LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9823

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 10 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.

9824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, 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 HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9825

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.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

9826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 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 PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9827

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

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

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

MR CASPAR TSUI YING-WAI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE, AND SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

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

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

DR CHUI TAK-YI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH, AND SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

9828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

MR JACK CHAN JICK-CHI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9829

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning. Council is now in committee. We shall continue with the scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill 2018. Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2018

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Chairman. I want to put forward the amendment on reducing head 53 by roughly $4 million in respect of subhead 000. The reduction is roughly equivalent to the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Home Affairs.

Chairman, there is something rather difficult with this debate. Why? The public may not think that it is so meaningful. To begin with, many government officials do not attend this debate. Even when we discuss the topics related to certain officials, they may not always turn up to listen to us. Yes, they can say that their staff and other officials will give them help. But this makes us think that we are just speaking to a wall, to nobody. Chairman, I myself do not mind if government officials are really too busy to attend our meetings. Members and government officials are all very busy, and our meetings are long, even running for several days in a week. So, they may not been able to stay here for days on end to listen to us. But I am more concerned about whether the Government can hear our views. And, very sadly, as shown by the overall experience of Hong Kong people in the past two years, it looks like the Government is not so heedful of people's opinions. That is why we think we are just speaking to a wall.

The population of Hong Kong is as large as 7 million. But there are only 35 directly elected Members in this Council. I am just one of this handful of directly elected Members, and I am even from the democratic camp, which is in the minority in this Council. So, despite the massive public support I have, I really find it very difficult to do anything here. Therefore, Chairman, I have always cherished all such debates. I hope the Chairman can allow me to say something not related to this debate. Chairman, you seem to be particularly "fond" of me, as you frequently forbid me to speak. Why am I so very upset 9830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 every time you do so? All is because I find all such debates very precious and cherish them all. Honestly, we just do not know whether the Government can really hear our voices after we have finished speaking. But I must still say that constitutionally and politically, we as Members are duty-bound to reflect people's views to the Government.

I have been involved in politics for quite a long time. Very often, I will be very frustrated when I ponder on how I can make actual use of the people's mandate. I will be very frustrated whenever I ponder on how I can promote democratic reform and social policies, bring forth a reasonable distribution of wealth, achieve social justice and make it felt in people's daily lives. It is hard to achieve all this. I suppose all Members here will agree with me on this. I also believe they all want to attain all such objectives. But very sadly, I really find it very hard to do anything. In their impassioned speeches yesterday, many pro-establishment Members lashed out at us for putting forward all these amendments and questioned why we should have proposed the reduction of the expenditure estimates. They commented that our amendments showed that we opposed the Government's allocation of funding for service improvement. I think I must correct them and clarify the whole thing here. Chairman, they focus only on our action of proposing the reduction of expenditure. But they do not tell the whole story and look at why we want to do so. Actually, we want to do so because this is the only means through which we can speak for the people, put pressure on the Government and compel it to do something. Our only weapon is just a table knife, but the Government is holding a big sword; it has the huge Treasury, and it can threaten us with the well-being of all Hong Kong people. This is our only means. Why do they still think that we are in the wrong?

Under the constitution and the Rules of Procedure, Legislative Council Members are not permitted to move any amendments on increasing budget expenditure, so we have instead chosen to reduce it. Seeing this, many people often ask me, "Anew, why do you always propose amendments on expenditure reduction? Why don't you support him? Although his cash handout is really too meager and the procedures are very messy, you must still let him hand out the money, right? Why do you want to pick on LAU Kong-wah? If he is not paid any salaries, we too will suffer …". I must explain to the public that we only want to use these amendments as a means to make the Government do something more. But it looks very likely that we will once again fail to do so this year. Anyway, this should not make us give up the chance of speaking for the people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9831

Why I do say our attempt will fail again? The composition of the legislature is the answer. The remarks of pro-establishment Members yesterday were really nonsense. Honestly, do I really want to deduct the salaries of Secretary LAU Kong-wah? I really do not want to do so. Instead, I hope that he can improve his performance, and in that case, I will not need to cut his salaries. Chairman, do you think I really believe that my reduction proposal can be passed? I do not think the chance of success is big, unless some pro-establishment Members are persuaded by our speeches today. But this is even more unlikely than winning the Mark Six Lottery. The chance is almost zero.

Chairman, why has the Budget this year aroused the discontent of so many Members? The reason is that the resource distribution under the Budget this year cannot possibly tackle the numerous social problems and issues. Some Members have set out many such problems and issues: housing supply, subdivided units, universal retirement protection, social welfare and residential care homes. The resource distribution under the Budget is a very good case to show that the present situation in Hong Kong can be largely ascribed to the structure of our society and the distribution of power between the legislature and the Government. As a Member, I can only discharge my constitutional duty within the constraint imposed by this inherent defect of our society.

Under the Basic Law, Members are responsible for approving public expenditure. Any such expenditure must be reasonable, I must say. Otherwise, how can we possibly give our approval and support? But, Chairman, it is so unfortunate that the expenditures set out in this present Budget or those in the few years are all beset with problems. Admittedly, as some Members said yesterday, nothing on earth can be perfect, and no government in the world can possibly produce a budget which satisfies all people. This is correct, and I agree. But still, can the Hong Kong Government learn from other advanced societies and adopt some means to show that its budgets can receive substantial support and approval from the public? For instance, can the Government conduct opinion polls to show us that its budgets can receive substantial public support? But then, this Budget has been given the lowest rating in years. Chairman, we cannot possibly criticize the Financial Secretary for not be generous. He is in fact very generous already. But how does he spend the money? Is he trying to benefit huge consortia or people with vested interests? The Government must do its utmost to answer all such queries. However, the Financial Secretary has failed to do this. We can also observe that there is a very big bias in the 9832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Government's distribution of resources. Well, if the bias is towards the handing out of big cash to the people due to the "flooding" of the Treasury, I may not say no … Well, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, who represents he business sector, is here now. Yes, I also think that Hong Kong needs economic construction and must boost its economy, so as to benefit the common masses.

But the very strange thing is that despite the Government's huge resource investment in boosting the economy, the common masses apparently cannot get any benefits at all. What has happened to our society? What has gone wrong to it? The Government has apparently put huge sums of money to infrastructure construction, and some Members even say that infrastructure construction must go on, as workers are running out of jobs. But then, if we look at the statistics, we will see that while there is a perennial labour shortage, all the infrastructure construction works are in fact undertaken by imported workers. So, in this legislature, we often hear such sophistry. They simply do not talk sense, and they change the rules all too often.

It is in fact easy to show the unreasonable resource distribution under the Budget. But this is not the most important thing, Chairman. Most importantly, what we need to discuss very seriously is not only this Budget but also the kind of legislature and government which Hong Kong needs if we are to distribute resources reasonably to protect the well-being of the public.

The land problem is the most acute problem in the minds of 90% of Hong Kong people. This is an incontestable fact. I put forward this amendment because I am upset and angry. Chairman, today, I am not as hostile to you as I used to be. That is not because I have lost heart. If I had really lost heart, I would not have stood up to oppose this very injustice. But of course, I have to admit that there are indeed some difficulties.

This morning, for example, we discussed deducting the annual salaries of Secretary LAU Kong-wah. Well, as I have said just now, the amendment will not be passed. There are so many royalist Members, and they will always support him. That is why the Secretary is so calm. Oh, let me first check where he is sitting now. He changes his seats very often. And, was he really absent this morning? He is very calm, not afraid. He does not think that my amendment can do any harm to him.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9833

Of all the issues mentioned in the Budget this year, I am most concerned about housing and land. But Chairman, housing and land only receives very little treatment in the Budget when compared with the other important and acute problems. But why do I talk about housing and land when discussing head 53? Chairman, the two are related. This is the premise. Since the supply of land and housing is so tight, the Government must try every possible means. Secretary Michael WONG has been looking everywhere for land. The figures he has given are a bit inflated, but we can still see that he is somewhat desperate and wants to "snatch" land and put anything he can get in the land list.

The Chief Executive also says children living in subdivided units are very miserable, so she says she wants to do reclamation, recover brownfield sites and adopt public-private partnership to increase land supply. She says the Lands Resumption Ordinance cannot be revoked due to litigation risks. But she is not afraid to get lands from the country parks. How are the two related anyway? Chairman, this is precisely the main point. Society is so very concerned about the land issue, and we are all spending so much time and effort to debate the land issue. We are all arguing over how we should get land for housing construction, building hospitals and providing elderly care homes. But Secretary LAU Kong-wah has stirred up another debate alongside the land debate. This debate is not small in scale, and it is about private recreational land leases. Actually, the public would not have known this issue if Members had not raised it again and again. The Government's tactic is really furtive. It has issued two consultation papers all at the same time, and the two of them are just opposites. One of them is about land identification, and the quickest way is to recover the 172 hectares of golf course in the short run.

Chairman, early this year, the Legislative Council approved the 130-hectare Tung Chung East reclamation project. The golf course is even bigger than the area to be reclaimed under this project. And, the Hung Shui Kiu Development Area and Yuen Long South are just slightly bigger than the golf course. This golf course alone is already as big as a whole development area. So, if the Government can invoke the terms and conditions under the relevant recreational land lease and recover the area in 2020, there will be a lot of help.

Chairman, up to 2046, the Government only needs 40 hectares of land for public housing construction. But very strangely, the Secretary has acted counter to the Government's policy, at least its avowed policy. I do not know whether he really means it. I cannot make any guesses, nor do I believe what he says. 9834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

But even if he wants to put up such a show, he must do it more decently. Why has he acted this way? How can he possibly roll out two opposite consultation papers in a matter of four, five or six months? At a time when the Chief Executive says that she feels guilty towards children living in subdivided units and wants to tackle their future housing problem, I cannot possibly imagine that a Policy Bureau can put up such an obstacle. The two consultation papers says that there are two options. And, I simply cannot imagine in any way that in our land debate, we should be forced to choose between these options: first, total recovery of the golf course or partial recovery of it, about one third; and, continued existence of the golf course for 21 years plus 15 years (36 years, in other words) at a new premium at around one third of the market price.

Chairman, for all these reasons, I truly believe that when I talk about the acts of the Secretary just now, most of the people, especially those who are caught in extreme hardship of having to live in appalling living conditions, would agree with me. Most people on the waiting list for public housing will agree with me if they learn that the Government will only need 46 hectares of land for public housing construction up to 2046, that the short-term housing need in next five years can already be addressed if we can resume the 172 hectares of land under a lease that will soon expire in 2020. Of course, some may not like the idea. But the point is that when there are conflicting needs in society, we must decide who are going to have priority.

I maintain that LAU Kong-wah has failed in his duty. I therefore put forward this amendment. I hope Members can support my amendment after listening to my remarks. I so submit, thank you.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak again with the purpose of calling upon all Members to support my amendment proposing to cut the personal emoluments of the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") Simon PEH from the estimated annual expenditure of ICAC set out in this year's Budget.

Just as I said in my first speech, there are three major reasons for my demanding a cut of the annual personal emoluments of Simon PEH. First, as harboured by Simon PEH, Julie MU, namely the prime accomplice in the Timothy TONG case, managed to get off without being subjected to any punishment but was granted end-of-contract gratuity in full upon retirement in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9835 end. Second, Simon PEH had forced Ms Rebecca LI, who had served in ICAC for more than 3 decades, to leave her job. Ms LI had been exceptionally outstanding as a well-experienced veteran ICAC investigation officer who was extremely popular with her colleagues. Everyone looked upon her as the best candidate to fill the post of Head of Operations, but she ended up being demoted without any known cause and sadly departed at last. Her departure had caused turmoil within ICAC where numerous higher-ups left one after the other. Besides, more than 70% of the staff boycotted ICAC's annual staff dinner which had to be cancelled as a result. Third, Simon PEH has allowed the long standing vacancy situation of the essential post of ICAC's Operations Department Deputy Commissioner/Head of Operations to go on. Mr Ricky YAU has taken up acting appointment to the post in question since Ms LI's departure. Although Mr YAU had once tendered his resignation after the Rebecca LI incident, but he finally stayed. He has been holding the interim post for almost two years so far in addition to the one year held by Ms LI on an acting basis, meaning that there has been neither a Deputy Commissioner nor a Head of Operations in ICAC for nearly three whole years. How can it be tolerated that the top post within such an important anti-corruption agency be left vacant for so long? Yet, Simon PEH had neither provided any reasonable explanation to its staff nor explained to the Council as well as members of the public regarding this matter.

Chairman, I have been requesting at the Council over the past two years that relevant arrangements be made so that the aforesaid matter can be discussed at the meeting of the Panel on Security ("the Panel"), but inclusion of this in the meeting agenda as an item for discussion has not been successful while Simon PEH has never given a detailed account at the Panel's meeting. It was until earlier on that the Panel eventually received a written explanation from ICAC. Please allow me to cite here some of its contents: "As the establishment size of ICAC is relatively small, there are fewer posts available for promotion at different ranks. It is more difficult for us to anticipate the rate of natural wastage since our staff members are recruited on agreement terms and this will inevitably give rise to difficulties in succession. It even mentions that "ICAC will not unduly make any premature decision on promotion merely for the sake of getting a post filled soon. A person will be promoted only when he or she has fully met the work requirements of the post concerned."

Chairman, you see, such an important post has been left vacant for almost three years, but he still spoke of not to "unduly make any premature decision on promotion". What logic is that, may I ask? Just look around the various 9836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 government departments, including the disciplined services departments and other departments, do you think it is possible to find a department that allows any of its directorate posts to be left vacant for as long as three years and still does not feel the need to get it filled officially? And has any case like this one ever been recorded in the history of Hong Kong? Well, in giving his reply to my question earlier at this Council, Mr Ricky CHU, who has been serving in ICAC for 40 years, clearly said that he had only come across such a case once throughout his 40 years of service in which the post of Head of Operations is left vacant for three years. And that case is precisely this particular one in which Mr Ricky YAU has been made the acting Head of Operations after Ms Rebecca LI was demoted by Simon PEH. It is the only one time he came across such situation. Is it normal to leave such an important post vacant for a prolonged period? Definitely not. Actually, the rank of Commissioner of ICAC is similar to that of Secretary for Security, while Head of Operations of ICAC and Commissioner of Police are of similar ranks. Bearing this in mind, can you imagine what it will be like if there is not any legitimate candidate to be appointed the Commissioner of Police?

Well, what is the matter with Hong Kong now? How come such an important management post in a law enforcement agency is allowed to be left vacant? This is absolutely unjustified. According to Simon PEH, a person will be promoted only when all requirements are met. What does "all requirements" refer to? In fact, both Ms Rebecca LI and Mr Ricky YAU did have met the public expectation in terms of experience, capability, character, and leadership. Given their 20 or 30 years' service in ICAC, they were eligible candidates whose competence and experience were up to standard. What did they still lack? Must they swear allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party in order to be appointed to the post? Were they required to follow strictly the commands of their superiors in deciding which cases to investigate and which not?

The Government should have a transparent promotion system in place to deal with staff promotion matters in a reasonable and convincing manner. Nevertheless, under the current situation, only "people who conform to the authority shall thrive, whereas those who resist shall perish". Simon PEH just totally ignore any candidate whom he thinks has not met all the requirements in his own mind, regardless how many times that person has been commended by the Directors, the Head or even the Commissioner of ICAC. He considers only candidates who have met all the requirements and do not even need to tell if the person selected is an appropriate candidate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9837

Chairman, earlier during the question and answer session of the Council, I inquired Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, Simon PEH's only superior, about this issue. How did she respond then? Well, she said that the post in question was very important and she did not meddle with ICAC's personnel management matters. What is meant by "did not meddle with"? What we are talking about is not the post of Assistant Investigator, or Investigator, or Chief Investigator, or Principal investigator, or Assistant Director, or Director but the post of Head of Operations (i.e. Deputy Commissioner). Why does Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor not demand Simon PEH to finalize as soon as practicable the candidature for such an important post then? Could it be that she just turned a blind eye to the issue or simply connived in Simon PEH's inaction? Or is it the case that she has instructed Simon PEH to make sure the candidate owes absolute obedience to the Government before appointing the person to the post of Head of Operations?

Chairman, there is actually something more in the reply submitted to the Council by Simon PEH, of which I have quoted some parts of the contents just now. His explanation is really shocking and I dare not imagine how inept he actually is. He submitted in the last paragraph of the written reply that according to ICAC's annual survey, the percentage of public support for a corruption-free society and ICAC itself was high above 96% and this showed that whether a senior post is held by a person on an acting or substantive appointment will not have any impacts on the overall work and development of ICAC.

Chairman, how can the post of ICAC Commissioner be held by a person like Simon PEH, who has not the least logical sense? For one thing, the survey reflects only the public impression. Is the public opinion in any way representative of the overall efforts and development of ICAC? What nonsense! Moreover, this being purely a survey done by ICAC itself only, what is the point in Simon PEH's getting overly satisfied with ICAC's high popularity as shown in the survey outcomes? On the other hand, did he ever find out the outcomes of other surveys? Regrettably, according to the ranking based on the results of the opinion polls on People's Satisfaction with the Disciplined Force carried out by the University of Hong Kong on a regular basis, ICAC ranked lower than all of its counterparts and was at the bottom of the list as of last year. It still ranks near the bottom as at present. In stark contrast to its high standing in the past, ICAC has sunk so low today. How come Simon PEH has no shame and is still overly satisfied with the current situation?

9838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Chairman, I find this really excruciating because I had worked in ICAC. I did not stay on the job for a very long time, but I understood so well that ICAC's long-standing goodwill established both at home and in the international community for decades is hard-earned which did not come easily. When ICAC was first established 40 years ago, our predecessors of the earliest days had to, under a tight manpower situation with limited resources, fight against corrupt syndicates which had already taken root in Hong Kong for decades. The amount of money they made from bribery every year amounted to hundreds of billions of Hong Kong dollars by today's standard. Thanks to the various generations of ICAC investigators who had joined hands with Hong Kong citizens to fight against the corrupt groups in those days with courage, wisdom and hard work until they were annihilated, ICAC can enjoy a good reputation. ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH, however, has caused such a deplorable situation in ICAC today. After all these had happened, he still sits on his own laurel instead of engaging in self-introspection. This is most excruciating to me and I am sure that many members of the public do share my such feeling.

In the past, we used to pride ourselves on having ICAC in Hong Kong because it had set an exemplary model for the international community with its successes in combating graft. Yet, what we see in ICAC today is a situation in which even the most basic staffing arrangements are made a mess. Who is the culprit behind this farce? It is Simon PEH for sure. Therefore, Chairman, I pointed out in my first speech that to rebuild ICAC's reputation, of ICAC, we must eliminate graft externally and wipe out the villain internally in the meantime. Chairman. ICAC has a well-known slogan: "Hong Kong's cutting edge―ICAC". If we continue to allow ICAC's values and systems to be harmed by Simon PEH, it will eventually be destroyed by him. And so, PEH's only immediate supervisor Chief Executive Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor is duty-bound to bring the situation back on track.

I can hardly imagine how such an important directorate post has been left vacant for as long as three years without any designated candidate. Hence, Chairman, with a heavy heart I moved my amendment, demanding a cut of the personal emoluments of ICAC Commissioner Simon PEH in full so as to force this person to leave early. That way, ICAC will be able to rebuild its reputation soon.

Thank you, Chairman.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9839

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, at this time, I would like to talk about the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). I have been a Legislative Council Member for quite a long time, and I always think that ICAC should have been independent of the Administration, especially of the Chief Executive or the previous Governors, and operating under a special system. We do not want to see any major problems, such as the existence of high-level vacancies inside ICAC. But we are not making an assessment of who is capable of assuming that position or making known our wish that a particular person can be promoted, which is even more inappropriate for us to do so. In case the system is involved, we are worried that there may be political intervention. If some people are interfering with the operation of ICAC for personal gains or even personal interests, I think the Legislative Council has the obligation to speak out. In accordance with ICAC annual report, the monitoring role played by this Council is acceptable to it.

Chairman, as the second most senior position, the Head of Operations is in fact more important than that, as it essentially is the soul of ICAC's Operations Department, and is even the ICAC position of greatest public concern. It is indeed unusual that this position has been left vacant or under acting arrangement for three years. It is not proper to say that there are fewer suitable candidates in ICAC as it is different from other disciplined forces like the Police Force, which has a larger establishment and thus more suitable candidates while the planning is also easier. Neither is it proper to say that we have to make sure the candidate is suitable in all respects before he can be confirmed.

Chairman, we all learn an established fact very clearly that the number of suitable candidates in ICAC is limited, especially because a large number of colleagues joined ICAC a few decades ago. If a colleague who is familiar with this area of work has to be identified, frankly speaking, he will only be chosen among this batch of colleagues. I will not ask Simon PEH to be the Head of Operations of ICAC, will I? The Commissioner of Police is authoritative enough as he commands a force of a few ten thousand people, the largest disciplined force, but we cannot ask, without any reasons, to have the Commissioner of Police transferred to be the Head of Operations of ICAC. If we do that, I believe the public will be very worried. Being a person rather familiar with the practical work of ICAC, I also find it not feasible. I am not saying that the Commissioner of Police does not have the capability or is not smart enough or experienced enough to manage this department. This is not 9840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 what I mean. But the work of ICAC is basically rather special, and is different from police investigation in many aspects.

Therefore, we are not worried about whether there is the best choice or an outstanding candidate. If there is a candidate who is basically sound in all respects and his performance is more than competent…I am not describing the colleague who is now acting the post or has the chance to be promoted. In fact, I have confidence that its staff can well surpass the standard that I am now mentioning. However, disregarding all other considerations, if a certain colleague is considered acceptable in promoting to the position of Head of Operations, being "considered acceptable" is actually fair enough. But you may say, "This is not enough. We want the most appropriate candidate." Then please find me one.

Unless you may say, "It is fine. We can identify a retiree. Even if he is 70 years old, we can still appoint him anew." I am not sure about this. If he is willing and is physically capable, this idea may still be feasible. But the problem is: what is the practical situation? Yesterday, it was reported that the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who is over 90 years old, won the election again. Hence, why is it not possible? The problem, however, is that the existing Acting Head of Operations is a candidate who is more than competent and satisfactory in all aspects, but has still not yet been confirmed after a long time. With this background, there may be a worrying situation: What is the ICAC Commissioner waiting for? Who is he waiting for to fill this post? Is he waiting to see the decision and performance of a certain person in respect of a particular case? If so, it will be a big cause for alarm.

Chairman, at a Panel on Security meeting, one colleague suggested inviting the Commissioner to explain in detail the present situation instead of providing a written reply of only a few pages, but not a few people think that this is a kind of intervention. I really find it very weird. Even though a department head position being left vacant for a few years is a management issue and we are not supposed to intervene, the Commissioner should still explain to the public about where the difficulties lie. Or perhaps he thinks that acting for the three years is not enough. Then, should the acting period be four, five or six years? Is there any solution? It is very strange and is difficult to understand. In fact, ICAC recognizes the discussion of the Legislative Council as an appropriate channel or means to monitor the work of ICAC. This is what its staff say, because they know that ICAC is very powerful and thus many committees are needed to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9841 monitor ICAC. As they still believe that the Legislative Council is significant, they state from time to time that ICAC is not unsupervised, and the Legislative Council will monitor their work.

Chairman, another issue is the role of the Chief Executive. As the Chief Executive thinks that ICAC is an independent department, she does not ask anything about it. I respect her stance, and also think that it has to be strictly adhered to. The Commissioner is appointed by the Government. If the Chief Executive allow the Commissioner, who is in charge of this department, to make his own decisions without outside interference, public confidence can be boosted. But please remember that this incumbent Commissioner was not internally promoted. He was previously the Director of Immigration. In other words, he basically was not familiar with the duties of the Operations Department. Theoretically speaking, when he was appointed as an outsider, it was hoped that he could, from another perspective, see how to enhance the overall social image and performance of ICAC, and study how to build up an image of independence. He was entrusted with a generally higher level of duty for reaching out to the community. Theoretically and legally speaking, in many aspects, he can overrule or override certain decisions made by the Head of Operations. But in practice, as we all know, internally speaking, the Commissioner will respect the decisions of the Head of Operations as far as possible, because he basically is not familiar with the area concerned.

In terms of professional judgment, the Commissioner will surely show respect to the Head of Operations. However, under the present situation, while an acting arrangement has been in place for this position of Head of Operations for a few years, the Commissioner, who was externally recruited and was not familiar with the colleagues of ICAC, has to lead the department and decide whether that Acting Head of Operations is the appropriate candidate and then confirm whether he can formally assume that position. Let us think about it. Does our society trust Commissioner Simon PEH rather than the Acting Head of Operations? Frankly speaking, for people to respect his decisions, the Commissioner should have some credibility.

According to Chief Executive Carrie LAM, she respects the Commissioner and therefore will not attend to the arrangements concerned. But the present problem is: if this is the case, there is dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Executive. I am not saying that the Chief Executive should herself select a person to serve as the Head of Operations, but she should at least ask about how 9842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 the case is handled or express her concern towards this case. At present, her answer seems to tell us that given her respect to the independence of ICAC, she should not even express her concern on the matter. When there is intense public concern of whether this incident has something to do with a certain politically sensitive case which is directly and indirectly related to the Chief Executive, and then the Chief Executive says that she will not intervene or even express her least concern, what will the community think about this state of affairs?

Chairman, in giving my response, why would I particularly mention this incident instead of talking about the Complaints Against Police Office or other subjects? It is because in my view, this incident involves public trust in Hong Kong. Frankly speaking, our state leaders have been taking vehement actions against corruption in these few years. ICAC has all along been operating effectively and performing very well. If we, on the contrary, undermine the image and functions of ICAC such that there are even signs of being politically biased, in my view, we are doing a disservice not only to Hong Kong, but also to the country. Especially if some people are intervening in the operation of ICAC for the sake of personal interests, I think not only Mrs Carrie LAM has to pay attention, but our state leaders also have to show concern. Why? Because theoretically speaking, the appointed officials are accountable to them.

Therefore, Chairman, if our country is really taking drastic measures against corruption and wants to set up an objective system…Chairman, the National Supervisory Commission now set up by the country is on par with ICAC of Hong Kong, right? Of course, it certainly has some room for improvement and some people may even be doubtful of its genuine direction. But the point is that at least in terms of structure, a commission is set up which is independent from the Party and is a separate organization. If Hong Kong has, on the contrary, weakened public confidence in this aspect, are we doing the right thing?

On the other hand, if one single person is trying to dominate and manipulate the situation in Hong Kong, should our state leaders also show some concern? After making this comment, some people may ask me whether there is anything wrong with me. If our state leaders have to interfere with this affair, will ICAC also become a tool of the country? Honestly, I believe they can do anything and interfere with any affair only if they want to. In practice, if it comes to a stage when a number of possibilities surface, I think we must ensure that the major system of ICAC in Hong Kong, a clean system against corruption, is not unduly influenced by individual corporations with vested interest, whether LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9843 they are Chinese-capital corporations, the military or overseas forces. Well, many people may want to exert influence, I know. In my view, this is the fundamental interest of Hong Kong which can show our determination in this aspect of work.

Chairman, I know many Members may not vote in favour of the amendment seeking to cut the estimated expenditure concerned, but I hope that they can speak their mind in making public comments or answering some related questions, so that the anti-corruption work in Hong Kong and in our country can continue to be conducted unwaveringly and smoothly.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to propose an amendment to deduct one month salary of the Secretary for Food and Health. On the other hand, I will also discuss later the amendment proposed by Mr Gary FAN to reduce $4.8 billion, which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the purchase of Dongjiang water.

With regard to the amendment I propose, I have already mentioned in my last speech that I am mainly concerned about such issues as the shortage of health care personnel, provision of health care services, insufficient provision of public columbarium niches, imposition without consultation of a time limit for occupation of such niches and food safety matters. As my speaking time has run out then, I wish to speak again now and discuss the issue of food labelling. The Secretary for Food and Health has of course been working very hard to take care of many different aspects of work, but as we see it, there are still a lot of inadequacies in the work of the Food and Health Bureau.

As mentioned when I spoke on food safety issues in my last speech, the Government did send its personnel to the Mainland to conduct inspections at registered farms that supply food to Hong Kong, and the pass rates reported are usually very high, with no irregularity found in 99.99% of the inspections. However, as I have already pointed out, such inspections conducted by Hong Kong personnel are subject to the arrangements made by the Mainland authorities, and we can only conduct inspections at designated registered farms. There is actually something wrong with such arrangements, which as we have said, are tantamount to conducting inspections by Hong Kong personnel only after a cleansing campaign has been organized by the Mainland side. Therefore, 9844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 the Secretary for Food and Health should strive for an arrangement under which the SAR Government can send personnel of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") to conduct surprise inspections in the Mainland, and take water, soil and food samples for laboratory testing in Hong Kong.

As for food safety or food nutrition labelling, we notice that as in the case of inspections conducted at registered farms on the Mainland, what has been done is merely a kind of deception and self-deception. Factually correct food labels are very important, because consumers can only obtain such information as the ingredients, consumption date and nutrition facts from labels placed on food packages. It is stipulated under Hong Kong law that food labels should be placed on food packages to set out in detail the information mentioned above, and it is an offence to mislead consumers by giving factually inaccurate information on food labels, since it is unfair to consumers and will pose health risk to the public.

Work objectives are set down by FEHD in its departmental estimates submitted every year. According to such objectives, FEHD will ensure that pre-packaged food products for sale will be provided with factually correct food labels, and will check the food labels of approximately 55 000 pre-packaged food products every year. However, very regrettably, the Administration has never provided us with the information on the number of compliant food labels. The Audit Commission pointed out in a report published in 2011 that as alleged by FEHD, the compliance rate of food labels was 99.9%. Yet, a local university was commissioned by the Audit Commission to provide laboratory services for testing selected food samples purchased from the market, and it was found that of the 70 samples tested, 60% were suspected to be non-compliant. In other words, there were inappropriate nutrition claims in 60% of the samples tested.

A laboratory test report was also published recently by the Consumer Council ("CC") on nutrition labelling of butter and margarine, and the problem of serious misrepresentation was identified in nearly 50% of the nutrition labels checked. It implies that according to the test conducted by CC on nutrition labels of butter and margarine, there were discrepancies between the actual nutrition contents of the samples tested and their declared values. In the random checks conducted by the two institutions mentioned above, it was revealed that of the samples tested, a high proportion (50% and 60% respectively) of nutrition labels were found to be non-compliant. The results are dramatically different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9845 from the compliance rate provided by FEHD, which claimed that 99.9% of the food labels checked were confirmed to be compliant.

Hence, I wonder if nearly 100% of the food labels checked were really compliant, or as revealed by the tests conducted by a local university and CC, there were in fact great discrepancies between the actual nutrition contents and the declared values in 50% to 60% of the samples tested. The problem of inaccurate information provided in food labels is indeed too serious, and it will only be a kind of deception and self-deception if FEHD keeps telling the public that the food products tested are safe for consumption as they contain no excess heavy metal and pesticide residue, and that 99.9% of the food labels checked were found to be compliant.

We can often see from the results of testing of vegetable samples that the levels of heavy metal and pesticide residue have exceeded the legal limits, and as a matter of fact, the specified standards should be revised through legislative amendments as they have also posed some problems to the whole system. With regard to food labelling, as statutory requirements have already been put in place and all trade members are compelled to follow, some labels are provided in a slack and perfunctory manner without clear indication of the trans fat contents or levels of genotoxic carcinogens of the food products, or with completely inaccurate information of the same. The consequences can be very serious. The Legislative Council has legislated for the labelling scheme, but the persons concerned have turned a blind eye to the requirements or acted indiscriminately.

Therefore, I hope the Food and Health Bureau, FEHD in particular, can pay special attention to the issues of food safety and food labelling. If food labels provided in accordance with the statutory requirements cannot even satisfy the general public that their contents are factually correct, or if they contain inaccurate and false information, consumers can have no basis to choose their food. They can only use the most primitive method of judging everything from the outward appearance to determine if the food is fresh and whether it has become mouldy, and this is by no means an approach acceptable to consumers in a modern society. Hence, I think the Food and Health Bureau ought to step up its efforts in this respect.

I would then like to talk about Amendment No. 67 proposed by Mr Gary FAN. The amendment is proposed to subhead 223 under "Head 194―Water 9846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Supplies Department", and it seeks to reduce head 194 by $4,795,210,000 in respect of subhead 223. The amount is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the purchase of Dongjiang water by the Water Supplies Department ("WSD"), and in this connection, Members may recall that the annual average expenditure is about $4.8 billion.

A decision on whether I should support this proposed amendment or not can only be made after some struggle. If I support reducing the estimated expenditure of $4.8 billion, there will be no fresh water available in the coming year, because only about 20% of fresh water consumed in Hong Kong is sourced from local reservoirs. Although funding has already been approved for the construction of a desalination plant in Tseung Kwan O, it will take a very long time before the plant can be commissioned, and the plant can only supply 5% of water consumed in Hong Kong after its commissioning. Therefore, we have actually been relying on the purchase of Dongjiang water for a long time in the past, and have to spend nearly $4.8 billion of public money every year for this purpose. There will be no fresh water available once the estimated expenditure for the purchase of Dongjiang water is reduced, and as this is a very serious consequence, the proposed amendment does not have my support.

However, I believe that some serious thoughts must have been given by Mr Gary FAN to the idea of proposing this amendment, and I think the question most worthy of our attention is that with regard to the sum of $4.8 billion spent each year for this purpose, do we ever have a sense of regret? Some people may opine that we are only spending the Government's money, but the Government actually gets its money from us. When the Government is so generous that $4.8 billion is spent every year on the purchase of fresh water, I have asked the Government repeatedly and suggested that instead of spending $4.8 billion each year on the purchase of Dongjiang water, of which the selling price will be increased every year, should consideration be given by the Government to making greater investment in our water infrastructure?

What is meant by "water infrastructure"? The term can be used to cover quite a number of projects, such as the provision of water recovery and recycling facilities, rainwater harvesting systems, and so on. The construction of a desalination plant is an initiative to develop new water resources, and should also be regarded as water infrastructure. In addition, it should be noted that efforts have never been made all these years to build new reservoirs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9847

Singapore has been working real hard in this respect, and has endeavoured to save each single drop of water in its collection of local water resources. When we visited a certain place in Singapore years ago, it was just an ordinary bay but a few years later, a dam has already been built there to form an enclosed area when we went back, and seawater within the area can thus be pumped out to turn the place into a reservoir. However, nothing has been done in Hong Kong to build new reservoirs, and as we can recall, have we ever witnessed the commissioning of new reservoirs in Hong Kong since we were born? The answer is in the negative. Besides, the existing reservoirs including the Kowloon Group of Reservoirs were built years ago to cope with the demand generated from the local population back then, but Hong Kong has already developed into a city with a huge population of over 7 million, the amount of water stored in local reservoirs is simply inadequate to cope with our need.

Our reservoirs are not big and deep enough, but the Government and the Development Bureau have never reviewed the situation and examined if it is possible to carry out alteration works at existing reservoirs. For example, works can be carried out to deepen and expand our reservoirs, so as to maximize their water holding capacity. The Government can even explore the feasibility of identifying a suitable site for forming an enclosed area to build a new reservoir. I have been a Member of this Council for quite a number of years, but it appears to me that the Government has never given any response to the suggestions mentioned above. Instead of spending $4.8 billion every year on the purchase of Dongjiang water, it would indeed be a better idea to consider allocating a portion of our fiscal surplus of $150 billion for the development of water infrastructure in the territory.

In the big debate on land search launched recently, the Government has put forward 18 options, including a suggestion of filling up a reservoir in order to generate land for housing development. I consider the suggestion a really ridiculous idea, but since the Government can go so far as to put forward such an absurd idea for discussion by the Task Force on Land Supply, does it imply that there is also something wrong with this Government of ours? When we propose to provide more supply channels for local water resources, the Government suggests to fill up a reservoir; and when we propose to expand the collection network of local water resources so that not even a single drop of water will be wasted, the Government suggests to develop country parks. Country parks are catchment areas of Hong Kong, and there will be a further shrinkage of local 9848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 water resources if all country parks and 5% to 10% of land on the periphery of country parks are used for development. The Government may of course argue that these options and proposals are formulated for consultation only, but the gesture itself can reflect that it has utterly no regard for the work of expanding and conserving the supply network of local water resources. Hence, by bringing up this issue for discussion, I think Mr Gary FAN is trying to urge the Government to re-examine how it should conserve local water resources.

As for desalination, we of course agree that there is a need to develop new water resources, but the problem is that after we have invested a huge amount of financial resources in the construction of a desalination plant, it can only supply about 5% of water we need in Hong Kong. Even though the second phase project will be launched 10 years later, the desalination plant can at most supply only 10% of fresh water consumed in Hong Kong. Moreover, we have on the one hand spent $ 4.8 billion a year on the purchase of fresh water, and have approved funding for the construction of a desalination plant, but on the other hand, the leakage rate of local water mains is astonishingly high. The Audit Commission has just published an audit report on the subject, and criticized WSD severely for spending $ 4.8 billion a year on the purchase of fresh water when there is a serious leakage problem in a lot of aged water mains in Hong Kong.

The reply given by WSD in this regard is quite interesting. WSD claimed that it has in fact been doing quite well, because the leakage rate has dropped drastically from 25% previously to about 15% at present, which represents a significant improvement. However, reference should be made to the corresponding rates in neighbouring areas also, because the leakage rate is only 2% in Tokyo, 5% in Singapore, 5% in Seoul of the Republic of Korea and 8% in Sydney. How can the Government argue that we are actually doing very well since the leakage rate has already dropped from 25% to 15%? What kind of government will give us such an outrageous reply?

After the Audit Commission and we have made such criticisms, the Government replied that it targeted to reduce the leakage rate to below 10%. I do not know what does it mean by "below 10%", and does it mean that with a leakage rate of 9.99%, the performance in this regard should be considered up to the required standard? I consider this grossly unacceptable, because each drop of fresh water we consume has to be purchased with money. It is most unforgivable that the Government has on the one hand urge us to save water, but LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9849 it has turned itself into a "Big Waster" of fresh water on the other hand. A leakage rate of 15% is absolutely unacceptable. We should devise a clear plan with timetable for reducing the leakage rate to a level comparable to what Singapore has achieved (that is, 5%), and there is an urgent need for us to achieve the objective.

Apart from leakage of water mains, there is also the problem of ageing pipes. The Government indicated that a phased programme has already been launched to replace and rehabilitate about 3 000 km of aged water mains in the territory, but there are still a lot of water mains which have in fact been in use for several decades and are ageing. According to a newspaper report today, muddy and rusty water with asphalt and gravels has been running from taps in some housing estates, and why is that so? Some experts reckon that it might be caused by the problem of aged water mains, and the Government must take immediate actions to rectify the problem. There is a fiscal surplus of $150 billion and the Government does not really know how to distribute the money, so why not use some of the financial resources to immediately replace such aged water mains that will burst any time?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, do you wish to speak again?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, first, I must say I am not satisfied with the time arrangements for this debate. During the several hours of debate yesterday, many Members and I were unable to speak sufficiently on many amendments. Anyway, let me return to this discussion now. I hope Members can support my amendment on reducing head 22 by an amount equivalent to half of the Chief Executive's emoluments in respect of subhead 000.

I have heard many Members put forward various amendments concerning different policy areas just now. I see that the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Patrick NIP, is present. I notice that there are amendments on cutting the expenses of the Bureau's Mainland Office and its Economic and Trade Office ("ETO") in Guangdong, but there is no amendment on cutting the Secretary's salaries. But we heard a very important piece of news yesterday. We do not know if it is true. It is said that after all its moves to disqualify Members and restrict participation in elections, the Bureau will introduce "confirmation forms" in the District Council elections next year in order to 9850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 exclude those candidates disliked by the Government. If I had heard the news earlier, I would have put forward an amendment to cut the salaries of the Secretary.

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

Anyway, why should people be so nice to Secretary NIP? Nowadays, how many bureau directors can still have the say in their own portfolios? I really do not know. Have all the bureau directors and the Chief Executive really done their best to defend "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"? I do not know too. The incessant political checks and suppression these days are all ignoble tactics that can further curtail the room for political participation in Hong Kong.

It is now 21 years into Hong Kong's reunification with the Mainland, and the Chief Executive and the principal officials have failed utterly to defend "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". The many interpretations of the Basic Law, the disqualification of Legislative Council Members and disqualification of by-election candidates have cast very big doubts on Hong Kong's political ecology and the future of the separation of powers. Under the Basic Law, the main cornerstone of Hong Kong's success is our institutions, and such institutions must be subject to the monitoring of the Legislative Council. The three powers must respect each other, so as to bring forth more reasonable governance in Hong Kong. But Carrie LAM and her principal officials have taken the lead in destroying the institutions or condoning their destruction.

When we discuss the amendments, Members will draw in various issues like water supplies, health care and so on. The main point here is that the Government has long lost the impetus for righting the wrong for the people. When talking about the reunification, people like to mention "the boiling frog". The water is already boiling and scalding now. They are now boiling the frog with strong fires day after day. We can see that the Government is doing things for the pro-establishment or royalist camp everywhere―District Councils, area committees and even kaifong associations―so as to make sure that the camp can infiltrate every corner of Hong Kong and grip it tightly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9851

Carrie LAM has been a government official for some 30 years, and she is very clever in a sense, because every time when any major dispute erupts, she will feign ignorance. She will pretend that she has nothing to do with it and even make up her alibi. The disqualification Members or election nominees like Agnes CHOW is a good example. Carrie LAM said she was out of town, commenting that instead of asking her, people should ask the returning officer. In this way, the blame was put on a middle-ranked government official. Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG also claimed ignorance, and said that someone else from the Department of Justice might answer the question. And, in her turn, the returning officer claimed that she had sought legal advice.

Who gave her the legal advice? Will any legal advice permit the damaging of "one country, two systems"? The constitutional status of Hong Kong has come under such severe impact, but all the bureau directors (who were formerly civil servants) and Carrie LAM simply turn a blind eye to the whole thing. These are the very people who cause the failure, decadence and collapse of Hong Kong. We will see sophistry portrayed as the truth, and we will also see suppression becoming a rule.

Perhaps, let me discuss those polices which Carrie says she wants to improve for the people. Let me first talk about land. She was once the Permanent Secretary for Development. She was also the Secretary for Development for five years. What is more, she even served as the Chief Secretary for Administration for five years. Whenever she attends any question and answer sessions, and when Members ask her how she is dealing with the land problem, she will invariably say she has assigned the job to the task force. She will say people should ask Stanley WONG instead. She will even retort that she has always been seeking to find lands for Hong Kong during her longs years of public service. Hers are all nonsense and lies. According to Stanley WONG, up to 2026, Hong Kong will only face a shortfall of 108 hectares. Only half of these sites are used for public housing construction, so almost 300 000 people must wait 4.7 years on average. But the Chief Executive still claims that she has made efforts.

There are 1 300 hectares of brownfield sites, and five hundred hectares have been included in new development areas. And, the rest are considered too small by the Government. Well, some of these "small" brownfield sites are larger than 20 hectares, but the Government says they are too small. On the other hand, there are more than 3 000 hectares of lands for rural housing 9852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 development, plus the lands held by property developers. The Government may actually resume all these lands for the public good under the Lands Resumption Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal has already similar cases. This is a possibility.

What does Carrie LAM say? She is evasive. She says there may be disputes and refuses to do so. Is she afraid of the Court and disputes? If so, why did she bring Members before the Court of Appeal and disqualify them? She has sought to exploit everything to her advantage, bringing people to the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal, and any court. Land is a big problem. Property developers may not be the only culprits. Actually, the Government is the also the culprit responsible for the high land price policy and the housing shortage. People all lash out at Donald TSANG. But is Donald TSANG the only culprit? How about other government officials?

How about the high-ranking government officials sitting here? How about Carrie LAM? Was she mute or dead at that time? Whenever there are problems, they will shift the responsibility to others, saying they are innocent. But when there is credit to claim, they will all come forward. In any case, they are not prepared to shoulder any blame. I have seen how Carrie used all "procedural matters" as her shield. So, she says that she has nothing to do with the housing shortage. She says people may lash out at anyone but her. She says the problem is created by others.

She will only fan the flame when social disputes occur. She says subdivided units have emerged simply because people refuse to do reclamation and develop country parks. She puts green groups and subdivided units on opposite ends. And, having fanned the flame, she will deny responsibility and put all the blame on the Legislative Council. But how can the Government say it cannot tackle the land problem when there are actually several thousand hectares of land? What is she talking about anyway? Well, she had a Freudian slip one day. She told Ming Pao that the building of public housing will incur losses. I think that is why she has come up with the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme. She can thus earn profits, right?

It has recently been reported that one unit in Lei Cheng Uk Estate has been sold for some $5 million. You see, building public housing can also earn profit and make people rich. From now on, the Government can sell more public housing units and then create a very, very long waiting queue. Then, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9853

Government can tango with property developers to boost land prices, and say that it is not to blame for land shortage. This is really shameful, very, very shameful. Anyway, it does not matter, because the Government does not aim to please Hong Kong people. You know, no matter how high our property prices are, the new elites from the Mainland will always have the means to buy them. Members can ask property agents to tell them how many of the one thousand luxurious units sold last year were bought by new holders of the Hong Kong Identity Card from the Mainland. We all know the answer only too well.

Then, let me talk about property sales. There were some 1 000 quarters last quarter. There are 2 000 more this time around. So, that should be enough because even if more units are available, people will not have the means. Can people have the means? We are talking about more than $20 000 per square foot. This very incompetent Government will only look for revenue. You know, with all the proceeds from stamp duties and lands, it will not have any financial problem. How can it have any financial problem anyway? The Government has amassed more and more wealth. But all this wealth is not for Hong Kong people. The several thousand billion dollars we put in the Hong Kong Monetary Authority will surely disappear sooner or later.

We all know where all this money will go. It will go to the north. Hong Kong people are bound to suffer but Carrie LAM says she must not be blamed for all the problems with land, social welfare, health care and education. She says she has done her best. She says she has done her best in all respects. But she has turned a blind eye to the fact that for 10 to 20 years, the Government has just used merely 2.5% to 2.7% of our GDP for the provision of health care services. How about population ageing? How about high drug costs? Has she ever paid any attention to these? Every year, 6 000 elderly people die while waiting for residential care places. The Secretary simply asks people not to scold him. Our fiscal surpluses are just the result of the hard work of the previous Secretaries. The Secretary has said that it will not be possible to achieve the public housing targets for the next five and 10 years. How can a bureau director be so shameless?

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting lashed out at Simon PEH just now. Simon PEH certainly deserves all the scolding on earth. But who appointed him in the very first place? Who allowed him to mess up ICAC in this way? Carrie LAM must be held responsible, right? Can she deny knowledge of all this? The point is that the more Hong Kong degenerates, the easier it will be to govern it. 9854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

All is because when everybody is equally dirty and corrupt, things will be fine. When sophistry is repeated month after month, year after year, and 10 years after 10 years, people will no longer be able to tell right from wrong.

Hong Kong is like this now. The Education Bureau says that the contents of Chinese history textbooks are no good despite their long years of existence. The expression "Hong Kong is to the south of China" is no good. And, the word "handover" is not appropriate. In brief, everything is just not right. They can doctor history like this, so please do not criticize Japan anymore. Hong Kong is just the same. All these people in the Government are paid by our hard-earned money. But they are the very people who plunge Hong Kong deeper and deeper into degeneration and desperation. This administration is led by Carrie LAM, but other officials, such as Secretary NIP, must not think they can be excused. Their silence actually amounts to abetting. I am not interested to know his personal views. The important thing is that as a member of the team, he is wearing the same safety belt as his teammate. When the team harms Hong Kong, he cannot be excused.

When make things correct in the Budget, government officials will not listen. So, we will not succeed and must turn to a tactic like this: forcing the officials in charge, including Carrie LAM, the Secretaries of Departments and all bureau directors, to tell Hong Kong people how they are treating us. With these remarks, I support my own amendment.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Malaysia's general election has just concluded. The National Front has been the ruling party for 60 years. This year is a Wuxu Year in the Chinese calendar. Who can imagine that Malaysia's political change can be successful in this Wuxu Year? From this, we can see that ultimately, we must put our faith in people in whatever we do. This is our conviction.

Let me turn back to discuss the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). I will leave my specific overall comments on the Bill until Third Reading. But in this session, I will try to spend my 15-minute speaking time on putting forth my views on Members' amendments one by one. Due to time constraint, I may be unable to speak on all the 65 amendments, two of which are proposed by the Financial Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9855

To begin with, Amendment No. 1 put forth by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposes to cut the estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office ("CEO"). I will certainly support it. Let me illustrate my point with a simple example. If CEO is even unable to use Facebook properly, it should be terminated. I do not think negligence and ineffective supervision on the part of the Chief Executive could possibly explain why a staff member published the status " 大和解 " (meaning "great reconciliation") casually or without her permission. This has put the entire opposition camp beneath the sharp blade of public opinion. In the end, perhaps the staff member has not been dismissed because if this had happened, the matter would have turned into another public relations disaster. I say so because this would be regarded as the Chief Executive's formal admission of her ineffective supervision. So, my guess is that someone else in CEO has taken the blame and corrected the mistake for her. For these reasons, I think the proposal of cutting CEO's estimated expenditure in Amendment No. 1 is absolutely reasonable. Certainly, this expenditure item may also concern the emoluments of non-official members in the Executive Council.

Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 proposed respectively by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu both concern the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"). In my view, AFCD actually needs not take up some of its existing duties and functions, such as catching stray cats and dogs. Actually, many non-profit-making organizations in Hong Kong can implement the "Trap-Neuter-return" Programme in this respect. Among such groups or organizations, Civic Passion has actually done the relevant work, especially in Sham Shui Po.

Why does AFCD still need part of the expenditure? After all, the relevant expenditure may be spent on handling unfamiliar animals that people see in mountains and hills, such as wild pigs. So, strictly speaking, does AFCD need $32 million for handling stray animals? I think this is a sheer waste of money and totally unnecessary. "Humane treatment of animals" actually means AFCD's killing of animals, and this is even more unacceptable in civilized society. I think the Hong Kong community should give thoughts in the direction of how to reduce or avoid the humane treatment of animals as far as possible, meaning "zero humane treatment of animals". So, the expenditure in this regard is also unnecessary.

9856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

As for Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's Amendment No. 6 concerning the Commissioner of Correctional Services ("the Commissioner"), why do I support the proposal of cutting the annual expenditure for the Commissioner's remuneration? The management problems with the Correctional Services Department ("CSD") or the right of persons in custody is not the focus of controversy. Actually, the focus is that CSD has been regarded as a secret kingdom over the past 10 years or so, in the sense that it is not monitored by any other organizations or groups at all. Strictly speaking, except the supervision of the Security Bureau or the Chief Executive, the Commissioner is not monitored by public opinion. This means that the Government monitors its work on its own. Particularly, CSD works in a confined environment. Is CSD's management of, for example, Pik UK Prison based on basic humanitarian principles? I will not elevate our discussion in this regard to the level mentioned by Dr Elizabeth QUAT just now―PICs should not think that their prison life should be like a vacation or relaxing trip. In my view, this is not the issue on which we wish to promote discussion at the public opinion level all along. What we want to discuss is merely reasonable humane treatment. In this regard, I think the Commissioner has failed to increase the transparency and legitimacy of CSD's management duties under challenge by people or public opinion. Therefore, I agree to support the cutting of the annual expenditure for the Commissioner's remuneration.

As for Amendment No. 9 proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick to deduct half of the expenditure for the Sustainable Lantau Office ("SLO"), I will definitely give my support. This amendment is actually slightly related to the amendments concerning the expenditure for the remuneration of the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") (namely the Director of Environmental Protection) and the Secretary for the Environment. In my view, these amendments are related to one another. SLO must base on the sustainable development concept in developing the Lantau Island. And the focus of criticism is that the development of the Lantau Island simply has nothing to do with sustainable development. Rather, they want to embark on large-scale development of the only place in Hong Kong with more natural landscapes on the pretext of sustainable development.

Why do I think that SLO's expenditure should be reduced by half? Because the duty and function (namely sustainable development) it performs with this sum of expenditure can actually be transferred to the Director of Environmental Protection and the Secretary for the Environment. It is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9857 necessary to set up an additional and redundant organization called "SLO", recruit people as its staff and pay them salaries. But we do not know what they are doing. In that case, it will be fine if they just sit together because Secretary WONG Kam-shing has been dismissed as a "Buddhist-style" Bureau Director who just sits there to promote environmentalism. So, I do not think it is necessary to give SLO that half of the expenditure.

Similarly, why do I support the proposal to cut the expenditure for the remuneration of EPD and the Secretary for the Environment? The reason is the same. It looks like the duty of the Secretary for the Environment is to attend activities for photo-shooting, and his mere attendance can already promote environmentalism. So, I think whether he attends such activities actually makes no difference. I believe if he does not attend such activities, fewer documents will be issued, and this may save some papers. So, from the angle of the "Buddhist style", cutting the expenditure for the Secretary for the Environment's remuneration may even better enable him to move up to the selfless state. So, I agree to support this amendment.

Let me jump to Amendment No. 15 proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin concerning the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland ("the Funding Scheme"). The Funding Scheme aims to broaden youngsters' horizon or deepen their understanding about the social conditions in Mainland China. Deputy Chairman, frankly speaking, I agree to the need in this regard. Take me as an example. I once lived in places such as Beijing in Mainland China for five or six years, and in the interim, I spent a whole year in Dongguan on doing field visits. After returning to Hong Kong, I began to feel that everything in Hong Kong, its people, its institutions and its culture was very important. It was because over the five or six years before that, I had seen many things in Mainland China which I think are unacceptable to human beings. So, I think it is necessary to encourage young people to do internship on the Mainland because they will treasure everything in Hong Kong after returning to Hong Kong with some personal experience. This is what I think.

However, why do I think it is necessary to cut the expenditure for implementing the Funding Scheme? Because the Government is slack. If the Bureau concerned wants to enable young people to gain experience and learn something on the Mainland, it should offer them an authentic experience rather than merely showing them a scale model of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area. But it has been criticized that many similar programmes will still be 9858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 organized despite the participation of merely three or four people. This is no different from four people going on a leisure trip. And, this is in defiance of the relevant programme objectives, and is unable to broaden participants' horizons. They are not going to the Disney Park for a site visit! This explains why I support the proposal on cutting this estimated expenditure.

Speaking of Amendment No. 16 which proposes to cut the annual expenditure for the Secretary for Home Affairs' remuneration, I will absolutely give strong support. The recent Director of Audit's report devotes a clear chapter to criticizing the Home Affairs Bureau and District Councils ("DCs"), saying that their vetting and approval mechanisms are plagued by serious loopholes. I do not believe the relevant loopholes existed in the past. Why? During the TUNG Chee-hwa era, the Urban Council and the Regional Council were still there. The two-Council system was left behind from the British colonial era, and it was a well-defined system. But some time after the culling of the two Councils, DCs were belittled and their power was weakened. But since DCs had no money, people did not care about this. As Members all know, money comes with power. But the greatest change took place during the four years of LEUNG Chun-ying's rule. He made a lot of promises and handed out money to DCs and also District Offices. Deputy Chairman, since the Government did not know how to spend its huge amount of money, it casually approved funding requests and squandered its money.

Without any declaration and monitoring systems, the Home Affairs Bureau certainly should assume a regulatory role above all else. But it nonetheless refuses to exercise any supervision. Certainly, I will not guess and say whether political affiliation is the reason. Even though this may not be the reason, the lack of a system has given rise to grey areas in the DC system. Should the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") conduct investigation? Or, is it right to say that due to the lack of a declaration system, even DC members do not know what ought or ought not to be declared? From this, we can see that the Secretary for Home Affairs should bear the greatest responsibility for this. Deputy Chairman, the Director of Audit's report also devotes long treatment to the relevant system. And the solution proposed by the Bureau concerned is to hold discussions with ICAC. Even though their discussion has already concluded, the incident concerned still happens in the end. I think this will become a focus in the upcoming District Council election.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9859

I have already spoken for 11 minutes. But due to time constraint, I will choose some more meaningful amendments for discussion.

Let me talk about Amendment No. 28 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen concerning the Lands Department ("LandsD"). For dovetailing with the land debate on increasing and speeding up land supply, LandsD has formulated a land development procedure and sought an estimated annual expenditure of some $50 million for creating 88 non-directorate posts. Let me put aside the land debate for the time being. Over the past two years of my tenure alone, I have already received more than five complaints against LandsD through the Complaints and Resources Management Division. The point I am driving at is that over all these years, LandsD has failed to compile any serious statistical analysis for managing the nature and distribution of lands in Hong Kong, and even non-compliance cases.

For example, a mainstream media organization captured some video footages showing that staff members of the Squatter Control and Clearance Offices travelled to various places on a dual-purpose van and merely worked for 60 minutes (or an hour), as opposed to their actual working hours from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. Deputy Chairman, they travelled to various housing estates on a dual-purpose van and signed on attendance booklets as proof of their inspection of squatter houses or unauthorized building works ("UBWs"). Without the media report (by i-cable), I believe our understanding of LandsD's slackness would merely remain at our level of understanding today. However, is manpower shortage the reason why LandsD must recruit more manpower? I do not think so. The reason is rather that LandsD is simply slack in its management. They are really "Buddhist-style" civil servants. Civil servants are already marked by a "Buddhist style". But the degree of "Buddhist style" is even greater among these civil servants. Instead of doing their job, they merely drive to various places and sign on attendance booklets. So, I support Amendment No. 28.

As for Amendment No. 29 concerning the Secretary for Justice's remuneration, Members have already spent much time on discussing the UBWs scandal involving the Secretary for Justice around her assumption of office and also her hasty succession to the post. But many recent instances have shown that the Secretary for Justice does not seem to quite understand the situation in Hong Kong. Only when she spoke at a Legislative Council meeting did she realize that she must wear a microphone. As reported by the media a few days 9860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 ago, while applying for the Judge's leave to escort Ramanjit SINGH, a criminal involved in extremely serious crimes, to a court hearing in handcuffs, CSD was questioned by the Judge if it needed legal aid or a private lawyer as it was not represented by the Department of Justice ("DoJ"). This government department wanted to apply for the Court's leave to handcuff this serious terrorist. But they nonetheless had to apply for legal aid or engage a private lawyer. Isn't this ridiculous?

I think the two departments should definitely be responsible for their negligence in the process. But when handling cases in the past, DoJ was also involved in some prosecution scandals as I mentioned earlier. For instance, it refrained from prosecuting some more serious cases which were in obvious contravention of the law. And in some other cases (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): … Due to time constraint, I will end my speech here. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, there is one comment that this Budget may easily be the one Budget that is passed most quickly in five years. But this is not because the Financial Secretary is very competent and the Budget is not contentious. All is simply because this so-called President of the Legislative Council has abused his power, placing restrictions on Members' amendments and speeches. I really want to ask of the public to consider whether all the 67 amendments put forward by the 14 of us are really and totally meaningless. Are all the contents frivolous and senseless? If they are not really frivolous and senseless, then why did government officials refuse to speak when Mr Andrew LEUNG asked whether any government officials wished to reply? According to the script, after the movers of the amendments have spoken, other Members will also speak, and the Chief Secretary for Administration will also be invited to speak. Of course, if the Chief Secretary for Administration is not here, other officials may also speak. But when Mr Andrew LEUNG asked them, none of them was willing to speak. And, at least six pro-democracy Members were then waiting for their turns to speak on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9861 the amendments. So, what kind of legislature is this Legislative Council? This so-called President of the Legislative Council has put restrictions on Members wanting to speak. He has sought to protect the Government. He did not say anything when the Government refused to reply. But when Members wanted to speak, he refused and ended the whole thing. Now, this is precisely why the Legislative Council can be so smooth in operation these days. All is because the number of amendments from Members and their speaking times were not subject to restriction. Actually, this Legislative Council has been protecting the Government under the order of Mr Andrew LEUNG.

Let me return to my amendment. My amendment seeks to deduct the expenditure of the Education Bureau by $320,000. This money is supposed to be used by the Education Bureau to develop the teaching and learning kits for Basic Law education. Put simply, the Government will use such materials for teaching the Basic Law to students. Such education will of course involve primary and secondary schools. The media and I have both been uncovering many biased materials that are intended for brainwashing. We do not chant any empty slogans. We have been studying the Basic Law page by page and examining the provisions in conjunction with the teaching materials. We have thus come to see that brainwashing examples actually abound in the subjects of history in primary and secondary schools, in the subject of Liberal Studies and also in the general studies of primary schools. Why are there so many such examples? To answer this question, we need to know who published these materials for students. It was the Government and the Education Bureau. But when we asked the Government to give us a list of people whom it had consulted, and also a list of people who compiled the materials, the Government refused to give any answer. This means that the materials were developed all behind closed doors.

At present, when the Government teaches students the provisions of the Basic Law, what issues does it ask them to think about? What does it ask them to analyse? Well, we have found many times that the Government will only students to think about whether universal suffrage is almighty. This is the question which the Government asks students. The Government will only say that civil disobedience does not mean contravention of the law, because if the law is not respected, society will be plunged into chaos. Why does the Government deal with these questions only when teaching the Basic Law. The Basic Law actually involves a wide range of other issues. I also want to ask questions on all these issues here. But I of course know that no Education Bureau officials 9862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 will answer me. The Legislative Council is just like this; Members just speak but government officials will not listen and reply. And, afterwards, the buttons will be pressed and the Government's proposals will be passed.

Many controversies relating to the Basic Law have occurred in Hong Kong. Why don't they, for example, discuss the interpretations of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Why don't they talk about the impacts of such interpretations on the Basic Law itself and also the rule of law? Why aren't these issues found in the materials for teaching the Basic Law? They have never been included. If I am wrong, would the Secretary for Education please correct me. I have read all the materials and I know such issues have never been included. Why do they evade all these important issues? Why don't they ask students to consider whether it is reasonable to invoke Article 104 of the Basic Law to disqualify Members? Why don't they talk about these issues?

The Basic Law gives people to right to stand in elections and be elected. Why don't they ask students to consider whether it is right to disqualify Legislative Council election nominees on the ground of their past political views and opinions on the Internet? How come the teaching materials do not mention all these Basic Law provisions?

Also, society is now discussing the legislation on the co-location arrangement. You see, Article 18 of the Basic Law provides that save the laws set out in Annex III to the Basic Law, no national laws shall apply in Hong Kong. But the legislation aims exactly to single out the West Kowloon Station from Hong Kong's territory for the purpose of enforcing Mainland laws there. This is a total contravention of the Basic Law. The teaching and learning materials for the Basic Law have naturally never mentioned such unconstitutional acts and so-called update. But will they be included in the future? The Hong Kong Bar Association has sternly criticized the legislation for contravening the Basic Law. And, the Government's reply concerning constitutionality is far from satisfactory. Will all these be included in the teaching materials for the Basic Law.

I therefore maintain that this deduction of $320,000 is in fact well justified. The reason is that as we can see, with the use of these materials, the Government is trying to make students listen to things it wants them to learn. These materials are simply meant to speak favourably for the Government, rather than actually teaching the contents of the Basic Law. Also, the Basic Law is very different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9863 from ordinary history textbooks and subjects. The teaching of it is nothing academic and is purely political. If the Government wants to teach the Basic Law, I must ask it also to discuss Article 26, which gives Hong Kong people the right to stand in elections and be elected. I also ask it to talk about the coterie elections now, and about the unjust and unrepresentative functional constituencies. I must ask it to discuss the right to be elected because even in District Council elections, people may gradually be deprived of their candidacy due their political convictions. Also, why don't they talk about Article 39, which provides that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall continue to be in force in Hong Kong, free from any unreasonable restriction? I ask of the Secretary for Education to heed our views and tell students that under Article 22 of the Basic Law, no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own. All these provisions are never mentioned in any printed teaching materials for the Basic Law compiled by the Government. The point is thus very obvious. The money intended for teaching the Basic Law will only end up making all the teaching materials the mouthpiece of the Government. It is just to be used for political propaganda. This is very inappropriate and unjust, and parents will also be upset if their students are brainwashed.

And, we must not think it is just a small sum of $320,000 for this financial year. Actually, when replying to questions on the Budget, the Government itself discloses that up to this moment and since 2015 (meaning that this $320,000 is not counted), totally $6.91 million has been spent on such brainwashing, biased and misleading teaching materials. I do not know why so little funding is asked for this year. If possible, can the Secretary also tell us why. Is that because they have built up a pile of materials, and the authorities think that these old materials can already serve the purpose of brainwashing?

There is another point that must be stressed. When we asked for the names of the publishers, the Government replied that in the course of publishing, the relevant staff of the Education Bureau … The word "publishing" was written in black and white. But "publishing" by who? Can this be disclosed? It was also said that the Department of Justice and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau were both consulted. Okay, I agree that it is reasonable to consult these two departments. But must it be so very secretive about which stakeholders were also consulted? Must it be so secretive about the names of 9864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 those headmasters, teachers and Basic Law experts who were consulted? Is it really impossible to tell us the names? Was Ronny TONG also consulted? Rita FAN as well? Maria TAM also? Why can't it tell us? Why can't it announce a list? The Education Bureau even said that there was no such list, and since there was no consent from those consulted, nothing could be disclosed. The Government's teaching materials are all biased. It might have consulted some pro-government and pro-Beijing people. But because there was no consent from them, their names could not be disclosed. Therefore, the issue is no long about the teaching of the Basic Law only. It also involves the whole mechanism for textbook assessment.

I think we should actually use the term "censoring" instead of "assessment" here. There are many government departments responsible for assessing whether licences should be issued to outside organizations, and whether certain products are up to standard. The internal assessment mechanisms of these governments are open. Basic Law teaching materials, I also asked a question on the assessment of history textbooks. I wanted to know who were responsible for assessing our textbooks in the history textbook assessment panel. The Education Bureau replied that it could not disclose anything because doing so might result in conflicts of interests. It was said that such disclose would let both the assessors and publishers know who were involved, and this would cause unfairness. There might then be lobbying and private dealings. ICAC investigation was also mentioned. I do not think that this explanation is reasonable, because to prevent corruption, the assessors can be asked to make a declaration of interests, and their names can then be publicized for public monitoring. If names are not disclosed, how can members of the public and parents know who are censoring their children's textbooks. If we do not know whether anyone is doing political censorship, how can we trust the assessment mechanism?

The Government has been using so much money on this―nearly $7 million in the past and the small sum of $320,000 this year. But are the public able to monitoring the process to make sure that all is done with openness and transparency? We are talking about an education policy, Basic Law teaching materials and the teaching materials for history and general studies in primary and secondary schools, but we, as education stakeholders and parents, are even unable to know the names of the publisher. The Government refuses to disclose whom it consulted when compiling its teaching materials. It also refuses to disclose the publisher. As for textbooks in the market, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9865

Government assesses them but refuses to disclose the names of the assessors. We can never accept such clandestine operation.

Therefore, in this debate on the Budget, I propose that the expenditure of the Education Bureau on the teaching materials for Basic Law education be deducted. I hope that this amendment can make the Secretary and the Government realize that the education sector, parents and society are not satisfied with the materials published by the Government; the teaching materials compiled by publishers in the market; the people who are censoring our teaching materials; and, those who are brainwashing us politically. That is why I have moved this amendment to deduct the $320,000. I hope Members can study this amendment clearly, and I hope even more that government officials can respond to the amendment, rather than just sitting there, thinking that the pro-establishment camp will surely press the buttons to rubber-stamp the Budget. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Financial Secretary, do you wish to speak again?

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Good morning, Deputy Chairman and Honourable Members. I already explained the backgrounds and contents of the two amendments proposed by the Government last week, and I have nothing further to add. I hope Members will support the two amendments, so that members of the public to benefit from the Caring and Sharing Scheme.

Regarding the views expressed by some Members during the earlier debate, I will give a concise response in the next session. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in the blink of an eye, we are now in the last round of debate in the Committee stage to consider the Appropriation Bill 2018 before proceeding to vote on the amendments. As I am the mover of the first amendment, according to usual practice, I am the last one to 9866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 speak, after which the committee will proceed to vote on the amendments seriatim. Hence, I call on Members who wish to take part in the voting to return to the Chamber.

Some newspapers write prominently in their headlines today: "The passage of Budget expected today". They expect the Budget to be passed today in what they describe as the most efficient manner in recent years. Actually, with the committee taking less than 40 hours to complete the entire debate process, this Budget will be voted and third read in the shortest period of time in five years. Deputy Chairman, indeed we also have the fewest Budget amendments in recent years, with only 67 amendments proposed by 14 Members and the Financial Secretary. Two of the amendments are proposed by the Financial Secretary himself. Yet, the Chairman still considers such numbers excessive. May Deputy Chairman help ask the Chairman on my behalf what will be an appropriate or small number of amendments if some 60 amendments proposed for this year, slashing from 500 to 600 previously, can still be regarded as excessive? In the eyes of the Government and the royalists, proposing even one amendment to the Budget is too many. For the Government, it will definitely say no to all the proposed amendments. It will even call on the President to rule all of them inadmissible, citing their inconsistence with the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). Yet, no matter how tyrannical the President is, he is unable not to admit amendments which are RoP compliant. We all witnessed the changes in the admissibility of amendments in the past five years. The criteria for the admission of amendments have shifted from "the sequential amendments" approach in the time of former President Jasper TSANG to "the one amendment to one subhead" approach adopted by the incumbent President Andrew LEUNG. Perhaps, someday, in order to reduce the number of amendments to a minimum, the admissibility might further be restricted and only one amendment to one subhead could be proposed by all Members. To the pro-establishment Members, this is a progression, but to me, a regression.

Every time before the release of the Government Budget, some reporters will ask if I will pursue filibustering, and I will make it clear to them that I will not do so. I will definitely not filibuster this year. If anyone says they are going to filibuster, I will give them slaps on their mouths. With only a small number of amendments, we can finish the deliberation in the shortest period of time in history. As we can see, there are only five to six Members in the Chamber now. This does not meet the quorum requirement even after the recent reduction of the quorum for the committee to 20 Members. People may ask why LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9867

I do not request the ringing of the summoning bell. It is a good idea to exhaust the royalists by making them to run around. No worry, I will not request to ring the bell.

We have indeed moved quite a number of amendments and we have to race against time to explain to the Government, Members, and the public why we have to do so. During the debate process, many pro-establishment Members have commented on our amendments, but as I have just said, I cannot respond to them one by one because my speaking time is very limited. Deputy Chairman, unlike last year when I proposed far more amendments and spoke a total of 17 times in the Committee stage, I could only speak five times, excluding this speech, in the Committee stage this year. I submitted 58 amendments in total, with 31 of them being ruled admissible. Two of my five speeches this year have been devoted to target the amendments proposed by the Secretary, I thus had to explain my 31 amendments in the remaining three speeches. How could I do so? Should I have to give my speech like a tongue-twister? When Mr AU Nok-hin delivered his first speech like a tongue-twister, I said to him "My boy, it is fine if you wish to perform a tongue-twister. But if you speak so fast, it may be hard for others to get your points, and will only make things difficult for the interpreters and the sign language interpreters. Does the Chairman wish Members to read out all the amendments like reading tongue-twister sentences? Even at such a speaking speed, I might still not be able to finish delivering all my 31 amendments. Hence, the Chairman has to be fair. In making arrangements for future Budget debates, the Chairman should hold debates separately for the Government's amendments to let Members express their views, instead of the current arrangement of conducting a joint debate for the amendments proposed by Members and the Government, which in effect shortening our speaking time.

I will shortly return to the debate subject to speak on various amendments. Someone has asked if the substantially shorter debate time in the Committee stage this year is caused by the RoP amendments. I think this is not the main reason. I wish to tell the public and Members that the major reason is rather the all-powerful Chairman's exercise of his unlimited power to arbitrarily decide on the length of the debate and disproportionately limit our speaking times. I will use my personal experience as an example. If the Chairman thinks the 31 amendments which survive after his screening are reasonable, he should have given me sufficient time to explain these amendments to Members and the public.

9868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please return to the debate topic.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): No, Deputy Chairman, this is my concluding speech and what I have just said is totally relevant. I just wish to let the public and Members know why I cannot explain my 31 amendments to them one by one in order to seek their support. Otherwise, they may say something like "you are utterly unreasonable for not giving justifications for the proposed cuts in the estimated expenditures on the Correctional Services Department and the Police Force". Deputy Chairman, the proposed cuts are entirely justifiable, but I simply do not have time to explain. This is a vicious circle: if movers do not have enough time to explain their amendments, the pro-establishment Members may take the opportunity to attack democratic Members, calling them imprudent trouble-makers who are keen to propose unjustifiable amendments. But the so-called "trouble-making" or "imprudent" amendments have already been ruled inadmissible. The remaining amendments are thus sophisticatedly designed and consolidated, but I will not go into further details.

Which amendment I am going to speak on? After a careful selection, I finally pick the amendment on "Head 144―Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau". Actually, my proposed amendment to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs was not put into the list of Committee stage amendments because it was merged with Mr CHU Hoi-dick's amendment after consolidation by the President. CHU's amendment calls for the reduction of head 144 by $143.78 million in respect of subhead 000, an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the half-year emoluments for officials at the Beijing Office and its liaison units, as well as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices ("ETOs") in Guangdong, Shanghai, Chengdu and Wuhan and their liaison units. According to the President's ruling, since my amendment was merged into this amendment, I could speak on the performance of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs under this head in my concluding speech.

I got increasingly angry with former Secretary Raymond TAM since he had assumed office. As its name suggests, the duties of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau ("CMAB") obviously include the handling of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9869 constitutional issues. But because of his incompetence, the constitutional development in Hong Kong has got stuck. Programme (4): Rights of the Individual is put under the purview of CMAB, and was thus at his helm. However, he had never paid attention to the human rights issues. In this respect, why did we not simply shut CMAB down?

Patrick NIP has subsequently taken over the post of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. Since Secretary NIP has been in office for just one year, I still have some expectations for him, hoping that he can work to improve human rights of the sexual minorities. The Advisory Group on Eliminating Discrimination Against Sexual Minorities already completed its work at the end of 2015, but the Government only says in this special Budget meeting that it will continue to follow up with the Advisory Group's recommendations. The proposals put forward by the Advisory Group are some very simple and basis measures which the Government should surely be able to implement. Yet, the Government only says it will follow up with the recommendations and repeat this every year. For the introduction of a public consultation on the enactment of legislation to prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, this important work is simply out of sight.

Two reports prepared by the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC") and submitted to the Government seem to be disappeared without a trace. A request calling for expeditious enactment of legislation to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination and to provide for gender recognition jointly made last year by The Chinese University of Hong Kong and 75 organizations including some heavyweight financial institutions, multi-national companies, the Law Society of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Bar Association has received no response from the Government at all. Even the Chairperson of EOC has openly expressed disappointment over the nonresponse of the Government. The meagre resources and funding support given to EOC over the past few years indicated that the Government did not fully recognize the work of this statutory organization which seeks to eliminate discrimination and protect human rights of the minorities. But this was history now. While former Secretary Raymond TAM dodged former EOC Chairperson Dr York CHOW's invitation for a meeting, I think Secretary NIP will not do the same. He has paid a visit to EOC to observe its work shortly after taking up the post. I wish this is not merely cosmetic.

9870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

On the resource side, I hope that the Government will spend more on its anti-discrimination work. The Government does not have a timetable for the enactment of the anti-discrimination law for the time being, but in parallel to the legislation work, the Government should also introduce some administrative measures and promote education against discrimination. Every few years, the Government has to report to the United Nations the progress of its human rights work. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has once raised concern about the effectiveness of Hong Kong's anti-discrimination work in the absence of legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Lau Kong-wah was responsible for the preparation of the report as the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs that time. Without any legislation prohibiting the discrimination, we can hardly help those who have been discriminated against. Hence, I hope the Secretary could take the responsibility and kick start this highly controversial and difficult task. As I always say, "in case the consultation is not in our favour, I will resign myself to the outcome". Hence, if the consultation shows a majority of people are not in favour of the legislation work, I would readily accept this. Or if the public are vehemently against the enactment of the anti-discrimination law, to the extent comparable to their opposition to the proposed enactment of legislation for Article 23 when 500 000 people took to the street to express their disapproval, I would have nothing to say. After all, it is incumbent upon the Government to introduce the anti-discrimination law. Every year on 17 May marks the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. I wish that Members will support the IDAHOT event to be held this Saturday at Chater Garden.

Finally, I would like to spend the remaining speaking time to talk about Amendment No. 47 which is related to head 143 overnmentG Secretariat: Civil Service Bureau ("CSB"). I propose that this head be reduced by an insignificant $23.7 million, roughly equivalent to CSB's estimated expenditure on the national studies training programmes in 2018-2019. Here is a description in the CSB website of its national studies training programmes: "Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the social, political, economic and legal systems of the country have undergone tremendous changes in just a few decades. As middle-ranking civil servants often have opportunities to collaborate with the Mainland authorities, it is important for them to be familiar with national affairs and regional development. Since 2006, the Civil Service Training and Development Institute has commissioned Sun Yat-sen University and the Shenzhen Graduate School of Peking University to provide national studies LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9871 courses for middle-ranking officers in the HKSAR Government and so far more than 1 400 participants have taken the courses." For this year, the estimated expenditure of CSB on the national studies training programmes is $23.7 million.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Nowadays, what the Chinese Government expects of civil servants is their adherence to the Party's nature and their understanding of the Party's thinking, instead of their understanding of the country. Qiao Xiaoyang has also called on civil servants to uphold the interests of the country, instead of just taking care of the interests of Hong Kong. To be exact, he expects civil servants to look after the interests of the Party. I do not know how non-trained civil servants would be benefited from the training programmes. Perhaps, Returning Officers might then learn to disqualify ("DQ") candidates on their own, or they might know how to bombard candidates with questions, such as "what have you discussed in your Taiwan visit?" Their performance reflects their strong adherence to Party's nature as they know better about the Party's thinking.

I propose to scrape this estimated expenditure because I consider the proposed funding a waste of public coffers. It has been widely reported in the Mainland recently that there is a Party's nature services centre set up in a town in Shandong to reinforce the adherence to Party's nature through six areas of services in education, virtual reality ("VR") experience, consultation, rehabilitation, quality control, and networking. With the aid of technology, it aims to strengthen civil servants' adherence to Party's nature through the all-round and multi-perspective training. The fee is just RMB 700 000, or less than $1 million in Hong Kong currency. Hence, instead of spending more than $20 million and making a great deal of effort to send up to 200 middle-ranking civil servants to the Mainland to study national affairs, it would be more cost-effective for the Government to invite the Shandong centre to set up another Party's nature services centre in Hong Kong. I remember that Raymond TAM once described his Mainland study tour as enlightening. If even such a senior accountability official can greatly benefit from the training programme, it is more sensible for us to build a Party's nature centre in Hong Kong in place of the lower-level training programmes. Hence, I hope that Members will support Amendment No. 47 proposed by me.

9872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee will now put to vote the amendments.

The order of voting on the amendments, their contents and objectives are set out in the Annex to the Appendix to the Script.

As Members have been provided with a table of amendments, which has set out the contents, objectives, and the order of voting of the amendments, will movers please note that when they move amendments, they are only required to read out the wordings set out in the Script and the Amendment No. set out in table, and they need not read out the contents and objectives of the amendments.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No. 1.

(Amendment as follow: "That head 21 be reduced by $16,220,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier on be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, Mrs Regina IP raised her hand in indication)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, what is your point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9873

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Chairman, I need to declare that I am a Member of the Executive Council and hence will not vote on the amendments which seek to reduce the remunerations of Members of the Executive Council.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I would remind Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mrs Regina IP, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan that you shall withdraw when a vote is taken on a question in which you have a direct pecuniary interest.

(When Mr WONG Kwok-kin returned to the Chamber and was about to vote)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, you shall withdraw when a vote is taken on a question in which you have a direct pecuniary interest. I just reminded Members about this but you were not present in the Chamber at that time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, are you going to vote?

(Mr Dennis KWOK indicated not to vote)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, 9874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN Mr Andrew LEUNG and Mr Dennis KWOK did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9875

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of any provisions of or any amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018, this committee of the whole Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting indicated his wish to raise a question)

9876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point? The result of voting has already been displayed.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting raised his question in his seat)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please stand up to raise your question.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I pressed the wrong button. I ask to rectify my vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): According to the record, you did not cast any vote. Please tell me your voting intention.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I vote for the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your voting intention will be recorded.

(Mr James TO raised his hand in indication)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, what is your point?

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I vote for the motion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your voting intention will be recorded.

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung raised his hand in indication)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9877

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I just pressed the "present" button and was unable to choose "for", "against" or "abstain".

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have already reminded Members to check their votes. According to the record, you also did not cast any vote.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have pressed the "present" button.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You want vote for the motion, right?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Yes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your voting intention will be recorded.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted for the motion.

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion.

Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 26 were in favour of the motion and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion, 9 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of any provisions of or any amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018, this committee of the whole Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may move Amendment No. 2.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 2 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 21 be reduced by $2,499,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9879

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

9880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 3.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 3 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 22 be reduced by $32,900,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9881

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment and 21 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, you may move Amendment No. 4.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 4 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 22 be reduced by $1,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr KWONG Chun-yu be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9883

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr KWONG Chun-yu read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment and 21 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 5.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 5 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 28 be reduced by $2,919,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9885

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 6.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 6 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 30 be reduced by $2,920,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9887

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

9888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 7.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9889

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 7 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 30 be reduced by $475,000 in respect of subhead 603.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy 9890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 9 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9891

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 8.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 8 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 30 be reduced by $50,256,000 in respect of subhead 661.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order. Could the Chairman give Members sufficient time to read out the contents and objectives of their amendments?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members need not read out the contents and objectives of the amendments.

(Mr James TO indicated a wish to raise a point)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, what is your point?

9892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, in a sense, the public can also participate in the Council meeting because of the live radio broadcast and webcast. Hence, could you please give Members several seconds to read out the contents of their amendments clearly? Otherwise, the public may not even know which the expenditure items Members seek to reduce.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): There is no need for Members to read out the contents and objectives of the amendments. However, if Members wish to read them out, they are allowed to do so during the one-minute division bell ringing.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9893

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 9 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 9.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 9 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 33 be reduced by $49,500,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

9894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9895

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 10.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 10 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 44 be reduced by $3,249,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

9896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9897

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you may move Amendment No. 11.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 11 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 44 be reduced by $209,000,000 in respect of subhead 297.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed.

9898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Gary FAN claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr Gary FAN read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9899

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 12.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 12 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 47 be reduced by $180,569,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

9900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Vincent CHENG, do you wish to cast your vote?

(Mr Vincent CHENG cast his vote)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9901

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 13.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 13 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 49 be reduced by $108,100,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

9902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9903

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 14.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 14 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 51 be reduced by $778,388,000 in respect of 000.")

9904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9905

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 15.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 15 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 53 be reduced by $80,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

9906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9907

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, you may move Amendment No. 16.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 16 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 53 be reduced by $4,021,200 in respect of subhead 000.")

9908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WAN be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr Andrew WAN read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9909

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 17.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 17 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 53 be reduced by $12,000,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

9910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9911

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 18.

9912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 18 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 55 be reduced by $84,962,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9913

LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

9914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 19.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 19 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 60 be reduced by $269,600,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Steven HO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9915

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by 9916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 20.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 20 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 70 be reduced by $4,146,712,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9917

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 29 against it 9918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 18 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 21.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 21 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 72 be reduced by $3,541,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9919

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical 9920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you may move Amendment No. 22.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 22 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 72 be reduced by $3,540,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9921

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 11 were in favour of the 9922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 23.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 23 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 74 be reduced by $50,670,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9923

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

9924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 7 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 24.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 24 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 76 be reduced by $1,662,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9925

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

9926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 25.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 25 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 79 be reduced by $27,672,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9927

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

9928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 7 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 26.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 26 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 82 be reduced by $42,000,000 in respect of subhead 000".)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9929

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

9930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment and 26 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 27.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 27 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 90 be reduced by $1,346,528,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9931

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

9932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment and 28 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 19 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 28.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 28 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 91 be reduced by $54,200,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9933

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG against the amendment.

9934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 27 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 19 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 29.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 29 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 92 be reduced by $12,444,700 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9935

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN Mr Andrew LEUNG and Mr Christopher CHEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, 9936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 3 were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 30.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 30 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 92 be reduced by $538,100,000 in respect of subhead 234.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9937

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

9938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 6 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 31.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 31 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 96 be reduced by $63,017,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9939

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

9940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 32.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 32 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 118 be reduced by $25,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9941

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

9942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 33.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 33 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 118 be reduced by $3,050,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9943

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

9944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 3 were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 34.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 34 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 122 be reduced by $392,508,660 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9945

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members to wear their microphones when they move their amendments later on, so as to avoid causing inconvenience to interpreters.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. Mr Michael TIEN, do you wish to cast your vote?

(Mr Michael TIEN cast his vote)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and 6 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, you may move Amendment No. 35.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 35 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 122 be reduced by $85,950,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr James TO be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9947

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr James TO claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr James TO read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

9948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 36.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 36 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 122 be reduced by $139,740,000 in respect of subhead 103.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9949

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

(Mr James TO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, what is your point?

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I wish to ask if I can cancel or withdraw my Amendment No. 37 if this amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is voted down. The reason is that the difference between the sums that the two amendments propose to cut is very small.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You may not revise your amendment. But you may withdraw the relevant amendment.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I now indicate my intention to the Chairman. If Amendment No. 36 moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is voted down, I will withdraw my Amendment No. 37.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

9950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9951 constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO has withdrawn his Amendment No. 37.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 38.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 38 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 122 be reduced by $111,512,000 in respect of subhead 695.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

9952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9953

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 39.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 39 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 135 be reduced by $4,010,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

9954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9955

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 40.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 40 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 135 be reduced by $110,000,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

9956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9957

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 41.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 41 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 137 be reduced by $335,100 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

9958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 9 were in favour of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9959 amendment, 14 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 42.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 42 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 138 be reduced by $12,963,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

9960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 28 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9961 amendment, 19 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 43.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 43 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 139 be reduced by $53,684,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

9962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9963

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 27 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 19 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, you may move Amendment No. 44.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 44 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 139 be reduced by $335,100 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Helena WONG be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Dr Helena WONG read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

9964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9965

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 45.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 45 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 141 be reduced by $95,050,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

9966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9967

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment and 27 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 18 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Dr Fernando CHEUNG is not present, committee will not deal with Amendment No. 46 proposed by him.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 47.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 47 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 143 be reduced by $23,700,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

9968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. Dr Elizabeth QUAT, are you going to vote?

(Dr Elizabeth QUAT cast her vote)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9969

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 48.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 48 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 144 be reduced by $143,780,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9971

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment and 18 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 49.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 49 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 144 be reduced by $6,530,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9973

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 6 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 50.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 50 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 148 be reduced by $7,300,000 in respect of subhead 88G.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9975

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 27 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move Amendment No. 51.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 51 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 151 be reduced by $5,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the contents and objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9977

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 26 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 18 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you may move Amendment No. 52.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 52 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 151 be reduced by $4,010,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9979

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 18 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you may move Amendment No. 53.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 53 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 152 be reduced by $26,300,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

(Ms Claudia MO read out the objectives of the amendment)

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

9980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I have claimed a division just now.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms MO, I have not heard that you have made such a request.

(Members were talking while seated)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9981

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 54.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 54 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 156 be reduced by $254,919,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

9982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr AU Nok-hin claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9983

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you may move Amendment No. 55.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 55 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 156 be reduced by $4,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai be passed.

9984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9985

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, you may move Amendment No. 56.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 56 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 156 be reduced by $320,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr HUI Chi-fung be passed.

9986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung was not reading out the objectives of the amendment in accordance with the wordings set out in the Appendix to the Script)

(Mr Steven HO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr HUI Chi-fung's remarks will cause an misunderstanding among the public with regards to the contents of the amendment being voted on. The Chairman should not allow him to make any irrelevant statement which may mislead the public.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members that although I allow Members to read out the contents and objectives of their amendments, they should read out such contents in accordance with the wordings set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9987

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 3 were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical 9988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 57.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 57 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 156 be reduced by $8,400,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9989

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

9990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 25 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 58.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 58 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 158 be reduced by $14,577,810 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9991

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 26 were against the amendment and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 9992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

6 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 59.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 59 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 159 be reduced by $159,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9993

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 25 were against the amendment and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 6 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 9994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

7 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 60.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 60 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 162 be reduced by $480,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9995

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Dr Pierre CHAN voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

9996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 61.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 61 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 163 be reduced by $61,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9997

Functional Constituencies:

Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment and 27 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the 9998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Financial Secretary, you may move Amendment No. 62.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No. 62 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 170 be increased by $435,000,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

(The Financial Secretary read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Steven HO, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 9999

Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Michael TIEN, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the amendment.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 54 Members present, 48 were in favour of the amendment, 4 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Financial Secretary, you may move Amendment No. 63.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No. 63 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 173 be increased by $11,316,000,000 in respect of subhead 700.")

(The Financial Secretary read out the objectives of the amendment)

10000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Michael TIEN and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10001

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 52 Members present, 48 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move Amendment No. 64.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 64 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 186 be reduced by $50,000,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

10002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10003

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment, 24 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move Amendment No. 65.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 65 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 188 be reduced by $3,859,000 in respect of subhead 187.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the objectives of the amendment)

10004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10005

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 24 were against the amendment and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, you may move Amendment No. 66.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 66 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 190 be reduced by $34,553,000 in respect of subhead 000.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr AU Nok-hin be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Holden CHOW claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr AU Nok-hin read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

10006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr HUI Chi-fung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment and 26 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 4 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10007 two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you may move Amendment No. 67.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No. 67 be passed.

(Amendment as follows: "That head 194 be reduced by $4,795,210,000 in respect of subhead 223.")

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Mr Gary FAN claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(Mr Gary FAN read out the objectives of the amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

10008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 1 was in favour of the amendment and 26 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 7 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10009

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee has completed voting on the amendments to 46 heads.

We now proceed to the third session to deal with the remaining proceedings. The committee will proceed to a joint debate. According to Rules 68 and 69 of the Rules of Procedure:

The debate includes the questions:

(a) the sums for the 44 heads to which amendments were negatived standing part of the Schedule, and the increased sums for heads 170 and 173 standing part of the Schedule;

(b) clause 1 standing part of the Bill; and

(c) the consequential amendment to the long title proposed by the Financial Secretary after the passage of the consequential amendments to the Schedule and clause 2.

Members may also indicate whether they support the Bill as a whole in this debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): After the joint debate, the committee will vote on the questions put, including the sums for the heads standing part of the Schedule, the Financial Secretary's consequential amendments, and Schedule and clauses standing part of the Bill. Then, the Council will resume and deal with the motion that the report that was made in the committee of the whole Council be adopted and the motion on Third Reading.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now proceed to the joint debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, this Budget is the first budget of the present Government, and there is a surplus of over $138 billion. But well, the surplus may now even reach $150 billion. As in the case of previous budgets, the surplus of the Government will not be used to help those people with various needs in society. As we notice, the most disadvantaged social groups, 10010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 no matter those people who are now waiting at home for elderly services, home care services and places in residential care homes for elderly people, those people who are now waiting in hospitals for expensive cancer drugs and drugs for chronic diseases, or those people who are reluctantly living in subdivided units and factory buildings with potential fire hazards, are unable to obtain appropriate assistance. This Budget, backed by a surplus of as much as $150 billion, demonstrates the usual approach of the Government in the past few terms, which is short-sighted, without objectives and principles. We see that the fiscal reserves of the incumbent Government have gone beyond $1,000 billion to possibly as high as $1,100 billion. As we all know, an extra $10 billion was added to the fiscal surplus at the end of February.

Before Mr Paul CHAN assumed office, we always heard him criticizing Mr John TSANG, the former Financial Secretary, on how he lacked the fiscal management philosophy of not spending when necessary. However, what he is doing now is even more outrageous. As we have observed, at the beginning, he said there would not be any cash handouts. Afterwards, he proposed giving cash handouts, but his way of implementing this measure is especially undesirable, as he has to spend over $300 million of administrative cost. To many disadvantaged social groups and people who are waiting for different services, this $300 million is a large sum of money. This Budget really leaves much to be desired. If people criticize Mr John TSANG, the former Financial Secretary, for miscalculating the surplus and was a miser, how much better is Paul CHAN? This is merely a case of a pot calling a kettle black. But this is not we have only observed. We see that most measures are petty favours, including giving out Ocean Park tickets, which is really a joke. In this Budget of such significance, hundreds of billions of dollars could have been spent on bringing changes to this society and improving the various services which are currently not satisfactorily provided. But he is not doing that. It is heard that the new Government has a new set of so-called governing philosophy, but I doubt whether these philosophical ideas have been applied in this Budget. In my view, each budget is worse than the other.

The Government of the last term has deceived many Hong Kong people by saying that it would implement universal retirement protection. This Government simply brushes aside its ego and expressly says that it will not implement this proposal. Back on that day, a spectacular show was put up, and those who were involved in the show are still in this Government, including Mrs Carrie LAM and Mr Matthew CHEUNG, who are only either transferred to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10011 another post or promoted. Being shameless and unabashed, they simply put this proposal on the shelf, turning a blind eye to it. Therefore, it is difficult for people to support this rotten apple Budget.

Secondly, the Government, by proposing a free Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination for candidates, has got itself in a mess and is causing serious troubles. Taking advantage of this measure, other people, including Mainland people, will also be attracted to take this free examination together. This Government has been boasting about how smart it is, and it is very hard to believe that this proposal comes from the elites led by the Chief Executive who has been serving the Government for 30 years. How could this happen? Do they have any sense of shame? No? Then go back and learn how to feel shameful.

Besides, we see that the Government will continue to construct infrastructure, because constructing infrastructure can benefit a lot of consortia and financial supporters. As I mentioned in my previous speech, after the interlocking concrete blocks around the artificial island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge have been detected to have drifted away, the Government still continues to pay money to the subordinate company of a state-owned enterprise for the construction, and it still continues to pursue more infrastructural projects and spend about $1,000 billion in land reclamation. It doesn't matter, as our money is supposed to be surrendered or will continue to be surrendered to more white elephant projects. But how about the public? Do the public have a part to play in the Chief Executive election? They can be ignored, as the public are not qualified to have any votes. Only the rich and the powerful have the votes and they are property developers, big businessmen, political party members supported by state-owned enterprises. They were all there to cast their votes. Hence the Government, no matter Mrs Carrie LAM or Paul CHAN, will not make a mistake, as it will recognize who its masters are.

In terms of education, we see that the education policy is a failure, and the brain-washing national education is still going on. And now, what will we talk about? We will talk about distortion of history, which is not the sole patent of the Japanese. We can also continue to learn how to distort history. At present, it is wrong to say that Hong Kong is at the southern part of China. It is also wrong to say "handover of sovereignty". What sort of Government is it? What is it doing? We notice that there is a so-called increase in education 10012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 expenditure, but nothing has been done in many aspects. Have the Government increased the number of subsidized university places? No. Have we seen any educational support for children with special educational needs? The Government will provide minimal support perfunctorily. But many children suffer a severe blow before they receive education at schools, as they have to wait for nine months for an assessment. If they are lucky, they can obtain a referral letter for child psychiatric services, but they have to wait for another three years before they can start receiving any treatment. The period of three years and nine months is even longer than the three years and eight months of Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. After these three years and nine months are gone, anything that can be done to help these children will become obsolete. They will end up being losers at school and often beaten and scolded by parents at home. What does this Government lack? It is so poor without vision or goal that only money is left.

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

When it comes to housing and land, the Government is so smart that it shirks its responsibility to the Task Force on Land Supply with members of various backgrounds so that this problem can be procrastinated for another period of time during which the property prices can have a chance to soar further irrationally. What kind of government is it? The Government has a possession of a few thousand hectares of land, but it says that it does not know what to do. We have the Lands Resumption Ordinance, but what did Mrs Carrie LAM say? She said this Ordinance could not be used, as she was afraid that people would take the Government to court. How can this Government be afraid of going to court? Was this Government afraid of going to court when it disqualified the few Legislative Council Members and the few candidates running for the Legislative Council by-election? Was it ever afraid when it arrested the social movement activists and put them to jail? It obviously was not afraid. The Department of Justice has already become the Government's tool of political suppression.

I see that Secretary Nicholas YANG is here in the Chamber. I am not sure whether he attended the meeting yesterday. According to Dr CHENG Chung-tai, the Government has allocated over $4 million to a Kai-Fong Welfare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10013

Association for designing a mobile application on Baduanjin (Eight-Section Brocades) exercise for the elderly. If it is not transfer of benefits, what is it? Many elderly people are not getting any food and are still waiting for places in residential care homes for the elderly. Last year, 6 000 elderly people died while still waiting for places in residential care homes. But the Government is now spending over $4 million in designing a mobile application on Baduanjin exercise under a fancy wrapping of providing information services. As we also notice, in regard to various funds like the Environment and Conservation Fund and the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living, the Government is actually giving cash handouts to unrelated pro-establishment social groups. The Government is now using some unscrupulous ploys. I would suggest the Government to call such funds as elector mobilization fund or vote-rigging fund in future, as they can directly tell us the objectives. They can be more justified after being renamed, saving the Secretary the effort of saying that these funds are related to information and technology under various excuses.

According to a news report yesterday, the Government will entrust its entire electronic mail system to a little-known Mainland company. In fact, it would be better if the Government can take the initiative to pass all its secrets to the Mainland, so as to save the Mainland officers the effort of wiretapping, as wiretapping is very time consuming. Or it can simply move the whole system to the Mainland instead, so that the Mainland officers can check the information every day. With the screening system in the Mainland, they can check all the information anyway. Hence, it would be better for the Government to hand in all the information spontaneously. What we can see is Hong Kong moving towards worsening governance.

The Budget is meant to rectify any unfair phenomena in society and give assistance to some disadvantaged social groups, no matter they are waiting for medical services, medication, outpatient services, medical operation, places in residential care homes for the elderly, university places or other support. But this has been changed. At present, the Government is applying plasters everywhere, sticking to its usual approach of ear-marking some one-off funding. I can tell you that back then, they criticized John TSANG for ear-marking $50 billion for medical reform. Where has that $50 billion gone? $10 billion has been given to the Hospital Authority for Public Private Partnership Programmes, and a few ten billion dollars has been given to the Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") to open a private hospital. The public 10014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 nowadays are very poor. It will be very nice if they have money to receive treatment in private hospitals. Instead of helping the public, the Government is helping CUHK to open a private hospital on which $50 billion is spent. We ask the Government to set up a fund for the purchase of expensive drugs, but it turns a blind eye to this request. We ask it to allocate some funding for some children with learning obstacles, either suffering from attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder or autism, who are waiting for child psychiatric services, but it is oblivious to our request. What sort of Government is it? What has this Government done to help the Hong Kong people?

We saw another spectacular show recently which was put up by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service ("HKCSS") in response to the major policy of the Government. Mr LEE Shau-kee, a real estate developer, will rent out a piece of land for a symbolic $1 to HKCSS for constructing housing units. How many housing units will be constructed? Only 90 housing units? While 300 000 people are waiting for the housing units built by the Government on its land of a few thousand hectares, the Government is playing a trick of giving its serious support to the construction of these 90 housing units, in order to divert people's attention. It is shameless indeed.

We see that in a white elephant project worth a few hundred billion dollars, even though the concrete blocks around the artificial island have drifted away, no one cares about this situation. When people asked the government officials to conduct an on-site inspection, the Government replied that it was unnecessary as the Mainland engineers and the management authority said that there was no problem. When they say that there is no problem, we will not have any problem. What will the outcome be? If there is any problem in the future, it will be unrelated to them, as the officials will no longer be in their present positions. The Government has spent $90 billion on the construction of the Express Rail Link where carriage derailment may be possible. What kind of situation is it? When the Hong Kong people are still in dire misery, the Government has failed in its administration. This Government has boosted about its new fiscal philosophy, and Mrs Carrie LAM has mentioned the new philosophy in fiscal management. What kind of new philosophy is she talking about? All the public officers present here, including Mr Paul CHAN and Mrs Carrie LAM, have been shamelessly talking about something old with no novelty at all. But they can continue to be in their positions, getting a remuneration of a few million dollars each year, and continue to cheat Hong Kong people. Nevertheless, there will be retribution. We can see how they are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10015 spurned by the public in the popularity surveys. The Government has spent over $100 billion, but the Hong Kong people are being thrown deeper and deeper into despair.

With these remarks, I oppose the Budget.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the Budgets delivered after the reunification have been most widely criticized for their lack of a fiscal philosophy.

What is a fiscal philosophy? It is the need to consider the incomes and expenditures of the Hong Kong economy before formulating the estimated expenditures for different matters. We have more than 10 years of a structural surplus. The surpluses surpassed the expectation of several Financial Secretaries. Why has this happened? I wonder if the Financial Secretary has ever seriously consider this question.

I certainly understand that the Budget cannot accurately predict the future like a crystal ball since the Budget is a prediction of the potential incomes in the coming year based on past data. If the Financial Secretary could know the tax revenues in the coming year, or that the stock market next year will be bullish, I believe he would also put these factors in his Budget. But it is not that easy to detect economic changes. Just that when there are unexpected fiscal surpluses … like this year for instance, the predicted fiscal surplus increases from some $10 billion to $135 billion by the time of Budget delivery and finally to the present $170 billion by the cut-off time … we cannot help but ask how we should use the surplus. We have heard many Members mention in the Budget debate over the past few days the enormous surplus of the Government. This is where the problem is.

When the Financial Secretary began to draft the Budget, the Democratic Party told him that he should use the surplus on solving problems long existed in society. The Financial Secretary has tackled some of them. For example, he has proposed to allocate an additional $300 billion to provide 4 000 new hospital beds. But there are still many problems that he knows but has not tackled. For example, I mentioned the subject of residential care homes for the elderly when I talked to him. I asked when and how he would fulfil Secretary LAW 10016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Chi-kwong's commitment on providing 458 residential care homes for the elderly, and from where he would provide find the money; aside from money and the hardware, how he would deal with the supporting policies, manpower and land resources. In fact, this often requires the Financial Secretary to demonstrate his resolution to provide residential care services in the Budget, thereby showing that this is a problem we are dealing with. But regrettably, he did not respond to this subject.

Secretary LAW Chi-kwong says that this is not a problem of insufficient money, but of insufficient manpower and land; and that the problem has reached a bottleneck and cannot be tackled. Perhaps my understanding of the way the Government operates is too shallow. I always think that the Government somehow should have an idea of a planned economy and it needs to have clear instructions for different departments, I mean not only the Labour and Welfare Bureau, but also other departments, to support it to administer policies. These departments include the Education Bureau to provide manpower training and support; and also the Development Bureau to supply land for related projects.

How can we be sure that the Social Welfare Department, in collaboration with the Labour and Welfare Bureau, will not tell us that those proposals are not granted just because they do not dare to ask for funding from the Bureau for these proposals involving recurrent expenditures? I do not know whether this will happen, but I notice that over the years government departments have found this a difficult issue when considering our proposals. I am thus disappointed that the Financial Secretary has not said anything on this because it is not an abrupt issue but is a common issue in society. The ageing population is an issue brought up by Secretary LAW Chi-kwong, but to our surprise, the Financial Secretary does not make any specific response to the problem.

Regarding primary health care services, the Government has been saying for years that it attaches great importance to primary health care. Since the "Rainbow Report" it published in the 1990s, the Government has been saying every 10 years that it needs to strengthen primary health care services. But has it injected any resources into this subject? If the Government does not inject resources, how could the Department of Health, which takes charge of this work, serve its function? Furthermore, outpatient services, which is a major constituent of primary health care, have been fully taken up by the Hospital Authority ("HA"). Looking from this perspective, is it justified to say that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10017

Government has attached insufficient importance to primary health care? I thus asked the Financial Secretary in our meeting the attitude of the Government on primary health care.

We asked the Government to invest $10 billion as seed money to take forward primary health care because we believe prevention is better than cure, and that providing proper body checks for the public to detect illnesses early can provide timely treatment before the illnesses deteriorate. This can save a large sum of health care expenditure. But I do not see the Financial Secretary has considered from this perspective or has the drive to do this work. I do not know whether this is his problem, or that of HA or the Secretary for Food and Health. But the Budget does reflect such a phenomenon.

Likewise, the problem of expensive medicine has been the fundamental reason that prevent many middle-class people and the general public from having peace of mind. We have seen many people who lost a fortune because of their illnesses. They were well off before but they also have to face this problem. Given that the Government is now bestowed with such a large sum of unexpected fortune, should it not allocate more extensively subsidize people to use the expensive medicine on the Drug Formulary and to relieve their concern? To me, this is a form of fiscal philosophy. Does he have this mindset?

We have been painstakingly persuade the Financial Secretary to focus this Budget on long-term planning. Frankly, we would be more convinced if the Government will use the fiscal surplus on matters we think it owes society rather than using it on "handing out candies". After all, the Government can only use its revenue on two aspects: first, to meet the needs of society, and this is an obvious usage; and second, to use the revenue on long-term planning if the Financial Secretary thinks that there is too much money and wants to change the sources of its revenues.

The Financial Secretary has tackled some of these issues in this Budget. For instance, he has accepted our view and extended the tax bands to alleviate the other tax burdens of taxpayers in the long run and, to a certain extent, fill up the tax items brought by inflation. This shows that the Government is of the view that it may have levied too much tax from taxpayers and wishes to reduce their tax spending in the long run through tax band expansion.

10018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

But in my opinion, the Financial Secretary must also tackle the remaining issues. Civil servants used to discourage any long-term financial commitment. They thus preferred giving cash handouts as an one-off expenditure to deal with the surplus. This is the reason why we say Financial Secretary has neglected his duty. As the chief bookkeeper, he is duty-bound to monitor the incomes and expenditures. He worries what he should do with the unexpected surplus and whether he should set up a mechanism to deal with the surplus money. Hong Kong is a good place. We have $1,000 billion in our fiscal reserve and there may be a few million dollars every year for distribution. If the Government can make good use of these concepts and focus on matters that have a social consensus, I believe it will be easier for us to understand his fiscal philosophy as a whole. I think this is a very important point, but regrettably, the Government has not properly taken forward this part of the job.

But despite the many criticisms we have against the Budget or the many insufficiencies we think it has, the Financial Secretary has done an important job. And that is when he opened his books of account and found that some three million wage earners were left out in the Budget, he accepted the view from the Democratic Party. Some people may criticize him for adopting our view, and I think we are also duty-bound to clearly say that this is one of our views. We think that the Financial Secretary should draw a line, and we propose that the line be drawn at $6,000. Perhaps, the Government ultimately thinks that $4,000 will be more desirable. All in all, the Financial Secretary has made it possible for people who are not entitled to any fiscal benefit to have $4,000 as a subsidy.

Certainly, this sort of cash handouts involves administrative costs. There is no free lunch in this world. I think the Financial Secretary is commendable for his willingness to listen to public views in the process and include a large group of people who have been left out, accounting for almost 50% of the population, into the Budget. But on the whole, the Democratic Party thinks that the Financial Secretary owes the public a solemn explanation on his overall fiscal philosophy. His fiscal philosophy should cover a few aspects. First, his view on the role and function of a fiscal surplus and the level of surplus that he thinks is sufficient for Hong Kong people to meet unexpected challenges; and second, he should have a clear idea that in times of revenue fluctuation, instead of discussing the solution every years, he should send a clear message to society that financial surpluses will only be used on issues that the public want to be addressed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10019

But if the Financial Secretary truly thinks that it is necessary to redistribute the wealth in surplus, I think adopting a simple method is the best. In other words, when the fiscal surplus reaches a certain level, the Government can set aside 20% to 30% by means of a formula for the public as a way to share the economic return. I do not think we should make it too complicated. Just make it simple and let everyone to have an equal share of it. A simple approach will do.

Hence, the point is whether the Financial Secretary is determined to tell Hong Kong people that he will do this, and that even if he fails to do so this year, he will pursue this direction in the coming years. In particular, he should tell people that he is determined to break free from the past spell left behind by the civil service establishment. In other words, even if the Government has a fiscal surplus, they do not make any long-term commitment as they are unsure if the Government can afford these recurrent expenditures. But as the Financial Secretary, he has the responsibility to carefully find a mechanism that can use non-recurrent revenues on projects that involve recurrent expenditures, so as to meet the needs of society. If not, people will criticize him. Actually, in our discussion on the MPF offsetting arrangement, if the Government can allocate a large sum of money to set up a fund pool, it can solve the problem. Is this not a dual-way approach that everyone finds desirable?

Deputy Chairman, regarding the Financial Secretary's Budget, the Democratic Party will (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): … abstain on the vote.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, people have reacted to the Budget with strong views and emotional responses over the last two and a half months since its announcement in late-February. The people that I have met, including supporters of the pro-establishment camp, are more critical than appreciative of it. Yet, no matter how poorly written this Budget is, it will be passed today, barring any unforeseen hiccups. Because of the support rendered by the pro-establishment camp and because of the debate time frame 10020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 neatly devised by the Chairman, the Budget will be endorsed even if controversies and hiccups do arise. Precisely because of this, the Government is not under any pressure to prepare a good budget responsibly, or is it obliged to do a better job than that of the previous year.

Secretary, this in fact is the first year I meet with a financial secretary to express my views on the Budget. In the past, the consultation of the Budget went together with that of the Policy Address. I chose not to meet LEUNG Chun-ying to the extent that I refused to meet John TSANG when TSANG was sitting next to him. Hence, this is the first time I meet with a Financial Secretary to express my views. But then, meeting is just a formality as People Power and I have all along been unequivocal about our position. In the past, I did tear several copies of the Budget written by John TSANG but I have not torn any this year. The only thing I have done is sticking onto the Budget cover a New Year scroll on which I wrote "$10,000 cash handout". One of the objectives of People Power, though not the ultimate objective, is to make the Government deliver a direct cash handout to all the people, returning wealth to them. Of course, I will definitely not say we have successfully strived for anything, only that we have been promoting this philosophy all along. Why do we believe that a cash handout which gives everybody money is the most fair and just approach? After spending years of efforts to promote and educate, I am glad to see an increasing number of people who understand the rationale behind. Mr Jasper TSANG, a former President of this Council, has also written several articles in a row in support of our argument. And in fact, we started making this demand five years ago.

But before I speak on this Budget, I have to speak on behalf of a member of the public and to hold the Financial Secretary responsible for her loss. And this is also an echo of the heartfelt comment of a lot of people. In last year's Budget, the Financial Secretary estimated the fiscal surplus at $16.4 billion. But when this year's Budget went to the printer, the estimation was revised to $138 billion. Then, the surplus of the entire financial year was further estimated at $148.9 billion in late-April. Comparing this latest figure with $16.4 billion, the surplus has been underestimated for $132.5 billion. This member of the public told me that if the difference was shared by all the 7 million or so people in Hong Kong, the Government owed each Hong Kong person $18,000 or even more. Of course, this citizen is not asking the Government to share the entire surplus equally among the people, or to hand out $18,000 to each one of us. Unlike Mr WU Chi-wai's comment made a moment ago, to me this surplus LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10021 amount is not a godsend fortune. How come it is a godsend fortune? This is Hong Kong people's money, a sum in which every cent is earned at a price by the Hong Kong people. The Government often says the surplus comes from the sizable stamp duty payment generated from land sale. However, first, the money is not paid back to the people directly. Second, this sum of money gives rise to high property prices, high rents and a high cost of living in general under which even bread or rice is costly. These are the costs that we pay and hence the surplus is not a godsend fortune. That is to say, I would rather enjoy a low cost of living, with low property prices, rents, housing prices, and food prices, and forego the sizable stamp duty payment, high land prices and the cash rebates from the Government. Though we are all envious of the Macau people for the cash handouts given to them time and again, Hong Kong people have not made any strong demand with regard to the distribution of the surplus. It is true that the Government has done some redistribution, but the money goes to property owners and high income earners who are qualified for tax rebates. This is a case illustrative of the saying that inequality is worse than deficiency. This citizen sees that those worse off than her get two extra months of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") on top of their regular CSSA payment. However, she refuses to apply for CSSA, not unless she is unemployed at the age of 65. Now she is already 65 and working, or her husband is 65 and working, she cannot even apply for the Old Age Living Allowance or the "fruit grant". Seeing others enjoying two extra months' of allowance, how can she feel contented? Not only that, she also knows people are getting rebates in tax and rate, getting that frequently said amount―I choose not to repeat those big sums here. As a matter of fact, for the sake of convenience or out of inertia, the Government was used to finding easy ways to share its surplus, allowing everyone a share by for instance, rate reduction, tax rebate, or even rent reduction in public rental housing. But under such an approach which shares money here and there, someone is bound to be missed out. The Secretary also admitted having missed out a group in the process. The problem will be minimized if the Government instead adopts the "universal direct cash handout" approach.

Some people liken the scenario where everyone is entitled to a share to "rain falling on the just and the unjust". This is not my preferred way to describe it as the expression reminds me of asking rain from heaven in times of drought. When it does rain, it is fair to everyone as every one of us gets wet and moisturized, in a way similar to receiving a fortune bestowed by heaven. But I do not think the simile is appropriate to the relation between the people and the Government in terms of public finance. Regarding this underestimated amount 10022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 which comes to $18,000 per head, the Government should tell us how it is going to spend it, if not handing it out to the people, just like what Mr WU Chi-wai said just now. Setting the sum aside or putting it into a piggy bank is not a desirable solution. If I have to discuss public finance with the Government down to the penny and given that the Government has pledged to share with the people some 20% or other percentages of the $138 billion, the Secretary should have revised the Budget to appropriately increase the amount to be shared after the surplus has risen to $148.9 billion. But of course the Secretary had not done so.

But I do have to congratulate the Secretary sincerely. When John TSANG moved an amendment to give away $6,000 to the people, Members from the pan-democratic camp dared not show their support and they all abstained from voting. Today, I see that the majority of the pan-democrats will support the Secretary, with the exception of me who is going to abstain. Of course, Members like Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Michael TIEN oppose the Secretary's amendments in principle. But why are those who dared to abstain seven years ago refrain from voting against your amendments now? And while some abstainers did say they oppose giving a cash handout at that time, why nobody dares to raise such an objection now? Of course, there are still some Members who stand by their own position.

In fact, when we met with the Secretary, not everyone from our camp agreed with me and I only conveyed my own ideas thoroughly to the Secretary. In the forthcoming two years, I hope we will not see the Budget follow a fallacious convention. The previous fallacies or bad habits in question refer to those in the prediction process in which a large surplus was earlier estimated carelessly or conservatively as a mild deficit, and a huge surplus was forecast as a small one. This is a so-called happy problem as a predicted mild deficit turns out to be a great surplus. The surplus is way larger than our estimation and we are happy with it.

I forget which official challenged me with the question: Do you really want to see the opposite case? Do you really want the Government to predict a mild deficit as a large surplus, or a huge deficit as a huge surplus? This is a sophistry which justifies a fallacious convention. But I am sure I will see this fallacy again next year. The Government's forecast of a small surplus will again turn out to be a big one. With a sizable surplus at hand, the Government has to find a way to spend it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10023

Moreover, I am also afraid that an undesirable precedent has been set by this "Plan B" approach adopted in this year's budgetary process, under which the Government first does not hand out cash and keeps the relevant handout measure in the drawer. It simply announces the Budget, monitors the feedback of the people before deciding if a cash handout is necessary. Honestly, the Government's decision to let people share more money equally is a success achieved by the collective pursuit of a good number of Members from various political parties within both the pro-establishment camp and the pro-democracy camp. If the pro-establishment camp protects the Government blindly and votes for the Budget with its eyes closed, then I cannot compel the Government to hand out cash even if I declare war on it and start filibustering. The cash handout measure is the product of our collective pursuit, whether it is good or not is another question. But then, I am afraid the Government will adopt this approach thereafter: first it announces the Budget, looks out for signs of strong opposition from the community and launches a gap-plugging proposal only if there are strong criticisms made against the Budget.

If the Secretary will stay at the current position next year, please would you stop doing this for avoidance of a vicious circle? What exactly is this vicious circle? It begins with the people's dissatisfaction with the Budget which prompts them to escalate their five-point criticism to a 10-point criticism. They will call Members' offices to vent their discontent: "This is outrageous, DAB! This is outrageous, FTU!" And the Members concerned will then force the Government to work out an improved version. But why do we have to suffer all the hassle? It is actually good to hand out "happy money" to the people and the Government should change its mindset. But of course, it will be hard for some officials to change mindset and stop considering it a waste to hand out cash to the people and let them spend it on iPhone or a trip to Japan.

It is also frustrating to the Secretary that people are only able to find fault with the Budget and fail to notice various carefully crafted budgetary measures which bring benefits to the community. It is like people are unappreciative of the good turn that you have done them. It is impossible that all the items found in the Budget bring adversity to Hong Kong, some of them do benefit the people. Paying fees for public examination candidates, for instance, is also a measure benefiting the people. However, the problem of unequal resources allocation has eventually eclipsed all the concrete details in the Budget and prevented people from discussing them.

10024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

In the few minutes that remain, I want to say that as the Government is sitting on a huge amount of surplus, it should commit itself to bigger undertakings. When John TSANG announced his Budget back then, I did rebuke him. You know why people say he is a miser? At that time, the Government enjoyed a surplus but he insisted to spend prudently, as a financial disaster was said to be coming in three to five years. But those three to five years have already passed and instead of a disaster, we get an even bigger surplus.

At that time, I cited the Dreams of the Red Chamber to mock John TSANG sarcastically. I said it was like when Granny LIU entered the Grand View Gardens, WANG Xifeng the controller in the family was certain that the poor cousin must be coming to ask a loan from them. WANG therefore pre-empted LIU, asking her not to be fooled by the luxurious surroundings which were fallible as signs of a good life. WANG further said given the number of people to be fed, the family suffered from excessive expenditure and had difficulties making the ends meet. Our Government speaks exactly like WANG. Despite having a $150 billion surplus and more than $1 trillion fiscal reserve, it dismisses those massive sums as a mirage of wealth and insisted to save for a rainy day. Do the Hong Kong people really believe in the Government? Does the Government's behaviour reflect its claims?

How should the Government help senior citizens aged 65 to 70, those young-olds whom the Deputy Chairman always talks about? I get mad every time I raise this issue with Secretary LAW Chi-kwong. If "Long Hair" were still in this Council, he must have thrown bananas at him. This is how Secretary LAW Chi-kwong responded: Hong Kong people now live a longer life and the Government has no plan to adjust the age limit concerned. In fact, he meant to say: Do not force me to lower the threshold of all those elderly welfare schemes. If an adjustment is necessary, I will revise the threshold upward so that only those elderlies aged 75 to 80 or above are eligible for the "fruit grant". From a scientific perspective, the Secretary may not be all wrong. But politics and governance is an art. From an artistic perspective, whenever it has enough money, the Government should do its best to let the people share the fruit of prosperity and use the money available to help those in need. For instance, the 65 to 70 year-old elderly people are not entitled to the "fruit grant" now. If we ask the Government to lower the qualifying age, it may hesitate because the spending involved will be huge and even unfathomable. But when the public coffers are flooded with money, can a one-off young-old allowance be provided? The young-olds have never received any "fruit grant", the provision of an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10025 allowance at least shows the Government's concern for them. I always tell the Deputy Chairman that one will never get rich or gain weight with the "fruit grant". Over such minute items, it does not really matter how much the Government spends, but it does matter how the Government spends. The Government's attitude is discernible to the people.

Lastly, I do not support this Budget. I am going to vote against it even if the Government does actually hand out a $10,000 cash rebate. Only when the Government willingly commits itself to providing universal retirement protection will I consider giving it support.

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

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, by now, we can say that our debate on the Budget has already finished. Pro-establishment Members or some people say that filibustering has become the norm in the Legislative Council, and they query why Members must filibuster. However, I think the Deputy Chairman would also agree that we really have not filibustered, and we do not even have enough time to speak. In the legislature today, there is no filibuster but only social nicety, and whether Members wish to oppose or support a proposal, they will still have the social nicety to cast their votes in the end and then go home.

When making preparation for this speech today, I flipped through the record of proceedings of the Budget debates held in the past few years in order to see how Members made their speeches back then, and it occurred to me that what happened over the past few years was actually quite similar to the situation today. There were different views among many different Members on the performance of various government departments, and they proposed a large number of amendments, but particularly after 2015, the amendments proposed were in fact highly compressed, and the amendments proposed this year have even been unprecedentedly condensed. With regard to the question of whether Members have filibustered, I must say that as a matter of fact, filibustering has no longer existed since 2015, when the 2 000 amendments proposed by then Member LEUNG Kwok-hung were ruled out altogether in one go. We are even required to finish the Budget debate today within the shortest time and in less than 22 hours, and we basically do not have enough time for speaking.

10026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Deputy Chairman, as the Legislative Council has not given due consideration to the contents of the 46 heads in question, I object to incorporating the Schedule into the Appropriation Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). Theoretically, Members can speak for unlimited times in the Committee stage to discuss each and every amendment proposed, but as far as the whole Budget debate is concerned, the President has only reserved less than 22 hours for Members to complete the deliberation in the Committee stage. According to our rough calculation, there are a total of 67 Members in the Legislative Council, and we have to consider 67 amendments proposed in respect of 46 heads this time, meaning that each Member is only given 17 seconds to state his/her position on every proposed amendment. This is simply not enough for Members proposing amendments to state their views and speak in response to amendments proposed by other Members.

Some Members, such as Dr Junius HO, of course have very strong views on the matter. I listened very attentively to the speech of Dr HO, and I understand that in his opinion, what other Members have said in their speeches are just very trivial remarks. He urges people who are watching the television broadcast of this meeting to note that the discussion we are now having is not a really meaningful debate.

Deputy Chairman, let me ask you a question. I am sorry. I should address you as Deputy Chairman, and this is a frequent mistake of mine due to the role confusion. We both are District Council members and understand the seriousness of leaking water pipes as a problem. However, how come the Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints ("JO") staffed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Buildings Department can create such a big mess? This has even led to a complaint lodged by the staff of JO to the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat, and if we do not raise the matter for discussion here, can we live up to our promise to Hong Kong people? Deputy Chairman, the public will only be let down.

We have also witnessed a lot of problems in the management of public finances, which are indeed too numerous to list out, and a lot of public money cannot be put to optimal use. Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan of the Liberal Party has kindly advised me that I should pay more frequent visits to the Mainland to know more about national affairs, or travel to different places to deepen my understanding of the world, and he therefore opposes my proposed amendments on the reduction of resources allocated in respect of the Funding Scheme for International Youth Exchange and our Economic and Trade Offices on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10027

Mainland. Nevertheless, the focus of my discussion is not on discouraging youngsters in Hong Kong to go to the Mainland for international exchanges, but on the funding mechanism, which is plagued with problems. How come most of the subvention is granted to one single organization? I consider the arrangement really outrageous. As I can see from my work in the District Council, funding applications submitted by the Government cannot possibly be vetted in this way, and deliberation by District Council members will not possibly lead to such outcomes. This is the reason why I consider it necessary to propose these amendments.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

I am glad that the Chairman has resumed the Chair, and there is now no more role confusion. I earnestly hope that in making arrangements for conducting the Budget debate, the Chairman would give Members more time to speak on various issues. Come to think about it: Mr WU Chi-wai only hoped that the Chairman would give him five minutes to speak yesterday, and why could this not be done? Five minutes are just enough to prepare a bowl of noodle. Mr WU Chi-wai was only making a very humble request and hoping to put forth his viewpoints about some amendments proposed to the Budget, but he was not even given a chance to speak. We find it most shameful that when asked if there was anything that public officers would like to say in reply, they simply answered that they had nothing to say.

Apart from being a very important representative of the nursing sector, Prof Sophia CHAN was also once a teaching staff member of the University of Hong Kong. When I spoke yesterday, I mentioned the problems faced by the University Grants Committee ("UGC"). UGC is facing a system of exploitation, and although she is now the Secretary for Food and Health, she was also once a professor in a post-secondary institution, and how come she had nothing to say in reply to the many problems raised by Members about post-secondary education? Mr SHIU Ka-chun was also present then, and I was not the only Member raising such issues. How could she finish the whole debate on the proposed amendments by simply saying that she had nothing to say in reply? Hence, I very much hope that when public officers speak later during the Third Reading, they would give a serious reply to Members' views on the performance of various government departments. I think this is a very important point.

10028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Let me come back to the subject and talk about the Budget this year, which is frankly speaking quite a poor job. Although many Members will ultimately vote for the Bill and perhaps only one or two Members will vote against it, Members are actually forced to keep their resentment to themselves and dare not comment on many problems. The most controversial issue is of course the part on the handing out of money, and members of the public are just of the opinion that things have become so very troublesome even in the handing out of money. Many Members have adopted a very moderate attitude, such as Mr Michael TIEN. He has published an article on a newspaper and indicated that he would give his support for the Budget as long as the Administration accepted some of his requests. I hope I have not misinterpreted his remarks, but the Government is not even willing to do so, and no wonder the Budget has got a rating of only 42.8 marks.

The Government argues that this is because the people have not yet got a good understanding of the initiatives contained in the Budget. However, according to the tracking surveys conducted under the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong on the day when the Budget was delivered and the following day, the rating of the Budget has dropped from 48.2 marks to 42.8 marks, and its net satisfaction rate has gone down drastically by 7% to -23%. I think the Government also knows the public opinion in this respect very well, and it cannot regard the discontent of the people as floating cloud, right? What have these figures suggested? The answer should be very simple, and they suggest that the people are very discontented with the Budget. This is the reason why the Government has finally introduced some measures to plug the gap, in the hope of winning back public support. Nevertheless, the net satisfaction rate of the Budget has dropped further to -44% after the introduction of such measures. In which country can public officers with such a popularity rating still remain in office? Hence, how come the people are still terribly discontented with the Budget after a number of Members indicate their support of it? This is one point we should make clear and ponder over.

Why should we propose so many different amendments during our discussion on the Budget? This is because we seldom have the chance to conduct an overall assessment of and express our views on the performance of various government departments …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10029

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, I would like to remind you that the Committee of the Whole Council has already moved on to the third debate session. The proposed amendments are subjects for discussion in the last debate session, and Members should not discuss them in the current debate session. Please focus on the subject of the current debate session, and do not discuss the details of the proposed amendments any further.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, am I right to understand that the procedure to incorporate the Schedule into the Bill is also included in the third debate session? Hence, I think I should take this opportunity to express my overall opinion on the Budget this year.

Let us think about one of the very controversial issues in the Budget this year, that is, infrastructure development. I notice that according to some Members, people of the opposition camp know nothing but to oppose the implementation of infrastructure development, and they consider all infrastructure works undesirable "white elephant" projects. However, if we take a closer look, we can see that the measures proposed this year on innovation and technology development are to largely and essentially real estate projects. We all say that efforts must be made to develop information technology and even innovation and technology, but it is highly likely that measures proposed in this regard may well end up giving us another Cyberport, Science Park, Lok Ma Chau Loop, and high property prices, rather than real innovation and technology development, will be the only thing left. I think that in order to bring about genuine innovation and technology development, a reasonable budget should face the different situations of trade members squarely, including the problems faced by different types of workers in the trade.

Chairman, in handling the Budget this year, be it the discussion at meetings of the Public Works Subcommittee, the Finance Committee or the Council meeting now, pro-establishment Members have only endeavoured to vote for the Government's proposals, and have even gone so far as to consider all amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members unreasonable. If the proposed amendments are really so unreasonable, why should I raise a cry of warning and express great dissatisfaction about the funding proposed by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau in respect of the Financial Services Development Council? It is because this has sown the seeds of the trouble caused by the Link 10030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Asset Management Limited ("the Link"), and a policy proposal of the Government has rendered it impossible for this legislature to exercise proper supervision over the Link today. Therefore, although a number of Members have put forward a lot of suggestions to rectify the problem concerning the Link, including the provision of more markets and lease enforcement, all these measures are in fact not adequate to address the problem.

If we do not seriously review the existing problem of fragmentation of responsibilities among government departments for formulating financial policies in Hong Kong, the ideas proposed will cause damage to other people, and the funding proposals put forward every year will bring harm to the rights and benefits of certain local sectors in the end. Therefore, Chairman, I hope that in deliberating the Budget in the future, we can pay particular attention to the funding proposals put forward in respect of our financial system, and thoroughly examine whether they are in order and whether the motions we deal with are genuinely reasonable.

I have pointed out in my speech during the resumption of Second Reading debate that in the Budget this year, the Government does not know how to spend the money at hand, and it has thus failed to benefit the general public. The Government is duty-bound to relieve people's hardship, but there are so many social problems in this rich society of ours. It can thus be proved that as long as the Government does not hold itself accountable to the people, the latter will not be able to exercise check and balance on the Government through elections. I have also cited an example and pointed out that in the campaign on "five geographical constituencies referendum" back then, the theme used was "Without democracy, there will be no people's livelihood". Most regrettably, it is now eight years later and in our debate on the Budget today, we can only see that democracy has gone farther and farther away, while our room to speak is getting narrower and narrower.

Therefore, Chairman, I have to finally quote a saying by former Member Emily LAU to declare that "we are born with a strong backbone", and it is my only wish that we will continue to stand firm in the days to come. There will be people's livelihood only when there is democracy, and as long as this legislature is dominated by Members returned by functional constituencies and royalists, we will never be given a budget that can genuinely respond to public aspirations. Public officers at different levels in Hong Kong should hear this from me: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10031

Malaysia is undergoing a political change these few days, and I am sure the same thing will also happen in Hong Kong one day.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Budget is the first budget delivered by the new-term Government, and it is also the Financial Secretary's second budget. The Budget speech of the Financial Secretary puts forth various fiscal management theories and his strategies for preparing the Budget. But I only hold four criteria when assessing the acceptability of a budget. These four criteria should be applicable to all countries or periods of time.

The most important and also the first point is that the Budget must effectively offer resources for the Government's daily operation. This is very important because other fancy measures or fiscal management theories will be useless if the Budget fails to do this. This is the first point and also the most important point.

Second, it is of utmost important that the Budget must achieve effective redistribution of resources or wealth. This depends on the Government's definition of this distribution mechanism. For instance, does the Government want to conduct distribution in that particular fiscal year? Or, does it want to achieve long-term redistribution of public resources in society? I am talking about effective rather than ineffective distribution, or distribution which may lead to a waste of administration fees.

Third, in assessing the acceptability of a budget, I will consider if it can assist in the implementation of social policies. Such social policies entail two respects: First, investing in the future, and the Financial Secretary has talked about it. What is meant by "investing in the future"? At this moment, my concern is the development of social infrastructure in Hong Kong. Chairman, social infrastructure is not hardware infrastructure. I am talking about talents and Community Care Fund programmes. Social infrastructure is closely related to investing in the future. And certainly, another point concerning assisting the Government in policy implementation is the promotion of sustainable economic development in the long run. On these three major objective criteria, I have 10032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 looked at the budgets delivered by various countries or places and found that they invariably adopt such objective criteria in assessment.

Since the Financial Secretary announced the Budget at the end of February, my observation of the reality has been that three kinds of opinions prevail in society. First, the Budget is not tight-fisted but instead proposes to spend huge sums of money. But how can we assess whether the relevant sums can be used effectively at present or in the future and benefit the entire community in the long run? Officials of various Policy Bureaux and even the Financial Secretary should provide people with actual indicators, such as the number of hospitals to be constructed within five years, and the benefits of digital technologies to our city within five years. For example, can such technologies help us anticipate whether the bus we intend to take will arrive within 5 or 10 minutes at the bus stop, whether the bus is crowded with passengers, and whether it has any empty seats or room for standing? Has the Budget put forth any vision like this? Sorry, I cannot see any; I simply cannot see any. In other words, the Budget fails to put forth any target or milepost.

Second, is the Budget independent of time and space? No. A budget covers the Government's five-year tenure, so its conception of measures that will be implemented this year and next year must not be out of tune with the reality. This will not work. I can illustrate how people comment on the Budget with a simple analogy. The analogy is that people are now watching a serial drama with five episodes, and the overall story line is offered by the Government. After an episode is broadcast, people will comment on whether that particular episode is good. Certainly, in doing so, people will also consider whether the overall story line is appealing. If people think that the ending of the serial drama is hardly acceptable, they or I as a Legislative Council Member will also have negative comments on a particular episode.

Regardless of the comments made by the Financial Secretary or people on the Budget, I personally hope that there will be a paradigm shift in the Budget. I will assess if the overall story line of the serial drama with five episodes is acceptable, and I will also judge whether each episode is gripping. We should not focus solely on the objective of each episode. But of course, as I said just now, each episode should have an objective, a target and a milepost. This is the information that the Government must provide.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10033

Conceptually, I have already made various criticisms. But in reality, I have also noticed an attitude which is unacceptable to me, especially the attitude of various Policy Bureaux. This year, the Financial Secretary proposes to spend much money. When we ask Policy Bureaux how they will spend the money―for example, how a certain Policy Bureau intends to spend the $10 billion allocated to it next year or the year after next even if it does not intend to spend it this year―they are unable to tell us how they will spend it or send out any message to the public that they will make medium- and long-term planning. Don't you think this is a total failure?

I can tell the Financial Secretary about my projection that a surplus of over $120 billion will definitely be recorded next year. I can tell him confidently because as I have noticed, many companies are waiting in the queue after the amendment of the Listing Rules. So, the relevant tax revenue will definitely increase. Of course, life is full of uncertainties. Perhaps a trade war or regional war breaks out several months later, and this may derail my projection. But my assumption is based on the fact that there is no change in the present development. Financial Secretary, in that case, I think a fiscal surplus of $100 billion or so can be anticipated. But I am sure that the Financial Secretary definitely will not put forth this figure because of his conservative projection.

Nevertheless, I must still say that the Financial Secretary's projection of surplus is based on the principle of conservativeness or prudence. The Financial Secretary seldom tells people that a surplus of $200 billion will be recorded this year. Even though this may be the figure in his mind, a conservative projection is inevitable because he is a professional, an accountant. To various sides, it was necessary for his predecessor John TSANG to make a conservative projection in his position. Besides, in my view, it is not very likely that he can project our fiscal surplus accurately.

Even though I have levelled many criticisms at the Budget and I am very disappointed to see how various Bureau Directors have used our fiscal surplus … I seldom name any Bureau Directors when levelling criticisms. But I must specifically point out that I am very disappointed at the performance of the Secretary for Innovation and Technology over the past two days. Apart from introducing some very trivial and ridiculous policies, I cannot see how the Secretary for Innovation and Technology has led Hong Kong to develop into an innovation and technology centre. All this can be boiled down to their failure to set any milepost or indicators and adopt a new mindset.

10034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

While I have just levelled many criticisms, the Financial Secretary's Budget is also marked by a few bright spots. First, on financial services, he has devoted long treatment to the development of a bond market and green finance. Second, the Budget commits enormous resources―certainly, "resources" merely means money, and I hope the Financial Secretary can tell us how it has been used next year―to improving public health care. This is very important. Third, I notice that the Budget also commits huge resources to sports and cultural development. But after all, the money is merely put into a "warehouse". Even if the Financial Secretary does not tell us how and when the money will be used, the Government and also the relevant Bureau Directors must tell us. After spending the money, they must tell people right at the beginning of the budget every year how, for example, the $6 billion of the $10 billion funding was used last year.

I have strong views on another point, the point concerning the amendment of head 173 mentioned by the Financial Secretary in the earlier debate, or "measures for helping those not covered by the Budget" in his words. I have also expressed my discontent to the Financial Secretary about this through various media and occasions.

But all in all, after considering the whole Budget and the development over the past two months, I must also give a score to it. Chairman, when the Deputy Chairman took the Chair yesterday, I said that I had met Karl MARX in my dream the night before and discussed the Budget with him. Yesterday, I met not only Karl MARX―perhaps it is the 200th anniversary of his birth, so his spirit is very fierce―but also Adam SMITH in my dream. The economic and fiscal management theories of these two great philosophers are poles apart. And, the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary also have a liking for talking about the philosophy of fiscal management. Last night, I had a memorable dialogue with him. Actually, it was not a dialogue as such. I merely revisited the famous writings of these two great economists and philosophers. Should I give a passing score to the Budget? And, it is the first budget delivered by the current Government. The final score I give it is that I cannot oppose the Financial Secretary's Budget. As for other members of The Professionals Guild, they may have different comments on the Budget. I will let them pass their own comments on the Budget.

Chairman, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10035

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, over the two weeks or so, we have been debating the Budget and Members have expressed their respective views. In the voting conducted just now, we witnessed a farce in real life, proving that the 65 amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members to the Budget were all groundless hype, which even they themselves did not support. Why do I say so? Among the 27 Members from the pan-democratic camp, only 15 to 16 Members are present at the meeting today to cast their votes, and among those who cast their votes, 6 to 12 pan-democratic Members supported such amendments. Most of the amendments won support from only six to eight pan-democratic Members, and they abstained from voting on the other amendments. As for certain amendments that were preposterous, some pan-democratic Members voted against them in a rational manner. As such, those who did not truly support such amendments accounted for as high as 70% of Members from the pan-democratic camp.

Chairman, what does this mean? This means that pan-democratic Members do not believe in their own acts, knowing that those hypocritical and presumptuous amendments are hardly tenable. For example …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, the Committee is now engaging in a debate of the third session, discussing proposals that the sums for the relevant heads stand part of the Schedule and that a clause stand part of the Bill. Please refrain from discussing the topic of the second session.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Yes, I know. I will finish shortly. Chairman, I basically support the question in the third session, that is, the sums for the 44 heads to which amendments were negatived stand part of the Schedule, and the Financial Secretary's proposal that the increased sums for heads 170 and 173 stand part of the Schedule. This is my position, but I need to make further elaboration, and I have just stated most of my arguments.

Chairman, I would like to expound my point by citing a typical example. Regarding Amendment No. 67 proposed by Mr Gary FAN, how can we veto the annual estimated expenditure of $4,790 million for the purchase of Dongjiang water? If the legislature fully adopts his radical thinking, how can we safeguard the interests of Hong Kong people? Do we really have to pray for the mercy of God to bestow rainwater to us to quench our thirst? This is an extreme case, but similar cases can be identified among the 60 or so amendments.

10036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Over the past two weeks, we have spent a lot of time debating the Budget, and pan-democratic Members have not been deprived of their right to speak. We must know that our speeches in the legislature must be well balanced. These are my simple points of view. I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, some said that the royalists are always inflexible and only the democrats are fascinating.

The subject today is the Budget and the so-called "new fiscal philosophy" has aroused much concern. Today, Mr Kenneth LEUNG has mentioned repeatedly the philosopher Karl MARX. MARX said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." The Budget is not just about spending money, but spending money to change Hong Kong and make Hong Kong better. The Budget will inevitably bring about lots of debates and exposition. As depicted by Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr WU Chi-wai, the debates held these few days were boring as there was only monologue but no dialogue. We tried hard to present our views but officials have not responded. They all said, "No response and nothing to add. Thank you, Chairman".

This kind of one-way conversation made us feel colder and colder in this Chamber because it seems that we have been speaking to a huge mountain or a huge iceberg. We really want to make things clear and we also hope that the public or people who are concerned about the Budget will know the basis and rationale for formulating the budget.

Chairman, in the past the Government has all along adopted the budgetary criterion that public expenditure should be kept at or below 20% of gross domestic product ("GDP"). I am grateful that the Government will make a breakthrough in this year's Budget and set public expenditure at 21% of GDP. I know that it is very difficult to make a breakthrough. If a stone has been buried in sand for a long time, many small animals will breed on its surface. Moving this stone may be as difficult as Sisyphus rolling an immense boulder up a hill. I commend the Government for breaking through the bottleneck. Public expenditure will be at 21% of GDP this year and we hope that the ratio of government expenditure to GDP will become higher next year or the year after next. Since the Government has broken through the bottleneck, we do not need to be restricted under this framework.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10037

In the area of social welfare, the Government's recurrent expenditure has always increased by more than 21%, and 1 200 additional social workers will be employed. I am thankful for this increase. Such specific improvements will help the social welfare sector and many recipients. While I appreciate these initiatives, I would like to ask whether the Budget has touched on or healed the four major "wounds" in the social welfare aspect or put Band-Aids on these "wounds".

These four major "wounds" include the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System ("LSGSS"), the quality of residential care homes ("RCHs"), a review of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") policy and universal retirement protection. The Financial Secretary may say that the Task Force for Review on Enhancement of Lump Sum Grant Subvention System has been set up. Members of the Task Force include Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr LUK Chung-hung and I. We have held a few meetings and the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services will hold a public hearing from 9:20 am to 4:30 pm next Monday. One hundred and one deputations and individuals have already signed up to attend the hearing and each person can speak for three minutes.

The fact that many people are concerned about LSGSS illustrates that improvements are really needed. While the Government admits that changes are being made to LSGSS, it has also set a number of restrictions. For example, LSGSS can be enhanced but it cannot be reviewed; or it can be reviewed but it cannot be overthrown. These are the preconditions, and even the task force concerned is called the Task Force for Review on Enhancement of Lump Sum Grant Subvention System. We once asked if the Government could consider not using the word "enhancement", so that the task force would be called the Task Force for Review on the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System, but the authorities insisted on using the word "enhancement".

The authorities think that we could refuse to join the Task Force and refuse to participate in the relevant discussions. Do the authorities really suggest that if we are unhappy, we should just leave the Chamber and not participate in the discussion? We would like to participate in the review of LSGSS, but the authorities have made it clear that the purpose of the review is to enhance the system. The exercise has nothing to do with welfare planning and it is just a review of the relevant services. A public hearing and an assembly will be held next Monday. Many members of the industry have applied for leave to attend 10038 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 the assembly. We hope that some government officials such as the Secretary for Labour and Welfare or the Director of Social Welfare will attend the assembly to receive our letters. Although the Government is willing to touch on some "wounds", many preconditions have been set.

Another "wound" is the quality of RCHs. All of us are very concerned about the poor quality of RCHs and the abuse of the elderly and persons with disabilities. However, the problem lies not only on some staff behaving badly or maliciously to abuse the residents, but also in the fact that the relevant ordinance has never been amended in 22 years. Why have the relevant standards never been amended?

Dr CHEUNG and I are members of the task force to review RCHs, but after attending several meetings, we realized that government officials have intentionally or unintentionally inclined towards private elderly homes, saying that if amendments are frequently made, private elderly homes may have to close down and many residents will become homeless. They have even put forward the "hostage argument", and asked if we wished to see 1 200 residents not being able to live in inferior elderly homes. They also said that although these homes were of poor quality, the residents would still find it better than sleeping on the streets. These are the preconditions of the Government.

The recent disputes are about the minimum area of floor space for each resident of RCH. The minimum area of floor space is currently 6.5 sq m, so an elderly resident can only spend their twilight years or take their last journey in an area of 6.5 sq m. Is this a caring society? After some discussions, the Government may make a decision to set the statutory minimum area of floor space for each resident of RCH at 8 or 9.5 sq m. At present, the statutory minimum area of floor space for each resident of EA1 homes is also 9.5 sq m. After a long wait of 22 years, such a standard will still be maintained. As we all know, we may have to wait for another 22 years after this amendment. These are patchy fixes. The authorities believe that as there are no major problems, it is proven that this standard can continue to be adopted.

Chairman, the social welfare sector has four major "wounds" and the Budget has touched on two of these "wounds", but this is only a deceptive ploy. The two other "wounds" are related to a review of the CSSA policy. In the past few decades, the Government has cut CSSA payments twice and up till now, the reduced amounts have not been made up. We may have to ask why people have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10039 become poorer despite the poverty alleviation measures. Why is it that no great improvement has been made to the poverty problem? Why has the Government not reviewed the CSSA policy since 1996? Why has the Government not adjusted the payment rates of CSSA on the basis of movements in the Consumer Price Index? We hope the Government will conduct a comprehensive review.

The industry pointed out that there are 24 gaps in the CSSA system. If the system is described as a safety net, the safety net has 24 holes. The remark that the system has 24 holes may be rather subjective, so I suggest reducing the number by half. However, there are still 12 holes in the safety net. How safe is the safety net? We hope that the Government will conduct a comprehensive review, but the Government has indicated that a review is not required because reviews are conducted on a daily basis. Thus, there is no need for a comprehensive review and it will be time consuming to do so. Is the Government really conducting reviews on a daily basis?

On the issue of universal retirement protection, Chief Executive Carrie LAM must certainly think that this question is even more frivolous than that frivolous question. I asked the Chief Executive a few days ago what her mother tongue was and she just said, "I will not answer such a frivolous question". However, she may now think that the issue of universal retirement protection is more frivolous than the mother tongue issue. She has all along refused to accept the term "universal", so she thinks that universal retirement protection should not be implemented and the Government would instead implement other schemes that do not have financial sustainability, such as Old Age Living Allowance.

Among the four major "wounds", the Government seems to be treating two "wounds", but this is just a deceptive ploy. It has ignored the other two "wounds". In January this year, I presented a submission to the Financial Secretary which covered 15 items. He responded to two of these items and did some work on three other items; but how could he ignore the remaining 10 items? I hope he can respond to this later. In my submission, I mention whether support can be provided to young children whose parents are mentally handicapped persons or mental patients. These children with normal intelligence are pitiable. It can be said that they have no childhood. Can the Government give them support? No one has ever bothered about these young children in the past. Earlier on, the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals produced a documentary entitled Snuggle which was about these young children. Their parents are mentally handicapped persons or persons with disabilities, how did 10040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 they spend their childhood and adolescent years? Now that they have grown up, they still have to look after their parents. Why does the Government not give them support?

My submission also mentioned social worker teams for residents of new public rental housing ("PRH") estates. The Panel on Welfare Services will visit On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate on Monday to inspect the situation of residents moving into new housing estates. Residents feel happy moving into a new flat, but they also feel anxious as they have to spend a lot of money and solve many issues, such as welfare, transportation and school places. We hope that the authorities will set up a six-member social worker team to provide services for residents of new PRH estates for a period of five years. How much money is required for the work?

My submission also mentioned self-help societies. Though the Policy Address also touches upon strengthening support for self-help societies and self-help organizations, how come no relevant support has been provided in the Budget? At present, self-help organizations only receive a subsidy of some $300,000 every two years. The money is just enough for hiring an employee. However, the Government indicates that it is very concerned about rehabilitation, the elderly and long-term care, and self-help organizations play a very important role in these areas. These organizations only receive a subsidy of some $300,000 every two years, yet the monthly salary of the Financial Secretary exceeds $300,000. I think the Government should provide additional funding of several million dollars in this connection. Since the Policy Address has mentioned strengthening the related support, can the Budget specify how the support can be strengthened? Will the relevant subsidies be doubled? Yet, nothing is mentioned in the Budget.

With regard to the issue of compassionate rehousing, we hope that the Government will set up a special team to handle the issue, instead of asking the integrated family service centres of the Social Welfare Department or non-governmental organizations to handle the relevant work. When we talk about these very simple issues, it seems that we are just shouting into a tree hole.

Chairman, as a Member representing the social welfare sector, I will not oppose the Budget, but it is difficult for me to support the Budget as the Government has barely responded to the issues I have just mentioned. When considering whether I should oppose or support the Budget, I think of the fact that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10041 the entire community or many Hong Kong people still hope that the Government will make extra efforts. This is also the voice of the people who have not lost all hopes. (The buzzer sounded)

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

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this debate on the Budget has almost reached the end. In this term, about 38.5 hours have been allocated for the debate; I think that is a reasonable. I remember in the last term, the former President of the Legislative Council allocated 60 hours for the debate. I think if Members can make good use of the 38 hours, we can actually have a quality debate.

Objectively speaking, there are fewer requests for headcounts in this debate. Besides, fewer members of the public said that they were irritated by the frequent ringing of the summoning bell and could not hear what Members say. I think the situation has improved. We should also admit that the improvement is the objective result of the amendments to the Rules of Procedure because it serves no purpose to cause the abortion of a meeting due to a lack of quorum. I very much hope that this rather normal way of conducting debates on the Budget can resume in the future and importance can be attached to the quality of Members' speeches. Hence, members of the public would no longer complain that they have to switch off the television because of the confusion and filibustering. I hope that in future, we can receive more positive feedbacks about debates on the Budget.

There are 67 amendments to the Appropriation Bill this time, two of which are moved by the Government. In fact, the total number of amendments can be further reduced. I remember that in the past when we debated on the budget, there were only six or seven amendments, and pro-establishment Members as well as the democrats still had a very good debate. Actually, it is normal to have different views in society, which should be the case. However, only if Members focus on the debate can we have the chance to tackle issues, particularly livelihood issues, under the current bureaucratic system of the Government. To put it in another way, I think that the Government has all along been restrained by its mindsets and ways of thinking in formulating policies and has failed to think out of the box.

10042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr Kenneth LEUNG talked about Karl MARX and Adam SMITH earlier. My view is that the Hong Kong Government has all along been crossing the river by touching the stones in formulating fiscal policies and the Budget. Mr Andrew WONG, former President of the Legislative Council, even expressed his view in an article that incrementalism (i.e. method of establishing a desirable system step by step) has not been adopted in the Legislative Council. Even if we are not operating in this mode, can we continue in our current way? We cannot, given the current situation of Hong Kong and the world.

Although each term of Government will introduce some policies which are better than those of the previous term, we should have a more comprehensive planning for the future and aim at achieving the objectives; we cannot continue to cross the river by touching the stones any more. On the contrary, we learn from people of our age or retirees who are older that retirement protection and the overall planning of the society of the Mainland are better than those of Hong Kong. Given the current robust financial position of Hong Kong, should the current-term Government maintain the old mode of policy-making? I think it should not.

Certainly, once we talk about universal retirement protection, many people will really have reservations and they dare not bet on it. Mr SHIU Ka-chun makes things sound easy, but what exactly is the future commitment and how much burden will be imposed on young people? I think we should be responsible to the next generation. However, I think we are currently faced with two deadlocks, which are…the Financial Secretary is with us now. Although we have a huge surplus at present, we still have to make money; we still have to make efforts to earn more money to make a bigger "pie" because very soon, our society will mainly be composed of the elderly population.

In fact, I do not want to use the word "elderly". As I said last time, when I visited local districts, people did not want to hear the word "elderly" and we should call them "folks" instead. From our frequent contacts with the people during district visits, we learn that some people use the term "young elderly", but people do not like that term and prefer to be called "folks". Frankly speaking, nowadays it is nothing special to be aged 60 in Hong Kong. Last time, I produced a new chart of age distribution released by the United Nations to explain my point. The point has been proven by what happened in these two days. I am not considering the success of Dr MAHATHIR in the Malaysian election from a political perspective. Although he is 92, he is still able to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10043 demonstrate his leadership when he cannot tolerate the situation of his country. I think Donald TRUMP will be most pleased about the election result because he who is 71 is not that old by comparison. Certainly, on the other hand, Emmanuel MACRON was elected the President of France when he was 39.

What do these examples reveal? They show us that the general situation in world politics may have revolutionary changes at any time. People do not judge a leader by his age. Young people may not necessarily vote for young candidates; they will consider the candidates' election platforms and whether they will bring benefits to society and the electors. Young people do not necessarily support a universal retirement protection system because they have to undertake the responsibility of supporting their parents and other elderly people. Thus, I think we have to reconsider what would we like Hong Kong to become in 5 to 10 years' time.

I must reiterate that I only give some examples here. Dr LAW Chi-kwong was once the mastermind of the democrats. We have put forward many minor proposals to him. For example, can the scheme offering $2 concessionary fare be extended to cover unemployed retirees aged 60 or above? Can people of this age group be provided with mobile dental clinic services? These proposals have been passed from one bureau to another, and finally to Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN. When I put forward this proposal at a meeting of the Legislative Council, the public officer asked me to make enquiries with the Labour and Welfare Bureau. I find it really baffling. Is that a predicament caused by the bureaucratic system?

I support the Budget, but I think the Government must think out of the box. As we all know, we have to strive 5 to 10 years to attain success for every request we make, such as improvement in fire safety and the Operation Building Bright. I once pointed out in a motion debate that laws had to be amended every five to six years. I have to commend the Government for it has finally honoured its pledge this year. The Government has decided to allocate $2 billion to establish an independent fund to revamp old buildings. Old buildings have to be revamped; more importantly, problems arising from an ageing society have to be proactively tackled. How can we think out of the box? As I often say, problems cannot be solved by mere words; the Government really has to tackle them. Can we adopt a forward-looking approach on every issue? Although we have not introduced a universal retirement protection system, should we still help the needy and even retirees who are reluctant to pay for medical treatment?

10044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

The Budget has allocated an additional $300 billion for the 10-year development plan on public health care services. I think that is a good measure. At present, many elderly people and even young people prefer taking Chinese medicine, but Chinese medicine is still at an experimental stage and has not been incorporated into the public health care system. There are even voices in society that only the rich can consult Chinese medicine practitioners. Although some Chinese medicine practitioners provide free services, I think Chinese medicine services should be formally incorporated into our health care planning.

Furthermore, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, a Member of the last-term Legislative Council, often told me that when people grew old, they would have to use half of their savings to pay for medical services. If I no longer have the medical protection provided by my employer, can the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme perform its functions?

Regarding the coverage of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, I hope to meet with Mr CHAN Kin-por for discussion. According to many people who seek our help, after they have taken out an insurance policy, they found that they could not get protection when they needed it most; and the protection they needed most had actually been excluded as so stated in the small print of the contract. In what ways can the Government offer some guaranteed protection in the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme? Can it give those people who would like to join the Scheme greater confidence?

More importantly, we should consider how to ensure that middle-class people will not become proletariats and that the percentage of poor households will not increase in future. Young people are very concerned about the problem of ageing because there are elderly persons in almost every family. Yet young people have not solved their problems in four areas (i.e. education, home ownership, business start-up and employment). I do not know since when, probably 10 years ago, home ownership has become the only goal in life of many young people; and that is problematic. The reason is that property prices in Hong Kong have been soaring unceasingly and it is very difficult for young people to buy their own homes.

I have particularly interviewed a number of people who became home owners years ago, including in 2002 and 2005. They told me that back then, grass-roots people could buy their own homes with $50,000. At that time, the Government introduced the Home Starter Loan Scheme to help people with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10045 steady income to become home owners, and their mortgage loans could be 90% of the property price. There was a scheme back then to help people become home owners. Nevertheless, property prices have been soaring unceasingly in these 10 years. I asked my young assistant about his situation. He told me that even if he and his sister did not spend any money on food and rent for 19 years, they still could not buy their own homes. Should government policy still be limited to the levying of stamp duties? I often consider that levying stamp duties can only "address the symptoms rather than curing the disease"; worse still, it is like prescribing the wrong drugs for treating fever. Can the Government stop thinking merely of its self-esteem and find ways to help people with stable employment buy their own homes? Can it provide assistance to these people by reintroducing a home starter loan scheme or a banking policy?

At present, people often mention the concepts of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Bay Area. There are 67 000 start-up enterprises in the Mainland. Young Mainlanders are very ambitious and they all want to become MA Yun and LEI Jun. They are also confident that they will rise to eminence in 10 years' time, and so they are highly motivated. How about young people in Hong Kong? I must point out that education on Liberal Studies can have its benefits, but the curriculum should not only be restricted to discussions on political arguments. Can discussions be held on how young people face failures and overcome adversities, or how young people achieve their goals in life? I have a close friend who has not received university education. He had been a cleaner, but he is now an outstanding young person because he thought of an idea to develop an enterprise. Should we inculcate this kind of mentality in young people? We no longer live in an era in which university degrees are supreme, and I think we will soon enter the era of Harry POTTER.

I participated in the Shanghai World Expo in 2009. Back then, I was very impressed by a film produced by a motor vehicle enterprise. In the film, a blind girl drove an autonomous car given to her by her father. The car shrank when it reached a building, the girl then entered the building and took a bullet lift to go upstairs. Although the girl was blind, she could attend her father's concert by pressing a few buttons. Some Members went to the Mainland for a duty visit earlier. There is hearsay that the Mainland will formally introduce this kind of technology later this year. Science and technology has indeed developed rapidly in these nine years.

10046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

What about development in humanities? We should also keep abreast of the times. I once participated in a seminar in Romania. A first year law student asked, "What do we have to look for today?" The answer is "Defending against an A.I. being". In other words, we are no longer defending against human beings, but computers or robots. I think this kind of mentality is very inspiring. How can we inculcate it in our young people? Our young people are very outstanding, but how can we help them? Frankly speaking, under the current bureaucratic system in Hong Kong, although young people would like to do many things, they cannot overcome certain difficulties. People who are capable are worried that after joining the Government, they cannot do what they want. Perhaps the Directors of Bureaux or the Under Secretaries well understand what I am saying, and we have to discuss these issues. The Budget is only the tip of the iceberg. The Financial Secretary is a former Member of the Legislative Council and he is very willing to listen to Members' views. He has acceded to many of my requests, such as annuity, and I have to commend him for that. However, I think we can do more and we implement more ambitious projects. We must take actions which affect our future generations. At present, the most popular movies and television programmes have intergenerational themes. Why is that so? We must have young leaders and in future, we may have leaders who are only in their twenties. These young leaders may face a global situation in which they have to work with political leaders of different generations, e.g. those who are 92 or in their sixties or seventies. Can Hong Kong people keep up with this trend?

Finally, I have promised some young people to relay their views. They understand that many people are leading a difficult life in Hong Kong, but they really like keeping pets and some of them do not want to have children. They hope that apart from vets, there are also laws on animals, gardens for animals, animal police teams and animal ambassadors, because they do not want to have any more cases of animal abuse. Some pets may be abandoned because their keepers suffer from depression after keeping them for a while, and some pets may be abandoned because they are not so cute when they grow old. The animals are really pitiful. Apart from arresting keepers who have abandoned animals, we should also have animal ambassadors to promote the relevant work in society.

Financial Secretary, I will support the Budget today. I very much hope that Hong Kong can do better. I also hope that public officers have the courage to propose new ideas and bravely put them into practice. They must achieve LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10047 breakthroughs under the present circumstances. Nowadays, Hong Kong must take intergenerational actions to achieve breakthroughs under the present circumstances.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am so glad to see that the Financial Secretary, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology and the Secretary for Education are all present at the meeting. I hope that they will stay in the Chamber and listen more to Members' views.

Chairman, with regard to this year's Budget, while most members of the public may probably be more concerned about the Government's proposal to hand out money or plug the gaps, a very important focus of this Budget is actually the Government's indication of support for innovation and technology ("I&T"). However, as we have always stressed, simply handing out money or relying solely on infrastructure cannot support I&T or other industries. In this year's Budget, over $50 billion has been earmarked for I&T. On the face of it, members of the trade should feel very happy, but the majority of the practitioners or professionals said that the measure has nothing to do with them. Notwithstanding that, if the general environment does improve, they may be able to benefit.

Sometimes, however, the provision of funding alone cannot satisfy the needs of the sector or people from all walks of life. Some people even said that although they are able to benefit from the Government's support of the Cyberport and Science Park, they would rather receive support through government policies. As evident from the social debates on the Policy Address or the Budget in the past few months, I am so glad that members of the public have begun to see this point. They no longer cling to their old mindset of focusing on the amount received by the sector and would feel satisfied if more funding is received than last year. In fact, as time goes by, people begin to realize that the problem does not lie in resources alone, though the proper use of resources would certainly be beneficial.

Chairman, I trust that Secretary Nicolas YANG must be very busy over the past couple of days, giving responses to a number of issues. I also have to make a lot of responses in the light of what happened in the past few days. Here, I would like to highlight one point concerning policy changes. The Government 10048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 still needs to do more in relation to the Budget in addition to handing out money. Firstly, it is the Technology Talent Admission Scheme announced by Secretary Nicolas YANG two days ago, which is also mentioned in my amendment and so I am not going to repeat. However, Chairman, as I have told government officials or the media respectively, while Hong Kong should do its very best to compete in a global quest for talent, we also need to retain local talent in order to attract more overseas talent to come to Hong Kong, as this demonstrates that we attach great importance to talent. I opine that in order to retain local talent, it is imperative for the Government to introduce some policy changes. Given that frontline personnel of the entire sector are currently very hard up as a result of outsourcing, can the Government take the lead to reverse this situation? The Government should stop recruiting outsourced workers who receive "different pay for the same work", as the money saved will eventually go into the pockets of the employment agencies. Can the Government change this practice?

Secondly, can the Government provide some assistance to middle-aged people? These people are only in their thirties and should not be considered as middle-aged, yet they lost their jobs due to outsourcing and have to switch to other trades. Can the Government provide them with more support and focus its efforts on addressing this issue in the subsequent budgets?

Thirdly, can the Government attract more leading companies, including Mainland and preferably international companies, to Hong Kong and recruit local staff to carry out research and development ("R&D") work?

I believe when the environment has improved, people's attitude towards attracting overseas talent to Hong Kong will become more and more open. I hope that the Government will implement all the three measures proposed by me just now concurrently, instead of the present practice or the practice advocated by LEUNG Chun-ying of "introducing another policy initiative after the previous one has matured", for this would give people an impression that the policies are imbalanced. Given that the Government has the intention to introduce the relevant policy, why not implement the measures concurrently, so as to avoid giving the public an impression that the Government favours certain aspects, such as laying emphasis on the importation of overseas talent to the neglect of local talent.

According to a press report yesterday, some netizens found that some time ago, the Government invited tenders for a Centrally Managed Messaging Platform and the Finance Committee approved a few months ago a commitment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10049 of $230 million for this project. It was subsequently found that the contract was awarded to a Mainland company. Although the security concerns of the company was in the limelight yesterday, these technical issues could be addressed given that the company was basically only required to provide services. The Government further stated that all matters, including the platform, were under its control and no security issue would be involved as no information would pass through the system.

The question is, why did the Government award the service contract to a Mainland company? This Mainland company is only newly established in Hong Kong and has no experience at all. Worse still, it started to recruit staff only after it was awarded the contract. Why is this so? Chairman, this is attributable to our policy of awarding tenders to the lowest bidder. There were also Hong Kong companies bidding for the contract, but they all lost to a Mainland company. Leaving the security concerns aside, the biggest problem is the company, apart from recruiting staff from the Mainland, it will also employ local staff in the future, which may result in a reduction in the salaries of the local staff. How can we attract overseas talents to Hong Kong then? Is that the reason why the Government has encouraged people to pursue development in the Bay Area and subsequently use this as an excuse to import talent? For frontline workers, the message is very confusing. Today, many netizens criticized that this project at $230 million is indeed too costly. I nonetheless want to tell them, there were also many Hong Kong companies bidding the tender back then but all of them lost to the lowest bidder. From this, we can see that the policy of awarding tenders to the lowest bidder has profound negative impact on Hong Kong.

Officials may argue that they have acted in full accordance with the procedures. Chairman, the problem lies precisely with the procedures. Can the Government change the faulty procedures that are currently affecting the ecology of the sector? These procedures are affecting the livelihood of 70 000 to 80 000 practitioners of the science and technology sector. Chairman, Carrie LAM proposes eight initiatives in her Policy Address and the seventh one reads: "[the] Government to lead changes to procurement arrangements. We will explore the inclusion of innovation and technology as a tender requirement and will not award contract only by reference to the lowest bid, so as to encourage local technological innovation." But unfortunately, this proposal has yet to be implemented and thus the same problem can still be found in the newly awarded projects. Hence, there is a need for the Government to expeditiously implement the relevant proposals.

10050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Third, I did not know what Baduanjin was in the past, but many Hong Kong people should have heard of it by now because the North Point Kai-Fong Welfare Advancement Association received a $4.5 million fund from the Innovation and Technology Fund for the development of an application for computers or mobile phones that guides elderly persons to do exercise. However, many people immediately commented that the project was too costly. Since I do not know the details of this project, I will not say it is costly at this moment. Many people proposed to hire coaches to teach the elderly to do exercise instead because computers may not necessarily provide the best teaching. According to the feedback that I received, the Government should carefully examine the projects to be awarded, or from another angle, it should assess the appropriateness of the amount of funding.

Although we do not have sufficient information at the moment, I consider it necessary for the Government to enhance transparency in this regard so as not to arouse public suspicion. This is precisely the case in the two examples just cited by me. If the Government had explained the rationale and told us what actually happened, we would have certainly found it more acceptable even if the procedures can be further improved. If the Government had enhanced the transparency right at the outset, the bid would not have given rise to public suspicion. This certainly reflects people's lack of confidence in the Government. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to reverse the situation and the only way is to enhance transparency.

Chairman, up till now, the Government still resorts to implementing infrastructure projects and establishing funds to give out money, but the community has already made it clear that these approaches are inadequate and unacceptable. It is therefore imperative for the Government to make use of talent to create more opportunities, to enhance transparency, and more importantly, to allow stakeholders to take part in policy formulation. In the past two days, many people asked me whether the Government had consulted me before introducing the Technology Talent Admission Scheme and my answer was in the negative. The Government also had not consulted other people. Actually these people are readily available to give their advice. I therefore hope that before launching the Scheme in June, the authorities would grasp the time and listen more to the views of the public, stakeholders and frontline workers.

Chairman, after all, the Budget involves money and members of the public may be accustomed to place all their attention on the amount of funding or whether the Government will give "candies" to them. Judging from the trend in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10051 recent years, there is no doubt that the community has become more short-sighted when it comes to the budget. This is not a good sign at all, but it seems that a cycle has been formed year after year, so I think the Government is duty-bound to take the initiative to reverse the trend.

Simply for I&T alone, a $50 billion funding from the Government is not a huge sum of money. As we have stressed time and again, out of the $50 billion, $20 billion has been earmarked for the development of the Loop and we cannot benefit from it right away. An investment of $50 billion in I&T is actually not a huge sum of money when compared with other places, because the amount of funding provided for I&T often exceeds $50 billion. The point is other industries have not received any support from the Government, which has put our sector in a pretty embarrassing situation from time to time. Other people might think that we must be having a good time, but $50 billion is downright insufficient for Hong Kong to achieve success in I&T. And yet, we are aware that other areas, including social welfare, elderly care, universal retirement protection and even education have not received sufficient funding. In that case, is it possible for the Financial Secretary to please all in light of the abundant financial resources of the Government?

Notwithstanding that, I believe we still need to look ahead with regard to the proposals contained in the Budget and consider how we can do better in the future on the one hand, and on the other hand, look back and identify the outstanding proposals in the previous policy addresses, especially in respect of I&T. As we all know and I think the Secretary is also well aware that the Chief Executive has highlighted the need to enhance the development of I&T in eight major areas. I notice that for proposals such as increasing resources for R&D, providing investment funding and technological research infrastructure, such as infrastructure of the Loop, the Government has already embarked on measures of these three areas right away.

However, government effort in other areas is still inadequate, for example, pooling together technology talent. The Scheme announced by the Secretary two days ago is certainly part of its work, but as I said just now, the Government also needs to retain local talent and help them change their profession, and I beg the Government not to forget. Furthermore, there are other areas of work that the Government has yet to take actions, which include reviewing existing legislation and regulations; opening up government data; changing the procurement arrangements, as I just said, by not merely considering the lowest 10052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 bid in awarding contracts, and last but not least, popular science education. I would like to tell the Secretary for Education that government effort in this regard is also grossly inadequate. Can the Government expeditiously take forward the relevant work and then advise us the direction to be taken in promoting the relevant policies?

Some departments may have commenced the study on how the procurement arrangements can be changed, but no one knows how long the study will take. I only hope that it will not take too long. It is important for the Government to carry out work in all these areas, otherwise members of the public will not be aware that it has set the performance indicators and policy direction. In that case, they will not have confidence in the Government and will eventually point their fingers at whatever actions taken by the Government.

Since this is the first year the current-term Government has started operation, I hope that it will, together with the Financial Secretary and the Secretary, enhance transparency, listen to more views, speed up the work progress as well as adopt innovative work practices and policies. And, instead of only consulting senior advisers or committees, or discussing solely with employers, the Government should discuss with frontline staff more often. Secretary, the entire sector has more than 70 000 people, some even said there are 80 000 people, therefore the Government should listen to the views of wage earners and small entrepreneurs. I believe in doing so, the Government should be able to solicit greater support for the Budget and government policies in the future.

MS CLAUDIA MO: They say this city is on steroids. Hong Kong is on steroids, and this Government, in particular, is spastic. It is actually spastic because at first it claimed it has some brand new fiscal philosophy and then in no time it is failing in all directions. Of course, I am talking about that cash handouts controversy. It is just so ugly a scene on the whole. When we talk about handouts, of course, we would mean handouts for all, and this just might be against the public money spending concept that we should go after equity, not equality as such. We should only help those people in need. But then, I am not going to waste time to give you an account of what happened. We are all witnesses to it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10053

Yes, we need to save money for rainy days, for more mega projects in future. While this argument could be quite sound, our Financial Secretary quickly caved in, "Oh, yes, maybe giving cash handouts is not too bad an idea after all." I thought he would put up some grand rebuttals to the proposal of giving some money from the government coffers. No, he said, "Oh, I think we actually forgot about a section of the poverty sector in Hong Kong and we need to make amends." You can't just flip-flop like this, right? So much about this so-called new fiscal philosophy, or it is the demonstration from obliviousness to feigned understanding.

It is such a pity to see our Financial Secretary having to swallow his pride to finally succumb to popular demand in this particular aspect. And of course, this final decision of paying out cash to the public has come with political considerations. We have never expected any intelligence in this regard, let alone any EINSTEIN-level kind of intelligence.

(There was interference with the public address system)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, do you have a mobile phone near you? I notice that there are some interference noises from the public address system.

MS CLAUDIA MO: It is off.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Could you move it a little away from you please?

MS CLAUDIA MO: Alright. Now, we are watching our Government which would, for one moment pretend to be standing firm, and then the next moment could be brought down to its knees. You could not help thinking that all this has been done at the behest of some "big brother" up there. I cannot define whether up there means up in Beijing or simply upstairs. But upstairs is upstairs, right? And politics is perception. Public spending is also about perception. And we cannot help having this impression that once again top government officials, those dealing with money, our taxpayers' money, are mere puppets on strings, or 10054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 perhaps even worse, they are ventriloquist's puppets. You know ventriloquist, right? They do noises from behind without moving their lips. The puppets in the front would be droning on with the master's speeches.

I, for one, have been calling for this cash handouts business from day one this year. It is against my usual, my conventional thinking about public spending. Why the change of mind this year? Because we cannot even see today, and please do not talk to me about tomorrow. This Government, as you can see, is spending billions and billions on mega projects which do not seem to be of any good basically, and then, it could be so mean to the lowest-strata members of society. It is all a matter of trust at the end of the day.

Years ago, I did a journalistic exercise on the International Year of the Child, a theme promoted by the United Nations, when I was a university student. My conclusion was that if people cannot even see their future in this generation, how could you talk to them about the next generation? And I got a top mark in the class and my thinking stays today.

Previously, the Financial Secretary simply just elbowed us out, as if we were just some empty air, for what we were proposing were not in line with the directives he received from upstairs or up there. But then he repented. He made amends. OK. So much for Carrie LAM's so-called, or self-proclaimed rather, watertight foolproof Administration. Very embarrassing.

And earlier, I heard someone called Junius HO criticizing one democratic member's amendment urging the cutting of spending on buying Mainland Chinese water. I mean, on the surface of it, the amendment does not make sense. But we all know that the democrats sitting here are being outnumbered by all those Beijing's toadies, the Beijing loyalists, right? What does it matter to them anyway? Will that amendment ever get passed at all? What is Junius HO so worried about? He would say, "I am talking about logic". No, there is no logic here as such because we are not allowed to increase the spending. We can only suggest the cutting or cutting down of the spending. So, we need to have this amendment to demonstrate to the public once again how ludicrous this entire water deal with the Guangdong Authority is, how unfair it is, how many billions―I don't know how much really―gallons of water we had to pour out back to the sea from Hong Kong reservoirs because we have paid too much, because we have bought too much water every single year in at least the last 10 years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10055

I need to give you another example from previous years. Those Beijing toadies kept attacking "Long Hair" for trying to cut firemen's pay. "Oh, how wrong, how abominable such a suggestion is!" when "Long Hair" kept explaining that he put forward the amendment in order to demonstrate Hong Kong firemen's pay plight, perk plight, career plight. The Beijing toadies are very good at twisting or blackening whatever good motives we have for serving Hong Kong people.

I have one last point, the last but certainly not the least. That is about government spending on animal … I don't know, you have to fill in the blank. You would say animal welfare or animal right? No, there is no such vocabulary really within the Administration. They keep talking about pets. But then let's go back. When Carrie LAM publicly and verbally acknowledged that the right and welfare of animals, not pets, were looked after in Hong Kong, let's do something about it. Please stop just paying lip service. The Secretary for Food and Health would post online a photo of herself hugging a puppy, and then complete with this hashtag "animal abuse, shame!" I wish this Government would genuinely take action and genuinely rethink public spending on murdering animals in Hong Kong.

I am very saddened by the way some Members here, Beijing toadies mainly, would talk about the sums of money. They would say some sums are so big and some sums are so small. If only a small amount of money is involved, just let it get passed. One million dollars in government spending, just one drop in the Pacific, is used to mercifully kill or euthanize Hong Kong animals. Why do animals need to be put down? Is it really true that they could not be adopted and nobody wanted them? Not really. Because half of our population live in public housing estates and they are not allowed to keep dogs to start with. How about that?

And in the meantime, Beijing toadies wouldn't even agree with cutting $1 million from the spending on murdering animal. What are they talking about? They said that $300 million as subsidy for the Ocean Park was a tiny sum, so negligible and we should not vote against it.

All these double standards! The Government should certainly think twice about all these public spendings. They say $300 million is a very small sum. But if it is so small, why don't you just forget about it? A part of the $300 million is going to expand our favorite client country or target, i.e. the 10056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 market of Mainland China. They do not actually tell you very clearly how much money is going to be spent and for what purpose. But certainly, some money will be spent on animal shows at the Ocean Park. Animal shows, animal slavery. Please stop that. Thank you.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): I speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2018. The SAR Government has recorded a huge surplus of over $100 billion for 2017-2018, which is the 14th consecutive financial year for which Hong Kong has seen a surplus, and the fiscal reserves have passed the $1 trillion mark. In the circumstances, the focus of our attention is on how the Budget can make good use of the surplus, and on its financial management principles of investing for the future and of caring and sharing. These are part of the "new fiscal philosophy" that the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary have been talking about.

In the face of the ever-changing world situation, Hong Kong as a highly open economy is particularly susceptible to changes in the external economic environment. That being the case, can this year's Budget further enhance Hong Kong's position and advantages as a city "backed by the Motherland and facing the world"? To answer this question, I think we should try to look beyond Hong Kong and examine the Budget from different angles to see if it has the national concept and international outlook expected of it.

It has been 21 years since Hong Kong's return to China. The question of how the SAR can better integrate into the country's wave of development, which includes the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area") and the Belt and Road Initiative, has become a major issue facing the SAR Government and all Hong Kong people. In this connection, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN specifically states in the Budget that the Bay Area development is of strategic significance to Hong Kong in three key aspects, namely "two markets", "innovation and technology ('I&T') industries" and "land resources".

In the coming year, three major cross-boundary infrastructure facilities, namely the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, which is a new land boundary crossing, will be commissioned in Hong Kong. This will be conducive to developing the Bay Area into a "one-hour living circle", which I believe will entice more and more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10057 people to choose to start their own businesses, do business, work, travel, spend their twilight years or even settle in the Bay Area. Of course, it can be said that everything is ready for the Bay Area to be truly established as a "one-hour living circle", except one crucial thing. Basically, this crucial thing is the introduction of policies, including those on innovation and related ancillary facilities.

In the past, the business sector had all along been faced with the problem of "no funding beyond the boundary"; that is, many government subsidies were only allowed to be used locally and could not be enjoyed outside Hong Kong. Yet, since 1 April this year, the Social Welfare Department has extended the coverage of the Guangdong Scheme, originally applicable to elderly people spending their twilight years in Guangdong Province, to Fujian. This illustrates that the SAR Government is gradually breaking through the barrier of "no funding beyond the boundary" to realize cross-boundary operation in the area of welfare benefits. In addition, the pilot scheme for the use of Hong Kong's elderly health care vouchers at the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital was launched three years ago to make it more convenient for our elderly people residing in Shenzhen to directly seek medical treatment there, marking the first time such health care vouchers had been allowed to be used outside Hong Kong.

With the Mainland's gradual provision of national treatment to Hong Kong people in their daily lives, the SAR Government, as the main facilitator and promoter of the Bay Area integration plan, can actually ponder how to remove barriers and lift restrictions on the financial front to enable the cross-boundary implementation of more Hong Kong welfare measures. For instance, I would boldly suggest that the Government should consider introducing a cross-boundary low-cost housing scheme, providing an ex-gratia cross-boundary travel allowance for Hong Kong people commuting to the Bay Area for work, or directly setting up such facilities as hospitals, schools and elderly care centres in the Bay Area, with a view to ultimately promoting the development of the Bay Area into a quality "one-hour living circle" for Hong Kong people to live and work in.

Besides, regarding the promotion of "re-industrialization", this year's Budget only touches on hardware ancillary facilities and technical support, but does not mention the use of the financial and taxation means that the sector has long been calling for, including a legislative exercise to amend sections 39E and 16EC of the Inland Revenue Ordinance that I have often talked about. In other words, the expenses incurred by offshore Hong Kong manufacturers in respect of machinery are not allowed as tax deductions in Hong Kong. This is conducive to attracting foreign investment only but not conducive to local manufacturers 10058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 going global, and runs counter to the guiding ideology put forward by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN, who has stated that "as Hong Kong is the most cosmopolitan city offering the best professional services in the region, our enterprises and those in the Mainland may join forces in tapping new markets".

Against the backdrop of economic globalization, the application of I&T has broken through geographical boundaries. If the Government, while levying a local income tax on enterprises, imposes undue restrictions on tax deductions for the expenses incurred by enterprises in respect of their machinery and intellectual property outside Hong Kong, this may not only result in a discrepancy between tax revenue and cost, contrary to the fundamental principle of tax symmetry, but also run counter to the Government's original intention of encouraging enterprises to upgrade their technical equipment and boost innovation, and may even impede the development of intellectual property trading in Hong Kong. Therefore, the newly established Tax Policy Unit should amend sections 39E and 16EC of the Inland Revenue Ordinance.

As we all know, the recent trade conflict initiated by the United States with China has spread to the technology field. Bearing the brunt is ZTE Corporation ("ZTE"), one of the Mainland's leading communications technology companies, which has almost been plunged into "a state of shock" by a seven-year sales ban imposed by the United States. There is reason to believe that the various moves by the United States are clearly targeted at the "Made in China 2025" strategy and the emerging 5G communications technology. The ZTE incident has set alarm bells ringing for both the country and Hong Kong: first, it is important to comply with market rules and protect intellectual property, or there will be a high price to pay; and second, it is necessary for enterprises to have independent innovation capability and core technologies, which are their lifeline, without which they are bound to face a survival crisis in the end.

As there are often times when things are too overwhelming for us to cope with, and, in particular, external factors are not completely under our control, the Government must plan ahead and do a good job of crisis management as early as possible. I have never doubted the SAR Government's determination to promote I&T and "re-industrialization". For one thing, the $50 billion set aside by the Government to support I&T development is arguably the largest sum of funding in this year's Budget. Still, the Government must not overlook one key element, which is the need to strengthen Hong Kong's position as a base for technology development, production and trading.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10059

Many people do not know that in the 1970s and 1980s of the last century, Hong Kong was a major international chip research and development ("R&D") hub, and it had a close connection with ASML, the only high-end chip equipment maker back then. The most representative local R&D result was the DragonBall chip developed by Motorola's Hong Kong laboratory in 1994. The chip was very popular and was supplied for use in nearly 70% of Palm electronic devices the world over. After Hong Kong's return to China, in the 1998 Policy Address, former Chief Executive Mr TUNG Chee-hwa proposed to vigorously develop high-end technologies. His plan to build a $10-billion "Silicon Harbour", which included bringing in six wafer fabrication plants to produce chips, once filled the local industrial sector with fantasies, but regrettably fell through in the end. The local chip industry has since become stagnant, and industry players have moved their R&D and production bases to Taiwan and the Mainland respectively.

Given the rising trade protectionism of the United States, which is playing the unilateral sanctions card, Hong Kong, while enjoying to the full the benefits brought by the "one country, two systems" policy, should think about how to leverage its advantages in meeting the country's needs on the technology front, so as to contribute to the country's "Made in China 2025" strategy. For instance, attracting enterprises back to Hong Kong for R&D on high-end products, such as chips, will be conducive to breaking through the United States' unilateral export controls and facilitating the introduction of the latest technologies. It should also be noted that another key aspect of "re-industrialization" is the commercialization of scientific research results for developing a complete system of industries and establishing a supply chain of ancillary services, and this is what we usually refer to as the "clustering effect". To define high-tech products as those made in Hong Kong or of Hong Kong brands will surely be beneficial to our export trade and enable us to get the best position in any trade war that may erupt in the future.

All in all, this year's Budget has made a good start in putting the "new fiscal philosophy" into practice, and it heralds a change in the future fiscal policy of Hong Kong. That said, there is no such thing as the best budget, as there can only be better ones. There is still room for improvement in this year's Budget. The Government still needs to take a further step by proposing more specific and focused measures regarding its collaboration with Mainland provinces and cities, as well as its international economic ties, so as to cope with future challenges.

Chairman, I so submit.

10060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Let me remind Members that to allow sufficient time for the public officers to respond and for the questions to be voted on, I will call upon the public officers to speak no later than 5:30 pm today, depending on the actual situation.

After the public officers have spoken, the questions will be voted on forthwith. Therefore, Members who wish to speak, particularly those Members who have not yet spoken, will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to support that the sums for the heads as amended stand part of the Schedule. All along, I consider that even if there is a huge surplus in the government coffers, the money should be used for investing in the long-term development of Hong Kong and people's livelihood, as well as helping people in need.

This Budget has, without doubt, adhered to the new fiscal philosophy of the Chief Executive. It has earmarked resources in various aspects such as investment in innovation and technology as well as health care, which reflects that the Government has soundly realized the problems and development bottleneck faced by Hong Kong. Nevertheless, besides the query I raised last week about the sufficiency of setting aside $50 billion in the Budget for innovation and technology, I also query whether investment in health care can suit the remedy to the case? Even though $300 billion is set aside in the Budget for the second ten-year hospital development plan, can this distant water be used to put out a nearby fire? If the problem of long-term shortage of health care manpower cannot be solved, what is the point of having the hardware?

Chairman, as indicated in the latest financial position, the Government has a record-high surplus of around $149 billion last year, exceeding the amount given in the Budget by some $11 billion. Some consider that this amount can well offset the $11 billion spent by the Government on the extra cash handouts. Although I personally do not support handing out money, it does not mean that I am not in favour of the Financial Secretary's Committee stage amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2018, i.e. to increase head 170 by $435 million in respect of subhead 700, which is equivalent to the additional funding required for the top-up arrangement for social security recipients.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10061

Furthermore, I have to make a clarification. The voting record indicates that I voted against Amendment No. 62; I have just pressed the wrong button. I support but not oppose this amendment. I hope the Chairman will put on record my voting intention that I clarified just now. I so submit.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Honourable colleagues for coming downstairs to the Chamber to listen to my speech. This is the first time that I speak on the Budget and I would like to particularly speak on the proposed provision of $11.3 billion to the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency under head 173.

Why do I wish to speak on this head? I believe we all know that this provision is for the Government to hand out $4,000 to each eligible person. Just now, I heard many Members, including Mr Martin LIAO, expressing disagreement over giving cash handouts and I also strongly object to this initiative. I do not mean to antagonize the public by opposing the initiative. In fact, I clearly understand why the public have such an expectation and demand. When the Government has more than $1,000 billion of reserves but has done nothing apart from building "white elephant" projects, it is natural for people to think that the Government might as well return money to them. Yes, that is exactly how the public feel, and I fully understand their sentiments. However, being a politician, I hope that we will stand higher up and see farther away to realize that giving cash handouts is a short-sighted, carelessly-thought-out and lazy initiative, which is inconsistent with the spirit of Hong Kong.

10062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Why do I say that giving cash handouts is inconsistent with the spirit of Hong Kong? Looking back at history, Governor Murray MacLEHOSE worked most diligently to invest for the future of our community. During his tenure, he not only focused on the development of hardware, such as building public rental housing ("PRH") and the Mass Transit Railway ("MTR"), but also enhanced our software by introducing nine-year free education, "fruit grant" and some other initiatives. Under his 10 years of governance, three years had recorded budget deficit. Yet, no one would remember the deficits in those three years when reviewing the various policies that he introduced for the well-being of Hong Kong during his 10 years' tenure of office. Instead, we would just think of the foundation that he laid for Hong Kong in different aspects, for example, education, infrastructure, PRH and the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. This is the legacy of Governor Murray MacLEHOSE which led Hong Kong to its success in the 20th and 21st centuries. Would anyone query why there were budget deficits during his tenure? Would anyone query why he did not give cash handouts but introduce nine-year free education and build MTR and PRH? Of course not. People would only recall that he had worked hard to lay the foundation for the long-term development of Hong Kong in his 10-year tenure.

Just now, a Member said that the Financial Secretary had somehow made long-term investments for Hong Kong. Of course, I cannot say that this Budget has done nothing for the future of Hong Kong; but the problem is that it has eventually resorted to giving cash handouts, an initiative that I strongly oppose. The $11.3 billion of public money involved can actually be used for many different purposes. The $11.3 billion of public money involved can actually be put to good use in many different ways.

Please do not tell me that the Government originally planned to allocate $11.3 billion to a Policy Bureau, but the bureau concerned could not think of any policies to use the money, and consequently, the Government handed out the money to members of the public. Currently, many children with special needs cannot receive necessary treatment, including physiotherapy and speech therapy. In fact, the number of such children is limited. According to the statistics of the Education Bureau, there are only 40 000 to 50 000 children with special needs in Hong Kong. An allocation of $400 million or $500 million from the Government will be enough for each of them to receive 12 therapies a year. To these children, these subsidies are likely to change their lives. If they are not given treatment in their young age and at the right time, the treatment will be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10063 wasted. In this case, why doesn't the Government allocate some money from the provision of $11.3 billion to these children? All they need is just $400 million or $500 million. Can giving cash handouts be considered as a long-term investment? If we do not even invest in our next generation, what else can be regarded as a long-term investment?

Back in 2011, the Government handed out $6,000 to all people. Can we recall how we spent the $6,000? Many of us may have forgotten. However, the then budget for cash handouts was as high as $36 billion, which could have been spent for different purposes, such as waiving the interest on student loans to ease the financial burden of graduates, increasing the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools and reducing the class sizes. While all these were worthy proposals, did we not have the money for their implementation? Why did we not proceed with the proposals?

Shouldn't patients with rare diseases or cancers be subsidized to purchase expensive self-financed drugs for better treatment? How many people will have a better life if an additional 5 000 nursing home places and 1 100 places in care and attention homes for the elderly can be provided every year? My colleague Mr SHIU Ka-chun is gravely concerned about increasing care workers for residential care homes and enhancing their training. Some of the elderly died while waiting for a place in care and attention homes. What a society! Does our society truly have long-term planning? Does this Budget truly contain long-term plans?

The proposal of extending the scope of health care vouchers to elders aged 60 is also worth considering for it can enhance the elderly's affordability to medical expenses. An increase in the Old Age Living Allowance and the Old Age Allowance can likewise address the needs of the elderly and give them a better life. Apart from showing care for the disadvantaged, the Hong Kong society also has to deal with many other issues. For example, people living in remote areas are in need of transport subsidy for some better job opportunities as high transportation fees have hindered them from seeking jobs in other districts. Transport cost is really a burden on young people. If transport subsidies are increased to reduce the cost of travelling to and from work, people will have more and better job opportunities. This is what we call long-term planning.

In office districts, many parents actually need quality child care centres. I have two children aged eight and two. Luckily, my wife does not have to go to work and can take care of them all the time. However, not all households have 10064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 the same financial means. In many households, both parents have to work for a living. Instead of leaving their children to domestic helpers, it is indeed much more desirable for parents to bring their children to a quality child care centre near their offices so that they can visit their children during lunch time or at breaks and take them home after work. This option, if available, will be conducive to the whole family, parent-child relationship and child growth.

Chairman, to be honest, I am not very familiar with livelihood issues. My colleagues often say that I am out of touch with the real world. Even so, I can casually cite a few policies which require long-term planning … my illustration may be quite brief due to a lack of research. Yet, I absolutely do not believe that the Government, which has more than $1,000 billion of reserves and over $100 billion of surplus in a year, lacks money for the relevant work. The policies that I mentioned earlier are just the tip of the iceberg. It will be too bad if the Government does not even bother to do the relevant work but only comes up with the proposal of giving cash handouts. At first, I trusted that the Government shared the view that giving cash handouts was not right and it should instead work out sound policies for long-term investment. I do not know why it eventually ends up with handing out cash.

Although the Government argues that money is not handed out to all people this time, it has nonetheless proposed a proposal for giving cash handouts. I firmly believe that giving cash handouts is inconsistent with the spirit of Hong Kong. What we need at present is a Government capable of making long-term planning and truly investing for the future, so that in the 21st century, all Hong Kong people will be provided with opportunities to give full play to their talents, the elderly will be well taken care of and people with medical needs will be provided with adequate financial support. If the above can materialize, Hong Kong will truly win and it will not "win a candy but lose a factory".

For this Budget, I would say that the most serious shortcoming is that the Government has failed to spend its money wisely. Therefore, I speak to oppose this Budget.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as the Secretary for Education happens to be present, I would like to start off by talking about the education issue. After the announcement of the Budget, I stated at a press conference that the entire Budget has created an impression of partiality. In fact, it has not only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10065 been my impression, but even my observation. We have noticed that the Government has been very lax in allocating resources to all projects relating to the integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland. On the other hand, the Budget has seemingly not devoted much treatment to some relevant local issues. The Government has even failed to allocate a large amount of resources to items which have a constant need for additional funding, an example of which is education.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about education problems first. It is certainly desirable for the Government to be willing to pay the examination fees for school candidates sitting the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE"). We have been striving for this as well. In the final stage, the Government has even been willing to make moderate adjustment to its proposal in order to benefit parents and students and put the funding to good use. We endorse this move. However, the Government should go further and consider regularizing this form of subsidy. Under the long-term free education system of Hong Kong, DSE can be regarded as the terminal of free education. To show its commitment to students, the Government should incorporate DSE into free education.

The education sector is of course beset with many other unresolved problems. However, the Budget has not made any effort to tackle the more urgent problems, such as class-teacher ratio, pay scale of kindergarten teachers, our long-awaited increase in subsidized university places, and the support for students with special educational needs ("SEN") which Mr Dennis KWOK has been very concerned about. The Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Council will hold a public hearing soon on Chapter 3: Integrated Education of Report No. 70 of the Director of Audit ("Director of Audit's Report") recently released by the Audit Commission. I hope to have an opportunity to get a better understanding by then as to how the considerable funding and support which the Government has allocated to integrated education in Hong Kong can address the current needs of students, parents and schools in a more effective and targeted manner.

Other pressing issues include the matchbox-style, sub-standard school premises. I believe that Members can still remember that, before the Secretary took office, former Member Dr LAM Tai-fai had been very concerned about this issue. I hope that the Government can give a formal response on the problems of matchbox-style school premises. I have noticed a slight improvement in the 10066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 current situation, but the progress has seemed to be relatively slow. I believe that the Secretary for Education is concerned about not only the curriculum, but also the learning environment of students.

The education sector is in fact plagued by a large number of more pressing and unresolved issues. However, the Government has given priority to regularize the Pilot Scheme on Promoting Interflows between Sister Schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland ("the Pilot Scheme"). With each participating school given a grant of $150,000 each year, the total expenditure will amount to $170 million, which is nearly $200 million. However, the Government has only earmarked an additional $26 million for providing care for schools for children with intellectual disability and increasing the number of nurses in schools. We used to think that caring for students with SEN is more urgent than exchanges with sister schools. However, the latter has unexpectedly been given more subsidies.

I have also mentioned the Pilot Scheme during my previous speech on the amendments. In the document presented by the Education Bureau, the language used on exchange programmes has been very tendentious. To promote exchanges with sister schools on the Mainland, the Government has used such adjectives as down-to-earth, thrifty and industrious to describe Mainland students. Are these attributes only possessed by Mainland students but not students outside China? During our discussion at the Panel on Education, we have questioned the need to allocate such a huge amount of subsidies to the exchange programmes. The Under Secretary failed to answer this question that day. Compared with other projects, the Pilot Scheme has been given the most funding.

It was reported in the press today that the mother of an autistic teenager with moderate intellectual disabilities had issued an open letter to the Chief Executive, in which she noted that many autistic teenagers can do nothing but stay at home after graduation, rendering them susceptible to emotional disorders. The places in training centres for adults with intellectual disabilities are grossly inadequate, and autistic students have not been given any support either. As a result, they have no access to job training after graduation.

I strongly hope that more appropriate support can be provided to students with SEN, their parents, their schools, etc. in next year's Budget. In particular, the Director of Audit's Report has noted that many students need support in this regard. We have noticed a significant increase in the number of students with autism or learning disabilities in recent years. In the Director of Audit's Report, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10067 the response of the Education Bureau has been quoted, stating that modern scientific development and growing public awareness of relevant syndromes have contributed to earlier detection of such cases. Given the earlier detection, it is more necessary for the Government to formulate appropriate support strategies and policies. When promoting integrated education, I hope that the Government can provide appropriate assistance to students with SEN. Other institutions can also enhance their relevant planning to support other students, parents, teachers and schools in making genuine contribution to the community.

Apart from education, I also hope to take this opportunity to talk about culture and arts. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government has seemingly allocated substantial resources to cultural exchanges in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area"). In Hong Kong, we have nine major arts groups and many small and medium sized arts groups. Only an additional provision of $55 million will be provided to these groups. However, the funding will have to be shared among these groups, large and small. I used to be a member of one of the nine major arts groups. Of course, all arts groups should exercise prudent financial management because the government resources they are using come from taxpayers. However, it is precisely due to this reason that some arts groups have to consider very carefully before they are confident to propose a number of projects which are more interesting or experimental in nature. In this way, they have been subject to constraints on some occasions. It is of course the most ideal situation if they can manage to get sponsorship by themselves. However, given the current lack of a strong arts culture in Hong Kong, the business community may only be more willing to sponsor arts events which are more well-known or perceived to be higher-end. On the other hand, they may not be keen to sponsor small and medium sized arts groups or alternative arts. I hope that Hong Kong's cultural ambience can be gradually enhanced.

The resources allocated by the Government to cultural exchanges in the Bay Area have been rather impressive. As I just mentioned, while the Government has allocated a funding of $140 million to the Bay Area, only an additional provision of $55 million has been allocated to support local arts groups. Meanwhile, only $20 million and $40 million have been allocated to cultural promotion and education in Hong Kong respectively. This example shows the huge disparity in funding between the two projects. I hope that the Government will not give people an impression of partiality when it comes to resource allocation.

10068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss an issue which has always been my concern. Chairman, back then, when you were not yet the President of the Legislative Council, we had already been discussing the legislation on trees. Chairman, I wonder if you still remember. This issue has always been haunting my mind. This year, I have been trying to find an opportunity to move a motion on the legislation on trees. However, given the time constraint and lack of preparation, it is unlikely that the motion will be proposed before the end of this session. The motion I moved on the 4 June incident, which was originally scheduled for this week, will be debated by the Council next week. Hence, I may have already used my only opportunity to move a motion in this session on the 4 June incident, rendering it impossible to debate the legislation on trees. However, although I do not have the opportunity to move the motion, does the Government still care about this issue?

The casualties of tree collapse incidents should not be taken lightly. A tree collapse accident that took place in 2008 was an important reason for the Government to set up the Tree Management Office ("TMO"). Back then, a century-old tree on Stanley Main Street collapsed and crushed to death a female student who was about to study at the University of Hong Kong. After the death inquest, the Coroner's Court issued a report on the enquiry into the cause of the death. The Government subsequently issued the Report of the Task Force on Tree Management―People, Trees, Harmony ("Report of the Task Force") and set up TMO. Former Financial Secretary Mr Henry TANG was even given the title as the chief leader of tree preservation. However, TMO was actually set up by him with the help of then Secretary for Development Carrie LAM. From then onwards, a culture of making special arrangements for special cases has begun to take shape in the Government.

At present, more and more offices have been set up by the Government. The biggest problem facing TMO is that it has been given responsibilities but not power. TMO has numerous responsibilities. Whenever a tree collapses, TMO will immediately spring to the mind of members of the public, who will then call the Government's 1823 hotline to seek its assistance. However, TMO is in fact only responsible for inspection. TMO is required to ask various departments for instructions before making any decision. However, more than 10 departments are jointly responsible for tree management matters. As the Chairman may also be aware, among the various departments are the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the Highways Department and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10069

Our survey based on the Report of the Task Force back then has found that more than 10 policy departments, bureaux and departments are jointly responsible for tree management. While the Government seems to have allocated substantial resources under the coordination of TMO, these resources have actually only been scattered across different departments. Each department has engaged their own tree experts to compile their respective tree risk assessment reports. However, the practice, format and assessment methodology used for the tree risk assessment report cannot be standardized. The approach and scale adopted have often varied from person to person.

The Report of the Task Force released back then has originally required the Government to set up a dedicated department to deal with tree risks, but only two tree risk assessment forms have been devised in the end. The arrangement under which multiple departments share responsibilities for tree risk assessment is simply unreasonable. Between 2010 and 2011, I moved a Member's motion in this regard. Then Secretary for Development Carrie LAM had finally given me a ground-breaking response. Her reply in 10 Chinese characters has kept me happy, as well as waiting, up to this day. Her 10-character reply was, translated into English: "seriously consider commencing studies on enacting legislation". She claimed that she would "seriously consider" the proposal, implying that she had never considered or had only briefly considered it before. It was not only until then that she considered whether to start the legislative process. She gave this reply in 2010, and it is 2018 already. Eight years on, no progress has ever been made.

As the incumbent Financial Secretary, Paul CHAN had also served as the Secretary for Development before. He should know that no progress has been made on the legislation on trees. Despite the establishment of TMO, of which the previous Head had already left office, no progress has been made on the enactment of tree legislation. The lives of trees are under threat, particularly those trees on private land. Many people have logged trees in large numbers due to their concern over the potential risks associated with trees. In a densely populated place like Hong Kong, resources should not be wasted in such a way. I suggest that one department should be tasked to centrally handle resources, and enact tree legislation as a basis for law enforcement. Although this move may cause short-term pain, but in the long run, this can be conducive to more professional and interesting development of greening in Hong Kong. Many landscape architects are also looking forward to offering their professional views during an earlier stage of planning in order to better the lives of the public. Thank you, Chairman.

10070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Financial Secretary, I expressed my views on the Budget and the "gap-plugging" initiatives in my last speech, and I believe you likewise have a clear understanding about them. I am also pleased to have all along maintained communication with you and exchanged views candidly. I would like to reiterate one point, having the trouble of whether money should be handed out due to excessive surplus is certainly a problem rather than a good thing. We obviously know that the real root of the problem is our tax system. The Financial Secretary devoted quite a number of paragraphs to this issue in last year's Budget, and even established a tax policy unit to conduct a study. I know that the issue cannot be properly addressed within a short period of time, but I am still disappointed that the Financial Secretary had not said a word on this issue this year.

I will repeat my aspirations each year until a concrete reply is given by the Financial Secretary. I advise the tax policy unit to conduct studies on reforming the tax system of Hong Kong, introducing a more progressive salaries tax, tax under personal assessment, profits tax, dividend tax, capital gains tax or a progressive tax on luxury goods, so as to develop a fairer tax system underpinned by the ability-to-pay principle. The Government should broaden its tax base and expand the sources of its revenue, so as to reduce its excessive reliance on certain types of taxes and minimize the fluctuation of government revenue. As such, the Government will have a better picture of the amount of money at its disposal to better suit the remedy to the case, dare to increase recurrent expenditure, and commit future resources to items where resources are most needed persistently.

I also propose providing a tax allowance for renting private properties and introducing a vacant residential property tax. These two initiatives will certainly benefit the middle class and grass-roots people. I certainly understand that many technical problems need to be tackled, and it will not be easy to implement the proposals. However, I always remember a famous line once quoted by the Financial Secretary: "In adversity and perils I forge ahead". If the Financial Secretary could hold on to this belief when he was a Director of Bureau, there should not be a problem for him to implement the proposal in his capacity as the Financial Secretary now.

I do not agree to give cash handouts to some members of the public, but this does not mean that I oppose the Budget of the Financial Secretary in its entirety. I have exchanged views with the Financial Secretary on various occasions, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider me a rational LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10071 person who neither praises for the sake of praising nor opposes for the sake of opposing. Last week I raised a number of aspirations, hoping that the Financial Secretary would respond. But I understand that the Financial Secretary has his difficulties, and may not have the final say on all new policies. As regards the existing policies, it is easy for the Financial Secretary to deal with the request of Policy Bureaux for additional resources. Therefore, for proposals such as introducing native-speaking English teachers in kindergartens and regularizing the subsidy provided to the "N have-nots", if the Financial Secretary is unable to make a decision in the short run, I can understand his difficulties.

However, as home-based child care service is an existing service, I hope that the Financial Secretary will allocate more resources to provide more and better services. I believe that the Financial Secretary can definitely provide assistance in this regard. People watching television broadcast may not have heard of the home-based child care service. I have all along been urging the Government to implement after-school care services, and home-based child care service is an alternative option to address the issue. As there are numerous dual-income families in Hong Kong, who should pick up their children from the kindergarten or primary school? Some parents are forced to work half-days, and some have to take up part-time jobs. Relatives and friends can only offer help on certain occasions but not on a regular basis. As such, little effect will be produced regardless of how many child care centres are built by the Government.

I once urged the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Education Bureau to join hands to recruit social workers to work in schools to handle the administrative duties, so as to relieve teachers of the administrative tasks and alleviate their burden. That said, it seems that matters involving more than one Policy Bureau can hardly be done in Hong Kong. The home-based child care service is now only under the charge of the Labour and Welfare Bureau, and home-based child carers' wages account for only half to two thirds of the statutory minimum wage. Applicants need to wait for four to five months before having access to the service, and many people who intend to hire home-based child carers are unable to do so, for few people are willing to work as such carers due to minuscule wages. In addition, the work of home-based child carers does not cover picking up children from school. If the Government can allocate more resources to enable the hourly wages of home-based child carers to be at least on a par with the statutory minimum wage, and introduce a travel scheme that allows home-based child carers to pick up children from school, as well as take out insurance for them, I believe all dual-income families will be grateful.

10072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Every dual-income family may ask elderly neighbours who are in good health conditions if they are willing to participate in the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project. Since their neighbours live either upstairs or downstairs, dual-income parents only need to go upstairs or downstairs to take their kid home after work each day, and their neighbours can regularly go to the same school to pick up the same kid. This is a very simple idea. The project is very popular, but for reasons unknown, resources allocated for popular projects in Hong Kong are always inadequate. A lot of resources are instead committed for such schemes as the Working Family Allowance Scheme, for which few people apply due to complicated formalities. I am perplexed as to why such mismatches frequently occur in Hong Kong. I hope that the Financial Secretary will in a moment give a positive reply to my question about home-based child carers, for this involves an existing policy and merely requires additional resources. I fail to see why the Secretary for Labour and Welfare will oppose the allocation of more resources in this regard, for the policy is already in place and there is market demand.

Even though I will not vote in favour of the Budget, I will remain neutral, unlike the position I took just now on the two amendments proposed by the Financial Secretary. Chairman, I oppose the amendments of the Financial Secretary, because not only do I oppose handing out money to some members of the public, I also know that if the $11 billion or so were used to set up a fund, an annual return of at least $400 million to $500 million would be generated to provide help, on a regular and continuous basis, to the "N have-nots" who are most in need of help in Hong Kong society.

The Government can use the $11 billion or so to set up a fund, and use the anticipated annual return to regularize the subsidy provided to the "N have-nots", so as to provide continuous help to those needy persons who live in extreme misery. The Government can also use such money to give one-off cash handouts to members of the public, but whether cash handouts can be given next year is an uncertainty. Which of the two aforementioned approaches is better?

Chairman, I so submit.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Budget debate has been going on for more than 30 hours and is now coming to the end. It can be said that it is a remarkably speedy budget debate in recent years. I think this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10073 debate is a rather nice one. On the first day of debate, I shared views about welfare and Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong provided some responses to our proposals. Although I might not necessarily accept such responses, we can see the difference between the Government's policy and our perspectives in the course of debate.

For instance, regarding our proposal of relaxing the age threshold for receiving the non-means-tested "fruit grant" from 70 to 65, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong responded that "according to the projection made by the Census and Statistics Department, the number of elderly persons aged 70 or above would increase from about 770 000 in 2016 to 1.86 million in 2036; in 2066, the number of elderly persons aged 70 or above is projected to reach 2.18 million, which is about three times of that in 2016. One may imagine that when the Hong Kong Government set the eligible age for the Old Age Allowance ("OAA") at 70 or above in 1978, the average life expectancy was around 74 back then; whereas the average life expectancy in 2017 was around 84. If we have to consider adjusting the age requirement of OAA today, shall we set the threshold downwards by five years or upwards by 10 years? Certainly, the Government has no plan to adjust the age requirement of OAA for the time being."

I am surely disappointed by the Secretary's remark, yet I can see that the Government does take Members' views to heart. Nevertheless, I wish to say something about the Secretary's remark. At present, there are 412 900 people aged 65 to 69; however, 128 000 of them are receiving the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"). In other words, there are not so many people in this age group as the Secretary cited. The number of people aged 70 or above cited by the Secretary is different to the number of people aged 65 to 69 that we are talking about. In this age group, there are only some 280 000 people eligible for "fruit grant". Thus, if the Government starts planning how to help people in this age group, even if the elderly population will increase by 2036 or 2066, the amount of money incurred is still affordable by the Government.

With a surplus exceeding a hundred billion dollars every year, the Government is afraid of being berated for handing out money to the public. However, after listening to Members' speeches for so long, I do not find many Members oppose giving cash handouts. If the Government is truly afraid of being berated, it can set aside a huge amount of money for helping retirees in the future. This is actually a very important policy. Hence, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong proposes to set aside an 10074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 substantial amount of the surplus, say $100 billion, for investment and get an annual return of 4.4%, to be used for paying "fruit grants" to elders aged 65 to 69. Why not set aside some money to set up a fund to solve this problem?

The Government will provide the Higher Old Age Living Allowance at a monthly rate of $3,485. According to Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong, there will be some 2.1 million elders aged 70 or above by 2066. If this figure is correct, I hope the Financial Secretary will respond later as regards whether the Government will be able to give the elders some $3,000 a month by then. If public funds are insufficient, shall we discuss the tax reform that Mr Michael TIEN mentioned just now? Certainly, I have not considered the tax regime. However, if the current welfare policy is to sustain, the Government must think about the source of money and start making proper use of the fiscal reserve, so that the elderly can be duly taken care of by then.

Chairman, I commend the Financial Secretary for promptly rolling out the "gap-plugging" proposal in response to people's outcry upon the release of the Budget. Given that many members of the public were dissatisfied with the original Budget, the Financial Secretary therefore made some adjustments by introducing the "gap-plugging" proposal. I appreciate his effort and I learn from the community that people support the proposal. I hope this year's Budget can be passed smoothly, so that members of the public can get the money. However, to our regret, as the nature of the proposal is to plug the gaps, some technical difficulties are involved, and applications for cash handouts can only be made in February next year. Therefore, I find certain things are so much easier said than done.

The Financial Secretary really has great difficulties in preparing this Budget, for he may please one party and antagonize the other. If the Government hands out money to all people, some apologists will say that giving cash handouts is a waste of public money and is thus a disappointing measure. Mr Dennis KWOK queried how members of the public ultimately spent the money received in 2011 when the Government handed out money to all people. I donated the money received, but I did not know how other people spent their money. Nonetheless, in order to benefit most people, the Financial Secretary has to formulate a fairer plan for handing out money.

I greatly support this Budget and the amendments proposed by the Government. I think colleagues from the pan-democratic camp proposed amendments to the Budget out of political considerations. For instance, Mr AU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10075

Nok-hin proposed to reduce the estimated expenditure for any item concerning the Mainland. He did so simply out of political considerations, thus no wonder he burnt copies of the Basic Law. Besides, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, the debate session on the amendments has already come to a close. Please do not speak further on the amendments.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman. I just want to voice my views instead of stating whether I support the amendments or not. I think the practice of the pan-democratic Members is inappropriate. The Government must give more consideration to Members' views on the budget for the coming year and duly make use of government resources to benefit more people. In my view, these are very important.

With these remarks, Chairman, I support the passage of the Budget.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we certainly support the proposals contained in this Budget. Just now some colleagues said that it was wrong for the Government to give cash handouts all the time. We also do not support giving cash handouts. However, given that after 31 March this year, we have a fiscal surplus of some $140 billion, almost $150 billion, which is a huge sum of money that can be used to carry out many initiatives, such as granting tax rebate, investing for the future and even returning or handing out some money to people in need, so as to make everyone happy.

I fully understand that the Financial Secretary had not considered giving cash handouts at the outset. We also do not support this measure. What had been achieved after the Government distributed $6,000 to each person at the last exercise? Nonetheless, since a handsome surplus has been anticipated, members of the public naturally have expectations. Apart from making long-term investments for the future, an initiative that can instantly make everyone happy is surely to give cash handouts. Therefore, despite our objection, the Financial Secretary eventually decided to distribute $4,000 to each person in view of the social demand. This would, however, incur a very high administrative cost because the cost of giving out $10-odd billion is as high as $300 million. 10076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr Michael TIEN just now said that the provision of additional community child care services only cost a few hundred million dollars, but this amount of money will be used as the administrative costs of giving cash handouts. If the Government had given more thoughts and made advance arrangements, such an expense could have been saved and would not go down the drain as administrative costs.

Some colleagues pointed out that the Government only cared about implementing "white elephant" projects, but in fact, such projects were actually commenced by the previous two terms of government. After the financial tsunami in 2008, the then Government implemented 10 major infrastructure projects, we therefore should not blame the incumbent Government for implementing those "white elephant" projects. As a matter of fact, the current-term Government has only taken office for 10 months. If it has a chance to be re-elected to serve for a term of 10 years, a comparison can then be made with the MacLEHOSE administration 10 years later. How can a government that has operated for only 10 months be compared with an administration that had operated for 10 years?

People from the business sector are very grateful to the Financial Secretary for setting up various funds to support the small and medium enterprises ("SMEs"), including the SME Marketing Fund and a dedicated fund on branding, which are somehow helpful to SMEs. I hope that the Government will continue to promote the development of industries in the future, especially the innovation and technology and creative industries, with a view to providing young people who are keen to develop in these two areas with more choices and expectations.

Although the Government is wealthy, there are still targets that cannot be achieved. For example, the Government has money to build hospitals and residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs"), but there is a shortage of manpower. While the waiting time of the Accident and Emergency departments of various hospitals is usually seven to eight hours, the waiting time for specialist services is as long as two to three years. If I need to wait two to three years to receive specialist services, I wonder where I would be by then. I might have left this world while waiting for a place in RCHE. These examples show that money is not omnipotent in some cases.

I am glad that Secretary Nicholas YANG said the day before yesterday that technology talent would be admitted within one month, but has the Government considered the admission of medical professionals as well? In fact, there is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10077 actually such a demand as many hospitals are facing a shortage of medical practitioners. Why didn't the Government admit medical professionals? Since the door for admission of technology talent has been open, why not open the door for admission of medical professionals as well? As we may be aware, the ageing population will give rise to a strong demand for health care services. Although the Government has boldly undertaken in this year's Budget to employ all the graduates of the two local medical schools to increase health care manpower, the new recruits need some time for training. Why does the Government not admit some medical talent immediately to alleviate the manpower problem in the public health care sector of Hong Kong?

The case is similar for RCHEs as there is currently insufficient manpower to take care of the elderly people. Elders have to wait a long time for a place in RCHEs. But how long can they wait? This is another example showing that money is not omnipotent when there is insufficient manpower.

Furthermore, I must discuss the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") System. The preliminary idea of the Government is to allocate $17.2 billion to provide a subsidy for the relevant expenses of the business sector within the 12-year transitional period. However, the method of calculation is a rip-off because dividing $17.2 billion by 12 years gives $1.4 billion per year. Does the Government think that providing a subsidy of $1.4 billion a year will solve the MPF offsetting problem? I beg the Government not to be so naïve. This is why the business sector suggested that the Government should underwrite the financial shortfall, but how much does this cost? Even the Government Actuary dared not give an answer after doing the calculation. Despite the fact the Government is sitting on a huge surplus of over a trillion dollars, it dares not bear the relevant expenses but asks SMEs to foot the bill. The Government is only willing to pay $1.4 billion a year, but I think the annual provision should at least be $4 billion. The amount of expenses related to the offsetting arrangement is currently $4 billion, so everyone would be happy if the Government bears the relevant offsetting expenses of $4 billion. However, the amount needed each year is $4 billion but not $1.4 billion.

In the Budget, there is a paragraph entitled "Support for Employment". This part is quite interesting and perhaps not too many people are aware of it. It is stated that the Government will provide an on-the-job training allowance of up to $4,000 per month for employers engaging people aged 60 or above who have left the workforce or are unemployed. I think the allowance is similar to the 10078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 unemployment protection payment of overseas countries. According to some people from the labour sector, the part of the MPF that has been offset is precisely the subsidy provided to the unemployed to subsidize their living expenses during the period when they have not found a new job and have no income. If this is one of the reasons for making the offsetting arrangement and the Government is now considering the provision of support for employment, then why doesn't it consider the provision of support for unemployment at the same time? The Government might as well provide a sum of money to the unemployed, so that they can pay for the living expenses during the transitional period before they get a new job, thereby obviating the need for any offsetting arrangement. According to the labour sector, people who have just been dismissed or have yet to find a new job merely hope to obtain some kind of protection during the transitional period, and Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong had also put forward a similar idea before. I think there are many other ways to solve the offsetting problem, instead of shifting all the responsibilities to employers.

On the other hand, there is one point that I consider pretty unfair. Given that the objective of the MPF offsetting arrangements is to provide retirement protection to wage earners, why should employers be responsible to provide retirement protection to wage earners? Since retirement is a problem of the entire community, it is the Government that should shoulder the greatest responsibility and thus shifting the responsibilities to employers is not tenable. Furthermore, there is no mention of any retirement protection scheme in the entire Budget. As we are aware, Hong Kong is going to have an ageing population in the future and the retirement age will continue to climb in the next 10 years, but the Government has shifted the responsibility of proving retirement protection onto employers, which is absolutely inappropriate.

Although we do not support universal retirement protection, the Government has to face the problem of retirement protection after all. What is more, the Government is now sitting on a handsome surplus of more than a trillion dollars, and the surplus will continue to grow in the next three years. Another $40 billion will be added to the surplus next year to make a total of $1.19 trillion, which I believe will set a new record again. As the property and stock markets in Hong Kong continue to flourish, government revenue arising from stamp duties will also increase drastically. While the surplus is estimated by the Financial Secretary to be some $40 billion next year, it is not surprising that the surplus will amount to more than $140 billion by then.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10079

Therefore, as it is estimated that Hong Kong will have structural surplus, the Government should take more bold actions. For example, the Government may underwrite the financial shortfall by paying the $4 billion expenses incurred in MPF offsetting every year. It should also boldly set aside $500 billion to set up a seed fund for retirement protection. With an expected annual rate of return at 5%, the return will be $25 billion a year, which can be used to provide support for needy elderly upon retirement. In my opinion, the Government is more than capable in this regard and can surely provide the necessary support.

Thank you, Chairman. I so submit.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Chairman, since my colleagues, including Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, have just voiced many views on this year's Budget, in particular the "gap-plugging" proposal and the initiatives to better care for different sectors in need of assistance, I am not going to speak on the same issues. However, as I have listened to public views during my frequent district visits, I would like to raise one suggestion in this regard, i.e. I hope the Financial Secretary will in future consider slightly lowering the age requirement of 65 for the $2 fare concession, so that seniors reaching the age of 60 can enjoy the same concession. This suggestion has been requested by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong for a long time, and I urge the Government to give due consideration in future, given its abundant surplus.

I notice from this Budget that the Government is very determined to develop the innovation and technology ("I&T") industry, as evident from the allocation amounting to $10 billion. However, I am obliged to remind the Government that Hong Kong has no lack of money and resources; yet, after inputting the resources, support from different fronts are required, including coordination among government departments, so that real progress can be made in the development of the I&T industry.

Some time ago, I joined the delegation of the Legislative Council to visit the Bay Area and I was deeply impressed. An I&T centre at Songshan Lake in Dongguan provides one-stop support services to technological research and development ("R&D") projects. To put it simply, the centre provides one-stop support from project financing to production, even including the sourcing of components for production. In my view, such kind of one-stop service in the Mainland can provide genuine support for I&T development, turning Dongguan 10080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 into a technology production base where significant industrial upgrade has been made in recent years. I also found that many R&D talents in Hong Kong, such as students of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, went to Dongguan after graduation to start R&D projects at Songshan Lake. They not only gain progress in their researches but also secure opportunities for product development.

In view of this, if Hong Kong wants to take a share in I&T development, it must, first of all, strengthen its ties with the Mainland in respect of R&D projects and I&T development. In particular, when universities in Hong Kong conduct R&D projects, can the Government provide incentives or make arrangements to promote their cooperation with the Mainland, so as to utilize the comprehensive range of one-stop services in the Mainland to boost our local I&T development? I hope the Government will take on board my advice and realize that funding alone cannot solve the problems and other support will be required in the future.

Economic development is another issue that I wish to discuss with regard to this Budget. Take the high value-added maritime industry as an example. It is an industry that the Government once wished to develop and we have thus been patiently waiting for the Government to kick start the relevant work and put in resources, and thereafter, to implement ancillary measures. At present, many ships around the world have registered with the Hong Kong SAR Government to become Hong Kong ships, but only a very small proportion of ships have taken out maritime insurance in Hong Kong. If I am not wrong, less than 1% of ships around the world have done so, but Hong Kong actually ranks fourth on the flag state list. I therefore hold that the Government may consider removing various restrictions as I have suggested earlier for maritime companies to establish their bases in Hong Kong. By doing so, in addition to promoting the development of a single industry, the Government is likely to create demand for services like arbitration and accreditation. If Hong Kong can provide one-stop services to these companies, an industry chain can then be established. I hope that the Government will listen to our views.

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

In the past, the Marine Department often said that, according to the laws of Hong Kong, only the Director of Marine could issue waivers and grant permission for the provision of support to cargo ships sailing overseas. On this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10081 issue, we have proposed time and again legislative amendment to allow the Director of Marine to delegate his/her authority to registered ship surveyors of the Marine Department so as to enhance service efficiency in the performance of the said duties, thereby attracting more ships to register in Hong Kong and fly our regional flag, as well as use our arbitration services and take out insurance in Hong Kong. These efforts can support the establishment of an entire industry chain. I hope the Government will hear our voices.

Deputy Chairman, as the Under Secretary for Food and Health is present today, I would like to take this chance to once again bring up an issue that I raised at the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session earlier. Nowadays, the number of children with hyperactivity disorder/attention-deficit is on the rise in Hong Kong. The Chief Executive has undertaken to allocate additional resources to provide support to these children. We have repeatedly pointed out the long wait for children to receive the relevant assessments at the Maternal and Child Health Centres and the subsequent screening services at the Child Assessment Centres. I hope that the Government will take on board this view and provide resources for additional support so that the waiting time can be shortened, and parents can quickly decide whether their children are in need of interventional therapy.

Lastly, given the imminent commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, we have proposed to the Government from time to time that it should increase resources for improving the traffic arrangements of the Lantau Link and the North Lantau Highway. In particular, the Lantau Link is often closed unexpectedly for different reasons. It may also be closed today as part of the high wind traffic management. Mr CHAN Han-pan and I met the officers of the Transport Department some time ago to voice this demand again. The Government promised to review the criteria for implementing the high wind traffic management measures. These measures are of course necessary but the Government should also consider if there is room for review as consideration should be given to the impact of road closures on the public. Frankly speaking, frequent full closures will seriously affect road traffic, as well as residents in Lantau and Tung Chung and people heading to the airport. I hope the Government will listen to our voice and address this issue.

I also hope that electronic signboards will be installed on all major trunk roads in the territory to inform the public or drivers of the latest traffic conditions. For example, in case of traffic accident on the North Lantau Highway or the 10082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Lantau Link, if the Government has expeditiously informed drivers of the accident via the signboards, drivers may immediately change their routes. If drivers are only informed of the accident when they reach the North Lantau Highway or the Lantau Link, it serves no purpose as their cars are already stuck there. Therefore, we suggest installing electronic signboards on major trunk roads, including the Western Harbour Crossing. In the past the Transport Department often said that mobile apps were available to inform drivers of the traffic conditions, yet many drivers would query how they could have the time to use these apps when they were driving. The Government should therefore install electronic signboards on the roadside. I hope the Financial Secretary will take this advice and allocate resources for this task. In fact, it is not a costly suggestion and the Government should respond to our demand.

Deputy Chairman, I speak to support this Budget. I so submit.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the Budget presented by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has the lowest grading since 1997 and the strong repercussion from the community is unprecedented. Another unprecedented situation is that he has miscalculated the fiscal surplus. The Government's fiscal surplus is actually almost eight times greater than the estimated amount and this is the most serious error since 1997. In fact, the Government's fiscal surplus reaches $148 billion. I believe the general public cannot understand why the Financial Secretary has miscalculated the fiscal surplus. The actual fiscal surplus has amounted to $148 billion, almost eight times more than the estimated amount.

Ironically, as compared with the past few terms of the Legislative Council, the current-term Legislative Council has spent the shortest time debating this rather controversial Budget. Deputy Chairman, I will sum up my speech very briefly using the following expressions: "Zen Budget"; "mo lei tau gau"1―Deputy Chairman, I know from your reaction that you think I am a little out of bounds; "mo lei tau gau" is the full form of "mo lei tau" and it is a Cantonese slang used in Nanhai, Guangdong―"plugging gaps" and "weak in will and power".

1 "mo lei tau gau" (莫釐頭尻) or "mo lei tau" (無厘頭) is a Cantonese slang, meaning frivolous, nonsensical. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10083

Why is this Budget a "Zen Budget"? Let me tell the Government and the Financial Secretary, a bizarre situation has arisen in the real estate market these two days which is somewhat unconceivable. The selling price of a public rental housing unit in Lei Cheng Uk Estate, Cheung Sha Wan reached a record high of $10,380 per square foot. How can a 500 sq ft public rental housing unit fetch such a high price? Even though there is an MTR station in the area which facilitates convenient transport and there are sound coupling facilities, is such a price reasonable?

The focus of public comments in these few days is the monthly rent of a subdivided unit in a pigpen, ranging from $1,800 to $2,000. In the past, Hong Kong people had to face problems such as developer hegemony, the disparity between the rich and the poor and working poverty, but these are no longer problems for the current-term Government. Do these problems no longer exist or does "zen officials" fail to realize these are problems or consider that the problems can be solved by doing nothing?

The Global Wealth Report 2017 published by the Credit Suisse Research Institute pointed out that Hong Kong's Gini Coefficient is higher than 0.8. Deputy Chairman, according to our previous understanding, there will be social unrest if the Gini Coefficient is higher than 0.4. Hong Kong's Gini Coefficient was 0.54 in 2016, meaning that 1% of the richest people in Hong Kong have at least 50% to 60% of wealth in the entire society. Under the present economic situation and living environment, how can the public think that the Budget is satisfactory?

Among various social issues, the housing issue that I mentioned just now is very simple and realistic, and I have yet to discuss health care and education issues. Deputy Chairman, why do I say that the Budget is nonsensical? A case in point is that the Hong Kong Ocean Park will use the allocated funds to distribute complimentary admission tickets to students. The Financial Secretary later clarified that the provision of complimentary admission tickets to students was an incidental concession. However, people are confused by the policy. Should teachers buy admission tickets so that they can accompany their primary students to the Ocean Park? Should parents buy their admission tickets? This issue has aroused meaningless discussions. The Financial Secretary subsequently explained that since the Ocean Park was a local theme park owned by the Government, the concession of offering complimentary admission tickets was included in the Budget.

10084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Another nonsensical initiative is paying the examination fees for candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE"). When the Government originally proposed to exempt the examination fees, many people expressed online their intention to sit for DSE. I think the right direction of thinking is that why should candidates in Hong Kong have to pay examination fees to sit for DSE, introduced by the Government a few years ago? How come the Government has not considered abolishing the examination fees? This is a nonsensical initiative.

Another more nonsensical initiative is the Higher Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"). Before 2011, the Legislative Council argued incessantly about the need for an assets test and a Member even hurled a banana a few years ago. The Government introduced OALA later on. A person eligible for OALA should be aged 65 or above and meet other eligibility criteria. Deputy Chairman, Higher OALA will soon be implemented and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") will make arrangements for the elderly to apply for Higher OALA. First, SWD will issue a green notification letter to the elderly. In the second phase, SWD will issue yellow notification letters and in the third phase, SWD will issue red notification letters. To put it bluntly, does the Government want to test whether the elderly are suffering from dementia? Is the Government kidding me? A kaifong asked me, "Dr CHENG, I did not need to pay tax these few years, why do I still receive a green notification letter?" I would like to ask the Financial Secretary: Is the Government making a fool of the elderly? This is a nonsensical move of the Government. More than 10 years ago when I was still a student, I thought that Legislative Council Members could argue eloquently and could really participate in policy formulation.

At that time, I told the elderly person that the green notification letter was not a tax return. It notified OALA recipients that they could receive Higher OALA. He then asked me about the yellow notification letter and the red notification letter. How come things have become so complicated? The Government provides a variety of payments under the Social Security Allowance Scheme for the elderly. For the OALA, it will issue green, yellow and red notification letters; how about issuing multi-coloured notification letters next time, for example, the Government can issue purple notification letters to elders aged 71 and blue notification letters to elders aged 72. In doing so, the Government can also assess in passing whether these elderly persons are suffering from dementia. The Government really should not do so. Nevertheless, it always makes nonsensical moves. As members of the public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10085 have violently criticized that the relevant policies are only patchy fixes, the Government thus adopted the formula adopted last year for tax rebate and rates refund and changed some figures, so as to distribute around $50 billion. The Financial Secretary casually talked about giving cash handouts, and he might have told some political parties in advance that there would be a refund of $10,000 to each person, so these political parties put up banners for extensive publicity. Eventually, the Financial Secretary was halted for reasons unknown. I really do not understand what has happened.

When faced with pressure from public comments, the Financial Secretary has to plug gaps, which further highlights that he is weak in will and power. Hong Kong people are speculating how much money the Government will hand out; it is good even if $4,000 will be handed out. Macao will also hand out money, and it turns out that the amount to be handed out is more than double the amount the Government is considering to hand out. The Government is telling Hong Kong people that they will only know whether they will be given the cash handouts next year. So, some kaifongs query whether they will die from hunger while waiting for Government's handout of $4,000.

We have always advocated handing out money to all people and that the administrative costs to be saved will be very impressive. Now that the Government's budgetary estimates turned out to be wrong every year, it might as well set up a basic living committee or a basic income committee and draw a line, stating that it will hand out the remaining balance exceeding tens of billions of dollars to be shared by everyone. Making money altogether is a special feature of Hong Kong. Mr LI Ka-shing, who retires today, once said that a person on his own could hardly change the Hong Kong society and concerted efforts must be made. Of course, this comment was not addressed to me but the Government. What is the thinking of the Government? Is the Government just making nonsensical moves or is it weak in will and power when handling other matters?

The Budget will allocate $300 billion for health care services but that is the health care funding for the next 10 years. Only hospital beds will be added at present. According to specific figures, in the five hospital clusters of the Hospital Authority ("HA"), the hospital bed occupancy rate is higher than 138% and the situation is outrageous. In other words, more than 400 residents are vying for one hospital bed.

10086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

The waiting time for specialist consultations is very long and with ageing of the population, the waiting time for orthopaedics is almost two years, i.e. at least 90 weeks. The waiting time for some specialist consultations also exceeds 365 days; patients have to wait almost two years to consult specialists. This situation has already happen in Hong Kong Island West, probably because there are more female elderly persons in that district. Why does the Government not increase the recurrent public health care expenditures to solve the problem? Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has also put forward a proposal on the health care system just now. I have never thought that he would make such direct criticisms.

The Government has mentioned the problem of population ageing. In fact, we all need to consider the issue of retirement. The Government has commissioned Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a research study on universal retirement protection, but the Government had not adopted Prof CHOW's recommendations and it even stopped mentioning this issue. Deputy Chairman, this is an incident of not making decision despite repeated discussion, and the administration is having collective amnesia. Does this "Zen" Government do so to show us that it is weak in will and power?

In respect of education, the issues that we have frequently discussed include student suicides, school management and students being bullied at school. Even if the Government wants to respond to these issues, it must not indiscriminately allocate funds, e.g. allocating funds to implement the policy of "one social worker for each school". If the Government implements the policy of "one social worker for each school", what would happen to student counsellors employed by schools? The student counsellors have many years of experience and they have established relations with teachers and students. Does the Government think that problems can be solved and issues such as school management and student suicides will disappear through implementing the policy of "one social worker for each school"? In fact, the Government should review the 334 academic structure.

But what has Secretary Kevin YEUNG done? We have recently noticed how his basic educational logic and ability was. He could not discuss the issue of mother tongue in the right direction. I have mentioned this point in my last two speeches.

Lastly, the largest allocation in the Budget will be used on innovation and technology. Hong Kong once wanted to become a Chinese medicine port, a cyberport and a logistics port, but the relevant proposals did not work. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10087

Government now proposes to develop some mobile applications ("apps"). Yesterday there was reported in the press that the Government would allocate $4.5 million to a certain institution for developing an app to teach Baduanjin. It is interesting to note that the company responsible for the research and development responded today and stated that Baduanjin taught in the app they developed is not simple and it is artificial intelligence Baduanjin. If the elders made wrong movements, they would be taught how to make the eight Baduanjin movements over the phone. Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has practised Baduanjin, is he one of the persons responsible for demonstrating the Baduanjin movements? Is the Government allocating $4.5 million to carry out such innovation and technology task?

Deputy Chairman, we do not know how we should react to the Budget because it is utterly nonsensical. I will express my feelings using the following expressions: "Zen Budget", "mo lei tau gau ", "plugging gaps" and "weak in will and power". I absolutely oppose the Budget.

I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the discussion on the Budget involves three levels. First, the downstream level is about fiscal surplus, especially how the underestimated surplus, that is, the spare money should be distributed. The Financial Secretary now proposes a "gap-plugging" amendment to dole out money. The midstream level is about the distribution of financial resources in general, such as where does the money come from and how it should be used, which is concerned with our basic financial planning. The upstream level is about the distribution of financial powers.

We have spent too much time discussing the downstream level in recent months. Sometimes I wonder if the Financial Secretary has deliberately created a bomb. When the public suddenly found that there was such a huge fiscal surplus, they expected the Government to dole out money, and when the Financial Secretary refused, public anger was invoked. Eventually the Financial Secretary introduced a "gap-plugging" proposal. I believe that recently, 80% of our discussion time has been spent on this issue, which has consumed all the energy of Legislative Council Members of various political parties and groupings. I have repeatedly pointed out in the debates that I hope our disputes about the downstream issue can be ended this year. How can the disputes be ended? I suggest that the Financial Secretary establish a mechanism, stating clearly how 10088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 much of the surplus is to be shared by the general public. That will test the Financial Secretary's skill in financial distribution and he has to refrain from ending up with a fiscal surplus of over $100 billion every year. After the establishment of the mechanism, we will abide by the rules and do not have to spend too much time on discussing the downstream issues. We can then use the time to discuss the more important midstream and upstream matters instead.

Deputy Chairman, the midstream issue is about revenue and expenditure. Many colleagues talked about the details and I will say no more. Instead, I wish to discuss the broader directions, first, the revenue. Why is it that few people now talk about broadening the tax base or introducing new taxes? Is it because the Government has such a huge surplus that it loses the drive to discuss these issues? Mr Michael TIEN said we had to consider these issues because it was necessary to broaden the tax base in order to increase the recurrent expenditure in the long run. I think it may not be necessary. Why? That is because Hong Kong's fiscal reserve is well over $1,000 billion, totalling $4,000 billion if the Exchange Fund is included. Out of this $4,000 billion, if the Financial Secretary sets aside $3,000 billion for investment, must the investment income be channelled back to the Exchange Fund or can it be used for other purposes? This Council passed a motion on "Increasing the Government's share in the investment income of the Exchange Fund" in 2006. Joseph YAM, the former Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") once said that this issue could be discussed. Even though certain restrictions have been laid down in law, they are definitely not unchangeable. The Financial Secretary has the power to make changes. If the Financial Secretary can transfer a large portion of the investment income generated from the Exchange Fund to the government revenue account, many of the constraints can be relaxed. What are the constraints that can be relaxed? One of them is the housing problem, the prime concern of Hong Kong people.

If we look at the List of Sites for Sale in 2018-2019, we can see that the situation is rather dire now. Among the 27 hectares of land to be sold by the Development Bureau, 15 to 17 hectares of land will be used for high density residential development. The Financial Secretary also told the media that there would be a gap in the supply of public housing in 2023. What does that mean? The Government keeps selling land resources to developers, without reserving any land for building affordable housing to be rented or sold to the general public. I hope that after the transfer of the revenue, people will stop thinking that the Government has huge amounts of money but they cannot benefit from it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10089

In respect of expenditure, Mr SHIU Ka-chun said just now that the Financial Secretary had made a little progress because the unwritten rule that public expenditure should not exceed 20% of GDP seemed to have been revised as the ratio was now over 21%. However, I hope members of the public will understand that 21% is not a high percentage. When compared with other member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, their public expenditures are at least 30% of GDP; and expenditure in all areas in terms of percentage share in GDP are far higher than that of Hong Kong.

I wonder if the Financial Secretary has noticed that the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat has recently prepared a Research Brief to raise some comments on this year's Budget. I think the Government should read the Brief and make formal responses. Let me cite some of the comments. First, the share of education expenditure has maintained a declining trend over the past 10 years, dropping from 22% of total government expenditure in 2017-2018 to 20.8% this year. Concerning the Government's commitment to education, although the actual amount has increased, the share of education expenditure to total recurrent expenditure continues to decline. Second, the expenditure on services for the elderly remains largely stable at about 11% of the recurrent social welfare expenditure, but the ratio of the elderly population in Hong Kong is rising rapidly. By 2020, the elderly will take up over 20% of the entire population. Is the Government going to maintain this stable expenditure share? If so, how can it be proportionate to the growth of an elderly population? When can the universal retirement protection scheme, as mentioned by many colleagues, be implemented? If the Government does not implement the scheme when it has a hefty surplus, if in future there is a big disaster or if there is an onset of SARS again, and everyone is deeply troubled, will the Government say at that time that the scheme cannot be implemented?

The infrastructure expenditure has quadrupled over the past decade. The Capital Works Reserve Fund now requires almost $100 billion each year. More importantly, I wish to draw the Financial Secretary's attention that the cost of projects has kept increasing. I wonder if he has read a press report about the works of building a bridge across the Yuen Long Nullah, the cost has increased from $200 million in 2015 to the present $1.7 billion, an increase of several folds. Of course, the reasons given are the special technical difficulties, but the Financial Secretary should address this trend squarely. With an increasing expenditure in infrastructure development, fewer tasks can be accomplished by the same sum of money. Is this a problem worth paying attention to?

10090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

The Research Office has also identified another problem, which is, the Government has set aside various sums of money in the past decade. After tracking down the whereabouts of these funds, the Research Office finds that most of the money have not been spent or only a small portion of money have been spent. Just now Mr Michael TIEN said that if the $10 billion-odd for "gap-plugging" was used to set up a fund, cash subsidy could be doled out to the "N have-nots" on an ongoing basis. May I tell him that HKMA has only invested half of the $220 billion of the Future Fund established by John TSANG, while the whereabouts of the other half of the amount is unknown. As the $110 billion of the Future Fund is 10 times more than the $10 billion-odd earmarked for the "gap-plugging" proposal, I think more work can be done with the money.

Deputy Chairman, we have already spoken too much about the downstream issue of handing out money. We should discuss the midstream issue more as the movement of large sums of money is involved. Yet, the upstream issue on the distribution of financial powers should be our prime concern and should be extensively discussed. Dr Priscilla LEUNG's speech is really amusing, and I will name her the most "entertaining Member". Why do I make this comment? Very often she only sees the phenomena but she can never tell the cause of such phenomena. Just now, she described the phenomena, saying that only a few Members spoke in this debate and the debate would end soon. However, she failed to see the reasons behind, or she deliberately did not tell the reasons. She said all troubles were gone. Is it true that all troubles are gone? Obviously not. Do people in the community say that all troubles are gone because Members do not filibuster, do not argue and do not hurl objects at Council meetings? What has happened in this Council? Deputy Chairman, the Council has not dealt with the problems. It has only amended the Rules of Procedure to deal with the persons who pointed out the problems.

To resolve the core problems at present, the direction should be changing the distribution of financial powers. How to change the distribution of such powers? At present, neither the Legislative Council nor the Government represented by the Financial Secretary is elected by universal suffrage. They do not have the public mandate. Today I think it is even more important to talk about the distribution of public financial powers between the Executive Authorities and the legislature. Why do Members find it necessary to filibuster or hurl objects? Why do they find it necessary to propose so many amendments? The legislatures of countries all over the world have the power to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10091 amend their government budget and raise the estimates of certain items, but we do not have this power. If Members had had this power, they would not have pleaded with Paul CHAN to undertake the tasks that they mentioned earlier. As long as the 35 Members had put forward amendments, they would have accomplished the tasks, such as the childcare services mentioned by Mr Michael TIEN, the provision of traffic allowance by lowering the eligibility age for fare concession to elderly aged 60, as proposed by Mr Holden CHOW. The Legislative Council would not have to rely on the Financial Secretary to get things done; Members could achieve the relevant goals by proposing amendments on their own. However, we do not have such a power. Do Members think there will be no more problems? No, there are bound to be problems. Besides, with the Government arrogating all powers to itself, this Council and the whole community of Hong Kong have lost their vitality.

Lastly, Deputy Chairman, I hope that the colleagues sitting on the right will consider one question, which is why they should support this Budget; or on what criteria will they support the Budget. What is the mission of the democrats in Hong Kong? I see a worrying trend, which is, we are like worshippers, pleading with the Financial Secretary to take care of our sector and take on board our views; and if he consents, we will vote to support the Budget. However, what is the key mission of the democrats? The key mission is to strive for the public and the Council the power to control the finances and the power to propose amendments, so that we can directly strive for increasing the spending on certain specific items on behalf of the people. If we cannot achieve that but casually support the Budget, what will be the result? Consequently, the Beijing authority and also the SAR Government will be able to weaken the power of the democrats. Hence, in the light of the unequal distribution of financial powers that I talked about earlier, I will certainly oppose this Budget.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): I think it is reasonable for a Member of the Legislative Council to fight for benefits for his or her sector and electors. Likewise I have earlier said to the Financial Secretary, given the hefty fiscal surplus of the current-term Government, why did it not provide any concession on rent or licence fees for market stalls?

In this entire debate, many non-establishment Members have, apart from voicing their demands, rebuked the Government and totally denied the contributions of the Budget. I do not agree with them.

10092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

While government resources are limited, demands of Members and the public are unlimited. Since neither the Chief Executive nor the Financial Secretary owns public money, they also hope that they can devise ways to help Hong Kong people. However, who should get help and whether everyone can get the help, such questions will test the Government's wisdom.

After the delivery of the Budget, some people thought that some Hong Kong people have been omitted. The Government immediately put forward a "gap-plugging" proposal to hand out $4,000. Nevertheless, some Members still rebuked the Government for being delayed in putting forward the proposal. It is indeed very difficult to be a public officer. If he does not remedy the situation in response to Members' views, Members will accuse him of ignoring them; but when he puts forward a proposal of handing out $4,000 to 3.2 million people, he is accused of performing poorly. In fact, Hong Kong has all along been filled with such negative sentiments which are not conductive to Hong Kong as a whole.

In relation to the Budget, some Members have proposed to deduct the expenditures and remunerations of the three Secretaries of Departments, the 13 Directors of Bureaux and the Chief Executive. In fact, if Hong Kong people are to vote on the performance of public officers as well as that of Members, I am very worried that the remunerations of some Members may be deducted to zero, and those Members may even have to pay money to the Government to remain in office. Nonetheless, Deputy Chairman, let us keep on making efforts.

I will now turn to the issue of infrastructure. If there are cost overruns in some big infrastructure projects, I believe the Government, Members and the public have to carefully examine the reasons. Has the Government initially made wrong estimations or was the cost overruns caused by delays in getting approvals by the Legislative Council? What actually are the reasons? The cost overruns involve huge sums of money and I believe that is not good for Hong Kong. Nevertheless, some Members said that these infrastructures are all "white elephants" projects. Deputy Chairman, I cannot agree with this view at all. Without infrastructure, Hong Kong will become a rural area. Thus, the Government must vigorously develop infrastructure so as to integrate Hong Kong into the Mainland markets and open up overseas markets.

Regarding business environment, Financial Secretary, Hong Kong's income depends on our business environment. Our income actually depends on whether businesses can make money and that is what economics is all about. We are all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10093 aware of the SAR Government's proactive attitude towards the abolition of the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund System. Besides, we have demanded for labour importation many times because of manpower shortage. Recently, the Government has also indicated that it would regulate person-to-person telemarketing calls and proposed to introduce a statutory cooling-off period regarding contracts of sale and services. All these measures will affect our business environment and we are really worried. Financial Secretary, I hope you can create more opportunities to discuss with Members on the issue of business environment.

I will not make a long speech about the Budget. Deputy Chairman, I have heard many non-establishment Members say that all Hong Kong people are condemning the Budget. I hold a Hong Kong identity card, but I have not condemned the Budget and I think it is fine. Financial Secretary, many of my friends who belong to the middle class are not keen on politics, but after reading the Budget, they called me and said that the Government cared for them. They said so because they can benefit from the concession on salaries tax; people having mortgage loans can benefit from the waiver in rates; and even small business owners can benefit from the two-tiered profits tax rates system to be introduced this year. These people think that the Government has not neglected their interests. Thus, the Budget is not condemned by all Hong Kong people, as some Members have suggested. In fact, many people, including me, support the Budget.

Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, independent operation is one of the important factors for the success of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). We should respect the autonomy and independence of ICAC and refrain from interfering with its 10094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 internal affairs. In the Budget debate of the Legislative Council, some Members have made a few criticisms about the internal personnel management issues of ICAC. As regards such false and unfounded allegations, the Government must hereby make a response and clarification, so as to set the record straight.

ICAC established a Special Investigation Unit in 2013 to conduct an investigation into the case involving former Commissioner of ICAC Mr Timothy TONG. The ICAC Complaints Committee also received a complaint against Ms Julie MU, former Director of Community Relations, during this period. As the complaint was related to Mr TONG's case, it was thus referred to the Special Investigation Unit for a joint investigation. After a thorough and comprehensive investigation and analysis, the Special Investigation Unit presented the results of the criminal investigation to the Department of Justice for consideration. The Department of Justice ultimately considered that as far as the case was concerned, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to institute criminal prosecution against any persons. The Operations Review Committee also agreed to the views of the Department of Justice and considered that no follow-up actions were required. The Special Investigation Unit also considered the non-criminal complaint against Ms Julie MU unsubstantiated, and made a report to the ICAC Complaints Committee, which accepted the results of the investigation. ICAC subsequently announced the results by issuing a press release. In response to Mr TONG's case, ICAC has comprehensively tightened its regulations and guidelines on entertainment, duty visits and offering of souvenirs; and set up an Internal Audit Unit to considerably enhance its corporate governance standards and regularly report to the Advisory Committee on Corruption.

The appointment of the Head of Operations of ICAC is an internal personnel management issue of ICAC and falls within the remit of the Commissioner of ICAC. Regarding staff movement at the top echelon of ICAC in mid-2016, the Commissioner of ICAC and the then Chief Secretary for Administration had explained clearly and in detail the arrangement to Members, the media and the general public on various occasions. All arrangements had been made in response to the personnel management needs of ICAC and in line with the regulations and guidelines of the Government and ICAC.

As for the post of the Head of Operations, over the two years or so following the leaving office of Mr Ryan WONG, the post has been filled by the acting appointments of Ms Rebecca LI and Mr Ricky YAU for administrative convenience and has never been vacated. In fact, there are a certain number of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10095 acting appointments in various departments and ranks of ICAC. The acting appointment of an officer as the Head of Operations is not an exception, nor does it violate any regulations of the Government and ICAC.

Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would like to thank Members for expressing their valuable views on the Budget during their scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). I am even more grateful to them for voting in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill and the amendments moved by the Government in respect of the Caring and Sharing Scheme. In this session, I wish to briefly respond to some opinions expressed by Members earlier in the debate.

Deputy Chairman, Mr CHU Hoi-dick thinks that in addition to the fiscal reserves, the Government can use $4,000 billion worth of assets in the Exchange Fund. This is a misunderstanding. In order to prevent the public from being misled, please allow me to explain briefly. As at 31 March this year, the total assets of the Exchange Fund stood at $4,100-odd billion, but its net assets after the deduction of liabilities only amounted to $710 billion. In other words, of the $4,100-odd billion worth of assets of the Exchange Fund, only $710 billion worth of assets belonged to the SAR Government. Let me illustrate this by way of an analogy. Suppose a person owns a property on which the mortgage has yet to be repaid in full. If he wants to cash out by selling the property, he has to pay off the loan first; only after that can he use the remaining sum of money. Besides, the Exchange Fund Ordinance provides that the primary purpose of the Exchange Fund is to support the exchange value of the Hong Kong dollar and maintain the stability and integrity of the monetary and financial systems of Hong Kong, so as to maintain Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre. Therefore, the Government cannot rashly withdraw money from the Exchange Fund to meet its day-to-day expenses.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick has also mentioned that it is stated in a research report of the Legislative Council that half of $200-odd billion of the Future Fund has not been invested yet. This is incorrect, and the Government has earlier written to 10096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 the Legislative Council to make clarifications. In fact, half of the $200-odd billion of the Future Fund has been invested in long-term growth funds with lower liquidity but higher returns, whereas the other half (together with other monies) has gone into general investments which have been yielding returns.

Chairman, quite a number of Members have remarked in their speeches that the Government has failed to plan properly and allocate sufficient resources for welfare and health care. When I prepared this year's Budget, I laid particular stress on explaining the Government's priorities in using public resources and set forth the three main objectives of the Budget. One of the objectives is to invest for the future to make early preparations for the challenges posed by an ageing population. In fact, in this Budget, the Government has increased its long-term commitments to social welfare and health care. In 2018-2019, the estimated recurrent expenditure on social welfare and health care accounts for about 37% of government recurrent expenditure, exceeding $150 billion in total. Recurrent expenditure in these two areas has recorded a cumulative increase of more than 48% over the past five years. The estimated total expenditure on social welfare is about $92.6 billion and that on health care is $78 billion, both of which have increased substantially from the revised estimates for 2017-2018, up 30.7% and 9.5% respectively, much higher than the forecast nominal economic growth of 5.5% to 6.5% for 2018.

The Budget also demonstrates the Government's determination to improve such policy areas as social welfare and health care in the long run. In the case of health care services, the Budget has raised the recurrent funding for the Hospital Authority ("HA") for 2018-2019 by nearly $6 billion to increase the numbers of hospital beds and health care staff. The Government is also discussing with the University Grants Committee a further increase in publicly-funded training places for health care personnel and relevant allied health professionals in the coming three years. Moreover, I have set aside $300 billion from the fiscal reserves for HA to advance the planning of the second 10-year hospital development plan, for the Department of Health to improve its clinic facilities, and for the universities concerned and the Prince Philip Dental Hospital to upgrade health care teaching facilities so as to expand their capacity for health care manpower training. The Government will also ensure that HA has adequate resources to employ all local medical graduates, and will provide HA with additional funding to enhance the training of health care personnel. It is thus unfair for some Members to criticize the Budget for failing to make good use of the surplus to make forward-looking, long-term investments for Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10097

Chairman, Ms Tanya CHAN has commented that the Government seems to be somewhat partial in that it has budgeted $140 million to subsidize arts groups' performances in the Bay Area but only committed $55 million to subsidize arts groups and artists. This is a misunderstanding. The Government's funding of $140 million to subsidize arts groups' performances in the Bay Area is to be used for five years, whereas the $55 million for arts groups and artists is an estimated provision for one year. Also, this year's Budget proposes to, from 2018-2019 onwards, progressively increase the recurrent provision to $50 million to support Hong Kong's artists and arts groups in performing and staging exhibitions overseas; allocate $40 million to the Hong Kong Arts Festival Society for commissioning performances by Hong Kong's artists and arts groups during the Arts Festival; and allocate another $500 million to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department for the acquisition of museum collections, mainly through purchases of local artists' works.

Chairman, with regard to the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project mentioned by Mr Michael TIEN, it is a popular existing service. If the relevant Policy Bureau wants to enhance the standard and coverage of this service, I am willing to deploy resources to support it. In addition, the Government is actively following up Mr Holden CHOW's proposal to further develop services related to the maritime industry. I am confident that Hong Kong's competitiveness in this area will be significantly enhanced, and I am determined to make this happen.

Chairman, the Legislative Council's scrutiny of the Bill has reached the final stage, and we are just one step away from the passage of the Bill. I implore Members to support the Bill so that the Government can implement the initiatives in the Budget as early as possible. I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The joint debate has come to a close. The committee will proceed to voting of the questions. The committee now votes on the sums for 44 heads to which amendments were negatived standing part of the Schedule.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the sums for heads 21, 22, 28, 30, 33, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 60, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79, 82, 90, 91, 92, 96, 118, 122, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141 to 144, 148, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 186, 188, 190 and 194 stand part of the Schedule.

10098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

Mr James TO and Mr WU Chi-wai abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10099

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 Members present, 22 were in favour of the motion, 5 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now votes on the increased sums for two heads standing part of the Schedule.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the increased sums for heads 170 and 173 stand part of the Schedule.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

10100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

Prof Joseph LEE abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 57 Members present, 49 were in favour of the motion, 6 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the Financial Secretary's amendments to heads 170 and 173 have been passed by the committee earlier, I have given leave for the Financial Secretary to move consequential amendments to the Schedule.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10101

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that the sub-total of $447,887,990,000 after Vote Number 194 in the Schedule be deleted and substituted by $459,638,990,000, and that the total of $450,477,990,000 at the end of the Schedule be deleted and substituted by $462,228,990,000, in accordance with the decisions just taken by the committee in respect of the sums for heads 170 and 173.

Proposed amendment

Schedule (see Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

10102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the amendment.

Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 59 Members present, 49 were in favour of the amendment, 8 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Schedule as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10103

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

10104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 60 Members present, 49 were in favour of the motion and 10 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now votes on the clauses of the Bill.

I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clause stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 1.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10105

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 62 Members present, 43 were in favour of the motion, 10 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clause stand part of the Bill.

10106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, in accordance with Rule 68(6) of the Rules of Procedure, I move a consequential amendment to clause 2 that the sum of $450,477,990,000 be deleted and substituted by $462,228,990,000.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (see Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10107

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the amendment.

Mr James TO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 61 Members present, 42 were in favour of the amendment, 10 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2 as amended.

10108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 2 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Long title.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now move a consequential amendment to the long title that the sum of $450,477,990,000 be deleted and substituted by $462,228,990,000.

Proposed amendment

Long title (see Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10109

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

10110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr James TO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 62 Members present, 42 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Appropriation Bill 2018 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Appropriation Bill 2018 has been passed by committee of the whole Council with amendments. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Financial Secretary be passed.

In accordance with Rule 69A(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on forthwith without amendment or debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10111

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

10112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 63 Members present, 43 were in favour of the motion, 11 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2018

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Appropriation Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Appropriation Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.

In accordance with Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure, the motion for Third Reading shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10113

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

10114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 63 Members present, 43 were in favour of the motion, 11 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Appropriation Bill 2018.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 16 May 2018.

Adjourned accordingly at 5:46 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2018 10115

Annex I