable.

Deputy Chairman, if the water mains leakage incidents are dealt with properly by WSD, and if the calculation is based on Hong Kong's annual consumption of 960 million cu m of potable water and the water mains leakage rate in Hong Kong drops to 5%, the same as that in Singapore, the volume of potable water saved per annum in Hong Kong will be enough for consumption by 2 million people for exactly one year. Deputy Chairman, this justification is reasonable.

9326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

The Neo Democrats considers that Hong Kong is capable of gradually putting the policy of "Hong Kong people using Hong Kong water" into practice, with a view to regaining the initiative in the purchase of Dongjiang water from the Guangdong Provincial Government. Nor should it continue to waste abundant public money to keep the "package deal lump sum" policy going. WSD should also put local sources of potable water in Hong Kong to good use. Besides reducing the leakage rate of water mains, potable water collected in reservoirs should also be utilized properly.

Deputy Chairman, let us examine the written reply given earlier by the Development Bureau to a question about overflow of reservoirs. In the past three years, the SAR Government was unable to resolve the problem pertaining to the overflow of reservoirs. According to the relevant information, the volumes of overflow from Hong Kong reservoirs reached 3.3 million cu m, 28.5 million cu m and as high as 48.4 million cu m in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. In other words, the volume of reservoir overflow recorded in these three years exceeded 80 million cu m. Like "dumping money down the drain", the total volume of potable water thus wasted is enough to meet the demand for water consumption by all Hong Kong people for 18 days.

Nevertheless, what has WSD done? Despite its attempt to collaborate with the Drainage Services Department to take forward the construction scheme of inter-reservoirs transfer water tunnels, the scheme has experienced a long delay since it was proposed in 2009. For instance, the construction of a water tunnel to divert overflow of potable water from various reservoirs in Kowloon to Lower Shing Mun Reservoir has been delayed for a decade. As a result, its construction cost has now soared to more than $1.2 billion.

Deputy Chairman, despite WSD's publicity effort on using less water, judging from its performance and the Government's water resources management policy, as well as the adoption of the "package deal lump sum" system, WSD has simply no incentive to properly promote using less water. Failing to set a good example itself, WSD is unable to resolve problems pertaining to pipe leakage and bursting, overflow of reservoirs, and so on. The excessive supply of potable water year after year due to the "package deal lump sum" system has also indirectly led to wastage of public money in Hong Kong. Therefore, the Government's efforts at encouraging the public to use less water are actually futile. Neither can it achieve the desired result. Deputy Chairman, capped at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9327

1.1 billion cu m, the supply volume of Dongjiang water agreed between Hong Kong and the Guangdong Provincial Government is actually set at a very high level. Given this vicious circle, WSD certainly faces hurdles after hurdles in achieving the target of encouraging Hong Kong people to lower their daily per capita consumption of potable water.

Has the Government not made any effort at all? Actually, the Government is carrying out a desalination plant project in Tseung Kwan O. However, it is envisaged that the first stage of the project, from design to applying for funding and actual construction, will not be completed until 2022. Moreover, the water production capacity during the initial commissioning of the plant can only meet 5% of Hong Kong's fresh water production. Actually, the first and second stages of the construction works can be carried out simultaneously to raise the production capacity to 10%. In terms of economies of scale, it is more cost-effective to do so, but the Government did not opt to do so.

Deputy Chairman, being a coastal city with an abundant supply of seawater, Hong Kong enjoys inherent advantages in carrying out desalination. The SAR Government ought to expand the scale of its seawater desalination plant expeditiously or even construct a second one, so that Hong Kong can enjoy greater autonomy in the supply of potable water. Furthermore, the SAR Government and Hong Kong people can then monitor the quality of water supplied to Hong Kong more closely while reducing the reliance on Dongjiang water.

Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong as a well-developed city should be able to become self-reliant in identifying water resources and stop relying on the exorbitant Dongjiang water and adopting the "package deal lump sum" approach in purchasing potable water to avoid wasting public money. It is a task that brooks no delay. In the opinion of the Neo Democrats, Hong Kong should concentrate resources, study desalination technology, overcome technology-related difficulties, increase the supply capacity of its seawater desalination plant and lower the cost of desalination, so as to enable Hong Kong to rely on reservoir water long term. Furthermore, the SAR Government should replace Dongjiang water and rely on desalination as the main source of potable water in Hong Kong, thereby putting "Hong Kong people using Hong Kong water" into real practice.

9328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Deputy Chairman, these are sound justifications for me to propose reducing WSD's estimated expenditure on the purchase of potable water from Guangdong Province in 2018. You should not and need not seek to interrupt or interfere with my speech when you are unclear about the situation.

Deputy Chairman, I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the Chairman, I am obliged to ensure that Members do not stray away from the question in their delivery of speeches. I now suspend the meeting. Council will resume its regular meeting immediately after the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session.

10:16 am

Meeting suspended.

12:01 pm

Committee then resumed.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee of the whole Council will now continue to consider the Appropriation Bill 2018.

Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I meant to wait for Members to quiet down before speaking. But never mind, I will continue.

Chairman, I propose in my amendment that head 53 be reduced by $4,021,200 in respect of subhead 000, which, put simply, is a request to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the annual salary expenditure of the Secretary for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9329

Home Affairs. I will now speak to state my case. Why should I propose such a Committee stage amendment, Chairman? Unfortunately, it has, again, everything to do with the Fanling Golf Course ("FGC"). But I hope this time around, your goodself can refrain from obstructing and barring me from speaking.

As early as 2014, the Home Affairs Bureau established an inter-departmental working group ("the Working Group") tasked with reviewing the policy of Private Recreational Leases ("PRL"). For that, credits must be given to various Members, including former and current members of the Panel on Environmental Affairs, such as Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr LEE Wing-tat, who was in charge of land and housing policies in our Democratic Party, as well as the many Members―including the recently-returned Mr Gary FAN―who had followed up the issue in the last Legislative Council. The review undertaken by the Government is indeed the fruit of our joint efforts. Unfortunately, however, no matter how clearly we have made our case, hoping that the Government will introduce appropriate policies in response to social environment and needs, the Government often hides behind "the need for a review".

Not only has this review of PRL, led by Mr LAU Kong-wah, Secretary of Home Affairs, taken forever and ever more to complete. He has also proved his worth in the process by drawing out the review work for the maximum delay and detrimental effect, and ultimately by resorting to the dirty trick of obstruction. Why am I saying this? Begun as early as 2014 by the Home Affairs Bureau, the relevant review work was delayed thrice and it was not until March this year that the relevant report was finally published. Why were we so anxious and keen to see the publication of this report, Chairman? Because the Task Force on Land Supply ("the Task Force") appointed by Chief Executive Carrie LAM was about to launch a grand debate on land supply and the information from the PRL review was urgently needed to serve as a basis for the debate. The information would also play a key role in the consultative document of the land supply debate. However, the publication of such information suffered a long delay as the Home Affairs Bureau had repeatedly claimed that the relevant consultative document involved complicated policies. That was outrageous indeed.

But they have to let the cat out of the bag after all. After four years of efforts, what kind of report did the Home Affairs Bureau deliver? How complicated is the content? Simply put, the report is all about "perpetual occupancy". By paying just one third of the market value of land premium, private sports clubs can continue their operation and occupation of the relevant 9330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 sites with legitimacy and free from worries of being targeted by Members. In my view, the authorities have played many tricks that are utterly despicable in the review report, favouring the likes of FGC which is of prime concern to the public from day one. Though I do not wish to speculate the motives behind the review report, Chairman, it is hard to escape the public perception that the Government, seemingly biased in favour of FGC, is blocking our efforts by presenting all sorts of technical reasons to prevent the recovery of the FGC site.

What I find really strange is that the Task Force I mentioned just now published the consultative document for the grand debate on land supply not long ago. Around the same time, the Government released the consultative document on the PRL review, which content runs counter to that of the report for the grand debate. Chairman, it should be noted that the consultative document released by the Task Force presented two options: "full" or "partial" development of FGC, meaning the development of the golf course is inevitable. But in the meanwhile, the inter-departmental Working Group under the leadership of Secretary LAU Kong-wah released a consultative document advocating perpetual occupancy, i.e., a lease term of 21 years for new PRL and 15 years for renewed leases as long as the respective land premium is paid.

For that reason, I find the review report on PRL disappointing. Worse still, the Government resorted to the utterly despicable, and in my eyes unprecedented, trick of releasing two consultative documents of opposing views around the same time. Chairman, it is not so much a collusion between the two groups as a foul of obstruction committed by the Government in an attempt to create a situation where society is divided by different views. The more diverse the views the better, for the Government will have more room for interpretation. We have seen before in the other so-called consultations, be they on constitutional reform or other important issues, in which the Government pulled the same stunt, since the more diverse the views in society, the greater the room for interpretation by the Government.

Apart from the idea of "perpetual occupancy" and the purchase of perpetual renewal of lease with money I mentioned just now, the PRL review report also lends itself to rational discussion of policies that requires no more than doing the sums based on figures provided by the Government. Why has FGC found itself the focal point of the entire city? Not because we hold a grudge against its members, or against you, Chairman, and your son―we were not aware of the background until we learnt it from the news. Why are these discussions taking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9331 place when we neither share any acquaintance, nor engage in any fight with the members of FGC? Because the site it occupies is huge. I will not term golf as the preserve of only the rich as it has become a popularized sport participated by members of both the middle class and the mass alike. I too have quite a few friends who love golf. So, will the defenders of FGC please stop twisting our words. What we wish to point out is that, golf, of all sports, is most luxurious in using land resources. This is an indisputable fact to which no one, I believe, will object.

That being the case, can Hong Kong afford to continue such a luxury? The site of FGC is extensive, being nine times the size of the Victoria Park. It can accommodate 12 Shui Chuen O Estates if adopting the development mode with the highest possible density, or provide some 60 000 flats for 180 000 residents even if the village-type public housing of lower density is built. A calculation based on 12 Shui Chuen O Estates will result in a development for some 300 000 residents. Come to think about this. Is this figure not huge?

Recently, I noted certain viewpoints put forward by Mrs Regina IP regarding this issue. First, she frequently cited the need for conservation of the site, to which I will respond briefly later on. Second, she claimed the demand for housing was in fact not that great, and that we were unnecessarily exaggerating the problem. I guess she is probably not well-versed in land and housing policies. In my question to the Chief Executive just now, I quoted a simple figure concerning the supply of public housing necessary to meet our future needs. According to official figures projected by the Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030, there will be a shortage of land measuring 1 200 hectares in total, of which only 230 hectares are for our housing demands. I hope those members of the public watching this meeting live will have some idea about this issue.

In the short term, the supply of public housing in 2023 or 2024 will fall off a cliff, plummeting to a supply of just 9 000 public housing units or less, less than half of the annual supply of 20 000 units planned by the Government. The supply, even at 20 000 units a year, was already insufficient, which is why there are now 280 000 applicants on the Waiting List for Public Rental Housing. Now the situation is even worse, getting worse and worse but not yet hitting the bottom. What are we to do in the future as the supply of housing fails to catch up with the demand? According to official figures, Hong Kong needs 108 hectares of residential sites by 2026. And how many of them are for 9332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 building public housing, Chairman? Just 49 hectares. At a time when the housing problem is so acute, why do we not recover the site of FGC, which measures 170 hectares, for housing development? Besides, with the lease of FGC expiring in 2020, the Government needs only give notice a year in advance before recovering the site, according to the relevant terms of PRL. No argument is necessary.

How does the review document of the Secretary address this problem? In a Taliban-like ploy, he bundled some 60 relevant sites together, throwing into the mélange sites too small to be considered for development, or those that make housing construction impossible due to their nature or geographical locations. A picture immediately appeared in my mind: while we were launching our attack on the enemy, he took a group of women and children as hostages, threatening mutual destruction. That feeling is awful, Chairman.

Furthermore, I take exception to the performance of Secretary LAU Kong-wah because, on top of his despicable tricks of delaying the review and then publishing the two consultative documents around the same time, the Government cares nothing about the dire state of our housing problem, which obviously overrides all other problems. I cited a few figures just now, including a supply cliff of public housing that will plummet to just 9 000 or less units a year, falling well short of demand. Since by 2026, we actually lack no more than 49 hectares of land for the development of public housing, why does the Government not do something decisively about it? At the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, Chief Executive Carrie LAM had the audacity to take on every question―though digressively at times―except for those concerning FGC, to which she got evasive. Is she bold enough to pledge to the people of Hong Kong recovery of the FGC site in accordance with the terms of the lease? She dared not utter even one word in reply.

With the Chief Executive behaving in such a way, Secretary LAU Kong-wah naturally has no scruples about following her lead. Defenders of FGC often stress: "Playing golf is important." Rascals such as Andrew WAN and Tanya CHAN want to drive away golf lovers, do we not have the right to play golf, they complained. They should be reasonable. There are golf courses in Clear Water Bay, Discovery Bay, Deep Water Bay, Kau Sai Chau and Shek O. It is not as if Hong Kong has no other golf courses. The recovery of the FGC site will not eliminate golf as a sport.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9333

Who are the real "have-nots"? Those living in subdivided units or inappropriate lodgings and the 280 000 people on the Waiting List of Public Rental Housing. They are the real have-nots. There are some 210 000 people in Hong Kong who live in subdivided units at the moment, and among them 40 000 are children, whose plight the Chief Executive said was of concern to her as well. However, when asked the relevant question just now, she dared not give a reply except by saying that we should look ahead. However, not only is the Government achieving nothing, it is playing foul. To borrow a football lingo, Chairman, that is "grossly ungentlemanly conduct", "unlawful obstruction", malicious foul, with the intention of disrupting at this very moment the grand debate on land supply and diverting attention.

Our proposal will not drive away golf lovers, Chairman. Besides, as I said just now, we are not anti-rich. And golf in fact is a popular sport. However, with golf―despite its popularity and popularization―being such a luxury in terms of land use, we have to address the issue. Some people also cite such places as the Mainland and Singapore as examples, claiming that golf is not a luxury in terms of land use―Members of this Council and those of the Executive Council are simply remarkable for never taking the initiative to declare interests unless they are exposed. According to them, this sport is popular in other places as well and Singapore is really advanced in the relevant development. However, our Government and the cronies of the Administration always speak half-truths. They fell short of mentioning that the Singaporean Government is moving decisively to recover the sites of five golf courses, three by 2024 and two by 2030, five golf courses in total. LEE Hsien-loong has made it clear that more golf course sites will be recovered. Does our dear Carrie LAM dare say such a thing?

Chairman, someone said the problem of land was in fact not very acute in Hong Kong, that the people of Hong Kong could move to live on the Mainland―such a proposition, again, came from Mrs Regina IP, who is truly insightful. Apart from questioning our estimation of flats that can be built on the FGC site as an overstatement, she suggested that Hong Kong should establish more control points, that it was not bad for people to live in Zhuhai, etc. Chairman, Frederick MA too said―I do not know which hat he had on in making that remark. He can pull off such formidable hat tricks, switching identities constantly―the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area") was indeed not a bad place to live. It is indeed ironic for the pair of them to say such 9334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 things, as they are either a member of the golf club of FGC or a relevant party of the club. But, Chairman, I saw right through the contradiction in their statements: despite the innumerable golf courses boasted by Guangdong Province, the Bay Area and the entire Mainland, they refuse to play golf up there, complaining about the long distance and inconvenience and deeming the idea infeasible. Requiring golf lovers to travel such long distances is tantamount to driving them away from the sport, they claims. How then is requiring people of Hong Kong to move to live on the Mainland not a way of driving them away? How can that be a most reasonable proposition? What sort of logic is that? Where have they moved the goalposts? Is it not the case, Chairman? This is simply outrageous.

Some people also ask why, out of all the places suitable for housing development, choose the inconveniently located site of FGC. It should be noted that this is the case for all New Development Areas. Being outside the development zones, these areas naturally have poor transportation links. That is why they need to undergo replanning and will only be fit for residents to move in until such facilities and services as transportation links, ancillary facilities and hospitals are in place―some people just speak nothing but half-truths. What is laughable is that, some people―I am referring to Frederick MA again―criticized New Development Areas as inconvenient on the one hand while saying that the idea of building flats on the Kwai Chung Container Terminals was feasible on the other. The Container Terminals, according to him, was not remotely-located and could be linked up with a newly-built rail line. Why then can the same not be done for the FGC site? Are they moving the goalposts again?

I think our entire Government, the Secretaries as well as the rich and the powerful are all seemingly deaf to such reasoning, and they may even be incapable of considering a problem rationally like normal people. Lastly, I wish to drive home to the authorities the message that the housing problems of many people can immediately be solved, and their sufferings shortened, with the recovery of the FGC site. As I mentioned just now, since Secretary LAU Kong-wah has performed poorly and handled the review despicably, behind which lie possibly improper motives, I really do not want to see him continue to receive such a pay package. That is why I proposed my amendment. Thank you, Chairman.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9335

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I propose the reduction of the annual emoluments and allowances of the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), totalling $3.54 million.

Chairman, why do I ask Honourable colleagues of this Council to support this proposal of mine? The main reason is that Simon PEH has three major sins: First, he shielded Julie MU, the then Director of Community Relations of ICAC, ruining the values and culture of ICAC; second, he forced the departure of Rebecca LI, the then Acting Head of Operations, causing a major staff reshuffle in ICAC; and third, he has left this very important post of Head of Operations vacant for a prolonged period to the detriment of the ICAC establishment. For these reasons, I hope that all colleagues of this Council will support my proposal of reducing the annual emoluments and allowances of the ICAC Commissioner.

On the first point, how did he take Julie MU under his wings? As Members will recall, the serious scandal unveiled by the Audit Commission concerning the abuse of public coffers and alleged corruption by Timothy TONG has dealt a heavy blow to the reputation of ICAC. The report of the Audit Commission revealed that Timothy TONG committed those acts not by himself alone, for he required assistance from ICAC officers responsible for the relevant duties and Julie MU was precisely the principal accomplice. A great majority of those improper acts in question, whether in respect of entertainment, bestowing of gifts, duty visits, unauthorized splitting of bills or reimbursement of expenses, had to do with or were under the charge of Julie MU. Of course, Julie MU can say that all the decisions were made by Timothy TONG and that she was only his subordinate. But sorry, whether we are civil servants, public officers or law enforcers, the fundamental conviction and principle we uphold is that if any instruction given by a superior is suspected to be in breach of the law or grossly unreasonable, we must not follow it blindly and act in accordance with the unreasonable instruction from the superior.

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

Simon PEH, being the ICAC Commissioner at the time, went so far as to help absolve Julie MU from responsibility during the investigation. In an interview he said to the effect that this had to do with the personal behaviour of Timothy TONG and that other colleagues were forced to provide support. 9336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

When the investigation was still in progress, he already set the definitive tone on the matter and blatantly interfered with the direction of the investigation. In the end, he decided that not only was it unnecessary to terminate the employment of Julie MU, she could even proceed to retirement as scheduled and receive a huge amount of gratuity. This inevitably made people question whether Julie MU would have been accorded this treatment had she not been the wife of the Secretary for Home Affairs, LAU Kong-wah. Many ICAC officers also queried this arrangement, thinking that had it been other people who made a similar serious mistake, they would long have been sacked in accordance with the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance.

Second, Simon PEH was the chief culprit orchestrating the major staff reshuffle in ICAC. In the middle of 2015, the then Acting Head of Operations, Ms Rebecca LI, had already acted up this post for a year and for reasons unknown, the arrangement for Rebecca LI to act up this post was suddenly terminated and she was demoted to her original post as Director of Investigation, and Rebecca LI eventually resigned. Rebecca LI had worked in ICAC for over three decades. Starting out as an Assistant Investigator, she had been promoted many times and risen through seven ranks, continuously showing outstanding performance and cracking major cases, including the fraud case relating to the stock market involving MO Yuk-ping, the case of corruption involving the sale of illegal diplomatic passports from various countries, and so on. With excellent track records in fighting corruption, she commanded extensive respect from ICAC officers and members of the public. If she could be in office as Head of Operations, ICAC actually should be happy to have in place the right person for the job. However, based on unfounded charges, Simon PEH demoted Rebecca LI to her original post, which was virtually a step taken to force Rebecca LI to leave. Her successor, Ricky YAU, announced his resignation shortly afterwards, creating great chaos in the personnel situation of ICAC. Subsequently, in his open statement Ricky YAU stated that he had refused the ICAC Commissioner's request for him to stay but he ultimately withdrew his resignation because officers in the Operations Department had asked him to stay and his withdrawal of resignation was approved by the ICAC Commissioner, giving Simon PEH slaps on his face one after another. Meanwhile, shortly after this incident, a number of ICAC officers in the senior management quitted one after another. The annual dinner had to be called off as nearly 70% of the staff members boycotted the event. This precisely shows that Simon PEH does not have the support of the staff within ICAC.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9337

At a meeting of the Panel on Security held months ago, I questioned Simon PEH face to face whether he, at a meeting with the senior management in ICAC, had been surrounded by senior ICAC officers who said to him that ICAC was no immigration authority―because Simon PEH was former Director of Immigration―and whether senior officers in ICAC had demanded his departure from ICAC. At that meeting of the Panel on Security, he nevertheless did not dare answer my questions direct. Therefore, I absolutely have reasons to believe Simon PEH is indeed incapable of leading ICAC, especially the many senior officers in the Operations Department.

The major staff reshuffle in ICAC created by Simon PEH has dealt a severe blow to the stability of the staff in the highest echelon of ICAC. This is an unpardonable sin. What is more, after the incident of Rebecca LI, Simon PEH has allowed the post of Head of Operations to consistently remain vacant, damaging the establishment of ICAC. Mr Ricky YAU who decided to remain in office has since acted up the post of Head of Operations. In the meantime, Mr Ricky CHU was invited to return to ICAC to take up the post of Director of Investigation and together with Mr Ricky YU, the other Director of Investigation, they are tasked to spearhead corruption investigations targeting the public sector and private sector respectively.

I would like to explain to members of the public that the importance of the work of Head of Operations is, in fact, broadly the same as that of the work of the Commissioner of Police. The Head of Operations is responsible for formulating long-term strategies to fight corruption, making succession arrangements and leading investigations of major corruption cases. Let us think about this: Is it possible for the post of Director of Immigration, Commissioner of Customs and Excise or Commissioner of Police to remain vacant consistently for almost three years? Is it possible for such a situation to arise? Rebecca LI had acted up this post for a year and Mr Ricky YAU has acted up the same for almost two years. Is this situation normal?

Mr Ricky YU and Mr Ricky CHU whom I have just mentioned will retire at the end of this year and early next year respectively. Let us imagine: The Operations Department is the only and most important corruption investigation body. Two of its three most senior officers will proceed to retirement soon, while the person at the highest level is unable to tell his own future except being arranged to continuously act up the post for three months after three months. When it is impossible for him to even make plans for the future of his own career, how can he assist the Operations Department of ICAC in Hong Kong to draw up strategies to fight corruption in the long term? 9338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

When both Directors of Investigation, namely, Mr Ricky CHU and Mr Ricky YU, will retire soon, we cannot help worrying about what arrangements will be made for the staff at the highest levels of the Operations Department in ICAC. Is it that two of the four Assistant Directors will be promoted to be Directors of Investigation and then the two Directors of Investigation will be hastily promoted to be Head of Operations to replace the incumbent, Mr Ricky YAU? Is it that one of the Assistant Directors will be promoted to two ranks higher to be Head of Operations and then the incumbent Head of Operations will be demoted to be Director of Investigation? Mr Ricky YAU has worked in ICAC for nearly three decades. His performance has been remarkable. Former or existing ICAC officers all know very well that over the years, insofar as the succession arrangement in ICAC is concerned, the office bearer of Head of Operations would be a competition between Rebecca LI and Mr Ricky YAU. Since Rebecca LI has left and Mr Ricky YAU has remained in office, what else is there that needs to be considered? Does he intend to find an outsider to parachute into ICAC to take charge of the Operations Department of ICAC? Never has this been done before. Does Simon PEH or Carrie LAM intend to put the Operations Department of ICAC under the charge of an outsider? Is this what they intend to do?

Members, since its establishment in 1974, ICAC has commanded the trust and support of the public for four decades or so. Over the years, ICAC officers and their predecessors have been fearless of the powers of corruption, making unrelenting efforts to eradicate powerful corruption syndicates. Their hard work over the years has ultimately established a high degree of credibility and commanded much praise from the international community. No doubt the incident of Timothy TONG has seriously injured the reputation of ICAC. But this incident was mainly attributed to the personal conduct of Timothy TONG and the support provided by an extremely small number of officers who acted against the rules. However, Simon PEH has done damages that are way more far-reaching than the havoc wrought by Timothy TONG, and this is heart-rending to many members of the public. I think it is now time to combat corruption externally and eliminate the villain internally. To rebuild the reputation of ICAC and re-establish the credibility of ICAC, we must first eliminate Simon PEH. Therefore, I hope that all colleagues of this Council will support my proposal of reducing the annual emoluments and allowances of the ICAC Commissioner and kicking out the shame of ICAC.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9339

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am going to make a longer speech in this session because apart from talking about my proposed amendments, I have to respond to various amendments. Certainly, I will speak not only once. But having heard Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's speech just now, I wish to state my views briefly.

First of all, as a matter of fact, the Independent Commission Against Commission ("ICAC") has not confirmed the candidate for the post of Head of Operations over the past three years. This is extremely unusual. In light of the whole historical background of ICAC, this is extremely unusual. In particular, numerous incidents have occurred over the past few years, inviting doubts and worries which can hardly be dispelled. Why? Because Simon PEH, the Commissioner of ICAC ("the Commissioner"), was appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying. During the past period, the incident of Rebecca LI happened, and the post of Head of Operations remained vacant for several years. Eventually, when Members made enquiries with Chief Executive Carrie LAM, she said she would keep her hands off because she would never interfere with the Commissioner's work. Generally speaking, I think it sounds justifiable, but we must also bear in mind the background of this matter. LEUNG Chun-ying supported Carrie LAM's takeover as Chief Executive. As everyone knows, Carrie LAM, John TSANG and WOO Kwok-hing contended in the Chief Executive Election, and LEUNG Chun-ying supported Carrie LAM all the way. As we all know, ICAC is still investigating LEUNG Chun-ying. Now the problem is, Chief Executive Carrie LAM holds that she should keep her hands off the matter. As far as the overall situation is concerned, this is right. But now the whole society has misgivings about this matter. For three years, this Commissioner did not appoint anyone as Head of Operations. Against such an unusual background, should Carrie LAM, who has the power to appoint the Commissioner, not ponder at this juncture whether this Commissioner is still worthy of her trust and can continue to lead ICAC? This is something we cannot but consider carefully. She said she had to let ICAC operate independently. This is the right thing to do. But is it right under any circumstances, even if the performance of the Commissioner appointed by the Chief Executive has caused the whole society to lose faith in ICAC, or many members of the public have lost their confidence in it in the major issues? As such, can our Chief Executive still simply say "I let it operate independently" and wash her hands of it completely?

9340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Deputy Chairman, I support Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's amendment. If the amendment is passed, in other words, this Council has expressed a strong view on this important question of the Commissioner having refrained from confirming the candidate for the post of Head of Operations for three years. As the matter has developed to such a state, can the Chief Executive keep her hands off without considering whether a replacement of the Commissioner is in order? I think this question should be placed on the Chief Executive's agenda.

Deputy Chairman, this year my two amendments concern "Head 122―Hong Kong Police Force". The first amendment seeks to reduce subhead 000 by $85.9-odd million, equivalent to the annual expenditure of the Complaints Against Police Office. The second one seeks to reduce subhead 103 by $139 million, equivalent to the expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") on "rewards and special services", commonly known as secret expenses or "informers' fees". Deputy Chairman, I have proposed these two amendments for some 20 years. Certainly, many Members and members of the public fully understand why I keep proposing these amendments. Nevertheless, on each occasion, there would be different scholars of public policy or members of the public watching our debate. Perhaps some members of the public were small children back then. Now they have grown up and become interested in subjects relating to public or social policy. Hence, I must talk about it briefly. Of course, in light of some latest developments, my discussion will focus on the relatively new situations of these two subheads.

Deputy Chairman, let me first speak on rewards and special services. This expenditure, to our surprise, has now reached $140 million, up by 59.9% over last year. There has never been such a large increase before. We need to bear in mind that this is an expenditure with low transparency. To put it bluntly, this is a black hole. The auditors would check the general procedures, so to speak, but they would not conduct any check on the actual breakdown of individual or even important items. This is what the relevant auditors said. Deputy Chairman, in other legislatures, there are select committees dealing with these so-called secret or even sensitive expenses, but there is none in Hong Kong. Foreign legislatures would set up committees to handle this matter. For example, in the United States, there is an intelligence committee formed by Congressmen of different political affiliations. It is a specific combination straddling a wide political spectrum. Of course, generally speaking, its members are more senior Congressmen with professional knowledge. The membership is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9341 not large. It may comprise a few to 10-odd members dedicated to monitoring such secret operations and expenses. If there is any highly sensitive operation such as waging a war, the American President may convene the committee for a briefing several hours in advance. Certainly, compared with Hong Kong, these countries have already established a democratic legislature and system. Their President or Head of Government, returned by popular election, shall be responsible and accountable to the parliament or legislature which is also returned by a democratic system. In most cases, sensitive or secret operations are conducted behind closed doors. Elected by only 1 200 people rather than all the people, our Chief Executive lacks popular political acceptance. Under her, the work of the Police Force in this respect is not monitored by outsiders, including Members of the Legislative Council.

This expenditure of $100 million is not factored into other open expenses which have been listed, including the expenses of the Security Wing, those of the Police Force for procuring equipment―since they can be covered by other expenses―those of the Criminal Intelligence Bureau (commonly known as the "paparazzi"), and those for officers responsible for anti-terrorism. Regarding this sum of $100-odd million, we asked the Government whether it could provide the respective totals of the breakdowns by manpower and equipment. What was the Government's reply? The Government said that if we were told about it, so were the criminals. If the criminals knew it, they would be on the alert. When this theory was presented in the first year, the experts and scholars did not have time to conduct any study, so we just passed it over. But the Government has maintained this argument all along. It cannot even provide the two breakdowns by manpower and equipment, claiming that terrorists would be on the alert if they learn about it. Does the Government really treat members of the public as idiots? Needless to say, it treats Members as idiots.

Deputy Chairman, what danger will there be if monitoring by the Legislative Council is refused? This expenditure can then be used for conducting dirty political surveillance over dissidents that cannot come to light. Deputy Chairman, I dare not and will not say that all or most of the expenditure is used on doing such things because I know and also believe that some of the expenditure is indeed used for paying informers and buying intelligence. In particular, information about drugs and firearms can help crack cases and even lead to seizure of large batches of drugs in the end, since informers receive informers' fees at the risk of their lives.

9342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

But the question is, when a large part of this enormous sum is not used for getting information about drugs or firearms mentioned by me just now, what information is it used for buying? This year, the Government said it was necessary to step up the fight against terrorist activities. Actually, there is not any global anti-terrorism intelligence organization in Hong Kong. Our HKPF is different from the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") or the Ministry of Public Security of our State. Very often, insofar as anti-terrorism is concerned, Hong Kong needs to count on CIA, the Ministry of Public Security, MI6 (i.e. Military Intelligence 6) of the United Kingdom, Israel, etc., that means joining hands in global defence. In fact, Hong Kong has not―and I believe it is inappropriate to do so―stationed any representatives in places around the world, such as our overseas Economic and Trade Offices, representative offices or embassies of China, to collect important intelligence about anti-terrorism. Hence, our sources of intelligence mostly rely on other major national agencies. Mutual cooperation is needed to assist Hong Kong in working on this front. So please do not tell me that the increase in expenditure is for buying information concerning terrorist activities. Such a remark is hardly convincing.

Deputy Chairman, what are the remaining types of information that will be bought? One possibility is that the Government holds that in Hong Kong, there may be information relating to Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong independence or independence of Tibet. I do not know if this is possible. But meanwhile, from a macroscopic perspective, do the relevant authorities wish to collect certain information, especially information relating to the slightly more radical political parties at odds with the Government? If we are talking about criminal activities, such as making bombs, it falls under criminal intelligence. The Criminal Intelligence Bureau is already in place, responsible for this domain. Hence, if there is such a large sum of expenditure which is so secret and lacks monitoring, while the respective totals of the two breakdowns cannot even be disclosed in the end, I can only say that there is a big question mark over this. The relevant expenditure may be used for conducting surveillance detrimental to members of the public, society, democratic development and plural discussions. Such worries and deduction of mine are reasonable. For this reason, until the Government has established a reasonable system of monitoring and checks and balances, Deputy Chairman, I cannot but continue to propose reducing this subhead both this year and in the coming years, so as to force the Government to proactively examine how to give a better account to members of the public or their representatives of this.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9343

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am going to propose the amendment that "Head 139―Government Secretariat: Food And Health Bureau (Food Branch)" be reduced by $335,100 in respect of subhead 000. In other words, it seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the expenditure for one month's emoluments of the Secretary for Food and Health.

Deputy Chairman, previously, I have never proposed any amendment to deduct the salary of the Secretary for Food and Health. This is the first time. Actually, I should have proposed such an amendment when Dr KO Wing-man served as the Secretary. Anyway, I consider that I must propose this amendment in respect of this year's Budget such that the Government will pay serious attention to the arrangements for columbaria, as well as the deficiencies in food safety work and areas which warrant improvement.

Let me first talk about the problem of public niches. Deputy Chairman, it is a traditional virtue of Chinese people to be prudent in performing funerary rites and remember our ancestors. As the sages said, when parents pass away, children should perform the proper rites in mourning, and for the ancient ancestors, we should pay sincere respects in holding memorial ceremonies. As time goes by, Chinese funerary rites tend to become simpler, while the mourning period has become shorter. We understand that these changes came about after thousands of years of transformation of customs and traditions. In the past, most people would request land burial to lay the deceased to rest. Nowadays, more people would accept placing the ashes in a columbarium after cremation. Now the Government and we both wish to encourage members of the public to gradually accept green burial. Such a change in the traditional concept cannot be achieved overnight.

Today, we know that the Food and Health Bureau is going to make a most important policy decision to revise the proven arrangement for the supply of niches. The Food and Health Bureau plans to introduce at the end of the year a time limit of 20 years for initial use of all newly allocated public niches. That means the niches will only be on lease rather than being sold for good in future. Moreover, there will no longer be any perpetual interment right. Upon expiry of the 20-year period, it can be renewed for 10 years on payment of a fee by a descendant. Upon expiry of each 10-year time limit, it can be renewed for another 10 years. Niches for which the renewal fee has not been paid will be recovered by the Government upon expiry of the time limit, and the Government will dispose of the ashes. This will change the long-standing practice. No time 9344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 limit has ever been set for public niches before. Certainly, we know there is a shortage of supply of public niches. Many people may still be waiting for niches after their family members have passed away for one to two years or even several years. For this reason, the people are forced to switch to the private market to buy private niches. The price can be pushed up to a very high level. A single niche may cost $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000. The better ones may even cost several hundred thousand dollars. The Government cannot meet the housing needs of the people in their lifetime. Neither can it resolve the persistent shortage of niches for interment of the ashes of the deceased.

Regarding the existing shortage of niches, the solution which the Government intends to adopt is not to reserve dozens or a hundred hectares of land to address the problem of public niches. Now the discussion about land supply does not even set out this item. Under the Government's approach, it seems to expect that members of the public will not need too much land, so it would rather let the columbaria be more jam-packed and facilitate the turnover of as many niches as possible. That means it will recover for reallocation those niches to which no one has shown up to pay respects and tribute to the deceased. This can be one of the strategies, but will the Government please conduct consultation in advance. Moreover, is it necessary to adopt an across-the-board approach? In the past, when the Government advocated cremation as a substitute for burial, it would retain burial as an option for the people. But this time the Government works in a broad-brush manner. All public niches allocated after the end of this year cannot be bought for good. All of them will be subject to a time limit for use. In fact, if the people of Hong Kong need to place the ashes of the deceased in niches, they will have no choice.

Besides, as the supply of public niches falls short of demand, members of the public may choose to buy private niches. But as we all know, the Private Columbaria Ordinance which came into effect in June 2017 prescribes that all private columbaria must apply for a licence prior to their operation or sale of any niche. The existing private columbaria shall apply for a licence or obtain the relevant documents before they can continue to operate. However, the longest licence period of a private niche is only 10 years. That means the following situation may arise: even if someone wishes to buy a permanent niche in the private market, he will have to take a considerable risk because there is no way to ensure whether that columbarium can renew its licence 10 years later. Hence, it is possible that in the future, not only will there be no perpetual interment right for public niches, there will also be no permanent niches in private columbaria, or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9345 members of the public will have to take greater risks. If someone can really find a private niche and is dead sure that the columbarium concerned can renew its licence 10 years later as it is not unauthorized, the price of such a niche, I believe, will be pushed up drastically. In other words, only the very rich can buy permanent niches. Those who have no money can only keep renting niches. In this regard, I hold that the Government has not adopted a people-oriented approach of governance, eventually forcing the people to send the ashes of the deceased to the Mainland for interment.

I wish to ask one question. We approve of green burial, be it scattering ashes at the Gardens of Remembrance or into the sea, with a view to alleviating the pressing demand for niches, but is the present situation so urgent that the Government has to work in an across-the-board manner, leaving the people with no choice? Such a policy change will affect everyone in Hong Kong. It will also affect our ancestors and even our posterity. Why did the Government not consult the public? I asked the Secretary for Food and Health as well as the Permanent Secretary who has already left this Policy Bureau why there was not any direct public consultation. They said there was no such need because they had sought the views of the 18 District Councils. So far there was no objection. They would continue to consult the District Councils. However, I did not hear that any District Council had consulted the public direct or invited public participation in the discussion. The government officials were actually quite honest. They would not conduct any public consultation. The reason was very simple. They knew members of the public would oppose the Government's across-the-board abolition of niches with no time limits, so they did not conduct any consultation. Is this not in conflict with the remark made by Carrie LAM just now in the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session in the Legislative Council on the need to improve her governance? Is it her way of governance, to conduct consultation only if she knows members of the public will give their consent, and not to do so if she knows they will raise objection? Can such an approach be regarded as "improvement of governance"? I think this is a big joke.

For this reason, Deputy Chairman, I propose deducting one month's salary of the Secretary for Food and Health. I know other Members, including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, are even harsher. He has proposed an amendment to cut the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments for the Food Branch of the Food and Health Bureau, involving $53,684,000. He is harsher than me. I just made a small cut to strike home a stern message, hoping that the Food and Health 9346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Bureau will seriously consider conducting public consultation on the decision to abolish permanent niches. In my view, if the Government wishes to introduce a time limit for the use of niches, it can set aside some niches as a trial and see whether members of the public will resist or welcome its approach.

Deputy Chairman, I also wish to talk about the food safety problem. Apart from the issue of niches, all along I have been very concerned about food safety. The overseas edition of the People's Daily has recently published a news report which I would like to share with Members. That news report read to this effect: "The inspection team of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of Hong Kong has visited Qingyuan, Guangdong to inspect registered farms supplying vegetables to Hong Kong. It is not surprising at all that the three farms inspected delivered a result slip with 'zero non-compliance'. As Hong Kong is a 'culinary capital' densely populated with limited space, most of its food materials need to be supplied by the Mainland, and the agricultural produces supplied to Hong Kong by the Mainland have set an amazing record of maintaining a safety rate of 99.999% for almost 60 years." Having read this news report, I think I can just call it a day. If the safety rate of the food supplied to Hong Kong is 99.999%, I need not be engaged in food safety work, need I?

I wonder why the People's Daily needed to flatter Hong Kong. Perhaps it actually meant to point out that agricultural produces supplied to Hong Kong by the registered farms on the Mainland were of good quality, such farms would not casually use pesticides, their agricultural produces had no problem of heavy metal pollution, etc. In fact, be it the State authorities or the Food and Health Bureau of Hong Kong, they often tell members of the public that the food sold in Hong Kong is pretty safe. I believe the Food and Health Bureau has done a lot of research and tests in the past. I have no doubt about this point. However, if the Food and Health Bureau thus feels complacent or believes what the People's Daily of the Mainland said, that means there is such a view that the Food and Health Bureau has already done a good job in respect of food safety with no need of supervision by the public or Members.

Actually, the remarks in such a typical article in the People's Daily are not supported by any laboratory tests at all. Recently, not only the academics but also the Consumer Council has conducted sampling tests of vegetables. All along, I have also represented the Democratic Party to buy a lot of food from the markets for testing, and vegetables are often found to contain excessive pesticides. Such being the case, how could the passing rate be 99.999%? I hope the Government can seriously address this issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9347

I gave Secretary Dr KO Wing-man in the last-term Government a chance by not proposing any amendment to deduct his salary. This time why do I wish to deduct that of the Secretary for Food and Health in the current-term Government? Because since the commencement of the last-term Government, we in the Legislative Council have requested the Government to arrange for Members to visit the Mainland to inspect the operation of registered farms supplying vegetables to Hong Kong, so as to ensure that they meet the food safety standards. However, this request has been made for five years, that means as long as a term of the Government. The authorities have never made such arrangements. Now that the new Secretary has assumed office, I hope she can tell us when we can visit the Mainland for inspections.

Moreover, I wish to speak on the policy issue. To ensure the safety of food supplied to Hong Kong by the Mainland, the Government stipulates that only vegetables produced in registered vegetable farms can be imported into Hong Kong. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") has also sent its officers to inspect these registered vegetable farms on the Mainland. However, between the cup and the lip, where does the slip lie? It lies in the fact that the Hong Kong Government cannot decide by itself which Mainland vegetable farms its officers would visit. It turns out that they have to be selected by the Mainland officials. These Mainland vegetable farms can thus be "cleansed" beforehand, making the environmental and hygiene conditions look good before inspection by FEHD officers. In this way, a satisfactory result has been achieved over these 60 years, with 99.999% of the food meeting the safety standards.

However, this approach is rather stupid. Why does the Government stipulate that only certain registered vegetable farms on the Mainland can supply food to Hong Kong? Because it wishes to exercise regulation. Why would the Government send its officers to inspect the Mainland vegetable farms? Because it wishes to conduct surprise inspections to see if these vegetable farms work in compliance with the rules. Yet it turns out that the relevant authorities can only inspect certain vegetable farms as arranged by the Mainland. Such a food safety regulatory regime is indeed ridiculous. That is why the People's Daily reported that the food supplied to Hong Kong by the Mainland had attained a safety rate of 99.999%, adding that food imported from the Mainland was of good quality. Such remarks were in fact self-deception.

9348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Hence, I wish to deduct one month's salary of the Secretary in the current term in the hope of giving her impetus and spurring her to get her job done: dealing with the time limit for the use of public niches and the approach of allocation properly, as well as ensuring that the Bureau can be empowered to send its FEHD officers to freely conduct surprise inspections of any registered Mainland farms supplying vegetables to Hong Kong, during which samples of soil, water and vegetables will be collected for independent monitoring and testing, thereby keeping the gate properly for food safety.

With these remarks, I will propose my amendment and hope Members will support it.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will first talk about my amendment. I propose deducting $4.91 million, an amount approximately equivalent to the whole year personal emolument of the Chief Secretary for Administration. I propose reducing the emolument of the Chief Secretary not because of any personal conflicts between me and Matthew CHEUNG. I hold no hate towards him. I only think that there is dereliction of duty on his part. Over the years, there has been no planning in welfare. Many fundamental facilities in the welfare sector in Hong Kong are in a serious lag. I think Matthew CHEUNG should be the first person to take the blame.

At a special meeting of the Finance Committee held recently, I asked Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong about the following issues. The Secretary has pointed out repeatedly, both on public occasions and in his blog that it usually takes 10 years to build a residential care home. During the 10 years between 2007 and 2017, Matthew CHEUNG was the Secretary for Labour and Welfare of the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"). Under his leadership, there was nearly no planning at all for the labour and welfare issues in Hong Kong. I remember that when I returned to the legislature in 2012, I immediately invited the incumbent Secretary for Labour and Welfare to formulate planning for services of persons with disabilities. He said he noted the request. Now, he has already left that position, and the issue is finalized only this year.

Moreover, on the promotion of the design manual for barrier free construction, I propose to him that amendments be made to provisions relating to the provision of barrier free facilities to persons with disabilities under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9349

Buildings Ordinance, for the relevant provisions have not been reviewed for a long time. Yet, to date, no legislative amendment to the relevant provisions has been made officially.

Deputy Chairman, honestly, I do not have any personal preference or dislike towards him. In fact, in respect of the Budget this year, he is the winner, for he can receive salaries tax reduction and rates concessions. It is said that he has nine properties. He seems to be the "King of properties" among all the government officials, and he will be receiving rates concessions amounting to at least $90,000. I do not know if he also holds any companies which render him able to enjoy profits tax concession.

However, Deputy Chairman, I would like to tell you that this year, I have eventually made a decision on an arrangement for my daughter, which I am most reluctant to make. I have applied for a residential home place for her and we are now waiting. As long as I live, I would not want my daughter with severe intellectual disability to stay in an institution. As far as I have the ability to take care of her, I would not let her stay in one. Nonetheless, I have to face the reality of ageing. I do not know when I will lose the ability to take care of her, and I do not know when she will pass away. All of these are not under my control. I do not know if I will be unable to take care her one day. Hence, I have to start queuing for a residential home place for her.

At present, for hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons―the term "mentally handicapped" (" 弱智 ") is outdated, for they are now called persons with "severe intellectual disability" ("智障"), yet the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") is unwilling to change the term after all these years―I live on Hong Kong Island, applications submitted in 2002 on the waiting list for hostel places are now being processed. According to the information provided on the website of SWD, as at 31 March 2018, hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons on Hong Kong Island are processing applications made in 2002; hostels in Kowloon East are processing applications submitted in 2000; hostels in West Kowloon are processing applications of 2002; hostels in Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi are processing applications of 2001; hostels in Sha Tin, Tai Wai and North District are processing applications of 2000; and hostels in Yuen Long and Tuen Mun are processing applications of 2001. In other words, the waiting time is around 16 to 18 years. Deputy Chairman, which public facilities would require the most disadvantaged to endure a long wait of 18 years? Matthew CHEUNG is the one to blame, for he has not made 9350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 any planning for facilities in meeting their essential needs over the years. I am not doing this for my daughter. Some people in society may have no alternative but to stay in these hostels at a certain stage of their lives or under certain circumstances. The Government is hoarding a fortune of several thousand billion dollars, and it is running a surplus of tens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions of dollars every year. How can it be indifferent to these needs? The concern of long waiting time does not come up today, and it has been discussed for a decade or two. Yet the waiting time is growing longer and longer now. What is the Government doing? What are these government officials with enormous powers and wealth doing? Regarding the fundamental needs of the most disadvantaged in Hong Kong, he cannot make any excuses, can he?

We are talking about one type of institutions just now. Regarding hostels for the moderately mentally handicapped, the situation is similar. Applications submitted in 2004 or 2008 are now being processed, and the waiting time usually exceeds 10 years.

As for small group homes for mildly mentally handicapped children, applications submitted in 2015 are now being processed, which means the waiting time is three years. The situation seems good. Yet, which kind of children will be admitted to these homes? Small group homes are not merely for mildly mentally handicapped children. They also admit children whose home environment is not suitable for them to stay in, such as children in families experiencing changes and tragedies, children abused, children of broken families or with no one to take care of them in the family. In other words, children with intellectual disability aged under 18 as well as children who need to be placed in small group homes in emergency circumstances have to wait for three years. Hence, at all times, there are dozens of children staying in hospitals because they have nowhere to go if they leave the hospitals. Be it now, yesterday, the day before yesterday or tomorrow, these incidents will happen over and over again.

The incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration has been the Secretary for Labour and Welfare for the past 10 years. What has he actually done? For the overall planning for hostels, he has handed in "zero homework", nothing has been done. During his tenure, he had repeatedly stressed the policy of "ageing in place". It is music to our ears. Who would not want to stay at home? Who would like to stay in residential care homes? Who would like to have dinner at 4:00 pm, be commanded to sleep at 8:00 pm and wear layers of diapers? As for elderly persons, who would like to be deprived of the freedom to decide the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9351 choice of food and daily routine? They may even be tied to their beds throughout the day, not even have the chance to catch some sunlight. Would any elderly person prefer to stay in residential care homes? None.

Yet, why would Hong Kong has the highest institutionalization rate of elderly persons among all the developed regions? How can the institutionalization rate of elderly persons aged above 65 be as high as 6% to 7%? At the same time, the number of elderly persons died while waiting for subsidized residential care home places is increasing every year. This year, 6 259 elderly persons died during the wait, and the figure last year was 6 104, which means there is a further rise this year. As for the year before the last, some 5 000 elderly persons died during the wait. The situation 10 years ago was not that serious as present. Why would the waiting list grow longer every year? Why would the number of elderly person died while waiting for a place keep increasing? What has happened? Is it because people are scrambling to join the wait for a place in residential care homes? No one wants to live in a residential care home. The Government should be blamed for this phenomenon, for it allows residential care homes to deteriorate into a poor market. The Government states that the issue can be solved by the market, yet in reality, it is unwilling to shoulder the responsibility. As a result, it creates a poor market for recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") who have to stay in residential care homes. The service quality of residential care homes is poor and varies greatly. Yet we can do nothing about this. Since we really need to look for elderly care services, we can only wait for places at subvented homes. However, the supply of places at subvented homes is comparable to "squeezing a tube of toothpaste". At present, there are 30 000 to 40 000 elderly persons on the waiting list, yet the number of subvented home places is only increased by 200 to 300 every year. How can we achieve the equilibrium as a whole? The Government has done nothing at all. It simply states that the problems will be left to the market to resolve. When the market comes up with poor services, the Government lays the blame on the market and advocates the so-called "ageing in place". As for investment of resources in elderly care, when the Government spends $1 on home services, that is, community care services, day care services and home care services, it will at the same time spend $7 on subvented residential care homes, and this is indeed supporting private residential care homes with CSSA. This is a wrong direction. Having said that it advocates "ageing in place" and creates a market of poor services in actuality, as if it is running a business. Now, when we want to improve the service quality of these residential care homes, it is next to impossible.

9352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Honestly, at present, the poor service quality of homes for persons with disabilities and private residential care homes for the elderly has become a stigma attached to Hong Kong. Hong Kong carries several stigmas: people have to live in subdivided units; elderly people have to live on collecting cardboards and private residential care homes are providing poor services. Who should be blamed for all of these? When I asked the Secretary for Labour and Welfare which authorities were responsible for the planning of these services in the past, Dr LAW Chi-kwong said clearly that it is within the purview of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. If the Labour and Welfare Bureau is responsible for this, this stigma of Hong Kong is the result of dereliction of duty on its part. Hence, I cannot but ask if this amendment is more than justified. I urge Matthew CHEUNG―he is not in the Chamber today―either to resign or return the emolument he has received over the years. His performance is not up to standard. He has failed to fulfil his most basic duties. Despite seeing the disadvantaged being caught in predicament, the ever-growing waiting list for residential care home places, and the increasing number of applicants died during the wait, he remains indifferent and pays no attention to these problems. He is adopting this blasé attitude of "I will be a good official no matter how". Can we tolerate such a practice and attitude?

Deputy Chairman, now I continue the discussion on the disaster in pre-school rehabilitation services. As I mentioned earlier, the concerns about homes for persons with disabilities and residential care homes for the elderly have been brought up "N" times, and I have been talking about this for 10 years. Hence, I know that the Secretary may be impatient about this. Even though I have been talking about this for 10 years, I will continue to talk about this, for the problems remain not solved. Worse still, the situation is deteriorating. As at 31 March this year, the number of children who have been assessed to have special education needs and are waiting for places under the integrated programme involving early education and training centres and child care centres, or places in special child care centres is over 10 000 in total. The number of children on the waiting list keeps increasing. It is true that the Government is willing to invest additional resources, yet it is not because of Matthew CHEUNG, for it is Carrie LAM who ordered the allocation of several hundred million dollars from the Lotteries Fund direct. This is good, yet the problems remain not solved. There are still nearly 10 000 children waiting now and there is no solution to the problem. On the one hand (The buzzer sounded) …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9353

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, your speaking time is up.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, my amendment seeks to deduct the expenditure under head 156 by $4 million (equivalent to the estimated annual emolument of the Secretary for Education). I will now explain the reasons for my proposing this amendment.

In the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session just now, Mr SHIU Ka-chun asked Carrie LAM what was her mother tongue. Those who do not understand the discussion might find it a bit embarrassing to talk about mother tongue in the Council as the discussion might induce unnecessary thoughts. Carrie LAM replied that she would not respond to such a frivolous question.

I think the duty of answer this question rests with Secretary Kevin YEUNG. As the Secretary for Education, he did not furnish the Chief Executive with clear arguments or justifications in order to help her answer Member's question on mother tongue. As a result, her reply gave people an impression of rudeness. She gave a very rude reply, saying that she would not respond to such a frivolous question. I think this has precisely reflected the incompetence of the Secretary for Education.

I proposed to deduct his emolument because he could not put right some confusing arguments. In my opinion, the most important issue here is not the definition of mother tongue and whether Cantonese is our mother tongue. I believe the most important issue concerns the official language of Hong Kong. I think Cantonese is the official language of Hong Kong. We should not consider the issue with simple logic, and that is, our mother tongue is the language that our mother speaks, otherwise, we are prone to fall into a trap: if the number of new immigrants in Hong Kong gradually increases and their mothers speak Putonghua, does it make Putonghua the mother tongue of Hong Kong people? Another example is that, before 1997, most mothers wanted their children to speak Oxford English, so did we regard English as our mother tongue back then? This is an intricate issue and should not be pulled into futile political disputes. It must be determined with education wisdom, in which case I believe it is the right direction to say that Cantonese is the official language of Hong Kong, as I have pointed out just now.

9354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Before 1997, the British Hong Kong Government looked at Cantonese with decorum because we had cultural substance. Back then, despite different hometowns and dialects, Hong Kong people considered that Cantonese, instead of Chaozhou or Hakka dialects, should be spoken in daily communication, especially on public and official occasions, because Cantonese has cultural substance. The same applies in China, although a bit inappropriate. There are different dialects in Mainland China, so why do people communicate in Putonghua on public occasions? It is because Putonghua is the official language of the People's Republic of China.

The advantage and uniqueness of Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" lies in the fact that Cantonese is regarded as the official language of Hong Kong. Therefore, I was saddened to see the controversy over mother tongue in the past few days which led to endless debates on our cultural origin. I find it most frustrating that the Secretary for Education did not come forward to acknowledge the problems or blind spots therein at the time.

First, if, as explained by Carrie LAM just now, it was a so-called "academic" comment or report in 2013, why did the Secretary for Education not simply say that it was a "hot potato" left behind by Eddie NG of the previous Administration? He did not have the guts to say that. The previous Administration might have left behind a northern barbarian language or culture because he wanted to "northernize" Hong Kong completely. He wanted to remove the ancient languages or even Cantonese from Hong Kong, so that we would lose our original style or charm, that we would lose an all-embracing language that is Cantonese. He did not have the guts to reply that he is now responsible for this matter left behind by the previous Administration. Instead, he took a detached and objective standpoint and let teachers make their own judgment. This is not the way a Secretary should act.

As the Secretary for Education, he must have the courage to determine that these discussions are confusing in education. Therefore, it was rude of Chief Executive Carrie LAM to reply that she would not respond to such a frivolous question because the question is not frivolous at all. Quite the contrary, it sought to examine, from a Hong Kong-centred linguistic perspective, the fundamental substance of our political culture in which the East met the West in the past. However, the Secretary for Education gave a bureaucratic response only, inducing divergent arguments. The public spoke from the perspective of the public, and Members raised the question just now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9355

Second, the recent controversy over the textbook review reports might have focused on the unclear guidelines or the established political stands of members of the review panels. The official reply was that, on the premise of integrity, the membership of textbook review panels cannot be made public. However, I would like to emphasize that the logical thinking on education of the Secretary for Education should be manifested through these details. Unfortunately, Secretary Kevin YEUNG was terribly wrong in this regard. This must be examined together with STEM education introduced by the Government earlier.

In October 2017, when interviewed by an education website of a newspaper, Kevin YEUNG stated that STEM education had been implemented for quite some time overseas. But in Hong Kong, subjects such as Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry are usually taught and assessed separately. Hence, students fail to understand the link between the disciplines and apply what they have learnt. He expressed support for incentivizing primary students to learn computer programming so as to train their computing and logical thinking. I wish to point out the irony that, the textbook review that I have mentioned plus Secretary Kevin YEUNG's remarks on STEM, have exposed his concept of clear division between arts and science streams. The logical thinking that he referred to was merely mathematical thinking, but in fact, logic stemmed from semantic logic since ancient Greece instead of the basis of the scientific revolution in the West (i.e. mathematical logic). The scientific methodology and spirit established subsequently were not mere syllogism. Instead, they were about refusing to follow the authority blindly, making bold assumptions and carefully seeking proof through experiments in an objective environment, so as to establish an example in modern science. In other words, the cultural connotation is to encourage people to challenge their superiors.

The long-standing problem of education in Hong Kong is not that children do not know how to do arithmetics. We have remained stagnant in the last few decades because we could not make bold assumptions and pursue innovation. If we apply the same thinking to the controversy over textbooks, we will see many logico-linguistic fallacies, such as Secretary Kevin YEUNG's responses to some claims in community, such as "recover Hong Kong", "transfer of sovereignty", "resumption of sovereignty", "Hong Kong lies to the south of China" etc.

Take the sentence, "Hong Kong lies to the south of China", as an example. Without being conscious of "Hong Kong independence", it cannot be semantically interpreted as "Hong Kong is independent of China" because "Hong 9356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Kong lies to the south of China" contains the meaning "Hong Kong lies south of China". However, either intentionally or unintentionally, the Secretary for Education only commented that inappropriate wording was used in the sentence, but semantically, it is impossible to arrive at the logical conclusion of "Hong Kong lies outside China" or "Hong Kong is not in the south of China" from this sentence.

Members may find the aforesaid explanation difficult to understand. Let me cite another example. If the logic of the Secretary is to be applied to names such as Southern Metropolis Daily, China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines, China North Industries Group, should the former be called "Southern China Metropolis Daily" instead? This is the consequence of unclear semantic logic. Excluding the possibility of a political conspiracy, I would say the controversies in the last couple of months over mother tongue or alleged distortions of history through textbook reviews can only be attributed to his basic competence. As the Secretary for Education, his logic and educational philosophy must not remain at an administrative level of a civil servant. Therefore, because of the aforesaid two reasons, I believe it is appropriate to have one year of his emolument deducted.

Many Members have mentioned "Buddha-like" such as the "Buddha-like" Environment Bureau. However, the development of the Education Bureau in the past eight years since Eddie NG's tenure was not "Buddha-like". Most people have criticized the Education Bureau of being "inhuman" (failing to win public support) or "absurd". Why did they make such criticisms? Because school children committed suicide and bureaucrats were cold-hearted. It was proposed yesterday that the results of Liberal Studies would be changed to only "Pass" or "Fail". All this shows that the bureaucrats of the Education Bureau simply do not care about the life and death of students.

In addition, inconsistent changes have been made to the bureaucratic policies. The third reason for deducting his emolument is relatively lenient. As the Secretary for Education, Kevin YEUNG should understand the nature of Hong Kong's education system as well as its strengths and weaknesses compared to overseas education systems. In this regard, many people have criticized Kevin YEUNG for not tackling the problems of the education system, but imposing a variant of the Territory-wide System Assessment―BCA instead, while his own children do not receive education in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9357

I do not wish to focus on this point, but it leads to a question, and that is, Secretary Kevin YEUNG seems to have a poor understanding of Hong Kong's education system. He stated that he decided to send his children to study abroad as he thought the education system in Hong Kong was complicated. Yet, he must recognize that the complexity of Hong Kong's education system was resulted from inconsistent changes made by the previous Secretaries for Education to the education system reform policies, rather than its philosophy or implementation approach per se. The education system became complicated due to inconsistent changes made by government officials, which caused him confusion just like any average parent. Better-off parents will choose to send their children to international schools. But as the Secretary for Education of Hong Kong, he should not possibly make such a comment. He could only say that our traditional British education in the past will turn into a Mainland or Soviet Russia system to which we find adaptation difficult. He could have said that. At the end of the day, if he believed the education system in Hong Kong is complicated, he should be clear and honest about it. He was incompetent as he was unable to respond that the problems in education were left over by the past education system. Since he has involved meaningless political disputes in education, I have proposed to deduct one year of his emolument in my amendment.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I also wish to respond to the comments made by Dr CHENG Chung-tai. First, the question put to Carrie LAM this morning was, "What is your mother tongue?" She said, "I am not going to answer such a frivolous question." If she takes such an attitude in her administration, in the future, no matter what question is put to her, she only has to answer, "Your question is frivolous, so I am not going to answer it." What kind of attitude is this? I also wish to remind Carrie LAM and officials in charge of education that in linguistics, the internationally-accepted definition of mother tongue is the language that you use without thinking when you count. For example, if there is a heap of beans here and you are asked to count how many beans there are, if you say "1, 2, 3, 4 (in Cantonese)", then Cantonese is your mother tongue. I used to have the impression―just my impression―that my mother tongue was Shanghainese. Before five or six years of age, I could not speak much Cantonese. What I spoke was Shanghainese as my family came from the Yangtze-Zhejiang region. However, according to the definition just 9358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 now, of course, I now say "1, 2, 3, 4 (in Cantonese)" rather than "1, 2, 3, 4 (in Shanghainese)" when counting. Carrie LAM is also Shanghainese, so I ask her to listen to this carefully.

The subject matters of the debate today range from education to collusion between Government and business. It really was like this. Then, the discussion moved on to food safety. It was very disorderly and there was a complete lack of focus. I also have to criticize such an arrangement made by the President of the Legislative Council. My amendment is intended to call on the Government to think twice and cancel the $300 million in public expenditure for provision of relief to Ocean Park. I have four major grounds: First, Ocean Park is a statutory organization which should be self-financing as it is financially independent. If funds are injected at will when it encounters problems, this will set a very dangerous precedent; second, it is said that there is concern that Ocean Park cannot be kept but there is no cause for concern because its mechanical rides will surely stay as it is great fun to ride the roller-coaster. However, its 4D animal movies are entirely replaceable because 4D eco movies with complete virtual reality are shown even in the Shanghai Disneyland Park; third, it is said that young people should have experience in eco tourism. If one really wants to find eco-tourism attractions and starts counting from the Hong Kong Wetland Park, there are at least no fewer than a dozen throughout Hong Kong; lastly, the $300 million of public funds given to Ocean Park includes expenditure for stepping up publicity in visitor source regions where the Ocean Park enjoys popularity―buddy, that means visitors from the Mainland. In the past decade, so many Hong Kong people shied away from Ocean Park precisely because they were afraid of it being overrun by Mainland patrons. Now, you are taking a measure that goes against them, so what kind of logic is that?

In the past few days, I happened to watch a drama series produced by BBC which was adapted from a live story. In the 1930s, a family in the United Kingdom thought of a piece of derelict land in their possession and had the idea of building a zoo with a minimum of cages and a half-open design. Of course, local residents came out in force to voice opposition. Some people told them that a zoo alone would not be complete without animals performing to entertain visitors but with them, the zoo would be a big draw. When I came to this part, I picked up my mobile phone immediately to see how the interlocutor would respond. Look at this. You may not be able to read these words, so let me read them out, "They are animals, they don't perform.".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9359

Nowadays, in Hong Kong in 2018, the greater part of a century later, you can see that internationally, circuses―the so-called "circuses" are groups in which animals perform―have gone into complete decline. In fact, the animal shows in aquariums are also being gradually scrapped. However, dolphin shows are still be staged in our Ocean Park. That Financial Secretary, Paul CHAN, is very ignorant but thinks highly of himself, and he spoke in defence of Ocean Park, saying that there were no more dolphin shows but in fact, there are. He does not support Ocean Park, for he has not visited it personally, so he does not know what he is talking about. In 2013, video footage showed that a dolphin called Pinky kept bumping itself against the pool sides and engaging in acts of self-mutilation, so it had suicidal tendencies. Ocean Park said immediately that according to an expert report, that was not the case and that it was only being playful. This remains a mystery presently.

Of course, Carrie LAM said when attending the last Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council that she understood we were talking about animals rather than pets. However, it is not enough to engage in mere talk as this would amount to hypocrisy. At present, the legislation on animal protection is very much fragmented. Insofar as the dealing with animal abuse is concerned, one piece of legislation is invoked and when dealing with the abandonment of animals, another piece of legislation is invoked. However, there is no legislation covering dogs and cats run over and killed by vehicles. Now, the Government has said that it will submit a proposal to the Legislative Council as soon as possible, probably in this month or the next, to propose that a report has to be made to the Police if cats and dogs are run over and killed. In the past, in agricultural societies, if pigs, cows or sheep were knocked down and killed, since they were other people's properties, a report had to be made to the Police but now, it is necessary to make a report even when cats and dogs are run over and killed. This is at any rate better than not having any legislation at all. However, this is like dispensing traditional Chinese medicine prescriptions from traditional Chinese herbal medicine cabinets. Can a piece of legislation on animal protection be formulated properly? Of course, she could equivocate and say, "I am not going to answer such a frivolous question.". She could answer us in this way at any time. Is she going to behave like this?

Another amendment proposed by me each year is to delete or simply dispense with that sum of $1 million earmarked for the so-called euthanasia of animals. Mr Andrew LEUNG did not allow me to propose it, saying that Mr KWONG Chun-yu had already done so and that our amendments were 9360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 repetitive, so this amendment was proposed by Mr KWONG Chun-yu. Since it is Mr KWONG Chun-yu who proposed it, I feel honoured because he really cares about animal rights. Those toady Members from the pro-establishment camp also say that they care very much about animal rights, but why have we not seen any amendment proposed by them? They even completely disregard human rights, which do not matter to them and they never talk about in any way. Do you really expect them to raise issues related to animal rights? Do not be so hypocritical. If they really raise this issue, you will laugh until you throw up.

This sum of $1 million is small, is it not? It is nothing at all compared to a fiscal reserve of thousands of billions of dollars. I wonder if it is equivalent even to 10 cents in contrast. Of course, someone may ask, "You said it is humane not to approve the funds, or else it is tantamount to the murder and destruction of animals. What should be done about those cats and dogs?" Adopting them would do, would it not? This is the most natural approach. However, almost half of the population in Hong Kong, or 47% of it, live in public housing estates. Keeping dogs in public housing estates is not allowed but keeping cats is still allowed. That day, I could hear the answer of the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation to my question clearly. He said that half of the animals put down were attributable to the fact that no one adopted them. Nevertheless, people cannot adopt them even if they want to, so can the policy on public housing be relaxed somewhat? I do not have the guts―I am downright timid―to demand that the prohibition on keeping dogs in public housing estates be removed. I know this is a very controversial issue, one that cannot win votes, rather, it is an issue that will make one lose votes. However, for true animal lovers really concerned about animal rights, this issue must really be considered. Carrie LAM, if you are listening now, I hope you can consider carefully if the public housing policy can be eased a little bit and the definition of mental support can be relaxed somewhat, or when designing public housing estates, dog keeping can be allowed on one of the floors. Is this possible?

A well-conceived points system can be devised. If someone is caught leaving dog excrement behind, a certain number of points will be deducted and repeat offenders have to move out. If dogs bark, their owners must train them and there are training leashes that reduce a dog's desire to bark. There are many things that can be done but the Government just refuses to do them.

Can dogs of a small size, that is, dogs under 12 lbs or 10 lbs, be completely exempted? Some officials in the Housing Department are loving but we need more high-level officials with a conscience, so that applications can be made for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9361 exemption. A family is allowed to move into a public housing unit and its dog has kept its owners company ever since it was small, so it is the mental pillar of the whole family. In that case, just let it move into public housing with the family. In my experience, the chance of success is 80% but this is still not enough. I have been writing letters appealing for compassionate treatment until I have practically gone bonkers.

Another idea of mine is to ask Carrie LAM to re-examine―I have raised this with her before―at present, the situation is very strange. The protection of elephants is under the charge of the Environment Bureau because a wild and endangered species is involved, whereas cats and dogs are under the charge of the Food and Health Bureau. This is actually ridiculous. What is the Food and Health Bureau responsible for? Food safety and environmental hygiene. Are cats and dogs food? Of course not, as this is unlawful. As regards environmental hygiene, oh right, the excrement left behind by them in public places causes hygiene problems. Another issue is the noise problem, in particular, dogs bark and cats also call. The noises made by cats when caterwauling or fighting in alleys can startle you. However, all of these problems are not caused by cats and dogs. These are their natural behaviour and the problems are caused by their owners. It is possible to deal with the aftermath, tidy up and show proper love and care. They are animals, not pets. In particular, in the case of cats and dogs, human beings have kept them around them for thousands of years. If you say you do not want them or do not want to care for them anymore, they will have nowhere to go because they are no longer wild.

Since the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") keeps referring to them as "pets", some people have the mistaken idea that they are all pricey pedigree cats and dogs enjoying food and dwelling that can easily surpass those of the grass roots. This is a completely mistaken belief. If you take a look at the animals on the hills in Kowloon and the New Territories, you will find that often, there are a lot of pedigree dogs and even huskies. Why? When pet shops close down, the owners are reluctant to part with the dogs but do not know what to do with them either. They are reluctant to surrender them, so they set the cats and dogs free on the hills to let them fend for themselves. Such instances abound. The publicity of the AFCD tells people to "Adopt. Don't buy". However, if I want to adopt an animal, I am not allowed to do so and even animals that have all along been kept cannot move into public housing. One has to implore with tears streaming down his face in order to keep them, so this is not an impression that a civilized society like Hong Kong should give. 9362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Several years ago, animal rights campaigners organized a rally and their slogan was, "Hong Kong, city of animal abuse". This is the fact, even now. In particular, recently, a spate of incidents of dog poisoning and dogs falling from height has occurred. Given the intelligence of dogs, which is equivalent at least to that of a two-year-old human being, does anyone mean they were not aware of the danger and jumped down on their own? Either the dogs were deranged or they were thrown downstairs. Of course, I hope that they were accidents but Hong Kong remains a place where many people would still say, "What do you think you are talking about? Even human beings are having a hard time and you are talking about animals?" Humans and animals can coexist. A well-known quote of LINCOLN is, "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights.". Animals cannot speak, so let us speak for them. Thank you.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have originally proposed two Committee stage amendments ("CSAs"), one of which seeks to reduce $73,000,000, which is roughly equivalent to the Education Bureau's annual average expenditure on commissioning the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority to undertake Basic Competency Assessments. However, it has been unreasonably rejected by President Andrew LEUNG without any explanation. He merely said that the CSA was inaccurate without telling us the area considered to be inaccurate. As other Members have said, he has seriously undermined Members' power to monitor government expenditure. I hereby lodge a protest―he is back in the Chamber now.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Let me come back to the other CSA which was proposed by me and ruled admissible by the President. The CSA, which resolves that head 156 be reduced by $320,000 in respect of subhead 000 to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the Education Bureau's annual expenditure on developing the learning and teaching resources for Basic Law education. I have been asked by many people this question: Why should the learning and teaching expenditure on the Basic Law be cut? What is wrong with teaching of the Basic Law by the Government? I will now explain to the public slowly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9363

Actually, the most important point is that we face the same question in teaching the Basic Law, as well as the History and Liberal Studies subjects: Who is censoring our children's textbooks? May I ask Secretary Kevin YEUNG or the Chief Executive to explain to the public and me on later occasions who is censoring our children's textbooks? Compared to the requests made by other Members to slash several million dollars and even tens of millions of dollars, my proposed amount of reduction of $320,000 is not at all considerable. Why must I pinpoint the learning and teaching of the Basic Law? As Members may be aware of the comments made by the Education Bureau on textbooks under discussion in society right now. According to the Government, the concepts of such expressions as "Hong Kong lies to the south of China" and "recovered Hong Kong" are unclear, and the choice of diction is inappropriate. Actually, the Basic Law learning package also has the same problem and warrants our attention. Compared with the History, Liberal Studies and General Studies subjects, the content of the Basic Law learning package is less academic and is prone to influence by the political stance of the officials and the will of the Government. As such, the textbooks used for teaching of the Basic Law can influence students' mindset and critical thinking. The learning package also plays a crucial role. The material for teaching is very important, and the Basic Law learning package for primary and secondary schools relies mainly on the provision of $320,000 as teaching resources.

In August last year, I exposed the biased content of the Basic Law learning package and questioned why the learning package for Junior Secondary forms cited extreme examples to cast doubts on the concept of civil disobedience. What examples were cited? The examples are not only extreme but also totally irrelevant: Can it be regarded as civil disobedience if some public rental housing tenants, in the name of justice, jointly refuse to pay rent in protest of the Housing Department's unreasonable rent increases? Can a tycoon, in the name of justice, decide not to obey the law by expanding his luxury home in violation of the building restrictions on houses and use civil disobedience as an excuse to defend himself? Obviously, these arguments are complete nonsense. Is it not extremely biased to cite these examples to explain civil disobedience? How do students view the concept of civil disobedience? Are these analogies not inappropriate? The same Basic Law learning package has also inserted such comments as "increasing politicization is not a normal social trend". Actually, this remark is found in Prosecutions Hong Kong 2012 published by the Department of Justice. And then, in an oral question raised in the Legislative 9364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Council, it was said that "the number of protesters charged with the offence of assaulting police officers is rising". All freedoms of procession and demonstration conferred on the public by the Basic Law are painted in a negative light.

Furthermore, the Basic Law learning package (Junior Secondary) published by the Government contains many biased and misleading questions. In discussing the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, students are asked a set of questions, including whether or not the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage can resolve all problems. What is the implicit meaning of these questions? The students are also asked these questions concerning the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage: Can more job opportunities be created? Can environmental pollution be alleviated? Can property prices be lowered? These irrelevant and misleading questions will only give students the impression that the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage cannot solve all problems. To put it more explicitly, universal suffrage should not be considered. Through the biased examples and misleading questions of the Basic Law learning package, students are subjected to "brainwashing" unawares.

In a meeting with the Curriculum Development Institute ("CDI") of the Education Bureau in September last year, I asked who was responsible for the compilation of the biased contents of the Basic Law learning package. According to the Government, the learning package was compiled by a group of university experts. Furthermore, the Committee for the Basic Law and some constitutional law experts were also consulted. I then enquired about the identities of the experts and asked specifically if they were Maria TAM and Rita FAN. However, the Government stubbornly refused to disclose the identities of the persons being consulted, including those who were responsible for considering the learning package from the academic angle. Although the public might not know them, I requested the Government to release the name list so that we could monitor the final gatekeepers of the learning package. Nevertheless, the Government refused to do so and the matter was left unsettled in the end. This was why we were unable to monitor these biased teaching materials. Apart from knowing the learning package was published by the Government, there was no way we could monitor if the contents maintained neutrality. Furthermore, there was no way parents and schools could monitor the Government even though it was engaging in black-box operation behind closed doors and poisoning students with the biased learning package. Our request for disclosure of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9365 name list of the academics rather than the identities of the academics responsible for certain pages was turned down by the Government, too. So, how could the Education Bureau build up its credibility in reviewing the learning package?

Having seen these biased contents and misleading questions, I request the Government to disclose the membership list of the panels vetting the Basic Law or other history learning packages. To put it directly, it is a repeat of the National Education subject. I have no intention to make a casual remark or chant a slogan that the Government is pursuing brainwashing education. However, some terrible examples have already been incorporated into textbooks and some have made parents extremely furious. But still, the Government is reluctant to make revisions or give us an explanation. As a result, the National Education subject considered by us to have caused a major controversy back then will now be taught in Liberal Studies, General Studies and History subjects, as well as Basic Law education, as if it is divested in a low-profile manner to be "swallowed" by the public.

Besides Basic Law education, we can also examine what else the Government has done on the education front from a macroscopic angle. Let me cite a recent subject under heated discussion as an example. According to the Government, some descriptions of History textbooks, such as "Hong Kong lies to the south of China", are inaccurate. Furthermore, the wording of some references, such as "China recovered Hong Kong" and "China insisted on recovering the sovereignty over Hong Kong", is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, all these textbooks have been vetted by the Textbook Review Panels of CDI. So, is the Government not obliged to tell us who were responsible for vetting these textbooks? Interestingly, the Secretary indicated that, based on the principle of fairness, the Government would not disclose the details of the Review Panels to avoid conflict of interests. What is more, the Government had no intention to disclose which panel expert was responsible for vetting the textbooks published by which publishers. Neither did it wish to disclose the identity of the person responsible for vetting the textbooks to the relevant publishers. This sophistry is really bizarre.

How many review panels of a similar nature have been set up by the Government? The Government's structure consists of an appeal committee responsible for municipal affairs, a construction vetting team and the Liquor Licensing Board. Which commodity is not vetted and its licence is not issued by the Government? All these review panels are involved in commercial 9366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 operation. For instance, a publisher must first obtain approval from the Government before publishing a textbook. Actually, commercial operation involves many government frameworks. The Government has never said that certain frameworks must be kept strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed. Such being the case, why did the Government stubbornly refuse to disclose to the public the identities of the persons responsible for vetting the textbooks?

During the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, Chief Executive Carrie LAM accused Members of inflating education issues by using such expressions as "exaggeration", "speculation", "suspicion", and "stirring up trouble for nothing". In the end, when answering the question asked by Mr SHIU Ka-chun, she even said that she would not respond to his question in order to evade the question. Let me take many steps backward and say a few words about the controversy over whether or not Cantonese is our mother tongue. While Carrie LAM accused Members of discussing papers issued a couple of years ago, the Government has yet to take any action, make any plan or conduct any consultation. Let me for the time being put aside this question and discuss the Liberal Studies subject first. It has been reported that Liberal Studies will no longer be prescribed as a compulsory or core subject. In other words, it will no longer be compulsory for students to sit for Liberal Studies examinations. Or most preferably, this subject will be removed with no more examination to be taken, so that Liberal Studies will fade out slowly. But subsequently, the Secretary told us he had not yet received the relevant report. Moreover, he had no idea if the rumour was true and hence, he was unable to draw any conclusion. Let me for the time being put aside this topic and turn to the sentence that "Hong Kong lies to the south of China", as well as some biased examples found in the Basic Law learning package. Can Carrie LAM and the Secretary dismiss these examples found in textbooks as "exaggeration", "speculation" and "stirring up trouble for nothing"? Just now, Carrie LAM said that she would not answer the question raised by the Member because his remark was meaningless. Is that the best example of being accountable to the public?

As a parent, I really feel very indignant. When taking questions from Members, a Hong Kong government official surprisingly refused to give an answer when she was asked what his mother tongue was. In my opinion, the answer should be very simple. Mother tongue is the language we acquire after birth, that is, Cantonese. Should Carrie LAM refuse to answer this question, how can we expect her to be capable of performing her gate-keeping role, not to mention ensuring the textbooks in Hong Kong are free from being influenced or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9367

"brainwashed" by the will of the Government. If the Liberal Studies subject is removed from the core subjects in the end, it means that it will no longer be prescribed as a compulsory subject and students will no longer be mandated to take examinations on it. What does the Liberal Studies subject teach students? The answer is rational and critical thinking. Does the Government precisely not wish Hong Kong people to look at society in a rational and critical manner? Does the Government have the long-term plan of turning all students into obedient citizens who will only consider how to make a living rather than what is right and wrong? Is this the central idea of Hong Kong's education system? Does the Government have the intention to continue to distort Hong Kong's history by saying Hong Kong is not a colony and subvert or distort our understanding of history in order to achieve the political goal of manipulating the thinking of our next generation?

No one would like to turn education into a political issue or regard the administration by the Government as underpinned a hidden agenda. Let me repeat the first question asked in my speech just now, "Who is censoring our children's textbooks?" The Government has all along evaded this question. Neither is it willing to disclose the membership list of the review panels. As a result, we will continue to be haunted by the spectre cast by politicization of education, "brainwash education", divestment of national education, and so on. Will Carrie LAM and Secretary Kevin YEUNG please properly answer this very serious question of mine in their responses. Let me repeat my question, "Who is censoring our children's textbooks?". Thank you, Chairman.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, following the presentation of the Budget, I noticed there were considerable views in the community calling on the Government to increase the coverage of measures aimed at sharing the fruits of success in order to benefit more people. After listening closely to and considering carefully the relevant views, I announced on 23 March the Caring and Sharing Scheme ("the Scheme") which mainly seeks to provide those people who failed to benefit from the various sharing measures originally proposed in the Budget with a one-off payment of no more than $4,000, as a way of sharing the fruits of economic success with more people. We estimate that a maximum of about 3 million people may be eligible under the Scheme and the implementation of it will require a non-recurrent commitment of $11.316 billion, including $11.005 billion of payment to eligible persons and some $311 million of implementation costs for the Working Family Allowance 9368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Office. To tie in with the aforementioned arrangement, I also announced that for recipients of social security who would receive a two-month extra allowance of less than $4,000, the Government would provide an allowance payment to make up for the difference under the Scheme. We estimate that about 430 000 people will benefit from the top-up arrangement, including 280 000 recipients of Old Age Allowance, 130 000 recipients of Normal Disability Allowance and 20 000 recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance.

We believe the Scheme will allow us to share the fruits of economic success with more people in a targeted and focused manner. People from different sectors of the community, including women who dedicate themselves to homemaking at the expense of taking a job, recently-retired elderly persons who are relatively young and thus ineligible for receiving subsidies, wage earners of modest income who pay little or no tax, or home owners of just one property with little rates concession will benefit under the new Scheme as long as they meet the criteria. To implement the Scheme and facilitate the Social Welfare Department in making the top-up payments, we propose the following two amendments:

(a) create a new item under head 173 subhead 700 "General non-recurrent" with a provision of $11.316 billion for the implementation of the Scheme; and

(b) increase the provision under head 170 subhead 700 Item 803 "Additional provision for social security recipients 2018" by $435 million.

We submitted on 20 April a detailed information note to the Finance Committee for the reference of members. I urge Members to support the amendments so that the public can benefit. Thank you, Chairman.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, in her opening remarks in the Question and Answer Session this morning, the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM, said that Hong Kong could no longer live off its past gains or wait for luck to come by, and that we have to upgrade the development of industries and must not engage in endless arguments and remain stagnant.

However, when she kept laying emphasis on our role and participation in the Bay Area in future, I noticed that Chief Executive Carrie LAM often stressed that we should integrate with the development of the Bay Area or integrate with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9369 the overall development of the country and then make contribution to the country with the strengths of Hong Kong. She also said that we should not make a distinction between Hong Kong and the Mainland because under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong is, after all, still a member of "one country". But on this point, I think the biggest difference between my view and that of the Financial Secretary and the Chief Executive is that I will often ask under what circumstances the competitive edges of Hong Kong can be maintained.

Provided that "one country, two systems" can continue and there is not any trend of the Mainland institutions catching up with ours, certainly we can maintain our competitive edges. But when the Chief Executive considers this issue, can she cling to the view that our future should hinge on or purely depend on the institutional reforms of the Mainland not being able to catch up with Hong Kong …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, let me remind you that this is a joint debate on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018. Please speak on the question.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I forgot to say that I am speaking on the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki―sorry, I forgot to say that; my apologies―and his amendment proposes to reduce the emolument of the Chief Executive for about six months. So, I certainly have to talk about why I think the Chief Executive's emolument has to be reduced. I think in terms of her response to and consideration of the economic layout of Hong Kong, the Chief Executive has not made thorough considerations, and I would like to make this point clear to the Chief Executive through this discussion.

As I have just said, the issues we have to address are not confined to those in the next three or five years, for we also face an issue concerning the political and economic layouts in the longer term. As I have said openly before, the development of the Bay Area is a policy of the Mainland, and Hong Kong, being an international metropolis, is set to be affected by different policies in the neighbouring cities. As such, we are duty-bound to identify the implications on Hong Kong in this economic context.

9370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

From the trade war between China and the United States this time around, we can see a most important point and that is, for any places or cities involved in a trade war, if they, in the momentum of their long-term development in the future, lack core technologies or core values that are essential to sustaining their economic development long term, their economic development would be easily affected by the peripheral regions. This is the first point.

Second, when we always emphasize that the economic layout of the Bay Area will bring benefits to Hongkongers, we also have to answer the next question: Will these benefits for Hong Kong be sufficient to offset the impact to be created on us as talents and investors seize this opportunity to pursue development in the Mainland? I believe the Financial Secretary knows this only too well. In Hong Kong, our economic performance is measured on the basis of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), which takes into account the economic activities carried out in this place of Hong Kong. Put simply, if we go to the Mainland to make investments, as in the case of the northward relocation of the local factories in the 1980s, the value of production in the Mainland will not be counted towards GDP of Hong Kong. But if Hong Kong manufacturers return to Hong Kong to make investments after making profits in the Mainland, that would, of course, be factored into the calculation. This is my understanding.

In other words, when considering this issue, we cannot simply say that it is necessary to look for opportunities of development in the Mainland for Hongkongers to the neglect of the nature of such opportunities. What I mean is that if we do not have other options as substitution, then there would be a big crisis or danger for us as it would be questionable if our GDP could continue to maintain at such a high level.

I wonder if the Chief Executive, in considering this issue, has seriously pondered the concept of GDP and gauged the impact of the development of the Bay Area on Hong Kong from this angle. I wish to spend a little bit of time here to remind the Government of this point. It is because, in the absence of a clear answer, actually people will easily think that when the SAR Government calls on us to integrate with the development of the Bay Area and support the national policy, it has, in fact, ignored the challenges and difficulties that we face in this context of economic development. I am gravely concerned about this, and I hope that Members will take this as my well-intentioned criticism.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9371

Second, I also wish to mention my visit to Israel with the Panel on Commerce and Industry in summer last year. Like Hong Kong, Israel actually does not have many natural resources and its strongest edge lies in its talents. This is also the case in Hong Kong as talents or the "brain power" is the most important component of the economy. However, as all strata of the Israelis can see that the difficulty faced by the country comes from each and every neighbouring country and to put it plainly, these countries all want to drive Israel out of the Middle East, therefore, Israel has a very strong sense of crisis and fights for its own survival every day.

As for Hong Kong, the reform and opening up of the Mainland in the 1980s had brought very positive effects to Hong Kong in that through the concept of "front shop, back factory", Hong Kong has become an energetic, dynamic city, and also a city that aligns with the international standards and provides professional services. That said, I still have to point out that the Mainland Government and the neighbouring cities have been keeping a watch on our development momentum. They will not falter while we keep moving ahead. Therefore, in the face of this situation, we have to stay alert all the time, just as Israel does. We have to remind ourselves that the neighbouring cities are very keen to compete with us, and if there is any slight negligence in our reaction or even if we are like the hare dropping off to catch a doze as in the fable about the race between the tortoise and the hare, serious consequences could possibly arise.

Moreover, I think no official in the highest political echelon and no Member or person who cares about the future of Hong Kong will believe―even though the situation can be compared to the race between the tortoise and the hare, or in the eyes of some people, the development in the Mainland, especially in respect of the institutions, may be slower―but in considering issues, nobody will take an attitude that the Mainland can never catch up with us. Anyone who thinks this way will often become arrogant, just as the hare thinking that it will surely win and then dropping off to a doze during the race. This is another danger.

Hong Kong is facing competition from Mainland cities, and in the Mainland, their needs for land, manpower and capital can all be readily met. Many policies in the Mainland also target at Hong Kong, setting eyes on the advantages of Hong Kong, including our existing talents and our ties with the 9372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 international community. If we do not run farther ahead in the remaining time, so that our advantages are built on irreplaceable core technologies and core values, we will face the possibility of being taken over in the next round. So how can we not take this into consideration?

But much to our regret, from the election manifesto of the Chief Executive to all the remarks that she has made, I have only seen her say all the time that Hong Kong has to be involved in, integrate with and provide support to the development of the Bay Area or the momentum of economic development of the Mainland. But I still have not heard anything about how, under this pattern of competition, Hong Kong can persistently―I stress persistently―bring its advantages into play, make contribution to and play a part in the context of economic development, while continuously maintaining the status of Hong Kong as an international metropolis. I have heard nothing about this. This morning, I heard the Chief Executive make a few remarks on the Bay Area. She only said that we should neither remain in situ nor engage in endless arguments. If it is not her wish to remain stagnant or engage in endless arguments, we would like to hear what tactics and strategies the Chief Executive has to tackle this.

Let me cite an example. When we talk about the development of the Loop, a project into which a huge amount of resources will be injected, the biggest advantage of Hong Kong is indeed the very strong research capabilities of several local universities. Mainland cities have been thinking about ways to establish research partnership with this or that university in Hong Kong and devise strategies for the purpose. What about Hong Kong? What about the SAR Government? Has the Administration told us that it will, through the development of the Loop in the next five years, facilitate the operation of the existing research institutions in the Loop, hence making the Loop probably the most important base for scientific research? Or has it adopted a "couldn't care less" approach without the least intention to point to a direction? Because in many cases, it is necessary for the Government to make enormous efforts to explain the situation in order for the young people to understand that this will be a way out in future. But what the Government has done now is merely telling the young people that Hong Kong is not a way out and that they will have a way out in the Mainland. This precisely shows that the Government has not answered the question that I just asked. We must know where in Hong Kong is the way out and then put to good use our established advantages, just as what we did in the 1980s. Back then, we had our advantages and when the Mainland provided LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9373 concessions in terms of policies, we certainly took advantage of the policy concessions vis-à-vis our own position. But if Hong Kong lacks competitiveness, we would be in trouble.

The situation now faced by Hong Kong is very much similar to that of Israel. Which subject do young people often wish to study nowadays? They wish to become doctors, lawyers, or to work in professional sectors. But if this milieu is not changed, how can it be possible for substantial improvement to be seen in innovation and scientific research?

On the other hand, in order to change this milieu, we have to again rely on the SAR Government. We have approved the replacement of the Central Policy Unit by the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office. The Government has told us that efforts would be made to remove restrictions and regulations, but from the papers submitted by the officials, especially papers on staff establishment, they seem to be still clinging to the mindset: just give the hands, and I can solve the problems for you. How will they solve the problems then? They never said what they will do, or they only said that manpower must be provided first and then they will come up with solutions. Financial Secretary, such a bureaucratic mindset is likewise disastrous to Hong Kong.

In fact, the breakthrough that we need will be a change of this milieu. First, the SAR Government must explain most explicitly and vigorously that this is a way out in future; second, it is necessary to change the psychological status of the entire bureaucratic system and then promote changes to the social milieu. Thank you, Chairman

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, before I continue to speak on my Amendment No. 2, I would like to talk about the amendments proposed by the Financial Secretary this time, especially the part about the cash handouts. I have raised this point when I had the opportunity of meeting the Financial Secretary earlier. Subsequently, when the Budget was presented for the first time, the Civic Party also made it clear that we hoped the Government would focus all the resources on the people in need, rather than making cash handouts. Of course, subsequently, the Government made a change under immense political pressure. It does not matter if the Government would hand out cash. If the handout of 9374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

$4,000 can alleviate the pressing need of more people, how would we not support it? Yet regrettably, we see that even if the Government doles out over $10 billion, actually many deep-rooted problems will remain unsolved.

After the announcement of the Budget, I wrote a letter to the Financial Secretary, with particular mention of a tragedy in March involving a grandmother and her grandchild. Members may be aware that the grandchild in that case suffered from a specific learning difficulty (known as Hyperactivity Disorder) but did not receive sufficient support, eventually leading to a tragedy. The child was killed by his grandmother with her own hands. This may not be the only case. It may not be the most distressing one either. However, if we check the findings of a territory-wide survey, we would note that according to the estimation of the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists, there are in Hong Kong as many as 100 000 students in need of varying degrees of health care and learning support (including that of educational psychologists, speech therapists and others). Among them, the number of those receiving treatment in public hospitals is less than 34 000. Certainly, many middle-class or wealthy families with financial means will not wait for government services because the average waiting time for the assessment service currently provided by the Government is nine months even when it is provided at full speed. As regards the aftercare support services, one sees no end in waiting. Take health care as an example. Apart from various types of support, including learning support and that of educational psychologists and various kinds of therapists (particularly speech therapists and social workers), many such students may also need certain types of health care and have to take medicines. However, the present waiting time of these children for the child psychiatric service in various government hospitals can be as long as 133 weeks, that means almost two to three years. In the past, the shortest waiting time was 52 weeks. Yet in the past year, the situation has worsened to such a state that they have to wait 74 weeks. That means they have to wait at least one year and a half. Like ants on a hot pan, these students and parents are isolated and helpless. Given the lack of support in schools, every day they go to school as though they are going to an execution ground. If these families can receive more support, including that of social workers, psychologists and doctors, their situation may improve. Otherwise, isolated and helpless, they feel like being tortured every day in school and even at home.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9375

I wrote to the Financial Secretary simply to make a humble request. I hope he could allocate $1 billion to this. To the Government, $1 billion is no large figure because according to our estimation, now the Government's accumulated surplus exceeds $150 billion. Yet the money doled out by it covers people who do not need support at all―I will talk about this if I have the time later―for example, we see a single property owner holding more than 10 000 flats. The top 10 property owners who enjoy the highest amounts of rates concession possess more than 20 000 flats in total, and the rates waived exceeds $240 million. Compared with these real estate consortiums, developers and large organizations, the isolated and helpless disadvantaged cannot see any way out. I do not know which ones of them are eligible to collect the "candies" doled out by the Government this year. Even if they can receive a full $4,000 and really wish to use it to pay the assessment and treatment fees, by no means will it be enough because the cost of the assessment service ranges from $3,000 to $6,000. That means $4,000 will probably be used up by just one single assessment. Suppose they need to buy and take medicines at their own expenses. Now medicines are most expensive. The monthly expenditure on medicines can be as much as $1,000-odd, not including the consultation fees. The $4,000 can be used only to pay either the assessment fee or the medical fee. It cannot be used to pay both. How much does this $4,000 doled out by the Financial Secretary mean to them? In fact, it does not mean much. Nevertheless, by handing out cash, the Government can dissipate the opposition voices. Although I cannot oppose such an act, I do not think it can resolve the problem.

Chairman, I wish to come back to my amendment. After listening to the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session which lasted one hour and 30 minutes just now, I believe most people would have the following feeling: our Chief Executive has become an even better "fighter"―she is not really a good fighter. Only that such bureaucratic air, contempt, sophistry, as well as the commanding and arrogant attitude looking down on everyone else displayed in her replies to our questions in the Legislative Council just now have aroused our strong feelings. If the situation is as good as she said, so after we have listened to her Policy Address and this Question and Answer Session, basically Hong Kong would not have any problem because any problem could have been resolved. No problem is a problem in her eyes. Moreover, even if there is any problem, she has already addressed it. But this is exactly the terrifying point. Take the land problem as an example. She said she had already addressed it. After appointing Stanley WONG, she regarded the problem as having been 9376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 addressed. She said some land was difficult to resume. We should never request the Government to resume such land by virtue of the Lands Resumption Ordinance because it will give rise to lawsuits. If she were a Member, I would find it acceptable for her to say such words because Members can say whatever they please. But being the Chief Executive who has served in the Government for some 30 years, she blatantly does not observe the law in Hong Kong. The Lands Resumption Ordinance has laid down explicitly, and the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") has also handed down a ruling, that the Government has the right to resume the land if public interest is involved. Even in respect of compensation, at that time the Judges of CFA made it very clear in the judgment of the case that the Court would not consider economic benefits because this is a public need. The construction and provision of roads, bridges, schools, homes for the elderly and public housing is what Hongkongers have long awaited. The Government should not move the goalposts and tell any lies here, claiming that land resumption would lead to lawsuits. I hate people not observing the law and lying.

The Government did not answer the question. The Chief Executive found Stanley WONG to serve as Chairman of the Task Force on Land Supply, who has calculated that in 2026, Hong Kong will face a shortfall of 108 hectares of land. Just now a Member told her that a golf course alone had occupied 171 hectares, but she responded that land supply could be increased by reclamation. How long will reclamation take? Will it take 10 or 20 years? But I wonder whether housing units will indeed be made available to the public in 20 years. Is the Government telling the people of Hong Kong to wait 10 or 20 years? Seriously? How could she say such things? The Government has 1 300 hectares of brownfield sites in hand. Among them, 700-odd hectares are unplanned sites which have been put to use. The real estate developers are hoarding 1 000 hectares of agricultural land. The Government has the full legal basis and precedents for resuming the land, but she said it could not be done. She added that although she was called "777" and many of those 777 votes came from the rich and powerful and real estate developers, she was not afraid of them. If she is so awesome, she should come forward. Since she said she was not afraid of real estate developers, she might as well introduce a vacant property tax, but she did not. Such a measure can cover many aspects, including refraining from construction of housing after acquisition of land, and hoarding housing units after completion of construction. There are many methods which the Government can use to handle this matter, but it has done nothing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9377

I do not wish to digress to capital gains tax either. Actually, it is very simple. The Government has so much land in hand which it can actually use. As I said just now, the land sold by the Government this year can provide about 2 600 flats. Members of the public are suffering in dire straits. Some are living in "nano flats". When the land lots sold by the Government can provide 2 600 flats, it is like a big mercy bestowed by the emperor. As such, how can the people of Hong Kong trust the Chief Executive? No wonder her popularity rating keeps falling. After watching the live broadcast of our meeting, the people of Hong Kong would sleep on it. The Hong Kong Chief Executive knows everything and does everything perfectly. But then they would see themselves living in a subdivided unit of only 50 sq ft, with their bed hung over the toilet. Members may still remember how miserable the person in that photo on the Internet is. That elderly person is a cleaning worker aged 60 to 70. He lives in a subdivided unit of 50 sq ft. The cooker is placed above the toilet bowl. He has to smell his own excrement all day when he sleeps. This is precisely a portrait of the grass roots in Hong Kong. Then the Chief Executive said an artificial island would be built for us to the east of the airport. Reclamation would take place here and there. That is to say, if the people live long enough, they will be provided with public housing units―if they live long enough, she may as well make them be the king. Regrettably, in reality, there is a lack of ancillary facilities. The Government still encourages elderly persons aged above 65 to stay in employment because employment is the best way of enabling the Government to turn a blind eye to all the problems. Such being the case, I am really worried about the health of the elderly. Can they wait until the completion of the artificial island in their lifetime?

The situation before us is most absurd. The Chief Executive claims that she has worked in the Government for over 30 years, having served in different posts. In particular, with regard to land and housing, she has served as the Secretary for Development, the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Permanent Secretary for Development and in numerous other government posts. Many people might not approve of her assumption of office as Chief Executive and did not authorize her to do so, but hearing that she was a "good fighter", they would still harbour some sort of fantasy. Can she really bring some good luck to the people of Hong Kong, especially those living in abject poverty? But we have made observations from July last year to the present moment in May. Almost a year has passed. We reckon that if the current-term Government engages in this kind of development, so to speak, at "turtle speed", coupled with 9378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 those meetings of empty talk, the Chief Executive will tell us near the end of the term that the Government has kick-started what it needs to do. Then from the kick-start to genuine completion, we will have to wait a few more years.

In my view, the absurdity of the matter lies in the fact that the Government is not unaware of these figures, as I remember the Chief Executive said in the Question and Answer Session just now that we needed not talk to her about figures because she was better versed than us in figures. True. In fact, no one is better versed than her in such matters. But Chairman, although she is well-versed in such matters, it does not mean she is willing to do solid work. If someone has a deep knowledge, knows how he should work and is prepared to take action, then he is certainly a good official. However, suppose a certain official is well-versed in various matters, but she always likes to argue with us and seeks to win such quarrels. Worst of all, time is in her hand. She will reply if she so wishes and refuses to do so if it is not to her liking. There is nothing we can do about her.

Hence, we have no choice at all. Actually, I have proposed only one amendment, and I bear no grudges against the Chief Executive, since I did not have much contact with her before. Yet in my view, it is extremely detestable that despite being an official with great powers in the highest position in Hong Kong, she told us that she had already tried her best in everything, and then there was no change in the implementation of every policy, not to mention her bureaucratic air. Had she not assumed this post, Members would not have proposed to deduct her wages. But since she has taken on this post and made us all such promises which turn out to be mere lies, we cannot but fulfil our duty as Members and request a deduction of her salaries. I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we are now considering the Appropriation Bill 2018 and is now in the second session of the Committee stage to debate 67 amendments involving 46 heads. Among the 67 amendments, two are proposed by the Government and the remaining 65 by Members, out of which 31 by me. Chairman, there are only three Members present in the Chamber right now and no Member is waiting to speak. In fact, it does not matter. I can speak alone until 8:00 pm as long as you allow me to do so, because I am not sure if there is enough time for me to speak for 15 minutes on each of the 31 amendments proposed by me.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9379

However, it indicates a phenomenon, that only Members intending to speak need to be present, and I do not dare requesting a headcount because if the meeting is adjourned due to a lack of quorum, I would have lost the chance to speak. Therefore, Members not intending to speak can go home and come back next week to vote.

Chairman, first of all, I continue to speak on one of the amendments proposed by the Financial Secretary, which increases "Head 173―Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency" by $11,316 million. It is rather rare that the Government proposes Committee stage amendments. The last time the Government did so was in 2011 when the then Financial Secretary John TSANG proposed an amendment, and at the time I was not yet a Member of the Legislative Council. Back then, to implement "Scheme $6,000", the Government needed to propose an amendment in order to make an additional provision of $7,100 million as the additional expenditure of the scheme.

I hope the general public will understand and also take the opportunity to note clearly that at the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, the power between the Government and Members is absolutely not balanced, or even unfair. The Financial Secretary can propose amendments to increase the appropriations for heads in the Appropriation Bill. But given the statutory restrictions, Members cannot propose any amendment that would increase the sum for any head or subhead of expenditure. Accordingly, Members can only propose amendments to reduce expenditure. The Government has a massive fiscal surplus, then why would expenditure be reduced? Instead it should be increased. We do wish to increase the sums for many heads, but Members have no power to propose amendments that increase government expenditure. Moreover, Members are subject to the same constraint in their scrutiny of Bills as they cannot propose any amendments that will increase government expenditure.

I will give an example. We may discuss the Rating (Exemption) Order 2018 in the Legislative Council meeting next week. Members wished to make a proposal to increase the relevant threshold but failed to do so because of some administrative measures that might increase government expenditure. I do not know if such a restriction can be changed in future, i.e. Members would be allowed to propose amendments to increase the sums for heads. If 60 and more Members agree and such a proposal is passed at separate voting, why not? I find it baffling and I think the general public will feel the same.

9380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

A record-breaking fiscal surplus is recorded this year, which has increased from $138 billion as estimated by the Financial Secretary on 28 February to $148.9 billion―the final figure released a few days ago. In the Second Reading debate, I pointed out that a fiscal surplus is not some windfall. The Government should not rejoice at having a surplus because it came at a price―a price borne by several millions of people. The surge in government revenue is mainly the result of a surge in revenue from stamp duty. And the surge in stamp duty revenue is because, in the light of escalating property prices and rampant speculation, developers have one after another applied for land exchange and bid land sites at record-breaking prices, pushing rentals of residential and commercial premises to soar. It is what every member of the public has to "share"―"sharing" not the fruit but the consequence.

Therefore, given the colossal fiscal surplus the Government has today, people should share such a sum of money as a matter of course. Indeed, it should not be regarded as "sharing" but "compensation". However, much to our disappointment, I have no idea if the Financial Secretary truly does not understand such a rationale. I have been explaining such a rationale over the years. More and more people have understood it and eventually even Jasper TSANG does, too. Does the Financial Secretary really not understand or pretend not to? He seems to be bearing grudges, but against whom? Against John TSANG? He always thinks his way of doing it is different from "Scheme $6,000" in 2011, which was an "extensive handout" and a "universal refund", while this time it is targeted and so criteria have to be laid down and people have to overcome various hurdles before they can collect the money.

The Government proposes the amendment to seek funding for implementing the Caring and Sharing Scheme, which prescribes certain eligibility criteria. But the Budget also introduces a rates waiver which is automatic. I will elaborate it in detail later on when I talk about the amendments I proposed to the Rating (Exemption) Order 2018. The Secretary ought to understand why people are so angry and why they have very strong reactions to even just a few words I said calmly.

First, the Financial Secretary proposes an amendment to apply for funding. The so-called "top up $4,000" scheme can easily produce a labelling effect, and some people even find it insulting. The eligibility criteria of the scheme are: the applicant is aged 18 or above and ordinarily resident in Hong Kong in the past year. Eligible citizens are entitled to receive―not simply "receive" but "entitled LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9381 to receive"―$4,000 each or the difference after tax deduction or rates waiver, so as to "share" the fruit―which is indeed the "bitter fruit" reaped at the price of high land premium, high rentals and high spending.

However, at the time of the announcement of the scheme, the Financial Secretary said that it is to assist people in need. What is meant by "in need"? Every person thinks he or she has the need. Or does the Financial Secretary mean that people have to admit they are in need and make the application on their own accord in order to receive the money? I find it politically incorrect because recipients would worry about being labelled. For example, if, for a person, the difference after tax deduction is $50, then should he fill in a form to apply? He would seem to hanker after the $50. Of course, his cost of applying for the money may be more than $50 and the administrative cost of the Government is not less than $50.

As a matter of fact, the Government really needs not affix a label to the recipients. There is a reason for the colossal surplus and I have already pointed out the "reason", so I will not repeat it. The "fruit" shared by all citizens in Hong Kong is a "bitter fruit", and now the Government is merely making up for it. Therefore, my suggestion for a "'universal refund' for everyone's benefit" is the fairest option. This targeted "gap-plugging" scheme carrying a labelling effect will instead lead to many consequences.

Second, the administrative cost incurred in such a cash handout is unnecessarily high. Is the Financial Secretary bearing grudges against John TSANG or is Carrie LAM bearing grudges against John TSANG? Only they have the answer. Public money will be wasted for no good cause in such a way. The amendment asks for an increase of $11,136 million, out of which only $11,000 million will be for the payment to eligible persons and $310 million will be the administrative cost, equivalent to 3% of the $11,000 million payment amount. And the $310 million administrative cost covers: $160 million of staff cost for paying 706 non-civil service contract staff members, a staggering $46 million for office rental, a staggering $64 million for other operating expenses, which include data preparation services and land search expenses.

The Financial Secretary would not like my drawing a comparison between him and John TSANG. Or course, he would think that the latter pales in comparison and such a comparison is impossible, just like it is impossible to 9382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 compare an apple to an orange. Yet I am to make such a comparison. In 2012, John TSANG handed out $6,000 to each person, and it involved a sum of $36.7 billion, more than three times the expenditure on the "gap-plugging" measure today. The administrative cost was only $130 million, of which $81.4 million was for the handling fee payable to banks while other administrative fees only amounted to $48 million. Back then, he only increased the sum for "Head 106―Miscellaneous Services" by $7.1 billion.

Why do the two schemes carry such huge differences? The main reason is that the logic behind the cash handout―which I now refer to as "sharing"―is different. The universal cash handout back then was unconditional, non-differential and non-means-tested. It being non-means-tested meant that a great deal of manpower for verification of applications could be spared, so was the need for land search expenses. And there was even no need to rent an office as existing government office locations could be used. Therefore, the administrative cost was a far cry. Nevertheless, such a non-differential "sharing" scheme or cash handout scheme is regarded as a thorn in the eye of the current-term Government: implementing a universal cash handout again is tantamount to giving approval to the past practice of John TSANG. Indeed, John TSANG was not smart: he was forced to redeem himself by doing something within the shortest period of time. However, he actually did not "hand out the pie only to make a complete mess".

Mrs Regina IP was right in saying yesterday that such a way of making a cash handout involves complicated procedures. People can fill in forms only next year to make their applications. Regardless of the administrative cost, it will be already the next financial year when the money can really be disbursed to the people. Such money can be used to stimulate the economy and share with the people so that they can make spending, which will be favourable to the business of shops. Regrettably, such an effect can only be achieved a year later. The Financial Secretary said it is the first time he would make a cash handout. It would not be his virgin initiative if he followed the method of the previous one. He would then have more experience and the administrative cost could be lower.

Chairman, actually I find the administrative cost not wisely spent on conducting spot checks, renting offices and hiring non-civil service contract staff members. Coming from 41 departments, such non-civil service contract staff LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9383 members originally perform other tasks to serve citizens―of course, a cash handout is a very important service as well―but are now deployed to assist the Financial Secretary in venting his grudges. But the Financial Secretary is stingy to waste their working hours, costing society such a sum of $310 million in administrative cost. Such a sum could be handed out in a more pleasurable manner to bring greater benefit to people, so that his popularity will not dwindle further as a result. Of course, he simply does not care. Nonetheless, his cash handout logic affects other government policies, producing such results.

Let spare some time speaking on one more head. One of my amendments is about "Head 186―Transport Department" which seeks to reduce $50 million―not a big amount. This sum of $50 million is equal to the recurrent expenditure on the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme under the Transport Department in 2018-2019. First of all, please note that this amount does not refer to the subsidy under the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme, but just the recurrent expenditure. I do not oppose the Government subsidizing people's transport expenses to help them commute to work―when the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme was introduced, there was yet to be a cash handout initiative. It is good that it means a de facto "refund". However, the scheme has its inadequacy that, indeed similar to the "gap-plugging" measure, the administrative cost is very high.

According to a paper of the Finance Committee, the Government estimates that the implementation of the scheme will require recurrent expenditure of $45 million in 2018-2019 for manpower and administrative cost, e.g. expenditure required for conducting transport surveys, auditing fee of systems of internal control, service fee for subsidy calculation and collection, relevant system operating and maintenance fee. From 2019-2020 onwards, the full year recurrent expenditure will be around $69 million. Given the staff cost of $12 million, it means that other expenditure is more than $30 million. The authorities are unable to provide the future maintenance cost of the Octopus readers used for collection of subsidy. And the recurrent expenditure will increase to $6.9 million in 2019-2020. With staff cost remaining the same, other expenditure will be a staggering $57 million. Recurrent expenditure stands at a staggering several ten million dollars, accounting for 3% of the subsidy. And yet is the subsidy collection method convenient to people?

9384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

When the scheme was first introduced, people thought they would automatically be granted the subsidy each month. Let me give an example. Chairman, it is May now. People pay the full fares in May, and then swipe their cards on the readers at the beginning of June, after which the subsidy will be deposited into their Octopus card in a way similar to the automatic add value service. Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. The subsidy will not be deposited into the Octopus cards like the automatic add value service. People have to particularly seek out the Octopus readers assigned specifically for the scheme and swipe their cards on the readers to collect the subsidy. How many of such readers are available? It is unknown yet. Moreover, there is a time limit for collection of the subsidy. If people forget to swipe their cards before the deadline, they cannot collect the subsidy, which will be thrown down the drain then.

In fact, I have made enquiries with some technical people who are familiar with the technology of Octopus cards whether it is technically feasible for people to collect their subsidy at the beginning of each month by swiping their cards. It is feasible but the Government is unwilling to do so. Or perhaps it has other consideration so it would not do so. (The buzzer sounded) … It is not a convenient measure to the people.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please stop speaking.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said just now in his opening speech, 15 minutes would probably not be enough for speaking on one single amendment. I will speak on the amendments proposed by several Honourable colleagues, especially the one proposed by Mr Andrew WAN regarding the reduction in the annual salary expenditure of the Secretary for Home Affairs. Other amendments concerning the Home Affairs Bureau include those targeting the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland and the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange for a reduction in estimated expenditure which were proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin. Granting the time, I will comment on another amendment proposed by Mr AU, Amendment No. 57 relating to the Pilot Scheme on Promoting Interflows between Sister Schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland ("the Sister School Scheme").

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9385

I will first talk about the Home Affairs Bureau. Members who have listened to Mr Andrew WAN's speech would know that he was mainly pinpointing the issue of Private Recreational Leases ("PRL"). We certainly understand that the relevant policy is undergoing a―rather lengthy―consultation lasting six months. But Mr WAN also pointed out that the relevant consultation, coincidentally, overlaps with that of the one conducted by the Task Force on Land Supply. Sites granted under PRL covered an area of over 400 hectares, and those occupied by such unofficial sports clubs as, particularly, the Fanling Golf Course ("FGC") measured over 300 hectares.

Having followed up this policy for years, I am not targeting FGC alone. Why has the golf course found itself the focus of everyone's attention? I think the reason is pretty obvious, Chairman, even though your son is now its spokesperson. Because of all PRL sites, the FGC site, measuring 170 hectares, is most extensive. It is also the biggest site under a lease with the earliest expiry, i.e. 2020. Adding to the fact that part of the golf course adjoins some developed places, it is indeed not hard to fathom why it is attracting close attention from everyone. I saw that the Secretary has returned to the Chamber. I wish to remind him that we are discussing whether to slash all of his salary, to which, unfortunately, he will have no opportunity to reply later on.

This review of PRL is arguably worse than petty and piecemeal. I am grateful to the relevant colleagues, including Mrs Betty Fung who came here for a discussion with me some of their proposals. That said, looking into the details of the government proposals, we fail to see in the authorities any sincerity of addressing this entire policy with boldness and decisiveness.

Chairman, this is not a manifestation of anti-rich sentiment on our part, and this is certainly not an attitude which the people of Hong Kong assume. What we want is for everyone to compete on a level playing field―even if not necessarily from the same starting line, at least on the same playing field―and be governed by the same set of rules. Regrettably, however, some original rules got titled in favour of a particular party as a result of the emergence of some so-called vested interests which are often the product of economic development.

Why do we want a fundamental review of the entire policy? This policy has been implemented for years. FGC, as Member may already know, has a history dating back nearly a century. Should it be allowed to continue? 9386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Depending on the circumstances. During the colonial era, which was quite different from today, there was a time when the colonial government was strapped for cash and could only depend on other organizations to develop some sporting or recreational facilities. Those organizations might possess the financial might needed to assist in promoting the development of various sports, which gave rise to this policy.

But the times have changed. With the economic development of Hong Kong today, does the Special Administrative Region Government still not have the ability to properly address the development issues of some sports? I am sure the Government will certainly not agree to this. PRL sites are precious resources, but such precious land resources are now seemingly monopolized by some people who may have come early to the party. I do not know whether the President is aware that some consortia or developers have paid cold and hard cash for lands in Deep Water Bay for a private club operation. And we have seen many different companies that operate private clubs on some rented venues. But there are some private clubs which think the relevant leases of their sites will remain valid forever, refusing to give up even one single inch of land, all because they managed to get their hands on those sites in the early years. What sort of attitude is that? Is that the right way to address this issue?

The strangest thing is the proposal put forward in the Government's review document for a levy of one third of the land premium to solve the problem. But where does the ratio of one third come from? The Government offered no explanation on that, which does not seem reasonable. Is one third fair? Is an across-the-board levy appropriate? I think we can have discussions on them. But it is simply inconceivable that the Government cannot even explain how it came up with that ratio.

Have the authorities inspected the accounts of private sports clubs, studied the features of their respective leases, or even visited the various sports clubs? Chairman, I am referring to some proper methods of review. As early as the 1960s, the authorities conducted a review of this policy and wrote up a report in great detail. Back then, a review panel comprising individuals of high standing outside the establishment was set up. They visited many private recreational facilities and looked carefully at the relevant leases. I believe the review panel had also taken note of the financial positions of the relevant private sports clubs, since the relevant documents highlighted the financial positions of some clubs that were unsatisfactory, while discussing whether the matter should be handled LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9387 in another way or even to have those sites recovered. The result of the review was also reflected in those leases. Initially, the Home Affairs Bureau, or the department previously responsible for this policy, must liaise with eligible outside bodies and facilitate them in hiring the venues of private sports clubs. But at a certain stage, the Home Affairs Bureau was somehow relieved of the liaison responsibility all of a sudden, needing only to post all the information online and letting outside bodies liaise on their own. It is obvious to all that the Home Affairs Bureau is getting less and less involved in the relevant work and it is unclear how the Bureau can monitor the situation. The Home Affairs Bureau of course has just created a new post to assist the Commissioner for Sports, whom we certainly hope will do a good job and prove more effective in monitoring.

In respect of the Secretary for Home Affairs, I wish also to―I will not venture to say "advise" but―highlight one thing relating to Report No. 68 of the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC"). I was one of the Members mainly responsible for the scrutiny of the report. What went wrong in the process? Testimonies made by the Secretary at two meetings of PAC contradicted each other.

The official to whom Mr CHAN Kin-por referred in the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session just now probably was not Secretary LAU Kong-wah, for Secretary Frank CHAN too had previously excused himself from a meeting of PAC for other business. It was not until Mr Abraham SHEK, the Chairman of PAC, reminded him in a rather harsh tone that it was a very important duty of Bureau Directors to attend the meetings of PAC, that he finally relented. I hope that―not just Secretary LAU Kong-wah but―all Bureau Directors or the relevant officials will take the work of PAC seriously and understand the utmost importance of this mechanism of accountability, be it the Audit Commission or the public to whom they have to answer.

Moreover, I wish to talk about a number of amendments I mentioned just now, which were proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin in relation to the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland and the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange. And Chapter 7 of the newly-released Report No. 70 by the Audit Commission is precisely about the funding schemes and programmes for youth exchange and internship of the Home Affairs Bureau. As a member of PAC, I will not elaborate on the Report here but nonetheless wish to take this opportunity to highlight particularly a fact mentioned in paragraph 9 of the executive summary of the relevant chapter of the Audit Commission's report: in 9388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 respect of the attendance rates of members of the Commission of Youth ("CoY"), the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education, and the responsible working groups or subcommittee in 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, there were in fact members who did not attend any meetings in each of the three years.

I am not sure whether the Secretary for Home Affairs can still recall that in the special meetings of the Finance Committee last year, I indeed questioned why two members of CoY had not attended any meeting in the entire year. If my memory has not failed me, CoY convenes a meeting every quarter, meaning four meetings a year in total. But those members who failed to attend a single meeting in the entire year still managed to get reappointed for another term of one year.

Chairman, I wonder if Members have paid attention to the replies given by the Government to some of the questions posed at the special meetings of the Finance Committee. I must point out in all solemnity that this year, in response to our questions on the attendance rates of members of individual committees, the Government gave only very general replies, such as the number of members whose attendance rates have reached a certain percentage, the number of members who have attended another percentage of meetings, and the number of members whose attendance rates fall between 0% to 30%. To cover up, or attempt to cover up, for the absentees in such a way is, to me, most unfair to those members who have attended meetings. If those members were absent, the Government should state so clearly. Why did it act in such an evasive manner, and help them hide behind a fig leaf? It is a matter of course for members to attend meetings. Those who do not or cannot attend meetings should never become a member, why holding on to those offices? There are legions of people who have both the zeal and ability to be members.

Can the Secretary recall that I once asked him whether he was engaging in spiritual exchange with the absentee members? How can other members communicate with one who is not present? He would have no knowledge of what other Members had said in meetings, nor would what he has got to say be known to the Secretary. When asked by Members about the attendance rates of members in meetings, the authorities replied in that way instead. Why do they not simply tell us how many male and female members were there? Can that be taken as replies to our questions? I find the authorities increasingly sloppy in their replies. It should be noted that every time we pose a question, we always revisit past replies to gauge whether improvements have been made. There is in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9389 fact none. Instead of making improvements following the revelation on attendance rates by the Audit Commission, the authorities replied evasively to Members' questions in an attempt to cover up for those absentee members. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Lastly, I wish to talk about the Sister School Scheme. As Members all know, the Education Bureau plans to regularize the Scheme and set aside a provision of $170 million for it. But Members may still recall that in a recent discussion on moral education in the Panel on Education, a government document put forward the proposal of regularizing the Scheme. Why should we do so? Because the Scheme was worth encouraging, according to the authorities, who also used terms most interesting in describing the Scheme in the document. Why do we collaborate with Mainland schools alone? Because, according to the document, "the positive, conscientious and self-disciplined learning attitude of Mainland students will have a positive impact on Hong Kong students and facilitate their personal development."

Chairman, are those attributes unique to Mainland students alone? Why are only schemes in collaboration with Mainland schools granted that provision and meritorious for regularization? It makes no sense at all. Why is the Scheme not fostering collaboration with schools on an international level, which should be more conducive to broadening students' horizons? Certainly, the farther the destination of exchange, the higher the costs it would incur and thus the greater the need for government subsidization. But the Government is fostering exchange with neighbouring schools in the region alone. Is this an attempt by the Government, out of worries of poor patronage of the Express Rail Link in future, to encourage more people to take the train, thus boosting its patronage?

We hope Hong Kong will not grow complacent and subsidize only exchanges with Mainland schools. We should be keener in encouraging Hong Kong schools to establish ties with a sister school on the international level so as to facilitate students in international exchange and broadening their horizons.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, I will express my views on Amendment No. 26. I think this amendment, which proposes to reduce the staff costs and the estimated expenditure of the Buildings Department ("BD") in relation to the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints 9390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

("JOIWSC"), is most unreasonable. As I already said in my speech yesterday, according to a recent report of the Office of The Ombudsman, the situation of water pipe leakage is serious in Hong Kong, with an overall leakage rate of 15.2% and an average of one incident of water mains burst every four days. The report criticized the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") for not doing its job effectively. But with regard to JOIWSC set up jointly by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and BD, while the water seepage complaints involved in the duties of JOIWSC also include water mains bursts, the composition of JOIWSC seems to be far from comprehensive in not including representatives from WSD.

Some time ago I received a letter from the Buildings Department Local Building Surveyors' Association. They stated explicitly that the dissatisfactions expressed by people outside the Government with the handling of water seepage by BD were unfounded allegations, particularly the view that water seepage is caused by unauthorized building works ("UBW") and BD should, therefore, be responsible for leading the investigation and enforcement work. But according to the records of complaints received by JOIWSC over the past decade, in 80% of the cases, the origin of water seepage had to do with the floor slabs or walls, and in some 10% of the cases, the origin was the drainage pipes, whereas the rest of the cases were caused by water supply pipes and other reasons. A great majority of these cases involved issues of environmental nuisances that could be fixed by simple repair works and had nothing to do with building safety. Water seepage cases caused by UBW accounted for less than 1% of the total number of cases, and BD will follow up and deal with these cases. For complicated cases of water seepage involving, say, subdivided units, FEHD and BD will jointly deal with them and find effective solutions to them. Given that BD is empowered by law to handle only water seepage problems caused by dilapidated buildings and UBW, general water seepage problems relating to environmental nuisances will be handled by FEHD.

Chairman, there are disputes in the handling of water seepage problems because the existing approach cannot effectively address the nuisance caused by water seepage to the public. Therefore, I hope that the Administration will address squarely the root of the problem by thoroughly reviewing the organizational structure, position and direction, as well as the modus operandi of JOIWSC.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9391

Since its establishment in 2006, JOIWSC can be said to be in a leaderless state, for its work is not led by any department. Frontline staff of JOIWSC are accountable only to the head of their respective departments, and when they come across cases that are more complicated, the conflicts between the two departments will increase because many disputes will arise in the determination of which department should be made responsible.

I wish to point out that at present, JOIWSC provides free water seepage investigation for the public, which costs the public coffers an average of over $10,000 for each case. As a result, this has prompted owners of private properties to neglect their own responsibilities and lodge complaints at will, causing a surge of cases handled by JOIWSC in recent years. Despite the injection of additional resources and application of more technologies by the Government to address the situation, these measures cannot tackle the problem at root.

Chairman, water seepage investigation is no solution to the water seepage problem, nor is the work of JOIWSC a panacea. As a preventive measure, owners should be encouraged to carry out repairs as early as possible and this is where the key lies, especially in view of the growing number of ageing buildings.

Besides, I wish to once again urge the Government to take into consideration the proposals put forward by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors since 2005, which include calling on the Government to consider setting up a buildings tribunal to handle disputes arising from water pipe leakage and urge owners to carry out repairs expeditiously. This, I think, is a more effective approach that can address the problem at root.

Moreover, Chairman, I also wish to express my views on Amendments Nos. 28 and 42. As we all know, there is a serious shortage of land and housing supply in Hong Kong. In the consultation document published recently, the Task Force on Land Supply pointed out that land development is a protracted process. It generally takes about 11 to 14 years to develop housing on "non-spade ready" sites, while large projects and the development of new areas certainly take even longer. On top of the planning review, planning and engineering study often takes three years. In the meantime, it is also necessary to carry out various stages of public engagement and statutory planning procedures, to be followed by detailed design and study, and the completion of these procedures will take years. As for site formation and the necessary building works after the grant of land, such as infrastructure works, they will usually take three to five years. 9392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Such being the case, can this protracted process be streamlined? I think improvement can be made to some aspects, so that the vetting and approval procedures can be shortened to speed up the pace of development and hence, more housing flats can be supplied in a shorter time. In this connection, in the last term of the Legislative Council I had set up a working group and put forward views on ways to improve the vetting and approval procedures. I am glad that the Secretary for Development has recently undertaken to set up a working group tasked to make improvement to the existing procedures, including the vetting and approval procedures of the department itself and the procedures for inter-departmental coordination, and also to standardize some definitions. Concerning these improvement measures, the Secretary said in response to my question that the first batch of proposals will be rolled out in the latter half of this year. I think the Secretary has heeded good advice and I hope that the review can be carried out more expeditiously.

Chairman, apart from the review of procedures, civil servants are currently faced with an increasing workload and the provision of additional manpower is only reasonable and most important. The Lands Department ("LandsD") is consistently plagued by a shortage of manpower. Given the onerous duties of LandsD which is responsible for land administration, approval of development, land sale, handling of breaches of land lease, and so on, it is indeed a matter of course to increase its manpower. However, in proposing the reduction of the estimated expenditure for the annual emoluments for the 88 new non-directorate posts to be created for the relevant work of LandsD, the relevant amendment is actually not conducive to the development of land. On the contrary, it will even pose an obstacle to the increase of land and housing supply, in which case the grass roots and households of subdivided units will continue to suffer the ordeal of living in a small space.

Likewise, I will not support Amendment No. 42 which proposes to delete a post of Senior Town Planner to be created in the Planning and Lands Branch of the Development Bureau. This post is created for providing services and support specifically in relation to the increase of land supply, with the purpose of facilitating Hong Kong's sustained development through effective planning and use of land and a steady and sufficient supply of land. If the creation of even one non-directorate post is not allowed, that would indeed be most unreasonable.

Chairman, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9393

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, in the time that follows, I will focus on Amendment No. 45 which proposes that head 141 be reduced by an amount equivalent to the whole-year personal emolument of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare.

Chairman, to the Government, it has heeded the views of Members and the public and done something it least desires to do, that is, making cash handouts. Despite the significant amendments made by the Government, the Financial Secretary in particular, this time around, the Budget fails to draw a loud applause. Why? Chairman, we may perhaps look at the issue from this perspective. Since the Financial Secretary announced the "gap-plugging" measure of giving $4,000 and that the $11 billion candies would benefit 2.8 million people, it is noted that the administrative cost incurred for giving away candies is as much as $300 million. If the administrative cost incurred is given away as candies, another 75 000-odd people will benefit. Besides, according to the calculation done by the media, for a family with three able-bodied members on Comprehensive Social Security Allowance ("CSSA"), it will receive $50 as discrepancy allowance after deducting the two-month extra payment. As for recipients of normal disability allowance, they will receive $560 as discrepancy allowance after deducting the two-month extra payment. Will the above mentioned examples draw the applause of the general public and convince the public that the Budget this year will benefit the public as a whole? More importantly, is the money been spent properly? The public really doubt this.

Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the lesson learnt in the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme ("LIFA Scheme"). It should be cautious not to impose excessive vetting and complicated application procedures, which will deter people from applying for the allowance, preventing a policy targeted to alleviate poverty from benefiting the needy.

Moreover, I have to criticize the Labour and Welfare Bureau in particular for the elderly care policy it adopted this year or since the assumption of office of the current-term Government. The policy lacks new thinking. The Bureau continues to increase the resources required in a far less than proportional manner. It has never considered the issue from the perspective of the elderly. In fact, as we review the budgets over the past years, the Civic Party, in each of the past year, had put forth to the authorities the proposal to clear the waiting list for residential care places for the elderly in five years. Yet, on the construction of additional residential care places, it seems that the Government is merely 9394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 performing its task in a perfunctory manner and the increase is trivial. What have the Government's actions and responses brought? Chairman, it has brought us some heart-rending figures. According to the replies given by the current-term Government to Members' questions, we understand that 6 200 elderly persons died during their wait for residential care places. This figure is close to those in the past five years but showing a slight increase. It does not take the mind of a rocket scientist to notice that there is an enormous demand for residential care places for the elderly in Hong Kong. Besides, the number of elderly people dying during the wait for residential care places has not dropped despite the various promises made by the Government every year. As I mentioned earlier, the actual figure shows a constant rising trend. Now, I would like to convince Members of my argument with figures in particular.

The number of elderly people who passed away while waiting for residential care places was 5 019 in 2013, and by 2017, it reached 6 259. Chairman, I am not going to point out the reasons for the increase. As to whether or not the waiting time has extended because elderly people are healthier and live longer now than those in the past, I will not discuss it here. I will refer to the actual figures to prove that elderly people need to wait for residential care places and that they died before they were allocated a place. The fact is that elderly people cannot live long enough to be allocated a place. Chairman, what we should really consider and worry is whether or not the Government is capable of helping the people of Hong Kong to live in peace in their twilight years. Moreover, I hope the Government will understand that we are fully aware of the guiding principle of the Government's elderly care policy of "Ageing in Place", yet it should still give regard to residential care. Hence, we in the Civic Party propose that $1.5 billion be invested in the construction of additional residential care homes and day care centres for the elderly, the increase in community care services, as well as the enhancement of frontline staff providing community care services for the elderly and their remuneration. This portfolio of services will shorten the waiting time for residential care places, which will de facto let the elderly feel at ease in ageing in the community. However, elderly people ageing in the community who need these services will have to wait for more than one year. Given the shortage of community support, will the elderly be willing to age in the community?

In fact, in the past decade, the Labour and Welfare Bureau was headed by Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, the incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration. Since he came not from the welfare sector, he had been subject to criticisms from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9395 the sector during his tenure, for the policies implemented were considered by frontline staff impracticable in meeting the actual needs. Under the current-term Government, the Bureau is headed by Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong who is well versed in the situation of the welfare sector. As for elderly care, Dr LAM Ching-choi who knows elderly care services extremely well is appointed the Chairman. Despite that, has any significant improvement been made after the Government has assumed office for nearly a year? In this Budget, we do not notice any significant changes. To us, the authorities are sticking to established practices without reflection, and this is really worrying.

Moreover, we are concerned whether or not the Secretary has any long-term planning and strategies for the future planning of elderly care services. Chairman, as I said at the meetings of the Legislative Council and other Panels, if we acknowledge the figures provided by the Government that we will encounter the peak of the ageing population in 2030, the importance or the most important task of the current-term Government is to lay a good foundation for the future. As I mentioned earlier, the current-term Government, particularly Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong, has failed to inspire in the public real confidence. In actuality, the achievements made in the past year fail to show the effectiveness of the efforts made. This is one of the major reasons we consider it necessary to support the amendment this time around to reduce the personal emolument of the Secretary.

Chairman, I would like to share my experience gained last Saturday. On that day, I met with a group of students of Secondary Five to discuss various policies in society, and one of the topics of discussion was directly related to the discussion today. They asked if importation of the labour was a necessary measure to address the shortage of manpower in elderly care services. Chairman, at the discussion back then, I explained to them the supporting and opposing views on this subject. I told them that the sector might have encountered great difficulties in recruitment at present. For this reason, at least some members in the professional sector consider the shortage can merely be addressed by importation of labour. Yet, what is the other side of the coin? Regarding the manpower shortage at present, should this simply be explained as difficulties in recruitment? Have we ever dug deeper to find out why recruitment is so difficult? Is it because the provision of such services is labelled as obnoxious in nature, lacks professional recognition and generates low reward that it cannot attract new recruits? As for experienced workers, will they 9396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 change jobs because the pay is not high? Chairman, importation of labour is a simple and convenient approach. It is true that this instant-noodle style approach can alleviate the manpower shortage within a short period. Yet, what should we do in the long run? Now, elderly people in need of care are people born and grown up in Hong Kong, and these elderly people include our family members and our friends. If elderly people who may be our family members are to be taken care of by imported labour, is this what we wish to see? If imported workers, foreign domestic helpers or even strangers under the same roof may be carers of the elderly without receiving any professional training, is the current-term Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") telling the people of Hong Kong that this is the major strategy it will adopt to address the ageing population in future?

Chairman, in fact, we have proposed to the Government repeatedly that the right remedy should be prescribed and it should tackle the problem at root by raising the pay and status of elderly care workers. This will not only enable grass-roots workers to work with a sense of dignity. More importantly, this will attract young people and let them see that this is a respectable occupation. If young people see that the occupation offers reasonable pay and stability and enables them to lead a secure life, we need not worry about young people not joining the profession. This is the solution to the problems of elderly care services and the key to sustainable development in the long run. Through my discussion with the students, I also hope to let them understand that if we are to address the problems of ageing population seriously, we cannot rely merely on importation of labour as a solution to the present situation. I trust students of Secondary Five will understand these issues, and the Government and the Secretary for Labour and Welfare should also understand this. The message here is crystal clear.

At the same time, Chairman, I would like to discuss life and death education and the scheme for providing a continuum of care. As I mentioned earlier, we are facing the tsunami and peak of ageing population. How much effort should Hong Kong make to facilitate the people of Hong Kong in facing death, so that people approaching the final stage of their lives may rise to the challenge calmly? Chairman, we do not see this point being addressed in the Budget this time around. In fact, I consider this an extremely important issue for we have to respect life. It is not merely about how we lead our lives but also about how we face death. Yet, this is the missing piece in Hong Kong. If we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9397 agree that Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city, this is an integral part that must be included. If the Government has the vision, I trust that it can achieve it. Regrettably, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong of the current-term Government has not taken any convincing actions.

Chairman, on the other hand, I would like to discuss issues concerning young children. Just now, I have spent quite some time on elderly care, yet child care is also important. Recently, there are frequent reports about young children being discovered with various diseases or disabilities by the media. For this reason, it is noted that there is an increasing demand for pre-school rehabilitative care for children. Yet, Chairman, due to the diversity of the symptoms presented, the expenses involved for seeking suitable training have imposed a severe burden on and posed challenges to low-income families as well as middle-class families. Though the Government has heeded our view and exempted families seeking assistance from undergoing the means test, thereby sparing parents seeking assistance the anxieties, the reality is that the demand for services far exceeds the services available. It is regrettable. Given the excessive demand, it is inevitable that some of the children may miss the golden opportunities for receiving treatment. In this connection, the Government should subsidize non-governmental organizations in training additional manpower to provide professional treatment to alleviate the service shortage and enhance the services, so that the young children and youth concerned may be identified at an early stage and be provided with effective treatment.

Chairman, as I come to the final part of my speech, I would like to talk about poverty alleviation. All along, the Government has been criticized for implementing poverty alleviation measures in a superficial manner, for it insists that CSSA which serves as the last line of defence is the solution to all the problems in society. Regrettably, if we refer to the figures of the past, we would notice that this mindset has only aggravated the poverty problem in society. As in the case of low-income families and families of marginalized workers, they are always trapped in the lowest stratum in society and extreme helplessness. It is undeniable that the authorities have offered subsidies through the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme and the Community Care Fund, and so on. Yet, more often than not, the subsidies provided are one-off. Though they may have effect in the short term, it is evident from the results that the problem has not been tackled at root, and the problem of cross-generational poverty persists in the society of Hong Kong. In this Budget, neither the Financial Secretary nor the Secretary for Labour and Welfare at his aid has offered any measures to addressing cross-generational poverty. 9398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Chairman, the effective solution to this problem long term is definitely education. The Government has to make commitment in education expenditure and population policy planning to ensure that young people are given equal opportunities in receiving education. This will help them lay the foundation for future planning and enhance their chance of movement up the social ladder. Chairman, I just want to point out that the current-term Government may have, missed certain golden opportunities in this Budget, yet they still have four years' time. I hope the SAR Government will start preparing for the next Policy Address and the Budget today. Also, I hope they will understand that the long-term social problems cannot be solved simply with one Policy Address or one Budget, yet it has to take the first step anyway. Hence, I hope the SAR Government will understand the views of people most in need of help in society and take the first step as soon as possible. I so submit.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session today, I would like to discuss "Head 53―Government Secretariat: Home Affairs Bureau". After hearing the speeches made by various Members earlier, I would like to respond briefly to those remarks as a start.

For instance, some of my amendments are related to the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints ("Joint Offices") under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Buildings Department ("BD"). I would like to respond briefly to the remarks made by Mr Tony TSE, who is sitting next to me, though he has just left the Chamber. Why should we cut the expenditure for the Joint Offices? This is in fact a concept of "delete and start over". Older people may not know much about this concept of "delete and start over". For online games, a player has to delete a certain character to re-create a new character for better endeavours in the future.

Why do we have to do that then? From the perspective of public administration, the Joint Offices are now composed of two departments, FEHD and BD, yet it turns out that the two Departments are shifting their responsibilities to one another. I am one of such victims. My home is also affected by water seepage. In the course of handling, my case was transferred to BD by FEHD. Yet when I asked BD about the progress of my case referred by FEHD, BD said they had no knowledge of the case. This is a problem of public administration. I often say that the authorities should set up an independent office to conduct LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9399 investigations in strict accordance with the relevant laws and use equipment that should not be outdated. Hence, I consider it ridiculous that the estimated expenditure for the Joint Offices under FEHD is set at $100 million.

Back to "Head 53―Government Secretariat: Home Affairs Bureau". In fact, there is a number of questions which I would like to discuss. But since Secretary LAU Kong-wah is in the Chamber now and I may have a direct exchange with him, I would like to discuss the following question in particular.

I have proposed several amendments to the expenditure under this head, including Amendment No. 15: To reduce the head by an amount equivalent to the expenditure for the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland for 2018-2019, and Amendment No. 17: To reduce the expenditure for the international youth exchange programmes. As for Amendment No. 16: To reduce the head by an amount approximately equivalent to the personal emoluments of the Secretary for Home Affairs of the whole year, this is not proposed by me but by Mr Andrew WAN. If Secretary LAU Kong-wah has to lay any blame, he should not blame me but Mr Andrew WAN. Unfortunately, I support the reduction, too. Before I come to the discussion on this amendment, I would like to talk about district-led programmes under "Programme (3): District, Community, and Public Relations" of the Home Affairs Bureau, which are also related to the amendment.

Programme (2) of the Home Affairs Bureau is on "Youth Development, Social Harmony and Civic Education", whereas "Youth Development" is newly added. I have checked the programme in the past and the two words "Youth Development" were absent. I consider this a deliberate act to angle for credits. The mention of youth development here is made out of the blue. What is the reason for doing so? I believe it may be related to the extensive publicity launched by the Government in the first half of the year on the reorganization and setting up of the Youth Development Commission. It is presented in a way as if after the reorganization, the authorities will be able to provide suitable resources and appropriate policies and measures for the youth. Regarding the broad direction, I think the authorities should formulate youth policies. Yet, as seen from the provision in the Budget, the authorities are more concerned about packaging, where the term "youth" is embellished to look new and fancy. In reality, the relevant measures on youth seem to be superficial. The youth exchange programmes mentioned in my amendment is a case in point.

9400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

In recent years, the development of these youth exchange programmes is comparable to talent shows, growing in numbers and diversity. We may first look at the names of these programmes, which I think are set by the Bureau arbitrarily. First, there is the "exchange" programmes. When they know each other better, they start the "internship" programmes, "visit" programmes and "service programmes". Some of these exchange programmes are called "funding schemes". In the past, these schemes were organized by the Commission on Youth ("CoY") under the Bureau, and all the arrangements for the projects were made by CoY. Yet, after organizing a number of projects, the so-called "funding schemes" emerged. Perhaps CoY thought that it had made good progress and started to "go out" to invite organizations of different backgrounds to apply for sponsorship for organizing exchange programmes, hoping these programmes will become popular. Yet, is this the case in reality?

Initially, I intended to propose amendments to four exchange schemes, namely, the Funding Scheme for Youth Exchange in the Mainland, the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland, international youth exchange programmes and the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange. Regrettably, Secretary, I cannot propose amendments to all four schemes. As I consider the funding arrangements and loopholes of each of these schemes are different, I have proposed amendments to each of these schemes respectively. Yet, the President has only approved two of the amendments. For this reason, the present amendments are incomplete. Pardon me. Despite that, I will still speak on these four schemes.

In the latest Director of Audit's Report published, these exchange programmes are subjected to severe criticisms. Here, I implore Honourable colleagues that if any of them have been the Chairmen of these schemes or have attended these exchange programmes, they should come forward to speak on this amendment.

In my following discussion, I will focus on international exchange programmes, that is, the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange and international youth exchange programmes. In the past, a number of Members from the pro-democracy camp had commented that these youth exchange programmes "favour Mainland programmes to international programmes". However, I think this comment can yet include the various problems found in these four schemes. Take the Funding Scheme for Youth Exchange in the Mainland as an example. The number of participants increased dramatically from 8 400 in 2013-2014 to over 19 000 last year. Let me quote some figures as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9401 reference. Among the various programmes granted sponsorship, the programme titled "Celebrations of the 20th Anniversary of Hong Kong's Return to the Motherland, Fujian Red tour for Hong Kong Youth 2017" ("慶祝香港回歸祖國 二十周年.香港青少年紅色之旅2017") organized by the China Civic Education Promotion Association of Hong Kong was granted $620,000. It seems that many people were joining the projects and that the project was great.

Yet, I would like to present some views and figures from a slightly different perspective. The destinations of exchange programmes organized by the Bureau are not confined to the Mainland, maybe they have visited the Mainland too many times already. The major policy of the Bureau is to "go out". I notice Secretary LAU Kong-wah has pointed out earlier in his speech at the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill that the authorities may consider combining the Funding Scheme for International Exchange and the Funding Scheme for Exchange in Belt and Road Countries to utilize resources more effectively and provide more opportunities of international youth exchange. The Home Affairs Bureau perceives that the trend in the next few years is to capitalize on the opportunities arising from the Belt and Road Initiative. Yet, it worries that if it focuses exclusively on Belt and Road countries, it may induce adverse reactions. Hence, the Bureau merges the scheme with the international exchange scheme and opens an account of $100 million, so that the scheme can be merged with the Funding Scheme for Exchange in Belt and Road Countries under the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education ("CPCE") unnoticeably.

I have noticed one figure. Under the previous system, the funding for exchange programmes related to the Belt and Road Initiative was very limited, which was only $1.2 million. Yet, after the merger of the schemes, the funding is $100 million. Great job, it is a successful bid. Due to this "successful bid", various organizations may continue to run these programmes for another six years. Marvellous. Secretary LAU Kong-wah may not agree with me that the authorities are blending the schemes secretly. However, I must point out that when the funding of $100 million was proposed in the Budget last year for the introduction of the new "Scheme for International Youth Exchange", Nathan LAW, who was still a Member back then, had raised many questions about the scheme. Yet, the replies given by the Home Affairs Bureau to the supplementary questions and the justifications it advanced for implementing the new scheme during its presentation to the Legislative Council were perfunctory. The critical point is that the Home Affairs Bureau did not point out last year that the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange would be used for 9402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 subsidizing exchange programmes of the Belt and Road Initiative. Yet, today, according to Reply Serial No. S-HAB04, the Bureau had approved sponsorship for 33 projects under the newly implemented Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange. The 33 projects covered 25 overseas countries in total, including 10 Belt and Road countries. The Bureau regards the arrangement as more than justified. What are the reasons for such a change? Why have the issues not been discussed in the Legislative Council?

Regarding my queries on this issue, I have to clarity my stance. First, I am neutral on the Belt and Road Initiative. Hence, whether or not I support the Belt and Road Initiative has nothing to do with the queries I have raised. Yet, I hope the Home Affairs Bureau will explain the following issues to the Legislative Council. First, will the merger of the two schemes truly fulfil the purpose of better utilization of resources? If there is no increase in the number of participants in the international exchange programmes despite the increase in funding, can this be regarded as better utilization of resources? According to the Bureau's estimate last year, there would be 400 participants. At that time, the Bureau explained that everyone would join the programmes as it was a time to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's reunification, so it had set the target at over 400 participants. What a great target. However, when we look at the figures of 2017, the actual number of participants was only 123―there used to be an organization named "123 Democratic Alliance". To justify the funding of $100 million, I notice that in the Budget of 2018, the estimated number of participants is increased seven-fold to 1 010. Buddy, when the number of participants had dropped from 400 to 123, why would the estimated number of participant of this year be raised to 1 010? Will the authorities provide us with the justifications and background for the estimated increase? Hence, I expect the Home Affairs Bureau to give a serious account of the issue when it submits the Controlling Officer's report next year. Will this target of over 1 000 participants really be achieved?

Second, Secretary LAU Kong-wah has pointed out in his speech that organizations organizing exchange projects are expected to provide more quality programmes facilitating in-depth exchanges after they have accumulated experience. In fact, I know that his remark is likely a Freudian slip. In other words, the Bureau also admits that the proposals submitted under the existing funding schemes are not of high quality, and there is room for improvement and development to greater depths. I have asked the Home Affairs Bureau whether the Bureau has put in place a review mechanism and performance indicators for the funding schemes. And the reply I received is that: "Reviews will be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9403 conducted in due course". The concluding speech of Secretary LAU Kong-wah is to pave the way for future. I believe the Home Affairs Bureau after all wishes to continue the organization of these exchange programmes and it desires to expand the scale of these programmes. Yet, we have to examine whether these programmes can meet the value for money indicators? Why would the authorities merely give the reply that reviews would be conducted in due course? If the number of participants is so small, how can the authorities maintain these exchange programmes forever?

In the remaining time, I will discuss the criticisms in the Report No. 70 of the Director of Audit of funding schemes for youth exchange. In fact, the views of the Audit Commission are the same with my justifications for proposing the amendments. First, there are inadequacies in assessment of sponsorship. In general, committees under the Home Affairs Bureau will assess proposals submitted by organizations, which include itineraries and content of activities. According to Reply Serial No. S-HAB04 of the Home Affairs Bureau, it is pointed out that the criteria of assessment include: whether the project can achieve in-depth exchange and whether the applicants can forge collaboration with overseas partners. Yet, over the years, assessments of the funding schemes have merely been conducted in the form of paper interviews, whereas interviews have never been done. Many activities conducted by universities include interviews. If the target of in-depth exchange is to be achieved, yet no interview is conducted, how can the authorities ensure that activities organized by non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") can truly achieve in-depth exchanges? This is the first debatable point.

Another point is that cases of potential conflicts of interest are common among members. As Ms Tanya CHAN mentioned earlier, some members do not attend meetings, yet for members attending the meetings, there are chances that they have conflicts of interest. There are many inadequacies in the declaration of interest. There are two concerns. First, it is about the declaration system. A two-tier system is adopted for declaration of interest. In the first tier, members will make declarations of interest when they first join the committees. In the second tier, members have to make declaration of interest when specific questions are discussed at the meetings. However, there are many problems with these declarations. For instance, one of the members has taken up duties in 46 youth organizations, and it will be difficult to ensure that there is no omission by the member. Since the member has so many ties of interest, is the appointment really justified?

9404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Second, even if the appointment system and the system for declaration of interest are flawless, there is still ample room for improvement regarding the existing requirement for public officers to exercise self-discipline. For honorary advisers and chairmen, and so on, is the existing declaration system adequate in handling the potential conflicts of interest?

The third problem is more serious, as it is about negligence in gate-keeping on the part of the authorities. Mr Kenneth LEUNG and the former Member Nathan LAW had enquired about declaration of interest in assessing exchange projects concerning CoY and CPCE in the past. Yet the Home Affairs Bureau simply downplayed the issue with the reply that, "No members on the committee had expressed any conflicts of interest concerning the item under discussion". If that is the case, what are the functions of the various systems mentioned?

Back to the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange, the Government claims that the "Working Group on Youth Exchange and Internship" has been set up to monitor the work in this respect. However, as pointed out in the Director of Audit's Report, the assessments were conducted by circulation of papers and no meeting had ever been held to discuss the issue. No wonder it cannot achieve the target of attracting more participants! In fact, the greatest problem can be found in Reply Serial No. S-HAB05. In the past five years, contracts for the International Youth Exchange Programme were granted to the same NGO. This is a major problem. Come to think about it. Under the existing funding schemes, the authorities issued 410 invitations for quotations, yet only 16 quotations were received and 14 out of the 16 quotations were submitted by the same NGO. It is unconvincing, is it not? Hence, by means of this speech in this session, I urge the Home Affairs Bureau to give an explanation on these issues.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to express my views on the amendments to several heads. I will start with two amendments relating to the Chief Executive's Office proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr KWOK Ka-ki respectively, especially the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki relating to the expenditure for the annual emoluments of the Chief Executive for the year 2018-2019.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9405

Chairman, I originally did not intend to speak specifically on the Chief Executive but her remarks in the Question and Answer Session this morning were indeed too terrifying, thus making me think about giving support to this amendment. Here, I would like to give an account of my reasons. First, Chief Executive Carrie LAM had indirectly made political threats to all Members of the Legislative Council this morning in saying that Members must take a clear stance against unconstitutional and unlawful remarks and behaviour, as well as those that undermine "one country, two systems". Chairman, what does it mean? People of good sense will know what it means. In fact, all these remarks were made because some people have said recently that it is no longer allowed to call for the end of one-party dictatorship because in Hong Kong, not only the Basic Law but also the Constitution is implemented, and this is why WANG Zhimin specially gave a copy of this thing to us as a gift when he visited the Legislative Council. I still do not have the chance to ask you, Chairman, whether in the drawer we will no longer find the Basic Law but a white booklet instead. Chairman, you can perhaps give me an answer if you are interested.

Is it that we Members of the Legislative Council must, under the order of the Chief Executive, take a clear stance on the political position of the Beijing Government? But what if we do not state our position? What if our professed position is not pleasing to their ears? That the Chief Executive could come to the Legislative Council and talk to Members in such an intimidating tone is already a major reason for deducting her emoluments. Moreover, this person is actually just closely toeing the lines of Beijing. When it comes to contravention of the Constitution, it is known universally that the Communist Party of China ("CPC") of the People's Republic of China is a political party that likes to contravene the Constitution most. Chairman, let me just read out the contents of this white booklet: Article 35 provides that citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Does Carrie LAM wish to further discuss with us the two human rights activists in the Mainland who have aroused concern from quite many people recently? One is ZHEN Jianghua in Guangdong who expressed support for the Umbrella Movement on the Internet and is now charged with inciting subversion of State power; the other is human rights lawyer, WANG Quanzhang, who has gone missing for a thousand days. His wife then marched on foot from Beijing to Tianjin to look for her husband, and it is still unknown as to when a trial will be conducted. It is reported in the press today that LIU Xia, the surviving wife of the organizer of Charter 08, LIU Xiaobo, wishes to go to Germany. She wants to leave, in order not to be further tortured by the vicious, perverse CPC. Hearing her cry is heart-wrenching indeed. 9406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Are these not instances of contravention of the Constitution? Does Carrie LAM have the guts to say so? Let us have a debate on it some day. Let us debate what is considered constitutional, what is considered to be in line with the Constitution of China, and what is the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of procession, and freedom of demonstration of the Chinese people. Next time when she sees XI Jinping, she should make fair comments on behalf of Hongkongers. Many Hongkongers are concerned about human rights in China and the situation of prisoners of conscience. I urge her to stop talking only about money and the Bay Area.

Chairman, the Chief Executive went on to make some strange remarks. She said that she had got 777 votes―I wonder if they included your vote, Chairman―But she said that she owed nobody. Chairman, I did not understand what she meant at first but I got it later after giving more thoughts to it. It is because she really owes nobody, for she only owes CPC. She does owe this political party because all the 777 votes she got were cast by people who were ordered by CPC to vote for her either explicitly or implicitly, and therefore, she owes only CPC now. She does whatever CPC tells her to. It is because of CPC that she does not even dare answer what her mother tongue is. This Chief Executive has come to such a sorry state. This is the second reason why her emoluments have to be deducted. The citizens of Hong Kong obviously need our Chief Executive to state which side she stands on over important issues, and she must be clear about her identity under "one country, two systems". Yet, she could be so outrageous as not giving an answer when Mr SHIU Ka-chun put a question to her today, asking what her mother tongue is, for fear of offending Beijing. Such a Chief Executive is indeed utterly useless, and surely her emoluments have to be deducted.

Third, Mr Andrew WAN asked her if she had the boldness to face those rich and powerful golfers and if she had the boldness to confront those real estate developers in possession of agricultural land who think that they are set to make a fortune. But she kicked up a row, arguing that this is neither transfer of benefits nor collusion between the Government and business but public-private partnership. She said that when those people had indeed purchased the agricultural land, they would have the right of development, or else long delays would be caused once these cases are brought to court.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9407

Chairman, she also made other interesting remarks. She said that in her eyes there is no vested interest but only public interest. But then she said that these vested interests are precisely standing in her way and therefore, she will cooperate with those with vested interests as she thinks that this is the only way to protect popular interest. This is my understanding of the remarks made by her today. But is it the wish of the people that the Chief Executive yields to the vested interests? The law is already in place. The Lands Resumption Ordinance has expressly provided that the Government has this public power and when there is also popular support, why can we not go to court with them? Some colleagues said that the court cases were already over and that judgments were already handed down by the Court. But Carrie LAM said that those cases do not count and in that case, let us resort to legal proceedings again and then obtain more wonderful precedents for resuming the agricultural land. Resumption of agricultural land is actually a long-standing practice. Could it be that what happened in the Northeast New Territories was not resumption of agricultural land? That was exactly resumption of agricultural land for public purposes. But this Chief Executive can make remarks that are just the opposite. Obviously this is transfer of benefits to avoid antagonizing those people, and although Mr Abraham SHEK is usually very nice, the sector that he represents is comprised of those glamorously-clad people who actually control the living of Hongkongers and have hijacked the housing of Hongkongers. But our Chief Executive does not stand on the side of the people, nor has she risen against the vested interests to argue strongly for the people on just grounds. Rather, she said that nothing could be done and that this is the way Hong Kong is, telling us to put up with the reality. Chairman, this is exactly what she said this morning. This clearly shows that this person is actually unbecoming of the office of the Chief Executive. But under an electoral system with 1 200 electors, I have no idea who will be a suitable candidate for the office of the Chief Executive because this system is indeed most unsuitable for Hongkongers.

Chairman, the Chief Executive's Office aside, I also wish to take this opportunity to talk about Amendment No. 48 concerning the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. This amendment sponsored by me proposes to deduct the estimated expenditure for various offices in the Mainland. Chairman, I propose the deduction of their expenditure with the purpose of inducing discussion. As I said just now, in the Question and Answer Session this morning, too much was said on the Bay Area, and on the economy, too. But in order for Hongkongers and the Chinese people to lead a happy life, what matters is not only to enable them to make money because under the situation where a 9408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 wealth gap prevails and the big fish are eating up small fish, usually the public can hardly make any money, but there are other values that we have to defend. People may say that when even Members of the Legislative Council are holding in their hands a white copy of the Constitution of China, we are like being kidnapped and taken hostage. But on the other hand, regarding these offices of the Government in Beijing, Guangdong and Shanghai, as the river water is now impinging on well water, the well water should also impinge on the river water. I urge these offices of Hong Kong in the Mainland to clearly reflect the values embraced by Hongkongers and also the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration of the Chinese people as assured in Article 35 of the Constitution, and assist those human rights activists who have been turned into political prisoners for unfounded charges by taking up cudgels for them. Hong Kong offices on the Mainland should not only care about money. The Bay Area is not everything. The people of Hong Kong wish that everyone can live a dignified life and have equal political rights and even the right to change the nature of the political regime of the country. All this is justifiable.

Chairman, in the last two minutes, I wish to discuss Amendment No. 9, which concerns the Sustainable Lantau Office. Why is it necessary to cut the expenditure of this Office? Because it has done nothing at all, and all that we have seen is but an empty shell, advocating "development in the north, conservation for the south". Now, "development in the north" is rapid but there is nothing about "conservation for the south". So, it has become "development in the north, devastation for the south". Why should we still pay them salaries in full? Therefore, my amendment proposes to deduct half of its expenditure because the Sustainable Lantau Office has only carried out "development in the north" but done nothing for "conservation for the south". I hope that the Sustainable Lantau Office can show us some sincerity. In fact, as Dr Fernando CHEUNG always says, the quality of a society is reflected by how the Government takes care of the weakest members of society and how it treats the environment that can be damaged easily and animals that are vulnerable to inhuman treatment. Why do I stress these disadvantaged groups? Because a society that treats the disadvantaged well will naturally become strong and powerful. If the weak can live a dignified life in society, how will the strong not be favoured by luck, right? I think the Sustainable Lantau Office had better be careful with its work.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9409

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, must a capitalist society always be like an ancient jungle where only the fittest can survive? Must the market economy always be a system under which only the fittest can be the victors, and all others are bound to be the losers? All these questions precisely explain why, over all these years, we in this legislature have been appealing to the powers that be or rulers, urging them to reflect on our social order. Shouldn't we draw on our capitalist system to make our society more civilized and better in all respects, and thus make our lives meaningful? Shouldn't we seek to turn ours into a society with hope, equality, justice, basic human rights, openness and freedom? But I am so disappointed that after all these years, I must still say all these words.

I did not attend the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session just now. But I must say that what the Chief Executive said was simply deplorable. Maybe, instead of using this adjective, I should say she unknowingly disclosed her thoughts. When I talked with some welfare organizations just now, they told me that many residential care homes for persons with disabilities could not even satisfy the licensing conditions on basic hardware facilities in the future. In fact, the present situation is ridiculous, because the number of licences issued to subvented residential care homes for persons with disabilities is even smaller than that issued to private ones. We have been urging the Government to speed up its work. The authorities promised long ago that they would do something. But more than seven years have already elapsed since the passage of the relevant ordinance. Why are the authorities still unable to deal with the licensing issue? They have set the deadline at 2019. But the large-scale works due to commence soon may affect residents of such residential care homes. Therefore, I must discuss this matter with them.

I am surprised to see how our society has degenerated these days. Cantonese is the mother tongue of Hong Kong people, but all of sudden, some say that it is not. And, some common expressions, such as "taking back Hong Kong" and "handover of sovereignty", are no longer regarded as acceptable. We now yield more and more to what Beijing wants. We must always say yes to whatever it says. Even when it is just a matter of mere diction, we are totally forbidden to cross the cordon they set. And, the areas they cordon off are getting bigger all the time.

Chairman, financial budgets are about the use of public resources and the redistribution of precious social resources. Redistribution is secondary 9410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 distribution. And, under capitalism, primary distribution is done by the market. As I said just now, since the market is characterized by survival of the fittest, primary distribution can be very unjust in many cases. As a result, it is necessary to do secondary distribution. During primary distribution, the authorities will set down various restrictions or requirements, so as to ensure as far as possible that resource distribution will not go far too amiss. Secondary distribution is actually very important, and its purpose is to enable needy people living in plight to receive assistance. Besides covering those market areas where the well-being of the underprivileged are not upheld, secondary distribution should also cover environmental protection and various public goods. This is because no one in the market will possibly do anything which yields no gains or even incurs losses.

The Government's job is to deploy public resources for achieving the above purposes. And, culture and conservation are both examples of public goods that must be developed with the Government's resource investment. Helping the impoverished, persons with disabilities and patients is something the Government must do. But how does the Budget seek to do so, as explained recently by the Financial Secretary in his blog? There are three types of measures. First, one-off poverty alleviation measures. Second, a modest increase of recurrent expenditure. Third, investment in the future. I do not quite know what he means by "investment in the future". But I guess this actually means the establishment of various funds under different names to defer resource investment until the future.

As their name suggests, the first type of measures (i.e. one-off poverty alleviation measures) should focus on people in difficulty. But then, if we look at the $50 billion which the Budget earmarks for the one-off provision of poverty alleviation, we will see that a large portion of it (some $40 billion) is to be given to the rich in various forms, including reduction of rates, salaries tax and profits tax. I do not know what difficulties they are facing. Profits tax is levied on companies earning profits, meaning that companies paying this tax must have been making profits. Also, payers of salaries tax are people with income. Of course, I must add that the incomes of some people are in fact very low when compared to the income levels in Hong Kong. These people have incomes, but their incomes are comparatively low, and they are living in poverty.

It is alright for the Government to offer some help to this group of people. But most of the remaining beneficiaries do not actually need any assistance. Do LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9411 property owners need any help? Most of them do not. But the Budget still proposes to spend some $40 billion on helping them, and only the remaining $10 billion or so is to be used to assist needy people through the provision of Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"), "fruit grant", Disability Allowance and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, for example. We do not oppose the Financial Secretary's offer of any such assistance to them. You know, some time ago, when he put forward a rent waiver for public housing tenants, we all gave him our support. But when I asked him not to launch other measures, he paid no heed to me. During my earlier discussion with him, I said that he should not roll out any one-off poverty alleviation measures if such measures could not alleviate poverty. But he did not listen to me. As a result, some people lose their trust in the Government, thinking that the Budget cannot meet their expectation and help the people at all. They think that as the Government possesses $100 billion of surplus, it should return wealth to people. So, they demand a cash handout. Handing out cash is actually an admission of defeat, of the Government's inability to use public money. If the Government knows how to use public money, it needs not hand out any cash, right?

The entire population of Hong Kong will only keep ageing. But how is the Government going to develop our long-term care services? Today, Hong Kong's health care system has already collapsed. The queue is so long that people are bound to wait in vain. The public health care system has collapsed, and middle-class people no longer rely on public health care. Only grass-roots people still use public health care services as they have no alternative. Do we really want to see the public health care system degenerate into such a deplorable state? No. And, the public health care system must not degenerate into such a deplorable state either. The Government should commit resources, but it does not know how. And, it refuses to implement universal retirement protection. Back then, LEUNG Chun-ying rolled out OALA and refused to implement universal retirement protection no matter what. And now, with all her double-speak, Carrie LAM has merely rolled out the Higher Old Age Living Allowance ("HOALA").

Chairman, frankly speaking, HOALA is unsustainable. Hong Kong is now facing population ageing. If the Government is so very confident of its sustainability, it should give us a projection of the situation 50 years later based on the present situation, in the very much the same way as how it ruled out universal retirement protection based on a costs projection 50 years later. It 9412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 should do so, so as to ascertain if Hong Kong's public finances can really support the HOALA proposed in the Budget. I can guarantee that the answer will definitely be in the negative.

Simply put, the universal retirement protection system we propose is a contributory system dedicated solely to providing retirement protection, and in this way, it can achieve wealth redistribution. Rich people should make contributions at rates higher than those for poor people; if not, how can it be possible for all people (including people who have never worked, such as housewives and persons with disabilities) to receive payments after retirement? This is precisely the point of making contributions. Employers and employees alike must make contributions, and it is also pointed out clearly that the Government only needs to transfer a portion of the contributions under the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme to the proposed system without having to allocate any additional funding. The Scholar Proposal put forth earlier likewise clearly proposes that the Government should set up a fund with $100 billion. The Government has already said that it will allocate $50 billion for the elderly. But what is the total sum of cash handout this year? Chairman, it totals around $60 billion. Actually, the amount of money wasted in one year, together with the $100 billion allocated by the Budget last year, is already enough for the immediate implementation of a universal retirement protection system. But the Government refuses to do so no matter what. We can do nothing about it, because the Government simply does not know how to go ahead.

We all say that the Financial Secretary's proposals are not good enough because Hong Kong needs funding support in many policy areas. But he simply denies all the responsibility, saying that since other Bureau Directors have not sought any funding from him, he cannot do anything. Some Under Secretaries are now present. Is it really true that they have not sought any funding from the Financial Secretary? Under Secretary Dr CHOI, many children with special educational needs are awaiting your assistance today. Why don't you seek any funding from the Financial Secretary? Should we just look helplessly on as so many needs in society go unmet? The Government is now awash with fiscal surplus. But the Financial Secretary says that he does not know how to use the surplus. And, he even says that he can only hand out the surplus as nobody has sought any funding from him. But his way of handing out cash is most senseless, marked by inefficiency, exorbitant administrative costs and cumbersome application procedures. There is an asset test, and applicants must LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9413 declare whether they have received any rates concession or other subsidies. There is so much work to do, and the Government now even estimates that the administrative costs will amount to several hundred million dollars. Please! How nice it would be if these several hundred million dollars could be used to assist patients in buying self-financed drugs!

The ultra-expensive drugs subsidy which the Government gives the Hospital Authority is just $70 million a year at most. But as currently estimated, the administrative costs will amount to some $300 million. This is exactly what is meant by wasting money. It looks like the only job of the Government is to squander away our public money and antagonize the people. I honestly cannot understand why the Government behaves like this. If we are debating politics, the Communist Party and the political system with the Government today, I may still see a point in what it is doing. But we are holding a debate on people's basic living needs rather than any such matters. Why has the Government failed to achieve anything despite its many years of efforts and its growing fiscal surplus?

Besides, the Government keeps putting forth land shortage as an excuse. If we are really short of land, how can the Government possibly meet the land sale target every year? Why does the Government insist on offering lands for sale? What is the point of doing so? Is Hong Kong in need of any more luxury apartments? Is the construction of all those luxury apartments meant to meet people's housing need? Actually, luxury apartments are just an investment tool of the rich, serving mere investment purposes. Residential properties have long since become a financial product, and they are no longer meant for meeting people's housing need. Housing units are originally meant to meet people's housing need, but they are now beyond the means of people. At present, the only kind of housing that is meant to meet people's housing need is public housing. But all of a sudden, the Government announces that it will stop building any more public housing, and the sites already earmarked will instead be used to construct Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GFSHOS") units. This is an abrupt change that has come without any public consultation. There is just a sudden government announcement that the planned use of certain sites are to be altered for constructing GFSHOS units instead, and the units concerned will be for sale. In this way, the waiting time for public housing is getting longer and longer. The perpetrator of the high land price policy is the Government itself.

9414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

In present-day Hong Kong, all kinds of costs are rising. Everybody must bear such costs, and this is reflected by people's daily spending on various items. The price of a pineapple bun is $5, but $2.5 in the price is used for rental payment. This is the price everybody must pay and a consequence of the Government's own policy. But the Government says, "People with the means should purchase their own homes. Those without the means can wait for public housing allocation. I am not able to construct enough public housing units anyway, so everybody must wait!" This is the case with places in residential care homes for the elderly; and this is likewise the case with columbarium niches. What kind of government is this? The Government is very rich, but it does not know how to use its money. It has kept making erroneous projections, and huge surpluses have been recorded instead. Not only this, it is now going to hand out money senselessly and irresponsibly.

If they do not know how to do their jobs well, they should quit and give way to people with the capability. The Government should devise a better system which can ensure that government posts are always filled by capable people. Will they please step aside! Carrie LAM, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN and Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG, Hong Kong would not have turned into such a mess if you people were capable. You people have worked in the Government for such a long time, but what have you people achieved? You people have merely shifted the responsibility for the disaster today to your predecessors. But your predecessors are no more already. Now, we must bear the consequence of their failure to use the huge wealth … (The buzzer sounded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please stop speaking.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): First of all, I note particularly Amendment No. 16 proposed by Mr Andrew WAN. It seeks to reduce head 53 by $4,021,200 in respect of subhead 000. The reduction is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure on the salary of the Secretary for Home Affairs. What is the point of the Amendment? First, we need to ask how the Home Affairs Bureau is related to what I am going to say. What I am going to say is closely related to the cultural affairs in Hong Kong. You may not know or remember if I do not bring this up. The Secretary for Home Affairs is supposed to be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9415 responsible for culture and arts development and also creative cultural activities. But when Carrie LAM was asked to state her mother tongue in the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session earlier today, she did not even dare to give an answer. This is incredible. Is it so very difficult to tell others which language is your mother tongue? In fact, LAU Kong-wah should have stood up at that very juncture. Why? It is because he should stand up for Cantonese under the culture policy.

Let us look at what LAU Kong-wah said in the past. Ms Claudia MO is here right now. She proposed a motion on "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'" in 2015. I notice that in his reply on that day, Secretary LAU Kong-wah said, "I will first respond to the issue of the medium of instruction. As Hong Kong is an metropolis, the Government has all along been putting emphasis on the promotion of 'biliteracy and trilingualism', with a view to maintaining Hong Kong's characteristics and competitiveness. The Education Bureau has all along been attaching importance to the learning of the mother tongue language among students, as it will facilitate their communication skills, their lives and their future development. At present, schools generally adopt the mother tongue as the medium of instruction for the Chinese Language subject. The Education Bureau has also been supporting students in the study of Cantonese over the years, thus it attests the fact that the status and function of Cantonese are duly recognized."

Oh no, LAU Kong-wah was so brave back in 2015! He answered the very question which Carrie LAM did not or dared not answer this morning. His answer is a slap on her face. Why? Carrie LAM says that to bring up the question of mother tongue is to stir up trouble. But she is not right. They are in fact the very people who first brought up this question. Who suddenly ruled out Cantonese as our mother tongue anyway? When asked to state her mother tongue, Carrie LAM did not dare to answer. But then, her dear subordinate, Secretary LAU Kong-wah, already answered this question back in 2015. Secretary LAU is the very person responsible for the cultural policy and also creative cultural activities, so he cannot evade responsibility on this question. However, he did not raise a point of order this morning when Carrie LAM spoke. He should have said, "A point of order. I am the Secretary for Home Affairs and I already answered this question in 2015. I think Cantonese is important. So, Carrie LAM is really absurd." He did not dare to say so, and he failed completely to make his existence felt. Mr Andrew WAN seeks to deduct LAU 9416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Kong-wah's salary in Amendment No. 16. Owing to how LAU Kong-wah behaved this morning, I think we must deduct the annual expenditure on his salary. Carrie LAM simply made a fool of him in public. Poor him.

I delight in speaking Cantonese. My mother tongue is Cantonese. Speaking Cantonese is something very natural to me. Why should it be difficult to answer the question? See, Ms Claudia MO is so happy now. There are all sorts of written records and information on Secretary LAU's remarks back then, you know. I of course know that silence is Secretary LAU's biggest strength. He is a person who would rather say nothing for his whole life than say anything untrue to fool others. But the problem is that she has openly intruded into his "territory". If he thinks that Cantonese is a very important segment of Hong Kong's creative cultural activities and cultural policy, he should speak out as the Secretary for Home Affairs.

Let us look at why we should cut his salary. Chairman, let us look at the recent development of the cultural and creative industries in Hong Kong. According to the Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics, from 2005 to 2015, the value of cultural and creative industries increased at an average annual rate of 7.6%, which was higher than the average annual growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") of Hong Kong at 5.4%; and the value of cultural and creative industries as a percentage of GDP also increased from 3.8% to 4.7%. Employment in cultural and creative industries also showed a prominent increasing trend in these 10 years, increasing at an average annual growth rate of 2.2%, which was faster than that of the total employment in Hong Kong at 1.2%. What do these statistics show? Hong Kong is a unique and fascinating place. Its popular culture, exemplified by home-grown Canto-pop songs and Canto-movies, produces an influence that transcends the boundary of this city. Many people from our neighbouring cities also grew up watching Hong Kong movies and listening to Hong Kong songs. The greatest attraction of these movies and songs is Cantonese, our mother tongue.

Today, the development of cultural and creative industries in Hong Kong is, needless to say, very unsatisfactory. The Home Affairs Bureau has never done or said anything. It never says anything to correct and clarify any incorrect remarks it hears. What is the result? The result is that we now lag far behind other cities in cultural and creative development. Taiwan aside, are there any other cities which are as rich as Hong Kong in the history of creative cultural activities? We have a very rich history of creative cultural activities indeed. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9417

Many years ago, we had the martial arts novels by JIN Rong and the Wesley Series of science fictions by NI Kuang. We had many Canto-pop stars like Anita MUI, Leslie CHEUNG, Danny CHAN, etc. In recent years, a wide range of cultural and creative industries have emerged. But due to the lack of policy support, cultural and creative industries in Hong Kong cannot go global. A simple example is that a person who holds a singing show in an industrial building in Hong Kong will be arrested, and the venue will be shut down. High land prices and rents make it difficult for culture and arts to have any room for development. The Home Affairs Bureau should deal with these problems. But what has the Secretary done so far?

In 2009, the Government set up the CreateSmart Initiative with a funding of $300 million for the purpose of supporting the development of cultural and creative industries. In 2013, an additional $300 million was injected, and the Policy Address this year proposes a further injection of $1 billion. But can this really help cultural and creative industries? Chairman, very frankly, although the Government has been giving these "sweeteners" year after year, the "sweeteners" cannot offer too much help to the small and medium businesses or individuals in the industries, because land prices and rents are always so high. Uneven distribution of resources has long since pervaded the entire culture and arts sector. Honestly, funding support is of course useful, but the Government can already give the industries very great help merely by providing them with venues.

Many people are dedicated to promoting the development of cultural and creative industries. But as they are barred from industrial buildings, they do not have any suitable venues for manifesting their talents or preserving the culture of Hong Kong. The Budget this year finally gives us a ray of hope. At long last, the Government is willing to take a small step forward, reserving $1 billion to renovate vacant school premises for letting to cultural and arts groups. Is this really the first small step forward? We certainly hope so. But, we also know things are not going to be easy either, because after the launching of this initiative, we must still observe how the Government communicates with organizations representing the neediest and most vulnerable groups in the community.

As shown by the statistics of the Planning Department, there are 183 vacant VSP sites in Hong Kong, and more than half of these sites are located in the New Territories. Of all the VSP sites, 127 are reserved or intended to be reserved for 9418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Government, Institution or Community ("GIC") uses. Some arts and culture groups have submitted applications for using some of these vacant sites, including the sites of the former Fish Marketing Organization Tai Po Primary School, the Wesley Hostel at Tai Hang Road and the Tin Sam Public School in Sha Tin. But to date, the processing of these applications is still in progress. So, we remain cautious as to whether the money in this fund can really achieve the desired result. And, most importantly, we really doubt whether this $1 billion is enough to preserve the cultural competitiveness of Hong Kong instantly. I am sorry to say the money is simply far from enough.

As I have said, Hong Kong is a real treasure. It is the very place where we grew up. I for one find the 1980s particularly memorable. This was a time when Hong Kong was home to many creative cultural industries, especially those using Cantonese. Members may not know that Cantonese is easily the most difficult language to learn. Some people may know that there are nine tones in Cantonese. It is by no means easy for a foreigner to speak fluent Cantonese. But Hong Kong takes pride in Cantonese. Even now, Legislative Council debates are mainly conducted in Cantonese.

This morning, Carrie LAM also spoke in Cantonese. When I asked her in Cantonese what her mother tongue was, she said she would not answer such a frivolous question. How frivolous is this question? As the Chief Executive, is there anything so wrong for her to tell us what her mother tongue is? How frivolous is this question anyway? Her evasion of the question only shows that the Government does not truly think Cantonese is a real treasure, or something which needs to be protected and defended. I must repeat that LAU Kong-wah should be the person most obligated to voice objection this morning, and he was also the most appropriate person to do so. He is not here at this moment; otherwise, I will certainly ask for his enlightenment now. He once said that he would vigorously protect Cantonese education, urging and advising schools to make efforts in this area. Will his commitment waver as a result of her dismissal of the question as "frivolous"?

So, when Mr Andrew WAN put forward Amendment No. 16, which proposes that the annual salary of the Secretary for Home Affairs be deducted, we all asked ourselves what reasons could be given to support the amendment. What has he done for cultural and creative industries? Has he provided any assistance to them? The authorities have kept expelling cultural and creative industries from industrial buildings, and the suppression of creative and cultural activities has continued. Nowadays, people working in cultural and creative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9419 industries are often ridiculed. But they all had their glorious past. The movies we sold and distributed overseas once influenced all Chinese communities in the whole world. We are convinced that people with rare creative talents have never really disappeared from our community. In fact, many people deserve a chance. But due to a lack of supporting policies, these people do not even have a place to work.

Let us look at how much the Budgets over the years have invested in culture and arts. In 2016-2017, it was $4 billion, representing a 2.5% increase; and in 2017-2018, it was $4.2 billion, representing a 5% increase. According to the data of 2018-2019, the government spending to be invested in culture and arts in Hong Kong will be about $4.7 billion. This is just a small sum when compared with the funding for education, social welfare or health. Of course, speaking of funding increases, some may doubt whether this will necessarily accelerate the development of cultural industries and polish Hong Kong's brand name. Not necessarily, I must say. But the amount of appropriation can at least let us see how the Government looks at the importance of cultural and creative industries, how it wants to nurture the creativity of young people, and how it is going to step up efforts to increase the soft power of this city.

Korea is an example. Korea is now an outstanding movie-making country. But many Korean movie people have remarked in various interviews that they actually admire Hong Kong movies very much. They grew up watching Hong Kong movies in the 1980s, and they have transplanted the experience to their country. Some people may wonder why the entertainment business of movie-making should have anything to do with us. The answer is that it can give us soft power. A good movie with a nice depiction of a city can actually give outsiders a very impression of the city. Outsiders visiting the city may not get quite the same impression eventually, but even so, the entirely city will already have received fresh impetus from movies and the popular culture.

Then, how about Hong Kong? In 2009, the Government already listed cultural and creative industries as one of the six types of priority industries. But so far, the Government has not yet put forward any integrated policy on culture and creativity for public discussion. Ten years have passed. What has LAU Kong-wah done as Secretary for Home Affairs? If we ask him what his mother tongue is, whether it is Cantonese, he will not answer, ignoring and turning a deaf ear to the question. He is such a nonchalant bureau director; no wonder Mr Andrew WAN wants to cut his salary.

9420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

So, the Question and Answer Session this morning can actually make us realize many things. It is honestly not at all difficult to tell others whether one's mother tongue is Cantonese. But the question does show one thing―Hong Kong people take pride in Cantonese. What is it that makes Cantonese unworthy of recognition? Cantonese has brought forth many notable achievements in Hong Kong. There were James WONG and Dr Joseph KOO in the past. And, various others have since created many song lyrics in Cantonese, their native tongue, and showcased their works internationally. It is as simple as that. Does the Government have a role to play here? Absolutely yes, especially when cultural and creative workers do not even have a place in which to work.

I talked about a place called Wesley Village just now. Do Members know that Wesley Village is actually a very special place? I have a dream, or a wish. I hope that this very place can be revitalized and turned into a cultural and creative park or an arts village in Hong Kong. This place is located in Tai Hang, and its story is associated NI Kuang, a well-known writer. The story goes that one day, NI Kuang happened to pass by Wesley Village and there, he hit on the idea of writing the Wesley Series, a series of science fictions that I were to read avidly throughout my secondary school days. The village, once a resettlement camp, is now abandoned. It is no easy task to handle this camp, but it is worth it due to its connection with something so cultural in the past. If a similar place was found in Taiwan, the creative parks over there in Huashan of Taipei or Chiayi of Tainan would have made use of it for the benefit of countless cultural and creative workers. But how about Hong Kong? Our cultural and creative workers do not even have any subsidy for finding a work place. I very much hope the $1 billion mentioned just now can be used properly, and successfully, for revitalizing all these places into Hong Kong people's creative parks. I hope we can maximize the usefulness of these places for the benefit of our cultural and creative workers. I also hope we can thus regain the cultural splendour we witnessed in the 1970s and 1980s.

We have every confidence in Hong Kong people's creativity. Such confidence, in the most important and ultimate sense, is confidence in the native tongue of Hong Kong people. If LAU Kong-wah refuses to refute the incorrect, we will have to take turns to filibuster and tell him that Cantonese is just wonderful. People now watching the television broadcast should know very well that there is actually nothing wrong with Cantonese. We have been speaking Cantonese since childhood. As a saying goes, "Anyone who cannot speak Cantonese would please go back to their hometowns!" It is as simple as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9421 that. Why are you so ashamed to admit Cantonese as your mother tongue? We are very disappointed, indeed.

So, to sum up, I support the proposal of deducting the expenditure on the salary of the Secretary because he has no policy on culture and creativity. The Secretary should reflect more on this subject.

I so submit.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to focus on Amendment No. 45 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of head 141. This amendment proposes a deduction of the estimated annual expenditure on the remunerations for Labour and Welfare Bureau staff. I fully support the deduction for the following reasons.

To begin with, Hong Kong is a world city with a very large Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") that is among the highest in Asia. But its wealth gap problem is the worst in Asia. And, not only this, the wealth gap problem of Hong Kong is also one of the worst in the whole world. Hong Kong's wealth gap problem is acute, and its gravity is rarely seen in various developing countries. This is ridiculous and saddening. Hong Kong's economic development is very good, but the basic livelihood protection for grass-roots people is so very unsatisfactory.

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

As shown by the data published by the Census and Statistics Department, the Gini Coefficient of Hong Kong now is the highest in 45 years, and the elderly poverty rate is two times the overall poverty rate. The elderly population keeps growing, and their poverty rate is two times the overall poverty rate. This is really frightening, isn't it? In fact, elderly poverty, working poverty and intergenerational poverty are inter-related. If grass-roots workers living on the verge of poverty are denied any proper retirement protection, they will eventually be driven into the safety net of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), and society at large will have to bear the burden of alleviating poverty at the end of the day.

9422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Deputy Chairman, what we should note in particular is the gravity and continuous deterioration of working poverty in Hong Kong. Last year, the working poor population was as large as 475 000, even recording a rising number of poor employees with tertiary qualifications or above. Over the past five years, the number of such employees has increased from 18 000 to 28 000 at present, and the number of poor employees with university degrees has even increased by 80% during the same period. We also observe that as a result of population ageing, young people must often bear the heavy financial burdens of their families. Many young graduates must work long hours at very low pay. In that case, what kind of life can they expect in the future? How can they improve their life in the future? How can they have their own families? To young people, the answers to these questions are all uncertain.

But, what measures have been taken in Hong Kong to tackle the poverty problem? First, the Government implemented the statutory minimum wage in 2011. But many problems emerged as soon as the statutory minimum wage came into force. The first question is: why should the minimum wage level be reviewed bi-annually instead of annually? If the level is reviewed annually, it will be able to catch up with inflation for workers' benefit, thus helping to improve the lives of grass-roots workers. However, in reality, the implementation of the minimum wage legislation has not made any difference at all, because the number of people benefited is not as large as expected. In the first year of implementation, for example, the Government set the level at $28 and claimed that 15% of all employees would be benefited. But why is the line drawn at 15%? Why can't it be higher, such as 18% or 20%? Also, there is still a problem even if this line is accepted. When the legislation was rolled out, the committee concerned estimated that about 180 000 people would benefit when the minimum wage level came into force later in 2011. But this accounted for only 6.4% of all employees in Hong Kong. This means that even though the Government talked about drawing the line at 15%, it could not achieve the goal of 15% eventually. This is the first problem.

Second, the statutory minimum wage level has been reviewed and revised four times so far. But in the meantime, the number of workers benefiting from the minimum wage level has kept dropping instead. The number now is so small that we can well say that the minimum wage level has not made any difference at all. The reason is as I have explained earlier. Well, it was originally estimated that many people would benefit when the legislation commenced in 2011, but then only very few people could benefit in the end. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9423

Also, the minimum wage level was rather low, at $28 per hour, and this could not be of much help to employees. At the same time, we can observe that the minimum wage level in Hong Kong is the lowest when compared with the levels in other places. If we look at Asian and European countries, we will see that our minimum wage level is the lowest. If look at European and American countries, we will also notice that our level is far lower than those in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Canada.

Why do I say our minimum wage level is very low? This is because in the case of other countries, minimum wages are usually set at levels exceeding 60% of their respective GDP, but in Hong Kong, it is only 19%. The difference is very big. Even if we look at Asian countries only, we will still see that Hong Kong's level is lower than those of South Korea, Thailand, India, Japan and so on. This is because the minimum wage levels of these countries usually exceed 40% of their respective GDP. But Hong Kong cannot even achieve 20%. This can show one point, a point often made by various labour organizations and workers: Hong Kong's minimum wage system must be revamped. First, the practice of bi-annual reviews must be abolished; second, the reviews must take account of inflation, rents and daily expenses. We know the Government will surely say that all these factors are already considered. But when we look at past figures, we must say the increases are really ridiculously small. After the first two-year period, an increase of $2 was introduced. And, after each of the following two two-year periods, there was an increase of $2.5. The increases were not based on any statistics. They simply made it $2, $2.5, and $2.5. They just do not bother about any statistical analyses or surveys. They simply do not bother.

Deputy Chairman, some may say that even though the minimum wage level introduced in 2011 was just $28, even though the level at the inception of the system was rather low, the amount has nonetheless been increased over time to $34.5 a day. Actually, assuming that a worker works eight hours a day and he goes to work every calendar day, his monthly wages will just be some $7,000 only. But how can a person meet his daily expenses with just $7,000? Anyone who has patronized fast food shops will know that these days, even a set lunch costs as much as $50 to $60. This is already two hours' wages. A worker must work two hours before if he can earn enough money for a meal. Have we ever considered workers' dignity? How can the minimum wage protect workers' livelihood? Because of all these questions, I suspect we really must review the minimum wage system, and I also query the criteria adopted to set the minimum wage level.

9424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Low wages aside, there is another problem, the oft-mentioned housing problem. Housing is the biggest problem to most people. Besides public rental housing, most low-income workers live in subdivided units which are noted for their most appalling living conditions. Renting subdivided units costs much more than renting public housing units. The median monthly rent of a public rental housing unit is around $1,500. If we do some computations based on the existing minimum wage level, we will see that after the deduction of public housing rent, a worker may have $190 to spend a day. Honestly, having just $190 a day is something very miserable, because $190 is not any big sum at all.

The median monthly rent of a subdivided unit is around $4,500. After deducting $4,500, a worker who is paid at the minimum wage level will have merely $2,600 left, and this is be divided by 30 days. On average, the worker can only use $89―less than $90―each day. How can the worker cope with the daily expenses if he only has $89 to spend? How can he cope with the high living costs nowadays?

Well, things may be better if these workers are like elderly people. You know, besides receiving CSSA and Old Age Living Allowance, elderly people may still scavenge for cartons in order to get some extra income. But, can these low-income workers still do any other jobs besides their main occupations? How can they tackle the problem of low living standard? I really hope officials of the Labour and Welfare Bureau can take a look at the living standard of these workers outside of their offices and work out some ways to help them, so as to improve their living standard and enable them to live a life of dignity that all human beings deserve. Can they do so? This is better than keep telling us that they have made many different efforts and improved the life of those living below the poverty line. Actually, everybody knows that around 1 million people are living below the poverty line, and the efforts of the Government are mostly unable tackle the wealth gap, especially the present poverty problem.

Deputy Chairman, we are also disappointed that Hong Kong's labour policy has come to be regarded as a part of its economic policy. Whenever we call for better labour benefits or greater labour protection, the Government will often refuse to do so on various excuses. This morning, the Chief Executive said the Government was not biased towards the business sector. But we think the Government is definitely biased towards the business sector. Why? There are many reasons, but I just wish to mention the issue of standard working hours as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9425 an example. The business sector is reluctant to accept what the previous Government proposed … what the Labour Advisory Board proposed. Actually, the business sector disapproves of many things. And, without its approval, no proposals can ever work out, and everything will fall through. The present Chief Executive has said nothing about standard working hours. Why? This is after all a labour policy affair, you know. The Government says it is not biased towards the business sector. But how is it going to explain this? What it says simply cannot be true.

Moreover, whenever we call for better labour benefits or greater labour protection, besides prevaricating, the Government will often say that the proposals will affect the investment environment. The Government often says so. Why doesn't the Government consider how employees are exploited? Why can't it let them enjoy a reasonable living standard, or help them extricate themselves from their plight? Why doesn't the Government talk about all these things? If it is not biased towards the business sector, what is it up to? The Government may have stopped short of expressing such a bias openly, but objectively, if these officials are not protecting the business sector, who else are they protecting?

Deputy Chairman, since I still have some time left, I want to talk about one last thing here―the Labour Advisory Board. The Labour Advisory Board is actually the biggest obstacle to the furtherance of labour rights and interests, and it is also the one big object that comes between the legislature and the Government. Before the commencement of any legislation or administrative measures for the protection of labour rights and interests, the consent of the Labour Advisory Board must first be obtained. But as we all know, the labour side and the employer side have equal representation on the Labour Advisory Board, each having six representatives. How can they reach any consensus in that case? It is very difficult to reach any consensus indeed, because as long as all representatives on the employer side cast a negative vote, all such measures will fall through. But over the years, the Government has still allowed the Labour Advisory Board to exist. Very often, we will propose legislation or ask for legislative amendment, one recent example is the legislation on the making of an order for reinstatement. We ask for heavier penalties, but the Government simply referred the proposal to the Labour Advisory Board for discussion. The proposal was thus delayed for one year. If we do not abolish the Labour Advisory Board and restore the respect for the legislature, we cannot possibly 9426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 protect labour rights and interests or offer policy protection to grass-roots workers, because we are simply unable to do anything at all. I therefore hope that government officials can stop shirking their responsibility and using the Labour Advisory Board as a shield all the time. This is an issue they cannot evade. Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I fully support this resolution, which proposes the deduction of the expenditure on the remuneration for the government officials concerned. This can remind Labour and Welfare Bureau officials that they must not neglect their duty, unfairly protect the business sector, and keep talking about their inability to protect workers' rights and interests as an excuse for ignoring their plight. Most importantly, they must never again (The buzzer sounded) … protect the interests of employers and ignore the protection of grass-roots employees.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, your speaking time is up. Please stop.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I want to speak on Amendment No. 18 moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which proposes that head 55 be reduced by $84,962,000 in respect of subhead 000. The sum is approximately equal to the estimated annual expenditure on the personal emoluments for the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industries Branch) in the year 2018-2019.

The Communications and Creative Industries Branch is in charge of communications affairs (including telecommunications and broadcasting policies) and creative industries (including film-making and design) in Hong Kong. I do not know if Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has moved this amendment because he thinks that the work performance of the Branch is unsatisfactory. But as can be observed recently, it has indeed performed not quite so satisfactorily in communications affairs and the assignment of frequency spectrum for public mobile telecommunications services. Let me discuss this point here.

Yesterday, the Communications Authority ("CA") and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau announced that the Government would launch a three-month public consultation exercise on the spectrum to be made available for the provision of the fifth generation ("5G") public mobile services. Should the consultation exercise be completed smoothly, the Government would consider LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9427 adopting a market-based approach to assign the spectrum by way of auction starting from 1 April 2020. It is expected that the auction would be conducted towards the end of 2019 at the earliest should it be adopted as the arrangement for assigning the spectrum and the assignment of the spectrum would begin on 1 April 2020.

5G is certainly very important because the development of both smart cities and Internet of Things ("IoT") hinges on a high-speed and reliable communications network with low latency. Previously, during the 3G and 4G eras, Hong Kong was always ahead of other places and stayed in the forefront on a par with countries such as Britain, Japan and Korea. Yet, it is no longer the case this time as it is now lagging behind other places instead, possibly including Mainland China. Korea conducted 5G-related testing during the 2018 Olympic Winter Games which has just ended, while Japan considered promoting 5G vigorously before hosting the 2020 Olympic Games. Here in Hong Kong, however, telecommunications companies have to wait until the Government begins to assign the spectrum in 1 April 2020. Last month, Britain successfully completed the allocation of the 2.3 GHz and 3.4 GHz spectrum bands to winning bidders competing in the auction, whereas Hong Kong has just begun to launch a public consultation exercise in respect of 5G for the time being. According to members of the telecommunications sectors, they have been waiting for two whole years before the Government actually got down to business. They criticized it for being rather sluggish in response.

Actually, while Britain has already started to issue spectrum licences since April, other countries such as Italy, Portugal and Australia will likewise introduce 5G services one after another from 2019 onwards. There is no reason why Hong Kong must withhold auctioning until 2019 and assignment of 5G spectrum until 2020. Nor is there any reason for rolling out 5G services only after the formulation of the relevant standards by the International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") in 2019. As a result of the Government's sluggishness, we have lost our leading position and ended up lagging far behind others. The industry estimates that 5G mobile phones will be available for sale next year. But by that time, we still will not have any 5G services. Deputy Chairman, I wonder if you still remember that back in the 3G era, 3G services were ready long before 3G mobile phones were available for sale. But now, on the contrary, we have to wait patiently for the rollout of 5G services even when the next-generation mobile phones are available in the market.

9428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Since ITU decided at its meeting in 2015 on the identification of harmonized spectrum including the 3.5 GHz and 700 MHz spectrum bands for the provision of 5G mobile telecommunication services, various countries have been making active planning. Germany, France and Taiwan have already auctioned some of the frequencies; Britain has just completed auctioning; and China is doing testing at the moment. I have been urging the Government in this Council to expeditiously deal with the 3.5 GHz band for the early launching of 5G services. But the Office of the Communications Authority have never realized that Hong Kong is already lagging behind other places, so it thinks that we should wait until after the ITU meeting in 2019, and it will not be too late to proceed in 2020. The Government still held this view at the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting last year. Telecommunications operators are thus rather anxious. They think that things are not going to work out that way, because the number of frequency spectrum offered by the Government is so small, and the time of auction is so late. The industry simply does not know how to draw up long-term planning.

Why has the pace of Hong Kong turned so slow in this area? It was only as late as March this year that the Government withdrew some of the 2.6 GHz frequency bands assigned to some telecommunications operators and launched public consultation. And, satellite frequency bands (frequency bands assigned for satellite television services) were not withdrawn until May. How the whole thing is handled is very similar to the present approach to land use planning―I mean there is no planning at all. As a result, some communications operators are able to retain certain low-usage frequency bands for prolonged periods. But the Government does not withdraw them for fear of trouble.

Another important reason is of course connected with analogue television. Members may still remember that we have been awaiting the Mainland's analogue television planning for a very long time. Even now, local television stations, including Radio Television Hong Kong, are still broadcasting analogue television programmes that attract no viewers. This is a waste of resources. But the authorities have kept delaying the matter. Even though they have long since noticed the situation, they have not made any proper planning in good time.

Nowadays, places all over world have seen the emergence of new technologies such as virtual reality, IoT, automated driving, cloud office systems and smart home services. Any large-scale popularization of these technologies will require an advanced 5G network. Deputy Chairman, a recent Director of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9429

Audit's Report points out that the Government's Wi-Fi system is not effective. And, the relevant sectors all envisage that Wi-Fi will gradually be replaced by 5G. But the problem is that Hong Kong is lagging behind other places in the provision of 5G services, as it will introduce such services one or two years later than others. I am not sure whether this is due to fact that the smart city project is the responsibility of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, but communications and frequency spectrum are under the purview of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Though closely related, they are managed by two separate Bureaux. No wonder all has ended up in such a waste of time and efforts.

Deputy Chairman, we may conceive of frequency spectrum as a road. When there is a greater supply of frequency spectrum, a larger number of users can be accommodated simultaneously, and the speed will also be higher. But after collating the views of different people (including the relevant industries), I have to come to notice three serious problems with Hong Kong's existing frequency spectrum policy led by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. First, the supply of frequency spectrum is scarce. This has resulted in something like the shortage of land and the high land price policy, under which lands will always be sold to the highest bidders. In other words, a high price policy is likewise adopted for the assignment of frequency spectrum. Second, like the planning work of the Development Bureau, the Government's frequency spectrum planning is both belated and slow, much to the disadvantage of technological development. Third, government departments only stick to established practices. This has boosted spectrum prices. As a result, the actual prices paid by consumers are higher than what they should otherwise be. And, high spectrum prices may also affect end-users, as they may make service providers with limited resources for network services investments reluctant to go for higher service standards. All in all, the frequency spectrum policy of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has made Hong Kong lag behind the rest of the world in the development of a digital economy. The Government hands out cash to the public, sets up different funds or builds technology parks, but all these are just not enough. Hong Kong was once ahead of others in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure services and we took pride in this. But now, even the policy on the provision of such services has become so very unsatisfactory. So, it can be foreseen that due the bureaucratic red-tape of the Government, Hong Kong will only fall farther behind other places in technological development.

9430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

In recent years, the Government has sought to assign frequency spectrum in two ways, namely priority allocation to existing operators and awards to the highest bidders, a practice similar to land auctioning. According to CA's spectrum release plan, no new frequency bands will be released in Hong Kong for use by telecommunications operators between 2013 and 2019. This is rather like the case of land supply. You know, the Government does not admit its defective land planning, and simply says that there will be no land supply in the coming few years. In a similar fashion, it now says that there will be no supply of frequency spectrum. And, for this reason, in 2020, the Government will only release those frequency bands with contracts that have already run out, and "recycle" or re-auction them in the market. In that case, like land supply, the supply of frequency spectrum will also be inadequate, and the policy of high spectrum prices is not different from the high land price policy. This will plainly affect all users of telecommunications services and Hong Kong people. In the past five years, the Government got as much as $7.6 billion from the auctioning of mobile network frequency spectrum. This was almost the highest in the world. But all the sky-high bidding costs will only be shifted to users, and the quality of services will only drop at the same time.

Deputy Chairman, GSMA, an association of global telecommunications operators, published a study report on spectrum pricing in February this year. The report points out that there is a causal link between high spectrum prices (like those under the policy of the Hong Kong Government now) and mobile broadband services that are more expensive but poorer in quality. The report estimates that due to increased data prices, consumers lost out on economic benefits worth US$250 billion across certain markets. I just wonder how much of such loss was suffered by Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, two years ago, CA conducted a public consultation on the auctioning and assignment of 2G frequency bands, and recommended that the right of first refusal be offered to four mobile network operators currently deploying those frequencies, and that the rest be re-assigned by way of auctioning. Well, is this approach really most beneficial to society? And, is the approach of assigning frequency spectrum only to the highest bidders the most effective one? I think the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development should give serious thoughts to these questions. The Treasury is already awash with cash, so instead of still pumping this HK$1 billion of sky-high auctioning proceeds into the Treasury, why don't we consider ploughing this huge revenue back into the community for the purpose of, say, investing in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9431

5G research and development of, or speeding up the required planning at least. We may also use the money for building network connections with remote areas. All these are matters that the Government must deal with as soon as practicable.

Deputy Chairman, I of course do not agree that we should totally deduct the expenditure or staff emoluments of a government department simply because we are not satisfied with its work. This is far too extreme. I understand that some Members may have special reasons for doing so. As for this request made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in relation to the Budget this year, I have no idea whether it has anything to do with the Government's approach to re-assigning frequency spectrum, or other issues. Of course, communications affairs involve many things, and Mr CHAN may still have many opinions to express, especially on television broadcasting. But in respect of this amendment, I myself would like to relay the discontent and concern of the industries about the stagnancy of frequency spectrum planning.

The telecommunications industry is worried that belated government actions may render it unable to make timely preparations, thus dragging us behind others in 5G technology and tarnishing our image once again. Actually, many information technology developers do realize that if we cannot launch a local 5G network as soon as possible, then we will not be able to introduce any effective services, no matter how actively we seek to develop APPs, VR, AR or IoT. In that case, how is Hong Kong going to catch up with others in the future?

Hence, Deputy Chairman, I so submit, requesting that the Communications and Creative Industries Branch and CA to make more serious efforts, so as to restore the advantage we are supposed to enjoy in the provision of 5G services. More importantly, I request them to make good planning for the future, so as to make sure that we will not lag behind others any more.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am going to speak on the amendments proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin and Dr CHENG Chung-tai on cutting the expenditure for the Education Bureau. I will also speak on Mr Andrew WAN's amendment on deducting the expenditure for the remuneration of the Secretary for Home Affairs.

I have always thought that Members' views on education and home affairs should be more or less the same. But then, I saw something when I read a 9432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 newspaper this morning. I seldom read any newspaper, and I just flipped through it. I saw this headline: "Cantonese not Hong Kong people's mother tongue―Education Bureau quotes Mainland scholar as saying". What? If that is really true, the news story should actually be put on the front page. Are they alright? They say that Cantonese is not Hong Kong people's mother tongue. Well, if we read on, we will see that the article was published in 2013, and I can remember that there were some sort of online discussions back then. This essay, which puts forward the above idea, was then published together with the essays of many other academics in a miscellany, and it does not represent any particular official standpoint. But why has it been given such prominent coverage in the newspaper today? Yes, the news story is not put on A1, but on A7. But it is still treated as a big story. I am really baffled.

If the Government is at all serious about its education policies, it should tell people clearly that there is some confusion over here, that the essay is just one of the many essays collected in a miscellany, and that the idea is just put forward for people's knowledge, having nothing to do with any official line. But, well, let me also say that this news story also covers the views of a Hong Kong academic named Benjamin AU YEUNG (Most people call him "Ben Sir"). Mr AU YEUNG is quoted as commenting that the motive of this essay "must be the suppression of Cantonese, if not the belittling of it". Why doesn't the Education Bureau (especially the Secretary) openly explain that people may have been over-sensitive? Well, in a way, the Secretary has already given a reply, saying that people can realize the Government's position from the use of Cantonese as the medium of instruction in most primary schools at present. But why are his words so very ambiguous? He should be upfront.

TUNG Chee-hwa said years ago, "Teaching in the mother tongue is something good." What did he mean by "mother tongue"? Putonghua? Shanghainese? Or, the Chaozhou dialect spoken by LI Ka-shing? Nonsense! In Hong Kong, our mother tongue is certainly Cantonese. Why are his words so ambiguous? I am really baffled.

This morning, Carrie LAM shielded the Secretary for Education, behaving as though she was under untold pressure. This is simply absurd. If Cantonese is not our mother tongue, which language is? Mercy me, Secretary, or any of those in charge of curriculum development!

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9433

People now watching the live television broadcast may be puzzled. How is the Secretary supposed to do his job if we do not pay him any remuneration? How are they supposed to develop curriculums if we refuse to allocate any funding for the purpose? Well, honestly, let me say our proposal of deducting the expenditure is just to stir up some sort of discussion. Actually, the pro-establishment bootlickers already have enough votes. But we must at least have some discussion and must not let them pretend that nothing has happened and say, "They have finished their nonsense at long last. We will not bother to answer their meaningless questions."

I am really puzzled. Just now, when talking about our mother tongue, Mr KWONG Chun-yu mentioned a motion I moved in the previous term. The motion is entitled "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'", and it deals with issues such as teaching in the mother tongue and the English language. Mr LAU Kong-wah, who was already Secretary for Home Affairs back then, asked us not to worry, assuring us that teaching in the mother tongue would always mean teaching in the medium of Cantonese.

This morning, Carrie LAM refused to tell us which language her mother tongue is, and the Secretary for Education's reply yesterday was a complete mess. He is the Secretary for Home Affairs, so he should make some sort of clarification here, shouldn't he? Members must not underestimate the Home Affairs Bureau. It is not without teeth, you know. The Bureau was once headed by Dr Patrick HO, and at one time, he was very eager to set up a Culture Bureau. The word "culture" here refers to the Cantonese culture in Hong Kong. Why were they so definite about this matter in the past, but are suddenly so evasive now? What are they up to anyway? I think they are up to no good. I cannot see why even now.

Carrie LAM says some are trying to make waves, and she thinks that there is actually no need to discuss the mother tongue issue. Is she right? I can now see all the stormy waves outside. Who has made all these waves? The Government. The waves first began when the Government dictated which words and expressions can be used in textbooks. It was the Government which first made the waves.

i-Cable News was kind of smarter, and it quickly sensed the problem. So, one of its journalists asked me, "Do you think there is any problem with the 9434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 expression '香港在中國南方1'?". I thought the journalist was talking about orientation. So, I drew a cross on the map to help me with that. As I then saw, Hong Kong is not due south of China but a bit to its southeast. A country which is due south of China is Myanmar. The journalist asked me a second question, "Do you think there is any problem with the expression '1949年中共立國後， 大批內地人移居香港' (After the Communist Party of China founded the new nation in 1949, large numbers of Mainland people migrated to Hong Kong)?" Well, I think there is a really problem with that one. In my view, they did not actually "migrate to Hong Kong" because "migration" should be something bracing, or worry-free at least. In other words, people who migrate simply choose to move from place A to place B. But I think the Mainland people back then actually fled to Hong Kong. People of my parents' generation, for example, fled to Hong Kong.

But then, the authorities' concern is not so much about the choice of words between "migrate" and "flee". Rather they … Hey, you two people please lower you voice. We are friends, but I still have to say that I can hear you talking. "Slow Beat", you are such a naughty boy. Rather, the authorities claim that there is no causal relationship between the massive migration of Mainland people to Hong Kong and the founding of the new nation by the Communist Party of China. This saying is therefore erroneous, they argue. Are they alright?

Actually, all these issues should have nothing to do with the Budget. But then, the other day, when Members discussed the Budget in another meeting room, the Secretary was present to discuss the subject of education. Seeing this, I thought I might as well ask him a question on these issues. Actually, I expected him to give me a stock reply, because he did not really need to answer my question anyway. He could have said that there was, well, an independent academic to think about curriculum development, and since he played no part in it, he would have no comment, and so on. But he answered my question directly, you know, in the context of our Budget discussions. He was so confident when he said that '香港在中國的南方' cannot tell clearly whether Hong Kong is inside China. He also said there was no causal relationship between the two, and we should not say "the regaining or transfer of the sovereignty over Hong Kong", because the expression "resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong" is clearly written in the Preamble of the Basic Law.

1 This may mean "Hong Kong is to the south of China" or "Hong Kong is in the south of China". The former means that Hong Kong is not Chinese territory. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9435

The glibness of the Secretary for Education really startled me. I have all along thought that Mr YEUNG is more sincere than other principal officials, so I think he must have some difficulties that he cannot tell us this time around. You need not frown. Why are you frowning? I am now talking about the two amendments on cutting the expenditure of Education Bureau. One of them is about curriculum development, and the other about the remuneration of the Secretary for Education.

If the relevant expenditure is cut … The Basic Law teaches us … In a way, I buy Mr AU Nok-hin's amendment. He proposes to promote understanding of the Basic Law. But their way of promoting the Basic Law is simply an attempt to misrepresent history, whitewash history, rewrite history and doctor history. This is an unforgivable crime against humanity. They are simply absurd.

In September 1997, TUNG Chee-hwa rolled out the policy of using the mother tongue for teaching. His stance was so stern, and he looked so patriotic, saying, "Teaching in the mother tongue is something good." What is meant by "teaching in the mother tongue"? The answer must be the use of Cantonese as the medium of instruction. What is so good about teaching in the mother tongue? First, it can facilitate students' learning; and second, it can arouse students' interest in a subject during studies and in turn help them achieve good results. But contrary to all expectations, the 10 years of teaching in the mother tongue ended up in 10 years of catastrophe. Here, I do not intend to discuss the pros and cons of using either our mother tongue or English as the medium of instruction. But let me tell Members one thing. Mr TUNG Chee-hwa assumed office at the time of Hong Kong's reunification with China (when the sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred to and regained by the Communist Party of China, in other words). This was the first shot he fired, but it immediately backfired and caused widespread misery. Those who are not quite so young now can certainly remember it. But then, in 2018, they suddenly do not know which language their mother tongue is. Isn't it strange? They must be rewriting history, right? They are simply trying to whitewash history, thinking that the dark history in the past is disgraceful. But a black hole―let me say it once again―a black hole will remain a black hole in the end regardless of how hard one tries to whitewash it.

The Government has been using Mainland parlance these days. I fear that if the situation continues, the curriculums will be crammed with communist expressions, such as "方方面面" and "重中之重" (meaning, literally, "on all 9436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 sides and aspects" and "the most important of all important things" respectively). This morning, Carrie LAM ended her long scripted speech of 5 000 words with the expression "重中之重". Why didn't she just say "很重要" (meaning "very important")? When did we start to hear all such expressions? It all started with that very thing called LEUNG Chun-ying, the previous Chief Executive. Some may ask, "Language evolves with social changes and the times. What is wrong with that anyway?" Yes, there is something wrong, because all such expressions are political language.

Now, let me ask Members a quick question. Have Members ever heard of a place called "哈瓦那" in the world? Do Members know where it is? Have Members heard of a place called "哈瓦那"? This place name appears in a formal news report a couple of years ago on the arrival of OBAMA, the then American President, in "哈瓦那" for a state visit. I was honestly taken by surprise. I wondered, "Where is this place, and where he has gone to?" Then, I realized that he was actually visiting "夏灣拿" (Havana), the Cuban capital. My God! How can they pander to the Mainland in this way? This is not only self-censorship but also a "castration" of our own culture. This is an unforgivable sin. They will be condemned by history.

Language is the bone marrow of a culture. To destroy a city, one must first destroy its language; and to destroy its language, one must first deal with its education and mass media. But this is a separate topic in another direction. Dealing with the media can achieve the purpose of brainwashing. Have Members read Zun Zi's comic strip in Ming Pao today? The mother in the comic strip tells her son, "Son, you should do this and that after coming back home from school. Do not play video games." Then, the son talks back to the mother with Putonghua vulgarisms. I do not intend to repeat its contents. Members can see clearly for themselves that the two languages … I do not mean to belittle Putonghua. I am a holder of the Certificate for the Test of Advanced Proficiency in Putonghua awarded by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. Please note the word "Advanced". My Putonghua may well be better than yours. But in any case, our own language must not be thus eaten away.

Being bilingual can break all the limits of one's perceptions and horizons, completely freeing one's mind. Some education officials are now present. How do we say the Cantonese term "檐 蛇" (gecko) in Putonghua? And, how do we say the Putonghua term "壁 虎" (which also means gecko) in Cantonese? Actually, these two terms mean the same thing, both denoting a very lovely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9437 creature. "壁 虎" literally means "a tiny tiger on the wall", and it means the same thing as the Cantonese term "檐 蛇". "檐" means "eaves", and the character "蛇" (meaning "snake") is used to describe its snake-like appearance. The two languages both carry their respective cultures. Why should the Government try to either belittle or suppress the use of Cantonese in Hong Kong, just as Ben Sir has asserted? Their sole intention is to mainlandize the entire Hong Kong and turn Hong Kong into one of the many cities in Mainland China. This is unacceptable to us.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Mr Charles Peter MOK has mentioned Amendment No. 18, the amendment I have moved. This amendment is about the deduction of the estimated annual expenditure on the personal emoluments for the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industry Branch). I may not have enough time to explain this amendment in detail today or the next time when it is my turn to speak. But since Mr MOK has asked about it, I will say a few simple words in response.

The intended target of this amendment is not the issue of telecommunications. But still, I am very glad that Members have spoken on this subhead and head. My target is the Communications and Creative Industry Branch under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and it is in charge of broadcasting policies and creative industries. In regard to radio broadcasting, I already expressed my views when I spoke on the expenditure head on "Radio Television Hong Kong" yesterday, which has no amendment. As for the television industry, we always say that the golden era in Hong Kong was the 1980s. It was still fine in the 1990s, but we have since been falling from the leading position in the Chinese communities. Nowadays, not many people watch Hong Kong television dramas. People prefer watching Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese or Mainland dramas. And even Thailand television dramas are catching up. As regards other creative industries like the film industry, the drastic drop in the number of cinemas and Hong Kong-produced films is rather alarming. Besides, I am also very concerned about ACG, meaning animation, comics and games. This area is also under the charge of the Communications and Creative Industry Branch. Concerning the electronic sports ("e-sports") industry, which emerged later, it is under the purview of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I would also like to expound further on this if I have time later.

9438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

I would like to add one point here, and that is related to the Government's amendment to head 173. The amendment says, "Create a new Item 804 Caring and Sharing Scheme under head 173 subhead 700 General non-recurrent with a provision of $11,316,000,000". When I see that the Government has to create a new Item 804 under the subhead, I very much fear that this may become a standing practice. In other words, in the future when the Government wants to care and share, or offer cash handouts, it will adopt this approach again, as it has already established such a mechanism.

On the exorbitant administrative costs this year, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN explains that this is because the measure is in its first year of implementation. However, I want to say that this is actually not the first time, because there was also a similar measure last time. But then, it is indeed the first year that the Government does it under a subhead. I hope that other Members can also air their views, as this is not the most effective way. If the government coffers continue to be "awash" with cash and the Government still wants to care and share, I hope that the Government can drop this method as a means of returning money to the public. Nevertheless, we still have plenty of time. It does not matter even though the Government does not want to listen to our views towards this "tinkering" proposal this year. District Council elections will be held in 2019, that is next year, and the Legislative Council elections will be held in 2020. When the time comes, political parties will force the Government to do so, even if I do not give in any pressure.

If the total surplus this year is $148.9 billion … Members of the public should note that the total surplus this year is $148.9 billion, not $138 billion as mentioned by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN. There is $10 billion more, and the fruit to share is bigger. When he proposed the amendment, his consideration was still based on a surplus of $138 billion as he did not know that the sum would be $148.9 billion. Of course, I am unable to amend his amendment today. I only want to explore some clever and efficient means of ensuring that the money can be given to the public as quickly as possible, so that they can in turn spend it in our society to boost the economy. The Government has already decided to spend the money, but with such a policy, the money will be left idle for one year. People often talk about the sluggishness of the Government and our economic development, saying that they have been slowed down. But let me first put aside those issues which this Council and the public both consider controversial. In regard to many issues which are not controversial, even if the Government is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9439 willing to compromise and take actions, its actions are also very slow. The officials really must review reflect on this.

Deputy Chairman, let me continue with my discussion on "Head 186―Transport Department". This seeks to deduct $50 million, an amount approximately equivalent to the recurrent expenditure required for the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme ("the Scheme") of the Transport Department in 2018-2019. I am not against this Scheme. But I do think that this recurrent expenditure, which is in fact be a sum of administrative expenditure, is too large.

I would like to briefly explain the current picture of the Scheme. According to the Government, if a person spends more than $400 on transport in a month, the Government will subsidize one fourth of the amount in excess, subject to a cap, of course, which is $300. In other words, if the transportation cost for one month is $1,600, after deducting $400, the amount in excess will be $1,200. The Government will then subsidize $300, which is one fourth of $1,200. Theoretically, there is a cap, but in practice, there is no cap. This is because a person can use another Octopus Card and take public transport as usual. As long as the transportation expenses have reached $1,600, the Government will subsidize $300. Hence in practice, there is no cap.

In this regard, we have in fact mentioned at the Finance Committee ("FC") meeting that this approach is inappropriate and will only benefit parallel traders. In other words, the Government is subsidizing them in their parallel trading activities, or subsidizing those who commute multiple times per day. The Government is unwilling to make use of a personalized octopus card system. But this is not the main reason why I request the deduction of this administrative expenditure. The main reason is that this method is too stupid, as it requires the public to queue up. In early June, for example, and that is one month later, the public must make special efforts to locate the validators in order to tap their Octopus Cards on them and obtain the rebate of up to $300. In case they forget to do so or after the period is expired, they will be unable to get the rebate. This method of requiring the public to queue up and tap their cards is rather troublesome. Sometimes the Government wants to do something nice, but it is just unwilling to do it thoroughly, and this is really very hard to understand. I have asked some technical people whether there is any other method that is more convenient to the public. They reply that there is of course a better way, and it is all a question of how the computer program is written and the costs involved. 9440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

In that case, why does the Government refuse to adjust the arrangement, so that the public can automatically obtain the maximum rebate of $300 wherever they tap their octopus cards?

At the FC meetings, Members from different political parties asked the Government to make the Scheme more convenient to the public so that people could be benefited more directly, but the Government was unwilling to improve it. In fact, this unwillingness simply echoes the Government's mentality in giving out money. It always wants to make simple matters complicated. It wants the public to do something in order to get the benefit. If people forget to make an application or tap their octopus cards, they will lose this benefit. Honestly, it is the intention of Government to save some money?

In order to save time, I now begin to talk about the next subhead. I ask to deduct the Government's expenditure on publicizing the waiver of rates, and have also proposed an amendment to this effect. Under the head concerned, the amount of money that I propose to reduce is rather small, only $480,000, a figure that I arrived at after asking the Government. I ask the Government about the administrative expenditure on the rates waiver, and it replies that there is no cost, as the Government only receives less money, getting $2,500 less at the maximum after computation. However, the Government has an expenditure item of $480,000. What is it? Deputy Chairman, it is the expenditure on publicity. This leaflet costs $480,000 to print, and it tells you about the rates waiver.

In fact, the rates waiver requires no application. The Government says that one does not need to be a property owner in order to benefit, and as long as one is a rates payer, a tenant or an agent, for example, one can enjoy the rates waiver. Then why is publicity needed? Usually publicity is meant to induce more people to make applications under a certain scheme. But this measure requires no application, so what is the reason for any publicity? The reason is that the Government is afraid that people do not know it has handed out money to them and that they are not thankful to it. It thus spent $480,000 on printing copies of this leaflet to publicize this measure.

As we all know, many Members in this Council, including some pro-establishment Members, also think that this government measure of waiving the rates can be done in a better way. Many people say that the rich, who can have their rates waived by $2,500 per quarter, or waived by $10,000 in total for the whole year, will not be thankful to the Government. Nonetheless, seeing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9441 that this measure of caring and sharing is so in favour of property owners, those who cannot benefit or the poor will be getting unhappy and displeased with the Government. Therefore, my suggestion of deducting this publicity expenditure of $480,000 will actually help the Government. Such measures are launched by the Government every year. On hearing the government publicity of these measures so often, those who cannot benefit will not be pleased.

Last month, the public or property owners were already aware of this rates waiver arrangement through the media and government papers. We have also mentioned quite a number of areas which are not reasonable. For instance, this rates waiver of $10,000 in total for the whole year is applicable to owners of vacant premises, tenants of chain stores, and even automatic teller machines and self-service photo kiosks. The rich is thus getting richer. All these show that the rates waiver policy is skewed towards the rich. The more the Government publicizes, the more infuriated the people not benefiting from the measure will become. You say that there is public animosity towards the rich. But this is in fact kindled by the Government. When we put forward our amendments, the tinkering or remedial proposal has not yet been announced by the Financial Secretary, and there was more hatred and aversion from the public towards the rates waiver proposal. At this moment, some people may not express their concerns anymore, as they can also be benefited. Those who will attend the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE") are now silent. Some people say that even if there is no waiver on DSE fees, they will also attend DSE with their own money. Anyway, the Government should not have printed so many copies of this leaflet to ruin the environment.

I in fact have thought of a reason to support spending $480,000 on printing copies of this information leaflet. It is because under the existing tinkering proposal, if the amount of rates being waived is more than $4,000, you cannot apply for the allowance; but if the amount of rates being waived is say, $50 less than $4,000, you can apply to get the balance of $50. However, I know that many people do not read their demand notes for rates as they pay their rates through the autopay system, and they may not be aware of their rates being waived. Perhaps the Government want to take this extra move of printing copies of this leaflet with $480,000 to tell them or to let them know about the rates waiver. The Government has done its very best because some members of the public do not check their own bills and may not be aware of paying $2,500 less of the rates. But now with this leaflet being printed out, they will learn about the rates waiver. In my view, the function of this leaflet may be to stop people from 9442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 saying in the future that "I do not learn about the rates waiver. I have been paying large amounts of rates. How do I know if $2,500 has been waived?"

We have also raised another question at the FC meeting. At the end of March, copies of this leaflet were sent together with the demand notes for rates for the quarter from April to June to the public. But during that time, this rates waiver proposal was not endorsed yet. Despite the adoption of the negative vetting procedure, the measure was formally in force only on 1 April, and the mailing of copies of this leaflet publicizing the rates waiver seemed to be inappropriate. We have also argued over this question back then.

In this debate session, I want to discuss one more item, but I may not have enough time due to the speaking time limit. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung just mentioned my Amendment No. 45 related to "Head 141―Government Secretariat: Labour and Welfare Bureau", which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure by an amount equivalent to the personal emoluments of the Labour and Welfare Bureau for the whole year. I notice that no one asks to deduct the personal emoluments of Dr LAW Chi-kwong, Secretary for Labour and Welfare, perhaps due to his higher popularity rating. However, this item of expenditure can of course be related to the performance of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare.

In this remaining one minute, I have to highlight one point. Yesterday, in response to Members' views towards the Budget, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare criticized Members for dismissing his work on the elderly services as insufficient. He responded with a very strange kind of logic. He said that in the new financial year, the recurrent expenditure of the Government on elderly services will rise by 18%, while the number of elderly people has only risen by 4.3% this year, and that if this would be considered as slow, (and I quote), "I am not sure what kind of growth rate can be considered as fast." Come on, even if the elderly people stop growing old and the number of elderly people stops increasing today, the growth rate of expenditure on elderly services would not have caught up, right? How do you define fast and slow? Should the Secretary improve the services in order to catch up with the growing number of elderly people or with the service level that should have been provided to the elderly today? Many elderly people died already while waiting for the services. He is playing petty tricks, juggling with figures and trying to fool Members with distorted logic (The buzzer sounded) …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9443

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, your speaking time is up.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate session, I would like to talk about Amendment No. 12. It seeks to reduce the estimated annual expenditure of the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO") for 2018-2019 by $180 million, an amount roughly equivalent to OGCIO's departmental expenses for the hire of services and professional fees that year.

I do not know what prompts Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to propose this amendment. I am also not sure whether he has already explained the rationale behind doing so earlier in this Council meeting. Perhaps, he has yet to do so. I remember that he also sought to cut OGCIO expenses in the past as he found OGCIO-designed mobile applications ("Apps") useless and unpopular. At that time, I said OGCIO was indeed quite helpless because its advice was always snubbed by other departments, while the designs of the Apps were not in line with standards. Of course, spending on useless Apps is unwise, but I will leave aside the App issue today and focus on a more serious problem arising from the hire of services and professional fees.

Hong Kong is facing a talent problem. Everywhere in the world, talent is fundamental to the development of a knowledge-based economy and the advancement in innovation and technology. I trust that every company we ask will say they have been haunted by the difficulties in hiring talents, and the retaining of talents is a big headache. A rich supply of talents is the prerequisite for the development of technology in Hong Kong. But what is Hong Kong Government's role in nurturing talents? For the sake of easier management, the Government has been hiring information technology ("IT") staff through employment agencies in a form of long-term contracts. This kind of outsourced staff is commonly referred to as T-contract staff. Despite its unshirkable responsibility of nurturing scientific and technological talents, the Government treats professional talents as disposables and continues to adopt this unfair contract system.

The Government has taken the lead in outsourcing IT posts. This situation has not been improved for years. The number of outsourced staff has kept increasing, and there are now several thousand T-contract staff in the 9444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Government. Instead of conducting large-scale civil service recruitments for IT vacancies, the Government always seeks to expand its IT professional manpower through the hiring of temporary contract staff. The size of T-contract staff, now close to or even more than 3 000, is way bigger than that of their counterpart under the civil service establishment, with the sum of civil servants and non-civil service contract ("NCSC") staff at around 2 000 only.

Why must the Government do so? The Government always seeks to justify the practice by saying that it needs to recruit IT talents in good time, or that it needs to meet temporary manpower demand. Yet, as the largest employer, and probably the largest IT boss, in Hong Kong, how can the Government disregard its social responsibility and turn a blind eye to the deficiencies in the T-contract system? This system give rises to the problem of unequal pay for the same job and the exploitation by employment agencies of outsourced staff through the imposition of unfair terms and conditions in their employment contracts, treating them as long-term temporary staff. Some frontline T-contract staff have relayed to me that they are heavily exploited, with poor fringe benefits, a mere payment of minimum wage for statutory holidays, and payment of only 80% of salary for maternity leave, not to mention that they lack job security and promotion prospects. The Government does not place value even on its own IT staff, and what kind of message does this send to the private market?

I raised a question in the Council meeting on 25 October last year, asking the Government to give a detailed account of the engagement of IT staff through T-contract and whether it would implement any improvement measures. We note from the government reply that many T-contract staff have long years of service with the Government. For example, the average length of service is 6.7 years for Project Manager, 7.9 years for Senior Systems Analyst, and as long as 12 years for Senior Project Manager. They are all professionals, but they all work as contract staff for the Government. Can the post of a Senior Project Manager be regarded as a short-term need? Can 12 years of service be regarded as a short-term need? Many T-contract staff I know are not keen to fight for better employment packages now because they are approaching the retirement age. Hence, this sector is facing the problem of talent supply. As the largest employer in Hong Kong, the Government should not pay lip service to the nurturing and re-equip talents. It should put the measures into implementation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9445

Secretary for Innovation and Technology once wrote in his blog that the engagement of T-contract staff in place of civil service recruitment did not help save public money. I asked the Government for an explanation then. The Secretary's remark makes the T-contract system even more ridiculous. If the system cannot save staff cost but the outsourced staff are paid less than their counterpart in the civil service, who can gain from it? It means that the money falls into the hands of employment agencies. Why does the Government still allow this ridiculous system to go on? Only employment agencies can gain from the T-contract system, and neither the Government nor the staff can benefit from it. The system shows total disrespect to the IT profession and brings damage to the ecology of the sector, which is not conductive to retaining talents and setting a bad example to the private market.

Deputy Chairman, talent supply has been a hot topic for discussion in recent years. When we discussed the planning of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area, for example, we saw the trend of the scrambling for talents. There have been suggestions that we should build up a talent pool in Hong Kong to admit professional talents. That sounds sensible. But quite the contrary, more local talents have been lured to work elsewhere. The biggest problem is that on the one hand, the Government fails to attract overseas companies to create decent jobs in the city. On the other hand, the jobs offered by the Government are the most poorly remunerated ones. I have proposed an amendment to a motion on "Expeditiously conducting a comprehensive review of the Government's service outsourcing system" to call for a comprehensive review of the strategy on IT manpower and the setting up of a mechanism for converting long-term T-contract staff to civil servants. I am of course not requesting a one-off conversion. But the Government should give its T-contract staff some hope and reduce the outsourced posts in phases. The amendment was passed by Members.

In last September to October, I conducted an online survey on government T-contract staff to gauge their views on the job prospects and remuneration packages, and on their employment agencies and the serving government departments. The survey also seeks their comments on a number of suggestions to improve the remuneration packages of T-contract staff. The survey interviewed nearly 300 T-contract staff, and most of them were experienced IT personnel. In the survey, 90% of the respondents work under an employment contract of less than two years; over half of them have a monthly salary of less than $50,000; nearly half of them are dissatisfied with their current remuneration 9446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 packages; and around 65% of them are entitled to paid holidays of not more than 10 days. Deputy Chairman, there were cases where T-contract staff were not offered government jobs after the conversion of their T-contract posts into civil service posts because of the recruitment policies of individual government departments. As pointed out by many respondents, those government departments converted some contract posts into civil service posts in response to the widespread criticism from me and also from pro-establishment Members representing respective trade unions. However, the civil service posts concerned were then filled up by serving civil servants through promotion, rendering the T-contract staff jobless after working in the posts for years. Besides, more than half of the respondents said their employment agencies required them to undergo a "sanitization period" to stop working for some time before they switched from one government post to another. Due to the "sanitization period" requirement, they were left without income for several months.

Among a number of proposed policy improvement measures listed in the survey, 70% of the respondents think there is a need to enhance the transparency of recruitment exercises by disclosing the salary ranges for individual T-contract posts for applicants' reference; 90% of them think the Government should refer to the civil service pay adjustment mechanism and adjust the salaries of T-contract staff on the basis of changes in the consumer price index; and nearly 90% of the respondents think the Government should impose a cap on the profit ratio of employment agencies to rectify the problem arising from the "lowest bid wins" approach, so that T-contract staff can be more reasonably paid. Deputy Chairman, you should also remember the problem associated with the "lowest bid wins" approach. Carrie LAM has also mentioned this in her Policy Address, but I cannot see any changes in the policy. There are strong calls from the contract staff for policy changes. Besides, 85% of the respondents think the Government should offer to convert T-contract staff to NCSC staff or civil servants after certain years of service.

Deputy Chairman, I am not only good at criticism. I can also see some improvements in the latest tendering work. The T25 tender exercise that commenced on 2 March to recruit a new batch of T-contract staff already closed on 13 April, though the T25 contracts have yet to be awarded. There are obvious improvements in the T25 tender. For example, the tender document now requires tenderers to meet two criteria under the technical assessment which has a score of 40. The first criterion is the service guarantee plan, which I think LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9447 mainly seeks to safeguard the interest of the Government itself, rather than the staff. The second criterion is the staff management plan, and I think certain requirements under the plan have taken on board some of our suggestions. The plan requires tenderers to take measures to reduce the staff wastage rate and to boost staff morale through the provision of fringe benefits which are better than the minimum requirements under the labour legislation. As staff welfare, the plan also requires tenderers to offer training courses or online training programmes to their staff to subsidize their furthering education. Continuing education is important for IT staff to enhance their capabilities and to grasp new knowledge and skills in the fast-developing IT sector. Scores will also be given to the availability of channels for staff to lodge complaints. Lastly, tenderers are required to provide information on labour protection to let their staff know how they are protected under the labour legislation. These are already enhancement measures under the new tender exercise. Hence, we can imagine how poorly the contract staff were treated in the past. These are the very basic labour protection they are untitled under the labour legislation, but it is not until this tender exercise that the Government includes these conditions in its procurement agreements with employment agencies.

Deputy Chairman, finally, I really hope that the Government can phase out the practice of engaging staff through employment agencies. We are now debating the Budget. But while this outsourcing practice has made the staff unhappy and consider it as a form of exploitation, the Government still has the guts to tell us that it cannot help save public money. If this policy is aimed at saving public money, I can still say it is implemented with a purpose, though I do not agree with it. The Government keeps pursuing this policy despite the fact that staff cost cannot be saved while the contract staff are full of grief. Why does the Government want to do so? This practice can benefit no one but employment agencies, and the Government ought not to pursue it further.

Deputy Chairman, as I have said earlier, in principle I do not support the across-the-board expenditure cut as this will affect the jobs of thousands of contract staff. Hence, I do not support the deduction of the relevant expenditure. Yet, I definitely have to take this opportunity to express my dissatisfaction with the relevant government policy. It is not until the T25 tender that the Government starts to make improvements to staff protection. I do not know how long I have to wait until the Government will take another step to make further improvements which can really help the contract staff. Of course, I hope 9448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 that I will not need to wait and the Government will initiate to convert the contract staff with long years of service to civil servants, instead of converting the contract posts into civil service posts but not allowing the contract staff concerned to stay. I also hope that the Innovation and Technology Bureau will not just focus on the development of the loop area and the support of new businesses. It should also take care of the welfare of its staff. I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am now going to speak on Amendment No. 42 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 138―Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch)". The amendment seeks to reduce an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Secretary for Development in 2018-2019, and the annual estimated expenditure incurred on salary costs for the following newly created posts in 2018-2019 to provide service support for initiatives to increase land supply: 1 Senior Administrative Officer post, 1 Senior Town Planner post, 4 Senior Executive Officer posts, 2 Executive Officer I posts, 1 Engineer/Assistant Engineer post.

Deputy Chairman, I consider head 138 very special in that its Controlling Officer's Report consists of a few pages only, but there are as many as 22 items in the list of matters requiring special attention in 2018-2019, and the list has one characteristic which I do not find in reports of other heads, that is, 14 of the items listed are matters requiring continuous attention. Therefore, I would like to discuss the reasons why I consider it necessary to cut the emoluments for the Secretary for Development, or even pay him no emoluments at all.

From these 22 items in the list of matters requiring special attention, I notice that there are three major problems with what the Secretary for Development has done over the past year and what he plans to do in the coming year. First, he tends to overturn what he has done previously; secondly, he tries to continue handling some matters which should no longer exist; and thirdly, he delays resolving some problems when actions to address them can afford no delay.

First of all, what exactly has the Secretary for Development done to overturn what he has completed previously? There are two examples that I can notice. First, the Development Bureau undertook a planning study on "Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9449

Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+") during LEUNG Chun-ying's era. Deputy Chairman, you may recall that the Legislative Council held a number of public hearings back then to gauge public views on the study, and the Secretary made an introduction of the study several times at such hearings. The scope of discussions under "Hong Kong 2030+" is wider than those conducted now by the Task Force on Land Supply; the study on "Hong Kong 2030+" has more comprehensively examined what kind of a city we really want to build Hong Kong into. In the report of the study, a set of figures is presented to suggest that the long-term land requirement in Hong Kong will be 4 800 hectares, and discounting a supply of 3 600 hectares of land from the committed and planned projects, including a number of new development areas such as Hung Shui Kiu and North East New Territories, there will still be a shortage of 1 200 hectares of land.

Before releasing such figures, the Development Bureau commissioned consultants and a number of working groups to conduct different types of studies, such as those on the demand for industrial and commercial buildings and local housing demand, and the Bureau also thoroughly examined the results thus derived. There is also a very clear pie chart in the report, listing out how many hectares of land have been supplied and how many are in short supply. However, less than one year after the publication of the report of "Hong Kong 2030+", and when the Development Bureau was tasked with providing secretarial services and preparing discussion papers for the Task Force on Land Supply, it nonetheless told us that there would actually be a shortage of more than 1 200 hectares of land. Although a concrete figure is not available, it is made known to the public that more than 1 200 hectares of land will be in short supply.

As a Policy Bureau of such a considerable scale, the Development Bureau has spent a substantial amount of public money to conduct a study and work out some rather reliable figures, but after a publicity period of more than half a year, it can now tell us that everything is no longer the same simply because the new Chief Executive has assumed office. Do we really need a bureau director of this kind?

The second example can be seen in the preparation made by the Secretary for the work arrangements of the Task Force on Land Supply, and he has also overturned what he did previously in this regard. In the preliminary proposal of the Task Force on Land Supply, it has included the 2 700 hectares of land used as 9450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 barracks of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison ("Hong Kong Garrison") as one of the options to boost land supply, together with some other very imaginative ideas such as the filling up of the Plover Cove Reservoir. However, after a few months, the option of using land used as barracks of the Hong Kong Garrison has disappeared according to a paper released last week, but other crazy ideas including the filling up of the Plover Cove Reservoir are still there. As far as craziness goes, the idea of risking territory-wide condemnation in recovering land used by the Hong Kong Garrison is actually comparable to the proposal of filling up a reservoir, and I do consider it more pragmatic to adopt the option of recovering land used as barracks.

I suggested doing so in a radio programme a few days ago, and a friend told me afterwards that it might not be feasible for the Government to recover land from the Hong Kong Garrison for good, because the Chinese People's Liberation Army would not want to lose face. Nevertheless, if the Chinese People's Liberation Army wishes to show its loving care for Hong Kong people, we can at least borrow land used as barracks from the Hong Kong Garrison for a short term, right? For example, we can borrow the site adjoining the Hong Kong Baptist University for 10 years for building container houses.

Otherwise, whom can we turn to for land to build container houses? When the Government is not willing to use its own idle land, we can only ask for help from developers, right? For example, we need to solicit assistance from "Uncle Four" in identifying land in Sham Shui Po for this purpose, but the matter should in fact not be handled in this way. The Government is not willing to bear responsibility for the provision of transitional housing when there is a need to do so, nor borrow land from the Hong Kong Garrison which is a big land owner, but it tends to ask for help from developers every time. When there are criticisms of collusion between the Government and the business sector, the Chief Executive will speak in defence of big developers and argue that there are good intentions behind their actions, and we should not regard their kindness as malice. Should we applaud developers again and again for what they have done then? They are being so nice to Hong Kong people that they have given up land sites intended for developing luxury flats and subdivided units, so that the Government may use them for providing container houses. Should we interpret the whole issue from this perspective? Hence, undoing jobs he has completed previously is the Secretary's first deadly sin.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9451

The second deadly sin of the Development Bureau is that it has tried to continue handling some matters which should no longer exist. As I have mentioned earlier, among 22 items in the list of matters requiring special attention by the Development Bureau in the coming year, 14 are ongoing matters which require sustained actions. People often caution that things should not be allowed to go on like this in Hong Kong, otherwise it will only take us to a dead end, and for some unknown reasons, many fellow colleagues have developed a very serious sense of crisis recently, worrying deeply about not only the housing problem but also about the availability of talents. Mr WU Chi-wai also expressed grave concern just now about the possible emergence of a situation resembling the race between the tortoise and the hare, but nowadays, I think not many people will still view Hong Kong as the hare in that story.

Nevertheless, such a sense of crisis is not shared by the SAR Government, especially the Development Bureau, which has been continuing with its efforts in some matters regarded by the people as not to be tackled now, while unwilling to make the changes we need. What are the changes we need to make? Simply put, they are about how the Development Bureau should utilize the valuable land resources in the Government's hand, and how it should exercise its statutory powers to negotiate with such statutory bodies as the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited and the Urban Renewal Authority, which have already acquired some land sites of a high quality in various districts of Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, during deliberation by the Finance Committee, I already expressed strong views to the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Transport and Housing, and put the following question to them: As a number of fellow Members who have been keeping tabs on the pulse of society are aware, the most serious problem now actually lies in the supply of public housing, which will possibly lead to a supply gap. That being the case, how come 27 hectares of land can still be included in the Government's 2018-2019 Land Sale Programme? Among the land sites included in the programme, 17 hectares are for high-density residential development while 10 hectares are located in Kai Tak, but the Government still decides to have them sold to developers when the price of flour is running sky-high.

An article entitled "The secret of ever-increasing property prices: support from 'new Hong Kong people'" appears frequently in my Facebook page recently, and in the first paragraph of the article, it is written that: "Since 2018, six friends 9452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 of mine have acquired their first residential property in Hong Kong, but only one of them was born and grew up here in Hong Kong, while the other five are immigrants who came to study and reside in Hong Kong, and were then issued with an identity card in the last 10 years. I have made enquiries with members of the estate agent sector, and confirmed that such instances are not uncommon, but have on the contrary gradually become normal." These children of wealthy parents have brought with them huge sums of money from the Mainland, and although there is a supply of 20 000 residential units from the Hong Kong Government every year, they will soon be sold out. Can the housing problem in Hong Kong be resolved with an increase in supply after the so-called "big debate"? What Hong Kong people need is a dwelling place, but not a property for speculation with a view to completing a mission impossible to catch up with rises in property prices. This is one thing that we should do no more, but the Development Bureau has never given up its work in this respect, and I do not want to have a Development Bureau like this.

Thirdly, the Secretary has delayed resolving some problems when actions to address them can afford no delay. The term "Buddhist-style" is in frequent use lately, and I have described the Secretary for the Environment as a "Buddhist-style Secretary for the Environment" this morning. As for the Secretary for Development, I consider him "partly Buddhist-style" because he has forcibly tried to continue doing something which he knows very well that he should no longer being doing. For example, seizing land sites in Green Belt areas, felling trees thereon and using the sites for private residential development. Perhaps someone is holding a knife against his neck, and thus owing to the intimidation of developers, the Government has no alternative but to compromise and offer them with land.

However, Deputy Chairman, the Secretary's handling of some matters is very much in "Buddhist style", and I can cite two particularly eye-catching items in this regard. The first one is to "continue to prepare for the implementation of the new title registration system", which is included every year in the list of matters requiring special attention, and what exactly is it about? In 2004, the Land Titles Ordinance was enacted by this Council when the Development Bureau has not yet been set up, and the Government was required to examine how the relevant proposals in the Ordinance should be put into practice. It has since taken the Government 14 years to consider the matter, but it is still handled in "Buddhist style" this year. The implementation of the Land Titles Ordinance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9453 can actually bring about a very important reform in the system to resolve many land disputes in Hong Kong, but just like the enactment of an archives law, the Government has all along been hesitant in moving forward.

The initiative to "continue to oversee the implementation of the New Territories Small House Policy" is the second matter which has been handled in "Buddhist style", and as long as the term "oversee" is involved, we can say for sure that the matter is handled in "Buddhist style", because the Government is only trying to observe the situation. I reckon that when compared with the Development Bureau, Executive Officers doing observation in the Legislative Council are far more active and aggressive. When observing the implementation of the New Territories Small House Policy, the Development Bureau has put the matter aside, let the problem of "selling small house rights" continue to plague the New Territories, allowed the problems concerning the New Territories Small House Policy to continue to worsen, and hence the number of applicants is ever increasing, land sites are occupied by tyrants, applications submitted by genuine users are rendered unsuccessful, while the policy is open to incessant criticisms by other members of the public. When talks about reviewing and reforming the policy have been going on for more than 10 years, the matter is still being handled in "Buddhist style" today in 2018.

Given these three reasons I mentioned just now, I consider the Secretary for Development very incompetent, and does not deserve his current salary of over $300,000. Therefore, I hope fellow Members will support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment. I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As this is the first time Mr SHIU Ka-chun requests to speak in this debate session, I will let him speak first. Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please speak.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will mainly focus on Amendment No. 6 in this session, that is, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment which proposes that head 30 be reduced by $2,920,000 in respect of subhead 000. The amount is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the emolument of the Commissioner of Correctional Services in 2018-2019.

9454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Nelson MANDELA, a black human rights leader and a former president of South Africa, once said, "… no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails." Whether the governance of a certain place is up to international human rights standard hinges precisely on how the government treats its lowliest citizens.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

It is May now and I have been following up the issue of prisoners' rights for a full year. Since last May, I have been paying attention to the corporal punishments and psychological abuses suffered by juvenile offenders in correctional institutions. So far, I have met about 80 of those who have had such experiences. After following up the issue for more than half a year, I have found that both the Correctional Services Department ("CSD") and the entire Government have kept evading the issue and blaming the victims instead: it is the victims' fault for not reporting to the Police and CSD is clean as no evidence of wrongdoings can be found. While I have listened to a large number of complaints from the inmates, the Government refuses to confront the issue of inmate abuse, which it finds sensitive. So all I can do is to pay attention to human rights issues that concern the other inmates instead, following up such issues in prison as education, types of job, wage, food, ethnic integration, provision of resources, environment and facilities, whether clothes and bedclothes are warm enough, and the remuneration of CSD staff. I have followed up all the above respects.

As a matter of fact, I visited an inmate in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre after attending the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session this morning. I heed prisoners' rights issue tirelessly in the hope that CSD will attach due importance to human rights and render the inmates a minimal amount of respect and the fairest treatment possible. Aside from prisoners' rights, I also pay attention to the remuneration and welfare benefits of CSD staff and yet, I have regrettably been given the cold shoulder by CSD despite all my sincerity. As mentioned in one of my speeches previously, I invited CSD to discussion eight times from June to December 2017 but the Commissioner of Correctional Services repeatedly shunned the invitation. From such a response, we understand the Commissioner is irresponsible and lacks the nerve to discuss the mitigation of problems. How come he deserves an annual salary of $2.92 million then?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9455

Article 6 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights on the rights of persons deprived of their liberty provides that "[a]ll persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person … The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation." I am going to raise protests with regard to each of the following areas. If CSD has failed to do its job properly, I think all the Members should support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment.

First, education. According to an inmate, the retraining programme provided by CSD is not suitable for inmates who have not attained primary six level of education. This programme neither provides adequate education and training opportunities to inmates with low levels of educational attainment nor admits inmates who have attained senior secondary level of education.

Some inmates find it tough to pursue further studies as the study hours are not counted towards work hours. Therefore, on top of their work, these inmates have to make an extra effort to complete the curriculum in their leisure time. This dampens inmates' incentive to take up studies, preventing them from fulfilling the goals of education and rehabilitation.

Prisons cannot keep abreast of the times and Internet facilities are not provided, so inmates cannot learn with the aid of computer. In Pik Uk Correctional Institution, there are inmates who are pursuing studies on the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. I have heard that when these inmates have to work on their assignments, their liberal studies teacher will collect information for them online and thus is doing their assignment for them.

Second, about work and wage. The jobs now available in penal institutions fall under 13 trades and they include garment making, knitting, production of leather goods, book binding, envelope making and so on. The 130 workplaces across the institutions produce various types of products for government departments and public organizations. CSD assigns work to each inmate, and its Work and Vocational Training Allocation Boards assigns work appropriately to the inmates with regard to their length of sentence, health condition and preference. The wages, which are divided into seven grades according to the levels of work difficulty, range from $23 to $192 per week.

As I have said repeatedly, the wages in prison are far too low and clear guidelines on work distribution and promotion are found lacking. And, with no 9456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 clocks installed in workplaces, inmates have no idea about their work hours. The type of work available in prison may not fully meet society's demand for job capability. For instance, inmates working in laundry rooms are unable to find jobs in laundry shops after their release.

Third, ethnic integration. Expatriate inmates may not have families or friends who buy them books or newspapers every month. With a lack of books written in different languages in the libraries, the choice of foreign language books that they can read is very limited. In a month, if expatriate inmates get no visitor, they can only make one 10-minute call. Expatriate inmates know little about the complaint mechanisms or channels in Hong Kong. I have just visited the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre and I could not find any notice written in foreign language in the visit room. We should note that the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre is a prison with one of the highest turnover rates, or with 300 turnovers daily according to what I have heard today. There are many inmates of various nationalities who come to and go out of this institution. An inmate told me that CSD officers seldom gave instructions in English. So, expatriate inmates cannot follow their demands, and this is in a way a kind of punishment.

Fourth, supplies, books and sports. As I have said, after the old model radios had ceased to be produced, penal institutions switched to use a new, China-made model which cost HK$120 each. But the signal reception of this model is poor in the great majority of locations and it cannot even receive signals in open areas. This radio, which may aptly be called an "all-weather dead-end radio", is simply useless. Separately, according to the inmates, the monthly book quota of six is too low and the louses in blankets cause them skin allergy and itchiness after use. The inmates also said that if requests were made for washing the blankets, fellow inmates working in laundry rooms would be unhappy for the resultant workload. Many inmates also told me that they faced a lot of restrictions in their choice of clothes in freezing cold winters. Since the beddings provided are as hard as carpets, they fail to keep the inmates warm no matter how many layers are heaped on the inmates.

Fifth, environment and facilities. The water heating facilities in some correctional institutions are always out of order and some inmates would rather skip taking a shower in winter. In some institutions, there is only one telephone set in the visit rooms and even none in some others. The noise insulating facilities in some visit rooms are so inadequate that inmates and their visitors LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9457 have to talk very loudly. The ventilation in some cells is poor, so some inmates feel suffocated and experience breathing difficulties in summer. Facilities are dilapidated in many prisons, such as Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution, Pik Uk Prison and Tong Fuk Correctional Institution. The environment at Pik Uk Prison is poor and cramped. Inmates meet their visitors in a very noisy place and this affects the work and living quality of inmates and CSD staff.

Sixth, food. The locals cannot choose to eat western cuisines, and South Asians can only eat curry dishes. A Thai inmate who holds the Hong Kong Identity Card whom I visited earlier is regarded as a local and cannot eat curry dishes. But the deprivation of spicy food causes him a headache. I raised his case to CSD but was told that the inmate should visit a doctor if he was sick. But this is putting the cart before the horse. Local inmates consider western cuisines more delicious and the meals of expatriate inmates better. Such kind of comparison breeds suspicion and hinders the communication and how people of different ethnicities can get along. The drinking water at Pik Uk Prison cells at night is often not boiled and it may affect inmates' health. Some inmates also said that some of the food they ate was not even thoroughly cooked.

Chairman, if the Commissioner of Correctional Services wants his remuneration, I suggest he make improvements in the following areas. A, on education. First, I suggest permitting inmates to use computers which allow some online browsing so as to facilitate their learning, provided that security conditions are met. Second, in a bid to encourage the pursuit of studies, those inmates pursuing education should have their working hours reduced. Third, the education background of inmates should not pose restraints to their receiving education and training, as everyone should enjoy equal rights in this respect. Fourth, inmates who do not hold identity cards should also enjoy the rights to education and training, so as to avoid idling their time away. Fifth, juvenile offenders who have sat for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination should be allowed to apply for programmes offered by The Open University or other universities and territory institutions.

B, about wage and work. First, I suggest installing clocks in all workplaces. Second, wages of inmates should be reviewed and raised substantially. Third, the criteria for assigning work and the ladder for promotion should be spelled out. Fourth, all types of work should be paid at uniform wages.

9458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Next, about ethnic integration. First, I suggest providing at least two to three interpreters in each prison for the inmates. Second, the ratio of books written in traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese and English should match that of local inmates, Mainland inmates and expatriate inmates respectively. Third, expatriate inmates should be allowed to make free voice calls at least twice a month, each with a duration of 10 minutes at least.

Next, about supplies, books and sports. First, I suggest exploring a new model of radio with which inmates' access to information in prison can be ensured. Second, the manpower and facilities at the laundry rooms should be strengthened so that blankets can be washed more frequently. Third, redefine daily necessities to be included in the supplies kit, so as to meet inmates' basic needs. Basic daily necessities should be acquired with public money. Fourth, families should be allowed to purchase for the inmates, perhaps out of public money, daily necessities such as insoles, and more comfortable thermal pants and socks. Fifth, families should be allowed to buy stamps for the inmates.

Next, suggestions about the environment and facilities. First, all ball courts should be fitted with relevant basic amenities. For instance, all basketball courts should have basketball goalposts and basketball nets. Second, three telephone sets should be installed in each visit booth to allow an inmate to talk to three friends or relatives at the same time. Third, at least three official visit rooms should be set up in each prison to ensure inmates can meet public officers or lawyers expeditiously. Fourth, inspect the ventilation system of all the cells. Fifth, formulate criteria for implementing change of season arrangements. When temperature drops to below 20 ℃, provide inmates and ensure the amount of hot water is adequate, so as to protect them from falling ill.

Next, about food. First, while inmates' food preference is not considered a factor in the choice of food, impartial treatment should be seen to be given to all inmates. I suggest allowing inmates to choose the food they eat. Second, monitor the quality of food to safeguard inmates' health.

Next, let us come to the treatment to CSD staff. First, I suggest providing CSD staff with more hostels or more housing and transportation subsidies. Second, adjust the bus and ferry schedules for staff commuting, so as to allow greater work convenience. Third, increase the variety of food in staff canteens. Fourth, provide equal treatment to divisional staff and allow them to acquire food from outside.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9459

I understand that Mr AU Nok-hin also suggests reducing head 30 by $475,000 in respect of subhead 603. The amount proposed to be reduced is equivalent to the estimated expenditure for "Replacement and enhancement of the closed circuit television system for Pik Uk Prison" in 2018-2019. He also suggests reducing head 30 by $50,256,000 in respect of subhead 661. This proposed reduction is equivalent to the estimated expenditure for "Replacement of the voice recording system in visit rooms" in correctional institutions in 2018-2019.

In view of the above, as penal facilities are now in such dilapidation, we should approve the funding for their replacement. I, however, support Mr AU Nok-hin's amendments this time, as one of them concerns closed circuit television ("CCTV") system and the other concerns voice recording system in visit rooms.

On CCTV systems, there are now 6 000 CCTV sets throughout the prisons in Hong Kong. More CCTV sets of course can help deter CSD officers to abuse their power. But, what I would like to point out is that the assault of juvenile offenders is not facilitated by an inadequacy in CCTV sets but by the mutual harbouring among CSD officers. When a department is determined to cover up problems and keep its operation clandestine, ill-intentioned officers will be able to find places to commit abuses of power and other offences. These places may include offices of duty officers or bathrooms where privacy must be safeguarded. If CSD uses the upgrading of CCTV system as the response to the problem, the upgrading will only provide an excuse for CSD to harbour its own staff.

Let me share with you the experience I had this afternoon in the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre before commenting on the replacement of voice recording system in visit rooms. I went to see an inmate in an official visit today. Throughout the visit, a CSD officer kept the main door open and watched us from his seat, noting down our conversation on a white sheet of paper. Under such circumstances, the inmate who wrote to me to ask for help panicked, dared not speak under pressure and was unable to communicate details of the case to me … (The buzzer sounded) … affecting seriously …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please stop speaking immediately.

9460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, Amendment No. 56 proposes that head 156 be reduced by $320,000 in respect of subhead 000. This is the amendment proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung.

A sum of merely $320,000 is basically negligible. But I am horrified by the recent remarks of the Secretary for Education. He says that as set out in the Preamble of the Basic Law, from the perspective of Beijing, it is to "resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong", and there is no "regaining the sovereignty over Hong Kong" or "handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong". Therefore, it is not appropriate to talk about "handover of sovereignty" again. I am really appalled. If he is promoting the Basic Law in this way, I am in total support of Mr HUI Chi-fung's proposal to deduct the $320,000, as this amount of expenditure is totally unwarranted. In fact, I am more worried that the Secretary's words may produce harmful effects on the mentality of our next generation.

We can see a similar picture in the implementation of the "cession-based co-location arrangement". Article 7 of the Basic Law states that all the land and natural resources within Hong Kong shall be State property, but they shall be managed by the Hong Kong Government. I now realize that when managing the land which belongs to the State, we can also rent back the land to the State for implementing the "cession-based co-location arrangement". Even at this moment, I still cannot understand how this can be feasible. Besides, Article 18 of the Basic Law states that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. But it is actually not the case in reality. National laws can be applied as long as a piece of land is not regarded as within the Hong Kong territory.

What is meant by "not regarded as"? There is no subject here. Who regards it as not within the Hong Kong territory? This is completely unclear. If government officials are to promote the Basic Law with such misrepresentation of legal terms, I think it will be better for them to say nothing instead. Are they going to teach the children that they can try every possible means to interpret some remarks in whatever way they like? This is worrying indeed.

Moreover, I remember that according to Article 20 of the Basic Law, the powers of Hong Kong come from the central authorities (or Beijing), and with Beijing's approval, Hong Kong may enjoy extra powers. Usually, these extra powers will not be spelt out. As we understand it, such extra powers granted by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9461

Beijing should be about doing something positive. But we can see that the "cession-based co-location arrangement" is instead about invoking the extra powers to "castrate ourselves", or to curtail our own rights. This is very much a misrepresentation of what the extra powers should mean. The Education Bureau intends to use $320,000―or is it $3.2 million? Have I said the wrong figure? The deduction is $320,000. And, the money is for the promotion of the Basic Law. I am in total support of deducting this amount. The authorities have misrepresented the extra powers in this way for the purpose of justifying the "cession-based co-location arrangement". They will give similar misrepresentation when it comes to school textbooks. The Basic Law is just a small booklet which can be gone through very quickly and memorized easily. But why has such a situation emerged? The situation is so very undesirable now, and I do not think the Administration should be allowed to promote its messy interpretation of the Basic Law. I cannot accept anything like this.

The amendments proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin and Dr CHENG Chung-tai both seek to deduct the estimated expenditure of the Education Bureau and the Curriculum Development Institute. I must still emphasize that Mrs Carrie LAM's remark about "making waves" is totally unfair. Who has made all the waves? It is the Education Bureau. When talking about curriculum development, it suddenly raised an issue over "to the south of China" and "in the south of China". I am not going to repeat it here. The Education Bureau should at least pretend to be neutral. Why did it say so much? We thus cannot help fearing that there may be something wrong with the road taken by the Secretary for Education and curriculum development.

Besides, the day before yesterday, a journalist informed me of the reports in South China Morning Post and Ming Pao concerning the sudden deletion of the phrase "handover of sovereignty" on the Protocol Division's website. This expression has been replaced by "since 1 July, 1997". What is the purpose of the replacement? This is a provocation from the Government, right? Why did it have to be changed? This is unnecessary. All is so hard to understand. The Government must now tell a lie to justify the deletion of the word "handover". In Chinese, "handover" can mean "transfer", and I think it can also mean "regaining". This deliberate act of the Government has taken away our confidence in history textbooks. The wave was actually made by them. But then, they dismiss our comments as unfair and groundless, aimed only to make waves. Chairman, please tell them that this is completely unfair.

9462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Thirdly, I just want to say how I am terribly upset by the work of the Education Bureau in respect of English language teaching. We all know that the former Secretary for Education did not want to do anything. He liked overseas visits only. And, he also claimed that he read over 30 books a month. Well, for me, if only I could manage to read as many as four books a month, I would be very satisfied. On average, I can manage to read two to three books only, not as many as four. I once asked him whether he could improve English language teaching in Hong Kong. This former Secretary replied that the very thought of the education reform still scared him, so he would never again do anything like this. I initially thought that the present Secretary for Education could do something, and I hoped that he could enhance English language teaching education. English is not only the language of the British but also a world language, a tool of making a living, and also a language for broadening one's horizons. It is unlike Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or French. English is English. Then, how can we enhance English language teaching? In their responses to this question, all education officials (including the Secretary) always say that large numbers of schemes and programmes are in place to teach English as a language for everyday use. But after doing some background research, I have come to realize that the Education Bureau has merely been engaged in empty talks. The existing teaching materials provided by the Education Bureau and the course contents taught by teachers have only made young people, especially junior secondary school students, fearful of English. They even say that English language is the subject that they dislike most.

Why? Isn't English a most interesting subject? They say English language is the subject that they dislike most, because teachers use Chinese to teach English language and give them many grammar terms like "及物詞" and "不及物詞". I myself do not quite understand these terms either. In English, they mean transitive verbs and intransitive verbs. But all these grammar terms, whether rendered in Chinese or English, will always be difficult for children to understand. If teachers cling to the grammar approach and keep talking technically about parts of speech like nouns and verbs, children will only lose their interest completely. Even though children are forced to learn large numbers of vocabularies by heart and they may thus be able to spell them in dictation tests, they will easily forget all these words afterwards. After their promotion to a higher form, they will soon forget all the English vocabularies they were taught previously. This teaching method does not work.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9463

In a word, successful learning must most importantly hinge on the cultivation of interest. Spoon-feeding and rote learning can never work, and students themselves must be interested to learn the language. At present, teachers rigidly follow the teaching materials of the Education Bureau in every English lesson, in the hope of brushing up students' standards of English as quickly as possible. But children simply have no interest to learn and often daydream in classes. The Government says that we must catch up quickly. This morning, when Carrie LAM answered a question, she said that English was very important. Hong Kong is an international city with 150 years of history as a British colony. Why is the English standard in Hong Kong getting worse?

Even Carrie LAM says that if this Council conducts its business in English, she will be happy to use the language here. This is indeed a very strange saying. What is meant by "if this Council conducts its business in English"? Basically, English can be used anytime. If we want to speak in English, we will just do so. English is actually one of our official languages, and we can speak it anytime we like. Do not tell me we need to make an appointment for that. But never mind, I do not think she really meant anything when she said so.

As we can see, English has already become a very alien language to us, something like the Martian language. High-ranking officials often send their children to international schools or the United Kingdom, United States, Canada or Australia. Many of their children go overseas for schooling early as Form Three, so when they come back to Hong Kong, they can speak English very fluently. But how about those students who are not so lucky or whose parents are not so well-off? They must stay behind in Hong Kong to be spoon-fed. The Government simply does not heed our views. I have been asking the Government since 2012 whether it can allow a bit of flexibility, rather than focusing all the time on classroom English and textbook English. I have been saying that even though our young people may thus know all the works of Shakespeare, they will be unable to use English in their daily life. For example, a young man is going to have a date with someone, and that someone says, "Don't stand me up". He knows all the four English words, but he does not know the meaning of the whole sentence. That is very bad indeed.

English, like all other languages, is tool of communication. But English language teaching in Hong Kong fails completely to make English a tool of communication. The Secretary for Education is the leader of the education 9464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 sector, and he should monitor English language teaching, rather than just putting up a concerned look and assuring people that young people in Hong Kong will surely make progress, every time when he is asked the same question. He does not really mean it. Two years later when he is asked the same question, he will give a similar answer. I have been teaching in university for over a decade, and my observation is that students' English standard is on the decline. If my observation is correct, I must say the Secretary for Education and curriculum development officials have really done a poor job.

Also, I have been advising education officials and the Education Bureau very sincerely that they should make the English language curriculum more lively and teach children and young people the kind of English they are interested in. The point is that if people who have no interest in the sciences are forced to learn nuclear physics, how can they learn anything? Because they really have no interest in that area. But what shall we do if children are not interested in English? Then, I must say that learning English is more than a matter of personal interest, because apart from broadening one's horizons, the English language is also a tool of making a living. If you speak English well, you can go anywhere in the world. The reason is that everywhere in the world, no one will ask you whether you speak Spanish and Japanese, and even in Africa, no one will ask you whether you speak Swahili, an African dialect. People of whatever skin colours, black, white, yellow or brown, will be asked, "Do you speak English?"

Therefore, in order to improve the English standard of children, we must teach them interesting stuff instead of spoon-feeding them with vocabularies. We should not think that "A for apple" is too easy and thus teach them "A for astronaut". It does not make any sense to teach them the word "astronaut" in such a mechanical way. Instead, we may make it more interesting and teach them "A for arsenal", for example. What is "arsenal"? We can tell children that it is the name of a football team, and children, especially boys, will be very happy. We can also tell them that the Hong Kong Police Headquarters are located at Arsenal Street, and both boys and girls will immediately associate the word with their daily lives. We should teach them in this way, instead of forcing them to memorize the word "arsenal", to spell it correctly so that they can get full marks in dictation classes. Otherwise, the children will forget completely the English vocabularies that they have learned shortly afterwards.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9465

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, the last time I spoke in this debate session, I talked about Mr Andrew WAN's amendment, which asks for the deduction of the expenditure on the remuneration for the Secretary for Home Affairs. Ms Claudia MO was apparently very pleased at this idea. She found some information, and she questioned why the Secretary for Home Affairs, who is supposed to defend Hong Kong's culture and Cantonese, should have behaved like this. Well, this is actually the first major instance of his dereliction of duty. But before I discuss the second instance, I must add that when Carrie LAM said all those words this morning, Secretary LAU Kong-wah did not say anything to defend Cantonese. This shows that as the Secretary in charge of the relevant policy, he has done nothing. The second instance of his dereliction of duty is about youth development, a great concern of ours and another area under the purview of the Home Affairs Bureau. The last time I spoke, I said that the Secretary had not done anything to promote culture and creative cultural works. And, I explained that we thus wanted to deduct his remuneration. Our request for deducting his remuneration is not without any reasons. The reason is obvious to us all. He has done virtually nothing. Then, how about youth development?

As we can observe, one subject of widespread discussions in society in recent years is the inability of young people in Hong Kong to see any future and prospects. Which Policy Bureau of the Government is responsible for the youth policy? The Home Affairs Bureau. Just to make things simple and straightforward, let us look at some figures. The starting salary for university graduates in the 1990s' was between $11,000 and $13,000. Now, more than 20 years on, many large enterprises, banks, accounting firms have not adjusted the starting salary for university graduates, as the starting salary is still around $10,000. Members may wonder why the Secretary should have anything to do with the starting salary for university graduates. Why should the remunerations for the Secretary be cut? I consider that there is a relationship between the two here. Things would be different if the Secretary had put in place the right policies to provide appropriate room for young people to better manifest their talents and abilities, or if the Secretary had formulated the youth policy really with young people in mind. But well, to begin with, there is actually no youth policy as such in Hong Kong. The so-called youth policy is just a pack of fragmentary measures scattered all over different policy areas. Procrastination is seen as the most important and convenient approach. As procrastination continues, young people will turn into middle-aged people, and there will be no 9466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 need for any youth policy but just a policy for the middle-aged. In that case, the Secretary for Home Affairs may just sit there and do nothing.

Can the existing policies in Hong Kong provide the soil suitable for young development? No, as far as I can see. I can only see that young people in Hong Kong must face not only fierce competition but also changes in global economic structure. Because of all this, many jobs are no longer permanent, employment is mostly based on short-term contracts, and salaries are persistently kept at low levels. If the Government really wants to help young people, it must make more efforts and introduce stronger policies. But the Budget offers very little help to young people. We see that people have been criticizing the Commission on Youth set up by the Government in the past, saying that its composition was simply not young, as most of its members were not young people. The Government has made some improvement in the new financial year, but can the half-a-step measure change the general situation? We are quite concerned about that.

If we look back, we will see that all is simple. Carrie LAM will surely talk about the significance of youth development, as youth development is related to the future of Hong Kong. The Youth Development Commission ("YDC"), to be chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration, will be set up in the first half of this year to promote a comprehensive youth development task to address concerns about education, career pursuit and home ownership, as well as the participation of young people in politics and their engagement in public policy discussion and debate. The Government has set aside $1 billion to support the future work of YDC and to create room for young people to realize their potentials and to provide them with opportunities for upward mobility. We will find all these words very pleasant to hear. It is normal that these words should sound pleasant to us, because we will thus think that the Government is doing more work for young people. However, we should note something very simple this time around. It is announced in the Policy Address that the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Unit, the new organization formed after the restructuring of the Central Policy Unit ("CPU"), will take charge of the participation of young people in politics. But this new Unit can consult only 20 to 30 young people at most. And, honestly, if these young people hold very different views from the Government, will the Government listen to them? Can their views actually be taken aboard by the new Unit?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9467

In fact, the biggest problem at the present facing the participation of young people in politics and their engagement in public policy discussion and debate is at the district level, so the biggest help the Government can give is to broaden the structure of District Councils ("DCs") for young people to take part, as DCs are responsible for district administration. In so doing, young people will be able to change certain district planning and policies through their engagement in public policy discussion and debate. Now the Government only consults the views of 20 to 30 young people through the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Unit―the restructured CPU, and this is actually miles away from the public aspiration. In that case, who should be responsible for the work? The one responsible for the work is also the Secretary for Home Affairs. He should have proposed some options beforehand, but he fails to do so. The Secretary has virtually failed to deliver as far as the policies in young people are concerned. For that reason, we will examine what the Secretary has done in the past and we will also explain why we say that many things are interrelated. The Secretary has done nothing for creative cultural work and nurturing the creativity of young people, with a view to restoring the brilliant creative industries that Hong Kong had in the 1970s' and 1980s'. And, the Secretary rarely says anything about the upward mobility for young people. However, we should bear in mind why young people in this city are so agitated and dissatisfied with the current situation? As I have said in the beginning of my speech, this is because the young generation cannot see any future.

We can see that while the income level of young people remains unchanged, and the starting salary for university graduates remains unchanged for years, property prices are rising incessantly. In other words, young people's incomes are always the same, but property prices are skyrocketing continuously. Young people thus face a housing problem. In turn, the housing problem calls for a solution to the land supply problem, and so, we have to return to the large-scale discussions on the issue of land supply. To make it simple, the Government is still reluctant to recall golf courses and military sites and so on. Nevertheless, if we look again the youth policy, we will see that we have never tackled the problem at root. We can see that a lot of problems should have been eradicated or improved. As for all the problems that young people are facing, the relevant Policy Bureaux have never really done anything at all. They have never re-examining the degree places in all disciplines, adjusting the number of places according to the need, and reducing their substitutability, so as to increase the salaries of young people. As for curbing the rising property prices, the 9468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Government should increase land supply and build more homes as they are the ultimate solutions to the problem.

I just want to ask one simple question here. Let me focus only on what the Home Affairs Bureau has done in respect of youth hostels. We visited a youth hostel site in Yuen Long recently, and eventually we did some discussions in Legislative Council meetings. The youth hostel could provide something like 1 000 places and the tenants will be allowed to stay there for five years. At the beginning, it was said that the scheme would allow young people to make use of the five-year tenancy to save some money for the down payment in purchasing their own homes later. But can they save enough money for down payment during five years? Recently when the Secretary of the relevant Policy Bureau was asked about that, he did not say anything about the objective. The Government can provide young people with a five-year tenancy, but this does not necessarily mean that they can save enough money to pay the down payment of their new homes. In that case, what the point of allowing young people to enjoy a five-year tenancy? It will only allow young people to pay less rent for accommodation. There is no other objectives, and the scheme will end that way. The youth policy, the youth hostel scheme will end that way. Then, another generation of young people will take their turn to enjoy the same service. When young people grow older and become middle-aged men, they will not be the target of the relevant authorities any more. Sorry, they will become the target of another Policy Bureau. This will make people very indignant. However, we are not demanding the deduction of the Secretary's remunerations without any reasons. As Hong Kong's political system lacks any youth perspectives, we are unable to feel the pulse of society in many issues. Members should envisage that each young person has a different golden decade. I always say that there are three types of persons: the first is like an egg, the second is like a radish, and the third is like some Pu'er tea leaves. If I put the radish into a pot of boiling water, the radish will soon dissolve. This kind of people do not have their own personalities. If I put the egg into the boiling water, it will be cooked but will not change its surrounding. Nevertheless, Pu'er tea leaves can change a pot of boiling water into a pot of aromatic Pu'er tea. We deeply believe that a lot of young people in Hong Kong are the finest Pu'er tea leaves.

Nevertheless, since our policies cannot achieve the desired results, we have not considered how the homogeneous financial industry and property industry can be diversified in order to make more room for young people to realize their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9469 potentials and to provide them with opportunities for upward mobility in a more vigorous way. We always talk about the "glass ceiling". This means that we can see the lives of people who have already achieved upward mobility through the glass ceiling. But our young people are living beneath the glass ceiling, and they can just look upon the glass ceiling but cannot move upward.

Hong Kong is facing a lot of problems. The youth problem is one of the most urgent problems requiring immediate attention. However, our attention and focus are both blurred. The Secretary, who should bring up the solution and should be answerable to young people by pinpointing his cultural and creative policies for young people, seldom touches upon issues in this area. I once said that the district having the highest youth unemployment rate was Tin Shui Wai. Has the Government created more job opportunities for Tin Shui Wai? Can you see the prospects for a young person who has been growing up in a public rental housing unit? Will he accept that it is a matter of intergenerational poverty and he cannot leave the public rental housing estate because his parents also grow up in public rental housing estate? Should he be forced to become an egg or a radish even when he is a talented person just like the Pu'er tea leaves?

For that reason, in the final analysis, has Secretary LAU Kong-wah assessed the situation just like a traditional Chinese doctor performing the four diagnostic methods: inspection, listening and smelling, inquiring and palpation? The Secretary fails to do so. I said previously that I was not going to debate the cultural and creative policy or youth policy with you. When Carrie LAM, who was standing in front of Secretary LAU Kong-wah, dared not answer if Cantonese was her mother tongue, he should rise immediate and say Cantonese was his mother tongue, because he was the Secretary for Home Affairs, so he was duty-bound to defend Cantonese. But he dared not say such a simple thing.

Therefore, in the final analysis, we should have a responsible Policy Bureau to defend and nurture our culture. Please bear in mind and I always emphasize that as far as Hong Kong's cultural policy is concerned, Hong Kong's culture is our gem, it can be re-packaged and become a world renowned brand. However, we have done too little in the past. In recent years, the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong has conducted a survey about the perception of young people in Hong Kong towards social and economic changes as well as public issues. The survey finds that the 9470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 more disgruntled the respondents (aged 20 to 34) feel about their development opportunities, the more they will participate in public processions and demonstrations.

If the Government wants to maintain the stability of our society, the most simple policy must be to vigorously nurture young people. The Government should maintain the correct direction when nurturing young people, instead of relying solely on the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Unit. Instead of just taking some publicity shots and merely taking a glimpse into the crowded and appalling situation of those subdivided units, public officers should pay a personal visit to the districts and meet the young people face to face and see what prospects they have. They are not necessarily elites, and they may be people from grass-roots families as I have mentioned earlier, but they should likewise be given chances to manifest their potentials and talents. The Government should first tackle the lack of opportunities for young people living in remote districts and improve their situation. The Government should ascertain whether they are rendered unable to do what they want to do by their lack of money, or by a lack of space.

This is the policy area of both the Home Affairs Bureau and the Development Bureau. The $1 billion fund for the revitalization of derelict schools project is a ray of hope to us. We hope that the Government can make good use of the fund to revitalize those derelict schools, so that young people can have the room to manifest their creativity, and create some quality works that can gain a place in the global market. We have confidence in Hong Kong, especially creative young people. I am placing my hope on the position Members will take when casting their votes later―or perhaps next week.

Since I still have a bit more time, I wish to respond to one thing. Some amendments this time around are aimed at the Secretary for Labour and Welfare. And, about the Budget this year, let me put aside the issue of handing out $4,000 with an administrative cost of $330 million. The public have already criticized this severely, saying that it will be better to spend this $330 million on other areas. The very simple and straightforward fact before us now is that we have plenty of money because our surpluses are far more than the amount projected by erroneous estimation, but we still do not have any universal retirement protection.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9471

Our problem now is that the Government's uneven distribution of money in the Budget has led to a measure that necessitates a very high administrative cost. But on the other hand, elderly people who wish to receive the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA") must still undergo a means test. This is really saddening. When we have sufficient resources, we should actually help as many elderly people as possible in Hong Kong, because they all contributed to the success of Hong Kong we see today in their youthful years.

To sum up, all the issues we have raised are interrelated. The young people in the past all devoted their youthful days to building up Hong Kong. However, the Government simply ignores them. Years ago, they all made lots of efforts to build up the Hong Kong we now see. We should repay them properly. But I cannot find any respect to our elderly people in the Budget. We all know that the Panel on Welfare Services has criticized the Government for abolishing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance for elderly people and requiring OALA recipients to undergo a means test. Many people fear that the transfer of assets to annuity schemes by elderly people as advised by the Government may amount to assets transfer. They are not sure whether doing so is really acceptable. They thus think that the Government should instead abolish the means test and generously dish out money to all eligible Hong Kong elderly people, so that they can live with greater dignity. Actually, universal retirement protection is a right, not a welfare benefit. I do not know when we can implement it if we do not do so at this very time when we have so much money and surplus. Are we going to implement it when we are in the red? Should we make some remedial measures only after we see that the situation unsatisfactory?

Therefore, Chairman, I will put forward more views on other occasions. However, in the final analysis, we consider that some of the estimates should really be reduced as proposed by the amendments this time around. For example, the Secretary for Home Affairs is supposed to defend Cantonese, but he fails to do so. That is one big sin. And, other welfare policies cannot achieve the desired results. This is another big sin. I hope Members will support the amendments later on. (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please stop.

9472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, first, I express support for the Budget this year. Yet, I think there are room for bolder measures in many policies areas under the current proposal. For example, the Government can make more significant cuts in some expenditure items and introduce some social welfare initiatives, provide compensation for land resumption, and allow greater discretion to deal with residents who have been living on these resumed lands for a long time.

We have proceeded to the second debate session on the 67 amendments. Quite a number of Members, mostly from the pan-democratic camp, have already spoken in this session. The pan-democratic Members have proposed a total of 67 amendments. To be exact, they have proposed 65 amendments while the remaining two are from the Financial Secretary. The pan-democratic Members have spoken a lot on the amendments, but I think this is merely a waste of time. Let me put it that way: when listening to their arguments, those not in the know will be overawed but those in the know will laugh their heads off. Why? Basically, if you listen to their arguments for too long, you may lose your ways even in your own homes.

The pan-democratic colleagues have originally proposed a total of 230 amendments to this Budget, but most of them have been ruled inadmissible by the President. The remaining 65 admissible amendments are now put up for debate. According to the President, the percentage of admissible amendments for this year is 28%, which is the highest in recent years. Of the 65 amendments, 55 can meet the relevant requirements or criteria and are thus ruled admissible. The other 10 amendments are given discretionary admission by the President and are allowed to be debated by Members along with the 55 admissible amendments.

It looks like the pan-democratic colleagues has proposed merely 65 amendments. What are the contents of the amendments? I note that the Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury's letter to the Legislative Council on 25 April 2018 draws the President's attention to several points, including her hope that the Secretariat could perform its gate-keeping role properly and closely examine the admissibility of the amendments. Frivolous amendments, especially those involving the deduction of the whole expenditure item, should not be admitted as far as possible. For example, how could it be justifiable to cut the several million dollars expenditure on the annual emoluments of a Bureau Director? I have heard some colleagues on the opposite side say the proposed $4 million cut in the full-year emoluments of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9473

Bureau Director is attributable to the poor work performance. There is also a proposal to cut the entire emoluments of the Chief Executive. But this kind of amendment is essentially frivolous. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau also quotes in its letter the President's ruling on amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2017 as saying that amendments which are frivolous in nature must not be admitted. The admission of such amendments will affect the operation of the Government. This is one of the basic reasons why they should not be admitted.

The second reason is the proposing of multiple amendments to the same subhead. This has already been dealt with. The third is technical errors, such as incorrect amounts, unintelligible or ungrammatical contents in the amendments. Besides, 20-odd Members have submitted repetition amendments to the same items.

Chairman, a simple description of the contents of the amendments is: when listening to their arguments, those not in the know will be overawed but those in the know will laugh their heads off. First, let us have a look at the remaining 65 amendments which are ruled admissible. Mr SHIU Ka-chun has just said that under head 30, he sought to reduce the estimated expenditure of $2.92 million on the annual emoluments of the Commissioner of Correctional Services. When I heard his remarks, I simply wondered whether there was actually a need for him to make a declaration of interests. He is facing criminal charges and the verdicts will be made by the end of this year. But now he makes various requests for the benefits of prisoners, such as the provision of continuing education opportunities, the provision of online facilities, the division of work in prison workshops, the upward adjustment of the minimum wage from $192, and the provision of translation services for prisoners of various nationalities and races.

After listening to his speech and his request for these services, I simply wonder if he is planning for his own future or doing his life planning. The more I listen, the more confused I am. Why does he request these services for prisoners? They are in prison. We are not supposed to build five-star hotels for them. Should we even provide them with simultaneous interpretation and sign language services? Such requests are simply excessive, frivolous, and totally unreasonable. They are prisoners, not church members, and the justifications are totally unsubstantiated.

9474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting delivered a speech this morning―not exactly this morning because it was already 12:22 pm when he spoke. I heard that he made an issue of the expenditure on Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). Yet, his criticism has no substance at all, and only gives me an impression that he seeks to criticize the Commissioner of ICAC. For example, he mentioned a previous ICAC meeting during which a senior official asked the Commissioner not to take ICAC for the Immigration Department. In my view, he is the one who wishes to ask the Commissioner not to take ICAC for the Immigration Department. His mentioning of this scene is aimed at portraying the Commissioner as an incompetent leader who does not know what he is doing, and who is unpopular with and ostracized by his colleagues. And, the aim is also to show that this has lowered the efficiency of ICAC.

But how could he know about this? His description of the scene is so vivid, as if he was personally at the meeting that day. But may I ask why the discussions are kept confidential as required?

Second, if he was not personally at the scene, did he install a tapping device? Did he have "ears in the sky"? Formerly an ICAC investigator not senior in rank, he should be aware of the ICAC code of conduct. If it is incumbent upon ICAC to keep information in strict confidence, why does he know so many details of the meeting? The more I listen, the chillier I feel. How could he know about all this? Is it because he has an informant? The meeting with the Commissioner could not be attended by ordinary or junior staff. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting was of course unable to attend this senior meeting when he was with ICAC. Hence, how could Mr LAM Cheuk-ting know what was discussed in that senior management meeting? This warrants an in-depth investigation.

This makes me think of why someone could not receive a substantive appointment after acting for prolonged periods. There must be some reasons. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting told us this incident, and I think we should do an in-depth investigation. The 68 Members all feel that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting may have established a hotline with ICAC, whether it is in red, green, black, or yellow colour, so he could receive intelligence about any discussions inside the anti-graft agency. Actually, how much expenditure he seeks to reduce after having said so much? He seeks to cut the several million dollars emoluments of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9475

Commissioner. I think this issue can be very serious, which merits our attention and investigation.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick has criticized the Government for not doing well in many policy areas. Let us have a look at one of his proposed amendments which has been ruled inadmissible by the President. I know this kind of inadmissible amendment is not worth mentioning, yet I just want to use it as an example. The amendment, which involves head 91, proposes to deduct the $1.6 billion estimated expenditure of the Lands Department on the land acquisition/clearance. I once thought that the housing problem in Hong Kong has always been the concern of Mr CHU Hoi-dick, and he who would strive to fight for the biggest possible compensation to residents facing displacement. But he now proposes to cut the $1.6 billion expenditure for land clearance which is an indispensable step for housing construction. Of course, the amendment could not be admitted because of technical errors involving unintelligible and ungrammatical contents.

I would like to share one thing with Members. If people have been watching the live television broadcast of this Council meeting, they should have watched the broadcast for 8.5 hours, from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm now, excluding about 1.5-hour question and answer session in which the Chief Executive answered meaningless questions. I can tell Members only half an hour of the discussions during all this time may be of some use, and the rest of the time has been wasted.

Chairman, our useless Members are so fond of accountability that they seek to reduce the emoluments of Bureau Directors for their underperformance at work, and resort to petty tricks of salary reduction when Bureau Directors defy their instructions. I think to myself that it is utterly nonsense to do so. I really have to give a serious thought as to whether we should introduce an across-the-board cut to the estimated expenditure on emoluments of Members in next year's Budget. It is likely to win thunderous applause from the public who have witnessed the apalling performance of Members. Their behaviours have discredited the Legislative Council, with some Members even facing numerous criminal charges …

9476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, I have to remind you that Members should rather comment on the relevant amendments than giving views on other issues. Please come back to the subject of this debate.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am actually discussing and responding to the relevant amendments. I know it is the duty of the Secretariat to remind me and also you that I should not digress from the subject matter. I will not stray too far away from the debate subject, and what I have told Members are facts. I am now coming back to the debate subject.

Appendix 5 shows a list of 10 amendments to which the President has given his discretionary admission. The first amendment is proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual emolument of the Commissioner of ICAC. This is impossible. Similar amendments proposing to reduce the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of individual Bureau Directors are proposed respectively by Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN and Mr HUI Chi-fung. Except Dr Helena WONG who still has a bit of conscience and proposes only one month salary cut, other Members seek to reduce the annual emoluments of individual Bureau Directors. How can they do so? Their proposals precisely run counter to the President's ruling on last year's Budget amendments.

Mr Gary FAN also proposes that head 194 be reduced by $4.7 billion in respect of subhead 223, an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure of the Water Supplies Department on the purchase of water. The residents of Tseung Kwan O should pay attention to this. May I ask Mr Gary FAN what kind of water he wants the Tseung Kwan O residents to drink, salt water or faecal water? All such amendments are utterly nonsense, but we have to spend 8.5 hours to debate on them. I particularly wish to remind Members not to filibuster, not to go on the wrong track, and not to deliver impudent and irresponsible speech in the name of Legislative Council Members. Please do something meaningful and stop filibustering from this very minute onwards. You have already fully expressed your views.

Chairman, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9477

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Dr Junius HO for his reminder. I do need to make a declaration of interest here. What I said about prisoners' rights just now may involve the rights and interests of certain Members in the future. So, I must make a declaration here. But a Member's family owns 120 000 sq ft of land next to the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling. His wife has received $20 million from Henderson Land Development Company Limited for surrendering to the latter a certain housing flat. And, he has never disclosed the shareholding rights and interests connected with the offshore company concerned. All the above may lead to prosecutions, so they must be declared. Hence, if what I say today really involves any conflicts of interests, I think I must …

(Dr Junius HO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, do you have any question?

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order. Members should declare their personal interests only, rather than the interests of others.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. Pease sit down. Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please continue.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, my thanks to Dr Junius HO for his reminder. I am going to speak on one amendment which is not one of the 65 admitted amendments. I am speaking on the Financial Secretary's proposed amendment that head 173 be increased by $11,316,000,000 in respect of subhead 700.

Successive Financial Secretaries have set our public expenditure at a level not exceeding 20% of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). But they have never explained why it must be 20%. They have never given any justifications. And, this has caused the amassing of huge fiscal reserves. The Chief Executive champions a new fiscal philosophy in her election manifesto, saying that her new administration should increase public expenditure drastically, rather than behaving like a niggard who clings obstinately to the unjustified financial discipline of keeping public expenditure within 20% of the GDP. But in reality, 9478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 the so-called new fiscal philosophy of the new administration has only led to a mere increase of 1%, up from 20% to 21%. On the one hand, I thank the Financial Secretary for breaking this limit of 20%, for this 1% increase. But at the same time, I hope he can go one step further and clarify the justifications for making it 21%. As for his reference to forward-looking and strategic financial management principles in the Budget, he must explain what these principles are. He must also explain what he means by optimizing the use of surplus to invest for Hong Kong and relieve our people's burdens. The point is that I simply fail to see any forward-looking financial management principles in the Budget this year. I can only see his complete lack of any strategy in the face of the huge surpluses and fiscal reserves. What has happened to his words of optimizing the use of surplus to relieve our people's burdens?

A good part of this Budget still sings the same old tune and says that the Government's main role should be economic promotion. The Budget this year, for this reason, invests huge resources in innovation and technology industries. I am not against the Government's attempts to promote economic development, but I must point out that the Hong Kong Government has upheld the promotion of economic development and the improvement of people's livelihood as its objective and goal for a very long time. But what is the result? Has there been any real improvement to Hong Kong people's livelihood? Statistics about the past can show everything. The per capita GDP of Hong Kong rose by 35% from $232,800 in 2007 to $362,000 in 2017. But the Gini Coefficient also kept climbing at the same time, rising from 0.518 in 1996 to 0.539 in 2016. The poor population has persistently accounted for one fifth of the total population. The elderly poverty rate is over 30%, and roughly one in four children is caught in poverty. In respect of the total number of working hours in a year, Hong Kong tops the 71 cities analysed in a report. With the effect of inflation factored in, the median income of workers with university qualifications have dropped 5.5% over the past 20 years. The homes of Hong Kong people have got smaller and smaller but more and more expensive. All these statistics can show that despite the sustained economic development of Hong Kong, people's livelihood has never seen any improvement at all, and there is even a trend of deterioration. The main problem with Hong Kong is not poor economic development. Rather, the problem is about the uneven distribution of wealth in society. To improve people's livelihood, we must improve the distribution of wealth in society, and public policies and fiscal policies are the very tools of improving the distribution of wealth in society.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9479

Can the existing public policies and fiscal policies improve the distribution of wealth in society? The Government now puts more than $1 trillion in fiscal reserves, but this is simply a waste of precious public resources. Actually, a Financial Secretary in the past once remarked that a level of fiscal reserves equivalent to 12 months of government expenditure would be sufficient. But the present fiscal reserves held by the Government can meet government expenditure for 28 whole months. This is obviously far too much. And, like his predecessors, the present Financial Secretary has never explained why such enormous fiscal reserves must be kept. The Budget this year records a surplus of more than $150 billion, but the Financial Secretary simply keeps amassing the surplus and refrains from using it to improve the distribution of wealth in society. Instead, the Budget seeks to "return wealth to the wealthy" by handing out various "sweeteners", such as reducing the rates and profits tax payable by the rich. In this way, the more properties a person owns, the more "sweeteners" he will receive. It even uses the surplus to finance the Hong Kong Ocean Park and pay examination fees for DSE candidates, in a desperate attempt to use up all the excessive surplus in one go and help the Government "discharge floodwater". As usual, "sweeteners" are handed out. As usual, investments are made in infrastructure construction. The defective approach of old is still adopted to distribute resources. There is no serious reflection on past failures, and we simply cannot see any new planning for social welfare, health care and education financing.

How can "returning wealth to the wealthy" and such indiscriminate "discharge of floodwater" possibly improve the distribution of wealth in society? Whose livelihood does the Government want to improve anyway? Do not forget that the biggest beneficiaries of rates reduction are in fact property developers and people owning large numbers of properties for renting. And, profits tax reduction will only help all those businesses that are making money in the market. But all such reduction of profits tax and rates will amount to $20 billion. And, when the income tax rebate is also counted, the total sum handed out will be some $40 billion. Actually, this is not the first time "sweeteners" are handed out. Over the past decade or so, such an approach of handing out one-off "sweeteners" to "discharge floodwater" has been adopted. Over the past decade, the Government has spent $400 billion on handing out "sweeteners". What kind of fiscal philosophy is this? What kind of fiscal policy is this? Heavy administrative expenses, large amounts of time and huge manpower, all paid by public money, have been spent on processing tax returns and tax collection. But 9480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 then, huge public money, manpower and resources are now to be spent on tax rebate and rates reduction. At the same time, many, many underprivileged members of our society, people who cannot stand on their own feet, must languish in poverty, living a life of extreme hardship. They are kept waiting endlessly for social services, for places in elderly homes and residential homes for persons with disabilities, for accident and emergency department services, for surgical operations, for life-saving drugs, and for residential arrangements that can reduce the incidence of domestic violence.

When the Secretary for Labour and Welfare spoke, he remarked that considering the constraints imposed by the two major bottlenecks of manpower and space, we should realize that there have already been huge and rapid increases in the recurrent expenditure on social welfare. I have to say here that to solve certain pressing social problems, we do not actually need any manpower and space, one example being retirement protection. Over the years, the Government has sought to evade this problem, even by introducing the financially unsustainable Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA") and Higher OALA. Even when the Treasury is "awash with money", it still refuses to give elderly people in Hong Kong a secure life after retirement, and would rather "hand out cash" indiscriminately. It ignores the many years of studies done by academics, and chooses to act against the wish of the people. It even ignores the long-term financial problems with OALA, and adamantly refuses to introduce universal retirement protection. The Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme has never been reviewed over the past 22 years, and the standard rates are now lagging far behind living standards. In the past, when the economy was in poor shape, the Government immediately reduced CSSA rates without any regard for the basic livelihood needs of CSSA recipients. But so far, the rates have not been restored to their former levels in response to changes in society. Faced with the inadequacy of rent allowance, CSSA recipients must use their living expenses to pay rents. There is no removal allowance, and CSSA rates do not cover dental expenses and spectacle purchases. Since applications for CSSA must be household-based, persons with disabilities and elderly persons must apply for CSSA as separate households, and this deprives them of family care and support. Does the rectification of these unreasonable social policies need any manpower? And, any land? Why does the Government still turn a blind eye to these problem when the Treasury is "awash with money"? Why does it turn to the piecemeal approach of "handing out cash" instead?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9481

The Government talks about land shortage, but it has been selling lands and earning revenue from land auctions year after year. Rich people who want to play golf can occupy a land lot which is as big as the whole of Tsuen Wan for the purpose. But the Secretary tells the public that there is no land for providing more elderly homes, residential care places for children and hospitals. In the meantime, however, the property boom continues, seeing the completion of new housing estates every year and every month. How come there are always lands for auctions to build luxurious apartments, and to cater for the entertainment needs of the rich, but when lands are needed for welfare facilities, they always say there are no lands? I do not mean to make housing and welfare facilities mutual exclusive in terms of land usage. But still, we must realize that at present, the residential units in Hong Kong actually outnumber local households by some 200 000 in number. This means that we now have a surplus of residential units in Hong Kong. The problem Hong Kong faces is not any shortage of residential units; rather, the problem is simply uneven distribution.

Government officials may well argue that land auction proceeds are one major source of government revenue. I think Mr CHU Hoi-dick's response to this argument is very correct. Arguing that land auction proceeds are the investment returns of our public resources, he questions why these investment returns are not ploughed back to the Treasury to meet public expenditure. How come only a very proportion of these investment returns is ploughed back to the Treasury? What is more, the "handing out of sweeteners" has long since become an annual ritual of the Government, and over all these years, it has already spent some $400 billion for the purpose. The present Government, for example, has done so much to reduce profits tax and salaries tax. What does all this tell us? All this tells us that the Government can actually sell fewer land lots or even stop land auctions altogether. Instead, it should channel our highly significant land resources to other uses, such as the provision of welfare facilities, health care services and other social services, so as to reduce people's long years of waiting time. Secretary, please do not put the blame on land shortage any more.

As for the availability of manpower, it is actually related to the working environment and working hours. It is also related to the overall labour force participation rate in Hong Kong and government policies. The shortage of childminding and community care services, for example, has rendered many women unable to enter the labour market. The shortage of medical doctors and professional nursing personnel is, on the other hand, related to the Government's university funding policy. Also, the Government's lax labour importation policy 9482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 at present actually shows its neglect of the labour and manpower problems deep down our society. The employment of imported workers to look after our elderly people and persons with disabilities cannot be any long-term solution at all. Should the Government be so myopic in its policy formulation?

If we "foreignize" the entire care provision workforce, we will send a message to everyone that such jobs are the lowliest ones which no one want to take up. Why don't we try to change the public image of care workers and care provision or simply remove the stigma? Why should we accept this stigma and employ foreign labourers to serve as care workers instead?

Actually, if we can make proper use of our fiscal reserves and public policies instead of handing out "sweeteners", we will be able to tackle many social problems. I think the whole Budget simply lacks any guiding philosophy and vision necessary for resolving our problems. I have been saying that handing out money is the laziest approach, signifying the Government's surrender and its admission of being at its wits' end. No wonder some say that the Budget only serves to show that the Hong Kong Government is actually a "poor" government having nothing but cash, and also a "deadwood" government that knows nothing but handing out money. Up to this very moment, I still have reservation about handing out money, as I do not think this can tackle the problem of uneven distribution of wealth in society. I will not support the Budget.

Chairman, I still have some speaking time left. I want to add a few final words on the problem with the Correctional Services Department ("CSD"), that is Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's Amendment No. 6, which proposes that head 30 be reduced by $2,920,000 in respect of subhead 000, an amount roughly equal to the estimated annual expenditure on the salaries of the Commissioner of Correctional Services.

Mr AU Nok-hin has also expressed his opinions about the replacement of the intercom recording systems in the visit rooms of CSD. I have already described my actual experience of visiting the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. It was an official visit, and the door of the visit room was kept wide open throughout. A CSD officer sat near to us, listening to our dialogues and recording all we said in black and white. In that case, how could the inmate who requested my assistance in writing freely voice his views to me? Such visit arrangements seriously affect the quality of a visit. If the intercom systems are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9483 to be upgraded to step up surveillance, how can inmates possibly speak freely to their relatives and friends? For this reason, I support the reduction of the two types of expenditure mentioned above.

Actually, if CSD can make proper administrative arrangements, it will be possible for the rules of correctional institutions and the protection of human rights to co-exist without having any conflicts. If CSD is not going to adhere to the original mission, I think members should all support the proposal of deducting the estimated annual expenditure on the salaries of the Commissioner of Correctional Services.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now in this Chamber, Dr Junius HO levelled allegations at many Members. He accused them of proposing frivolous Committee stage amendments ("CSAs") to deduct the expenditures of different Policy Bureaux, especially the annual salaries of Directors of Bureaux, and named these CSAs as meaningless small tricks of the opposition and the pan-democrats.

What I am going to say is simple and direct. I will cite a court case reported on the front page of Oriental Daily News today to explain why I need to propose a CSA to a small item in the Budget, so as to deduct the proposed annual salary of the Secretary for Security.

The front-page headline of Oriental Daily News today reads, "The Fall of Hong Kong―Shady acts revealed in alleged nine-women loan scam". The judge of the case frankly described the prosecution lodged by the Department of Justice ("DoJ") "ugly", commenting it as "a tragic fall of Hong Kong". I am directly quoting what the judge said in court. Before I go into the details of the case, I must first clearly point out my respect for judicial independence and the principle of non-interference between the legislature and the Judiciary, and thus I will only briefly describe the case as it is still under trial. The important point is not only about the ugliness of DoJ's prosecution, but also about another incident revealed in this case, with which I can respond to the ignorance of Dr Junius HO.

Regarding the details of the case, I will directly quote from the news article. It reads, "In an alleged financial scam involving false documents, DoJ granted immunity from prosecution for two staff members of a finance company 9484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 who allegedly practiced loan sharking and money laundering, so as to enable the two persons to become witnesses and testify against the nine female defendants in court." In other words, the authorities issued immunity from prosecution for the two loan shacks. "But the defence claimed that the criminal liability of the two persons was more serious than that of each of the accused", referring to the nine female defendants here, "and thus the defence suspected that the prosecution intended let those with greater criminal liability go and use them to prosecute those with smaller criminal liability. The defence thus applied for a permanent stay of proceedings due to injustice so created by the prosecution. The trial judge, after listening to the submission of the defence, also found that the Police and DoJ were too imprudent and careless in issuing the immunity without conducting thorough investigation of the matter", referring to the two loan sharks who turned into tainted witnesses here. The judge thus commented in court that the prosecution looked a little ugly and said that "it is a tragic fall of Hong Kong".

This is the background of the case, but there is another incident behind this case. Why is this directly concerned the Secretary for Security? This is because another incident was revealed during the court proceedings, which has become one of the front-page headlines on the newspaper. When the nine female defendants went to report their case to the Police, they were asked to be strip-searched by the Police. The judge thus summoned the Chief of the Anti-Triad Unit and the sergeant of the police station concerned to the Court for explanation. How come a strip search is necessary?

The reason is simple. On the one hand, DoJ wanted to turn the two alleged loan sharks into tainted witnesses to testify against the other nine female defendants; and on the other, the defence claimed that the criminal liability of the nine female defendants were smaller than that of the two loan sharks, and thus charges should be pressed against the latter as well. In this connection, the prosecution defended that it did not place charges against the two loan sharks because the nine female defendants did not report their case to the Police. The judge thus requested in court the nine female defendants to formally report their case to the Police, so that the two loan sharks would also become defendants of the case.

According to the Oriental Daily News today, how was this incident behind the case discovered? The critical point took place when the nine female defendants who accepted the judge's suggestion went to report their case to the Police. Let me quote from the news as follows, "Having listened to the address LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9485 made by the defence, the trial judge suggested all the female defendants to consider formally reporting their case to the police and taking statements. Several female defendants accepted the judge's proposal and went to the police station, but they were asked in the police station to be strip-searched. The incident was revealed when the case was reopened for trial.

The news article goes on, "But when the case reopened on the next day, the prosecution suddenly issued immunity for the two witnesses from charges on their alleged loan sharking." The female defendants then took statements at the police station. The judge later learned about their strip-searches at the police station. According to the written record, "some of the female defendants went to a police station to report their case and some police officers from the Anti-Triad Unit took their statements. But those female defendants who were not accompanies by a legal counsel complained that they were asked to be stripped to their underwear for a body search and at least one defendant was asked to be stripped of all her clothes. They later told this incident to the court through their lawyers … The court summoned the Chief of the Anti-Triad Unit and the sergeant of the police station to the court for explanation." How come a financial dispute would result in the nine female defendants being strip-searched? This is the incident behind the case reported on the front page of the Oriental Daily News today.

In this connection, may I ask whether the Police have made any formal response since the news article was published? To date, none. Where has the Secretary for Security gone? No one knows. What about Legislative Council Members? Why do I say so? It is because 10 years ago on 10 October 2007, a group of conservationists, four females and three males to be exact, after protesting in the "Wedding Card Street" were taken to the police station and strip-searched. They lodged a complaint against the police officers for power abuse. At that time, they were taken to the police station because they protested against the redevelopment project on the "Wedding Card Street" and they were later asked to be strip-searched for any hidden drugs. But when the few female protestors were strip-searched in the police station, some male police officers passed by and they had eye contacts.

Ten years ago in 2007 when the incident was revealed, the Legislative Council at least set up a special investigation committee to look into this matter. Today, 10 years later in 2018, when the Court revealed this incident behind the court case, the Legislative Council has taken no actions. I wish to raise a simple 9486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 question. In relation to this news article today, may I invite Dr Junius HO, who is a lawyer, to tell me why the female defendants in this case, which is supposed to be a financial fraud case, were asked to be strip-searched when they went to the police station to take statements? Which part of the police guidelines says so?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, this Council in committee is now debating the CSAs to the Appropriation Bill 2018, and you have spent quite some time on discussing a single case. Would you please come back to the subject and explain why you support or oppose the CSA concerned.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, thank you for your reminder. I hold that this case proves that it is justified for me to propose the motion on "Setting up an information database on the conduct of police officers" two weeks ago.

Second, given that my motion was not passed, it is more than justified that I propose this CSA today to the Budget to at least reduce the salary of the Secretary for Security. Why? It is because of his mismanagement. His mismanagement has resulted in his connivance of the police officers who blatantly strip-searched the female defendants in the police station who obeyed the court's suggestion to report their case to the Police. It is a financial fraud case. How could it be remotely possible that the female defendants were strip-searched? Could they hide a USB containing commercial crimes data in their underwear? Chairman, it beats all logics.

This case alone is enough to show that the Government, be it the Complaint Against Police Office or the Independent Police Complaints Council, has not made any response. Where has the Secretary for Security gone? If we do not reduce his salary, whose salary should we reduce? Mine? Dr Junius HO said just now that these are frivolous CSAs. I invite him to come back to the Chamber and swallow this piece of Oriental Daily News.

Another point in this case that has raised public's eyebrows is that the Chief of Anti-Triad Unit was summoned by the Court for explanation. There is another news article today. NG Wai-hon, an anti-triad superintendent who is accused of accepting bribe, pleaded guilty. He gave up bail and was remanded in custody. The charges he was involved include accepting money from night LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9487 clubs and free sexual services. Are these not about the conduct of police officers? He was dubbed an anti-triad superintendent, but he is now pending trial for the charges.

Chairman, I do not intend to make any comment on any individual court case. I know very well that we must respect judicial independence. However, I wish to talk about the power of the Police. Ten years ago when there was no monitoring agency, the Government would at least make a response and the Legislative Council would establish a special investigation committee to look into the case of social movement campaigners who were strip-searched; but what about today? Dr HO even has the courage to accuse us for frivolity …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you have repeatedly elaborated on the same point. Please come back to the subject of the debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Okay. Thank you, Chairman.

So, let me make a simple conclusion. We can see a lot from this small case. The problem hinges on the mismanagement of the Police Force. The incident involved the sergeant of the police station. He allowed his subordinates to act against the Police Force Ordinance, or even consciously go against the rule. There is also an issue with the conduct of police officers, which has become a major issue in society over the past two years.

The Police Force is under the Security Bureau. The Government will enlarge its police officer recruitment this year. But the performance of the Police Force, no matter in respect of its number of officers, its quality, its culture or management, has caught public attention. As the head of the Bureau, however, the Secretary for Security has not made any positive response to questions raised in society. A traffic police officer even used motorists as "human shields" and put the lives of citizens at risk. And the motorists were even served notices of intended prosecution routinely. Chairman, if there is not something wrong with the Secretary for Security, then who should it be? So, I think it is already a very lenient approach that I move this CSA to the Budget to reduce the proposed annual salary of the Secretary for Security.

I so submit.

9488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to speak on Amendment No. 11 that head 44 be reduced in respect of subhead 297. The proposed cut is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the operating costs of the Southeast New Territories Landfill under the Environmental Protection Department.

However, Chairman, you were not here when I rose to speak for the first time today and it was the Deputy Chairman who was chairing the meeting then. Anyway, I still want to criticize you for your unfair ruling, which removes 8 out of the 10 amendments which I proposed. Of the eight removed amendments, two are …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Chair's ruling allows no debate, Mr Gary FAN. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am not debating, but just criticizing you for making an unfair ruling against me because there is no overlapping between two of my amendments ruled inadmissible by you and the other 65 amendments.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, I have already made it clear that the Chair's ruling allows no debate. If you still keep on debating, I will direct you to discontinue your speech. Please return to the subject and continue with your speech.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): You cannot make me discontinue my speech as I am beginning to deliver my speech now.

In 2014, the Government submitted to the Legislative Council the appropriation request for funding the proposal of extending three strategic landfills and constructing an incinerator in Shek Kwu Chau ("three landfills and one incinerator"), including the operating costs of the Southeast New Territories ("SENT") Landfill, of course. Moreover, Secretary for the Environment WONG Kam-sing told the Legislative Council that should the "three landfills and one incinerator" funding approval not be forthcoming, extension of the said landfills LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9489 could not be materialized then and Hong Kong would come "under siege" from a deluge of garbage as a result. Yet, the truth is, as expressly and solemnly pointed out in the report released by the Audit Commission in October 2015, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") actually did not provide the Legislative Council with any quantifiable information on the remaining serviceable lives of the three landfills. And so the Audit Commission considered that EPD had underestimated the serviceable live of SENT Landfill (i.e. the landfill in Tseung Kwan O). In other words, Secretary WONG Kam-sing did not tell the whole truth when submitting the funding application to the Legislative Council in 2014.

The funding for extending the landfills has been granted, and planning for extending the three strategic landfills and constructing the incinerator is now underway. According to what Secretary WONG Kam-sing told previously, the city would not come under siege from a deluge of garbage if the funding application was approved. However, Hong Kong is still under siege right now. Why? Chairman, let us have a look at the ever-increasing figures about the municipal solid waste ("MSW") in Hong Kong: In 2008, the disposal quantity of MSW was 9 021 tonnes, but after eight whole years, it surged to 10 345 tonnes in 2016. As set out in the "Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022" ("the Blueprint") released by the Environment Bureau in 2013, the mid-term target is to reduce the per capita MSW disposal rate to less than 1 kg per day by 2017. Subsequently, however, Hong Kong's per capita disposal rate hit a record high in 2016 (i.e. before 2017) in 23 years. As shown in the "Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong―Waste Statistics for 2016", Hong Kong's per capita disposal rate per day reached 1.41 kg. We just cannot not help querying if the Environment Bureau will eventually be able to achieve the overall target of, as set out in the Blueprint, reducing the MSW disposal rate by 40% on a per capita basis by 2022.

According to the Environment Bureau, the best policy of dealing with MSW is to reduce waste at source, while recycling and reusing waste is the second best option, and end of pipe treatment (i.e. landfilling and incineration) is the least preferred option. The Secretary has sought funding for taking forward the "three landfills and one incinerator" project, but actually the Government's efforts in waste reduction are ineffective because the Government has not done well in recycling, and thus the amount of garbage in Hong Kong keeps growing as a result. In 2016, after hitting a record low at 34% in 17 years, the MSW-recovery rate reverted to the level in the year 2000. In other words, the 9490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

Government has performed poorly in areas of waste reduction, waste recycling and resource recycling over the past decade or so.

Next, let us look the information provided by EPD. In 2015, 50 000 tonnes of plastic bottles were disposed of at landfills, but only some 4 000 tonnes of PET bottles were recovered, representing a recovery rate of only 7.6%. In November 2017, a green group conducted a survey which found that as many as 84% of the local recyclers were reluctant to accept recovered plastic bottles. Even if they were willing to take those bottles, the customers concerned were required to take care of the transportation matter themselves or pay the transportation costs since recovery of plastic bottles was not a profitable business.

Chairman, not so long ago in September last year, local waste paper recyclers suspended the recovery of cardboards due to the Mainland's act of tightening the standards for the import of waste paper, and this resulted in the piling up of waste paper everywhere on the streets throughout Hong Kong. This tells us that the Government has not allocated sufficient resources to support the local recycling industry over a prolonged period in the past, so the local recycling industry still involves only low-output work processes such as recovering, sorting, compacting and baling, followed by export of the processed wastes. In fact, the Government has failed to genuinely increase the rate of waste recovery. Neither has it helped the recycling industry secure reasonable return from running the recycling business nor has it facilitated the healthy development of the industry, thus leading to the industry's over-reliance on their Mainland counterparts to accept wastes of poor quality. Wastes rejected by Mainland recyclers will eventually be transferred back to Hong Kong for disposal at the three landfills. Taking into account the Government's inaction in this regard, it is quite natural that Hong Kong people do not have much incentive to recover and reduce waste on their own initiative.

Chairman, the volume of waste intake at Hong Kong's landfills in 2016 also reached a record high of 3.79 million tonnes, which confirms that what I said at the beginning of my speech is right. Many members of the public voiced their opposing views when the Government put forth the "three landfills and one incinerator" proposal in 2014. Yet, the endless extension of landfills can never help if the Government is not determined and does not make concrete efforts to implement the policies on waste reduction at source, waste recycling and reusing, and end of pipe treatment (namely the best, second best and the least preferred policies).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9491

In 2014, Secretary WONG Kam-sing threatened Hong Kong people with his remarks about Hong Kong coming "under siege" from a deluge of garbage, thereby prompting Members of the Legislative Council to grant approval to the funding application for the "three landfills and one incinerator" proposal. Nevertheless, will the extension of existing landfills really help motivate the Government to step up its efforts in waste recovery and reuse as well as reducing waste at source? On the other hand, however, the Government has issued a "post-dated cheque" by setting an unrealistic goal of increasing Hong Kong's recycling rate to 55% by 2022 which is seemingly unachievable. Yet, do not forget this: Given that Hong Kong's recycling rate only just hit a 17-year record low two years ago, and it has kept falling year after year, how come it will surge drastically to 55% a few years from now, may I ask? Therefore, instead of solely relying on end of pipe treatment, the Government should allocate resources to facilitate restructuring of the local recycling industry into one based on processing recycled materials for enhancement of quality and economic values while putting in place comprehensive producer responsibility schemes as a complementary measure. Implementing effective policies is a forceful way to take forward waste recovery and reduction. Only by doing so can public confidence be restored.

Chairman, why did I still propose cutting the operating costs of the SENT Landfill given that the Government had, in accordance with one of its promises made in seeking funding approval for the "three landfills and one incinerator" proposal, designated the SENT Landfill to receive construction waste only? Well, it is because EPD is set to increase the charge on construction waste disposal in order to contain the emergence and production of construction waste which will be disposed of at landfills, but this has given rise to the problem of illegal fly-tipping as the disposal of construction waste is subject to a higher charge and the enforcement actions taken by EPD were not stringent enough.

Chairman, the residents of New Territories East living near the landfill are facing and suffering from the increasingly serious problem of illegal fly-tipping, which causes great nuisance to the community. The Office of The Ombudsman released a direct investigation report in February 2018, in which it criticized EPD for not having taken stringent enforcement actions. Over a prolonged period in the past, more than 90% of EPD's inspections against illegal dumping of construction waste were conducted during office hours on weekdays. Moreover, EPD instituted prosecution in only 18 cases between January 2016 and October 9492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018

2017 (i.e. less than 1 case per month). Yet, those dump trucks involved in illegal fly-tipping would usually choose to dump the construction waste at night after the EPD inspection officers have gone off duty. Therefore, reliance on inspections conducted during office hours is utterly useless if EPD wants to carry out effective enforcement actions.

Finally, Chairman, I would like to bring up the point that the issue of producer responsibility schemes has been dragged on for almost 10 years and has yet to be fully implemented. And the Government simply continues to rely solely on the least preferred option of "three landfills and one incinerator" to deal with the MSW in Hong Kong. We may look at the case of plastic and other countries' experience in implementing producer responsibility schemes. France will impose a total ban on the sale of disposable plastic dining utensils after two years at the soonest; Taiwan, our neighbour, has set the goal of restricting the use of plastic straws, dining utensils and beverage cups by means of legislation in 2030. This tells us that implementing the producer responsibility scheme on plastic bottles in Hong Kong is indeed a matter of urgency. Besides, the Government has yet to draw up a legal framework for the introduction of quantity-based waste charging.

We propose to cut the funding for the operating costs of the "three landfills and one incinerator" because some of the landfills are so close to residential areas. Yet, it takes nearly 30 years for the landfills to accomplish their missions due to Government's ineffective efforts in implementing policies on environmental protection and recycling as well as erroneous planning. Even after the completion of the LOHAS Park (i.e. a residential development twice the size of Taikoo Shing, with an annual population growth by tens of thousands) on the residential area established next to it, the Tseung Kwan O landfill is still in operation. Consequently, Hong Kong people have to suffer a great deal since the Government is unable to fulfil its promise. Worse still, however, the Government has plans to rezone the land of the Green Belt zone near the LOHAS Park to residential use. By then, the transport demand in the district will increase tremendously while those refuse collection vehicles and dump trucks travelling to and from the landfill are also using the same transport network, thus causing serious traffic and environmental pollution problems in the district.

What is wrong with our Government anyway? Well, it refuses to make a promise of closing down the SENT Landfill in Tseung Kwan O for good and continues to rely on landfills for refuse disposal since it lacks the determination LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9493 and ability to implement the waste reduction targets laid down in the Blueprint. Hence, I propose to, on behalf of Neo Democrats, cut the funding for the operating costs of the SENT Landfill in an attempt to pressurize the Government to take on greater responsibility in promoting reduction of waste at source, facilitating the development of the recycling industry, fully implement producer responsibility schemes and specifying a deadline for honouring its promise of permanent closure of the SENT Landfill in the end. These are what a competent Government is supposed to do in implementing the policy on MSW.

President, I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, have you watched the film "Tomorrow Is Another Day"? I wish to congratulate the screenwriter and director of this movie, CHAN Tai-lee, and thank him for making this film about autistic persons, although the movie is not merely talking about autism. No matter what, for families with autistic members or children with special needs, taking care of these family members is indeed highly challenging. In a tragedy happened in Hong Kong in March, a maternal grandmother was suspected of killing her grandson, who allegedly was a child with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. It was reported that this maternal grandmother had been made mentally and physically exhausted in taking care of the child. In fact, in an incident occurred a few years ago in Hong Kong, a father has also killed his autistic and mentally disabled son with his own hands.

Many people do not really understand the needs of these children, and even after a tragedy has struck, the general public still fail to understand how desperate the fight between such children and their parents or guardians is. Hence, early identification and early support are very important in the provision of assistance to these families, but this has often reduced to nothing more than a slogan.

As far as early identification is concerned, we can see from a question raised this year at a special meeting of the Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council that as early as in 2012, the Department of Health ("DH") has already pledged that its Child Assessment Centres ("CACs") would complete preliminary assessment of 90% of the cases within six months. The importance of preliminary assessment is that relevant services will be provided to the children concerned only after they have undergone the assessment. However, until last year, preliminary assessment can be completed within six months in only 60% of 9494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 the cases, which is a long way from meeting the pledge made several years ago to complete the assessment in 90% of the cases. Have efforts been made in this respect in the Budget this year to help DH to increase manpower, so as to facilitate early identification of the needs of these children? Not much has actually been done.

What will happen after these children have undergone the assessment? Take the cases I mentioned just now about children with autism or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder as examples, the children concerned will often be referred to the Hospital Authority ("HA") for child and adolescent psychiatric services, where they will be required to wait for further assessment by psychiatric specialist doctors, with a view to ascertaining if any treatments or drugs should be recommended. According to the latest figures provided at the special FC meeting, some of these children have to wait for 119 weeks on average before they can undergo further assessment. In other words, after they have first been found behaving irregularly by their parents, referrals will be made by doctors or psychologists for CAC service of DH, but they have to wait for six to nine months before they can be preliminarily assessed. After preliminary assessment, they will again be referred to HA and then wait for another two years for initial diagnosis.

Chairman, what is meant by early identification and early support? When CACs of DH have made assessments and confirmed that these children are suffering from autistic tendency or developmental retardation, and referred them to HA for relevant services, they will be sent away and what will happen in the interim? Their parents or guardians will be at a loss as to what they should do, the children will gradually develop some behaviour and emotional problems, and no other children will be willing to play with them. These children will have difficulties communicating with other people, they will begin to speak at a very late stage, they cannot get along well with other children, and they simply cannot cope with their life in the classroom as they enter kindergarten.

Even though they have been assessed as having a certain type of developmental problem and referrals have been made for relevant services, their future is still beset with difficulties. Services in this respect can generally be classified into three categories. The first one is Early Education and Training Centre ("EETC") service, which is originally designed for young children under the age of two, but children in this age group seldom have the chance to receive the service, because as evidenced by the long queue of children waiting for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9495 preliminary assessment, they will normally not be able to complete the necessary assessment in time for receiving the service. The second one is Integrated Programme in Kindergarten-cum-Child Care Centre ("IP") service, while the third one is Special Child Care Centre ("SCCC") service, which is provided to cater for the service needs of more serious cases.

The respective numbers of places available now under these three categories of services are as follows: We have 3 625 EETC places, and it is proposed in the Budget this year that 181 additional places will be provided, which is quite a marked increase. Yet, how many children are waiting for such service places now? Chairman, the number is 7 012, nearly double the number of service places available. Besides, there are now 1 980 IP places, and there has been no increase in the number over the past many years. 1 855 children are now waiting for such service places, and the number has also doubled and is nearly the same as that of places available. With regard to SCCC service, it is proposed in the Budget this year that 258 additional places will be provided, and considering that 2 092 places are currently available, the rate of increase is indeed quite high. However, there are 1 985 children waiting for the service, and the number is comparable to that of service places available (that is, nearly 2 000). The total number of places provided under the three categories of services mentioned above is 7 697, but there are a total of 10 852 children waiting for the provision of such services, meaning that even though the number of service places has been doubled, it will still be insufficient to cope with the demand.

With infinite graciousness, the Chief Executive has specifically and directly ordered a grant of $400 million from the Lotteries Fund two to three years ago for the launching of On-site Pre-school Rehabilitation Services, and approval from the Legislative Council is not required. This is a benevolent measure, and the number of service places has been increased from 3 000 when the scheme was first launched to 4 000 later. It is now proposed that the number of places will be increased further to 5 000 or even 6 000, but does it really matter when there are still nearly 10 000 children waiting for the relevant services?

Chairman, I am not saying that the Government has done nothing at all, but the efforts made are often not vigorous enough, and we can see no determination on the part of the Government as its attempts are only half-hearted. We have pointed out that the age from zero to six years is the golden period and the most important stage for a child's development, and early support should therefore be provided to these children as soon as possible. Not long ago, some parents or 9496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 guardians came to express their views last week and pointed out that with the assistance of occupational therapists or speech therapists during that golden period, their children have shown marked improvements. There are talents in these sectors in Hong Kong, and if the relevant training is considered not adequate, early planning should be made timely to nurture more talents.

Children are now required to queue up and wait for the provision of relevant services, and take the three categories of services I mentioned just now as examples, the average waiting time is one and a half years. However, the Government has to first assess and identify these children when they are under the age of six, so that they can queue up for the services, and when they are finally provided with such services, these three categories of services will not be available to children aged above six. In other words, such services will cease when these children go to Primary One, because they are provided with resources from the Social Welfare Department, but once these children go to Primary One, the Education Bureau should instead be responsible for providing resources for the purpose. These are two completely different systems, and there will thus be a gap in the services provided after these children are admitted to Primary One. In other words …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, which amendment are you speaking on?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, my current speech covers "Head 156―Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" and DH, which I mentioned just now and which is under "Head 139―Government Secretariat: Food and Health Bureau (Food Branch)". The services involved are provided through cross-bureaux cooperation and hence, although these children are fortunate enough to receive the support they need during their pre-school stage, all services provided to them will cease when they go to Primary One.

Basically, the Budget this year has proposed no adjustments to services provided to Primary One students, and schools will only be granted an additional fund in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 per student with special education needs ("SEN"), with the total amount of this Learning Support Grant ("LSG") calculated on the basis of the number of SEN students admitted to individual schools. For example, if the amount of LSG provided for each SEN student is $13,000 to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9497

$14,000 every year, a school which has admitted 10 SEN students will receive a grant of over $100,000 for rendering learning support to these students. As for the actual methods used to render assistance to them, different schools will adopt different practices, and some schools may not even exhaust the grant. While some schools have failed to use the grant in time or did not know how to use it, some have even given the money back to the Education Bureau.

I try to bring such issues up every year, and slight improvements in the situation can finally be seen gradually, but initially, dozens of schools have really returned the LSG they received to the Education Bureau as they simply did not know how to use it. Children with special needs are the most pitiable, because they are often thrown into confusion and start to regress after they have entered Primary One, and their parents or guardians have no alternative but to opt for private services at their own expense. We have many non-governmental organizations which are committed to providing the necessary services, but due to their limited scale, training sessions of less than one hour can only be provided.

If such services are really so important, why not allocate more resources for the purpose in the Budget? I do not know who should be held responsible, but from the perspective of the affected parents or guardians and their children, it is our hope that the scope of pre-primary services can be extended to cover all children who have undergone assessment, and the assessment time should also be shortened. The Chief Executive and the Secretary have once boasted about their objective to achieve "zero waiting time", but in reply to a related question raised in a Question and Answer Session, she said that an analysis has to be made beforehand. I am now making the required analysis for her, and illustrating with figures the serious inadequacy of such services in coping with the demand and the need to increase resources in this respect. Furthermore, a smooth transition to primary and secondary education should also be ensured in the provision of pre-primary services, because parents or guardians do consider the support system effective, but not every child can receive such services. Moreover, all services will completely cease when these children go to Primary One and become members of the school system.

Chairman, can we leave these issues to the bureaux concerned so that they may negotiate among themselves and have the problems resolved? Before a budget is formulated, should joint discussions be held among the Labour and Welfare Bureau, Education Bureau, Food and Health Bureau and the relevant executive departments, so that they can examine how they should work out a set 9498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 of effective measures to render assistance to these children? We should bear in mind that such measures should be proposed from a student-oriented and child-oriented perspective, and with due regard to the children's needs as they grow up, the different stages of education they are facing, as well as their social needs. Hence, I consider the amendments proposed very reasonable.

With regard to the proposals of reducing the emoluments for public officers, Dr Junius HO has criticized such amendments just now as meaningless and making much ado about nothing. However, I have to explain to the public that during deliberation of the Budget, Members of the Legislative Council cannot propose amendments to increase the budget amounts, and are only allowed to propose certain amounts of reductions, but how can we go so far as to propose reductions in the resources allocated? Therefore, we can only propose to cut the wages of public officers on the ground that they have neglected their duty and have failed to do their job, but we will never attempt to reduce service resources. How can we reduce the amount of public money spent on health care, education, housing and social welfare? Hence, we can only try to reduce the emoluments for public officers, or as proposed by Mr James TO every year, reduce the amount paid as informer fee by the Police, which is also in line with our usual practice.

Chairman, we really have no other alternative. If Members of the Legislative Council are permitted under the current system to move amendments to increase service resources, I am sure the Government will be under immense pressure, because there are indeed many services worth supporting with public resources to improve people's livelihood. The amendments proposed by the Government seek to achieve nothing but the aim of keeping on handing out cash, so that $10 billion more will be handed out, but it actually does not know how it can put public monies to optimal use, even though the public coffer is flooded with money and we are anxious to do something about it. As we can see, there are so many service needs to meet, and some are cases of life and death, but the Government simply does not know how to use its resources to help its people. As our public officers' ways of doing things have "divorced from the people", there is a lack of coordination among government departments, and they just try to pass the buck to each other, we can only adopt such a tactic to reflect the reality, since this is after all the entire truth.

Chairman, if our public officers are willing to do practical things, many tragedies can be avoided. If some basic information can be shared among different government departments, early identification of many high-risk families LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 May 2018 9499 will become possible, and the Government will then be in a better position to provide them with the necessary support. For example, a lot of problems can be identified by Maternal and Child Health Centres and HA, and visits to families in difficulties may then be conducted by community nurses or social workers. When children with special needs become members of the school system, dedicated working teams can be assigned to follow up the cases, so that these children will be provided with targeted support. This will not only help to reduce tragedies but also make such children contributing members of the society, rather than service users on whom public money has to be wasted endlessly.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 9 May 2018.

Adjourned accordingly at 7:58 pm.