LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12129

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Friday, 29 May 2015

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.

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

12130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

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

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

THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12131

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

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

12132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12133

PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

12134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. Council will continue to consider the proposed resolution under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development.

Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 54A OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 28 May 2015

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. Some Members are still in bed. Please summon them back to the Chamber. They cannot always be lazy bones.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I believe many Members present in the Chamber do not know what we are debating now. Let me remind them. Basically, we are discussing the problems that will arise if the old motion is repealed.

President, why do I oppose the repealing of the old motion? One of the reasons is that if we can retain the old motion, the authorities will only be able to revise the 2014-2015 Budget, and they will have no power to revise the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12135

2015-2016 Budget. Even if the Government's funding application for the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau is approved afterwards, it cannot become a new item in the 2015-2016 Budget. This is a legal technicality. Therefore, if we can successfully block the repealing of the old motion, it will be basically impossible for the Government to apply for funding to establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Of course, it would be best for the Government itself to withdraw the motion.

Last time, I said the "Secretary for Name Cards" had so far failed to clearly explain why a new bureau must be established under his leadership. Is it because he is incapable? "Long Hair" even described him as shameless. But I will not say so.

President, earlier, a renowned and eminent figure in the high-tech industry of Hong Kong invited me to a meal, trying to persuade me to support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau and explain the importance to me. I told him that I did not object to the establishment of the proposed bureau in principle, but one basic condition must be met ― research must dovetail with production. In the past, the Government wastefully spent $5 billion on a number of innovation and technology research projects, one example being the award-winning project undertaken by a home-grown youngster through the Science Park. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has also mentioned this project, and it is about quantifying the mercury content in water. President, although this research is of proven help to the testing of water quality, the Hong Kong Government has not adopted it, thus wasting money and efforts. I do not know how many more researches the Government has wasted. Some time ago, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University also did some successful researches, including researches on electric cars. But in the end, all was sold for a song to American companies. The key point is that research must dovetail with production.

The friend I have mentioned once sat on a high-level advisory body on technology of the Hong Kong Government, and was the chairman of a charitable organization in the community. He is quite well-known. I told him that if research did not dovetail with production, the only result would be a transfer of benefits. Tertiary institutions on good terms with the Government may get lots of research funding, but at the end of the day, the research projects will not be of any help to Hong Kong's overall development, nor can they improve the livelihood of people and our economy. Fanny LAW said that even the conduct 12136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 of pure research will require the employment of many people. In that case, why don't we merge research with production?

Let us look at the research on drugs as an example. President, do you know how expensive targeted therapy drugs are? The dosage for one month will cost $10,000 to $20,000. Why doesn't Hong Kong do some serious research in this area, so as to benefit Hong Kong people and even the poor masses in the world? Why can't our research have any direct linkage with our living, people's interests and the economy? Why are we so stupid? Why can't we formulate such policies? President, if our policy is to merge research and production, I will surely support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. But this is not the case now. The Government says that it is difficult to find land. If there is no land, it can ask the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to release land. The PLA has close to 2 000 hectares of land, which is big enough for building four towns like Tin Shui Wai. Alternatively, the land occupied by the golf course can be vacated, or it can ask LEUNG Chun-ying to give up his Fanling villa. How can they say that there is no land? Why do they have land to build a back garden in the North East New Territories for tycoons and also a shopping city? Which should be more important? The well-being of Hong Kong people? Attending to the Mainland tycoons? Enabling the People's Republic of China to fulfil its political mission of governing Hong Kong?

Therefore, we must know very clearly the real purpose of establishing a bureau. I have come to the judgment that this proposed bureau is meant for transferring benefits to the rich and powerful and dividing the political booty among "LEUNG fans". Through this bureau, tens of billions of dollars will be funnelled to his trusted aides, and they can continue to abuse their authority to make gains.

I have three minutes left. President, after listening to my analysis, my friend from the technology sector was fully convinced that if the proposed bureau is to be established, research and production must be merged as I have just asserted, otherwise it will be a waste of resources. He is engaged in the manufacturing of electronic products and runs a factory on the Mainland. He says that it is difficult to set up a factory in Hong Kong. This is exactly where the problem lies. To solve this problem, the Government must put in place many ancillary measures, including tax concessions and land supply.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12137

In order to give Members more time for consideration, President, I propose that the debate be now adjourned under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure reads: "A Member who has risen to speak on a question in the Council may move without notice that the debate be now adjourned." Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure, I now propose the question to you and that is: That the debate on the two proposed resolutions moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development and the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Albert CHAN be now adjourned.

Under Rule 40(5), no amendment shall be moved to this adjournment motion. I now call on Members to speak on this motion. Secretary, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development indicated that he did not wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, you have spoken. According to the Rules of Procedure, the speech you made just now was the speech for moving this adjournment motion. However, after other Members have spoken, you still have another chance to reply, and you may speak for up to 15 minutes.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

12138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please speak.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I have only three points to make. First, I think this adjournment debate moved by Mr Albert CHAN is an undeclared war of filibustering; second, they will lose people's support still further if they continue to filibuster by proposing adjournment motions or requesting headcounts; and third, I call upon Members to oppose this wrongful adjournment motion.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Albert CHAN has proposed amendments to this motion and now he is moving an adjournment motion. In other words, he is playing the dual role of a human being and a ghost. I really wonder if he is suffering from schizophenia. Therefore, I oppose the adjournment motion moved by Mr Albert CHAN.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak against this adjournment motion. President, under the original arrangement, the debate on this motion should start with a speech by the Secretary, and the two Members proposing the amendments will each speak for 15 minutes afterwards, making a total of about 30 minutes. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee, I will then speak. Yesterday, the two Members proposing the amendments spoke for half an hour in total, but the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber was rung many times, and this took another two hours. Now, there is even this adjournment motion.

People of the technology sector and the general public can see that these Members have tried to block Hong Kong's progress. Even though everyone thinks that innovation and technology must be promoted, they still want to put up LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12139 hindrance. It is of course true that establishing a bureau is only one segment, not all the efforts, of the promotion of innovation and technology. But society has come to the consensus that innovation and technology must be upgraded to the bureau level, if Hong Kong is to progress in this area, particularly for achieving the better collaboration among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors. In this Chamber today, some Members are once again trying to stop the establishment of this proposed bureau. I am frankly baffled. This only reflects that some Members will oppose for the sake of opposing, attack the Government for the sake of attacking it, and block Hong Kong's progress for the sake of blocking its progress. I oppose this adjournment motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I would like to express my thanks to Mr Albert CHAN for moving this adjournment motion. In their speeches, Members may speak in support of the adjournment motion, or they may speak against it. But they must present clear reasoning and ideas. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan stated just now that "he" asked for a debate but now "he" also moved an adjournment motion. Her words are wrong. I have not asked for a debate on the resolutions. However, I have proposed 16 amendments to the second resolution. Therefore, she may say that I am the one who proposed amendments for debate and also the one who supports the adjournment of the debate.

There are far too many reasons for adjourning a motion debate, and Members who support adjournment may express their views. On my part, the 16 amendments I have moved have all stemmed from my discontent with the Government's resolutions on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau, so I will naturally make use of all available time to express my views. Actually, they should not accuse others of filibustering all the time. With this Council's procedure of handling the resolutions on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau, filibuster is simply impossible. They can of course argue that any Members who speak must be filibustering, and that if the 27 pan-democratic Members all rise to speak in an attempt to block the passage of the resolutions today, their action is already a form of filibustering. But they cannot argue that way.

12140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

Each Member can only speak for 15 minutes on the resolutions, and a Member who has proposed over 10 amendments is likewise given 15 minutes only. Thus, how can there be any filibuster? As for the time spent on headcounts, the President has repeatedly advised Members that if they do not want to give any Members a chance to request a headcount, they should stay in the Chamber.

My 15-minute speech earlier on was also interrupted three times. I do not blame the Members who requested the headcounts. But I blame myself for failing to make Members stay. Therefore, if they want the debate to progress smoothly in the time to come, they must realize that the three or four of us cannot possibly put up any hindrance. Only the 40-odd Members on their side will be able to maintain the smooth progress of the debate and prevent any Members from requesting the President to do a headcount. I will surely succeed if I request a headcount now. Hence, I must set the record straight.

They keep talking about filibuster and waste of resources. Let me say that our opposition to the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau is no different from our objection to many "white elephant" projects in the past. In retrospect, I would say our opposition was always intended to save Hong Kong people's money. Some Members say that the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau only involves very little money, just about several dozen million dollars, so we may as well endorse the expenditure and see whether the proposed bureau can really achieve something. This is tantamount to saying that it will do no harm to place a bet, as not much money is involved. However, as we pointed out in past debates, spending several dozen million dollars a year on employing a Bureau Director may not be such a big deal, but what matters is the motive behind the whole thing. It will not be in the interest of Hong Kong if LEUNG Chun-ying only wants to dole out "political rewards" or even other substantial benefits, rather than making any sincere efforts to develop innovation and technology.

President, I support the adjournment motion because the Government has never given any serious responses to our suggestions and questions, such as my request that in the course of handling the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, a full account of the entire process and all the details must be given to this Council under the leadership of Financial Secretary John TSANG. Gregory SO should not be asked to make this present proposal on reducing his LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12141 own workload. Actually, a reduction of workload is the same as a pay rise, so Gregory SO is in effect submitting a proposal on increasing his own pay for our approval. This is unprocedural.

Besides, I have also requested the conduct of value-for-money audits on what the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau managed to achieve or failed to achieve in the area of innovation and technology in at least the past three years. Actually, we should begin by first asking the Bureau what it wanted to achieve since we really do not know what it intended to do. Perhaps, if Members who support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau have any chances to speak later, they can tell me what they think the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of the SAR Government has been trying to do all these years. What innovation and technology policies have it put forward anyway? Apart from setting up some funds and organizing parties to flaunt its so-called achievements … There is also the Hong Kong Science Park (the Science Park). But then, what has the Science Park done? What has it achieved? And, what has it failed to achieve? Does the problem lie with organizational structure, or with the lack of intention and ability?

Secretary SO, I do not think you would prepare a report to answer the question I asked you last time ― which of the following would determine whether your Bureau could achieve its objectives and aims under your leadership: organizational structure, personnel problems, your lack of time or ability, or the failure of your boss to give you any vision? Following this adjournment motion, please think about this question carefully.

I was very angry when I spoke last time, and at the end of my speech, I even questioned if there was really such a lack of talents in the area of innovation and technology. There are certainly talents, but the Government simply does not cherish them, nor does it attach any importance to them. It is only when they return to Hong Kong with overseas awards that the Government starts to cherish them and holds celebration parties for them. One such award-winner therefore could not help telling us his story of bitterness and grievances. He told us how the Centre for Food Safety refused to co-operate with him years back. It was just like the plots of some old Cantonese movies, and I do not know whether the President has seen them before. I am talking about old Cantonese movies like A Respectable Tutor and Let the Scholar Eat Like a Dog. The protagonist is invariably looked down upon by others at the very beginning, but eventually he 12142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 makes a mark in society and becomes a "Zhuang Yuan". Gongs and drums are beaten in celebration when he returns home. People will then say that they have long since realized his potential for success, and their treatment of him years ago was only meant to inspire him and make him struggle hard. They will add that he is now successful, and this can prove the success of the policy to force him to go outside for development.

The Government turned down this award-winner, but a private company did not. A private cosmetic company was only too happy to take him on. The Chinese name of this company is "水中銀", meaning "silver in water". How does his idea work? His idea is based on the observation that when fishes swim across cosmetics or food products containing mercury, their colours will change immediately, thus indicating the presence of plasticizers or heavy metals. This is simply like using a silver chopstick to test poison in food in the past. However, the SAR Government does not appreciate the efforts of these talents, and it has only set up certain funds for financing their participation in overseas exhibitions and competitions. But such support does not require the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau at all. The Government may just allocate a sum of money, or simply use the salaries of the Secretary, for the purpose of enabling these talents to take part in overseas contests and win more awards at the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva. That way, LEUNG Chun-ying can boast of himself in press conferences, saying that although Hong Kong is a small place and there is no bureau for innovation and technology, the Government has still nurtured many such talents. The story of innovation and technology development in Hong Kong is so very deplorable.

Moreover, we also find the papers previously submitted by the Government to this Council lacking in any substance, and for this reason, we think the debate should be adjourned. As the Government has since failed to give us any supplementary papers with more substantial contents, we have had to spend long periods of time asking questions in the relevant Panel and the Finance Committee. But the Government has simply told us that they can only answer this much, meaning that we must take it or leave it, must either vote for the proposal or vote against it, rather than bothering him with any more nonsense. By saying so, Secretary Gregory SO actually wants us to cast our votes forthwith to fix the final outcome. Since day one, he has known that there is no need for any discussion, because he will have enough votes and nothing will go wrong with voting.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12143

A Member has criticized us for opposing for the sake of opposing. We will of course oppose for the sake of opposing. Is he saying that we should oppose for the sake of agreeing? Actually, throughout the Government's discussions with us on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau, it has never really discussed any other possibilities with us. It only points out in the last part of its paper that this option is not feasible, that option is inefficient, and so on. But it has never explained why it thinks the existing proposal is efficient and effective, and what the proposed bureau is supposed to do.

He has not even told us what the proposed bureau is supposed to do. He says that after the new Bureau Director has assumed office, he will determine the vision and objectives. Well, the point is that suppose he can now set out 10 benchmarks, telling us that the new bureau will achieve totally 10 objectives after its establishment, then we may still tell ourselves that two years or a number of years later, even though LEUNG Chun-ying is re-elected as the Chief Executive, we can still settle scores with him and hold him responsible for tricking Hong Kong people and the 40 or so pro-establishment Members (and also democratic Members, of course) into supporting his Innovation and Technology Bureau. Can he achieve the 10 objectives? If he can achieve only two, we can hold him accountable. But he has not done so. His words are not only empty talks but also total empty talks, spoken with no intention of honouring them.

When it comes to vision, the Government has been talking about the co-operation among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors almost like a slogan. But what support has it given to the academia and research sectors? How many research outcomes has it adopted? The Government only talks about developing innovation and technology, upgrading productivity, boosting the economy, and enhancing people's quality of living. Even secondary students can tell the importance of all these. Nevertheless, what have caused the stagnant development of the technology industry of Hong Kong so far? Some people look at this issue with a very simplistic perspective. I once discussed the matter with Prof WONG Kam-fai. He said that when Mrs Rita LAU was the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development ― she was Gregory SO's predecessor ― she once attended a party. At that time, people from the technology industry could not even get close to her and have a word with her because she was surrounded by people from the business sector. This explains why some people now think that if there is a Secretary for Innovation and Technology, it may be easier for them to approach and talk with him. This may be the thinking of some people now. They think that if a Bureau Director is 12144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 appointed, they would be able to approach him and talk to him. They think that they can at least talk to him, but without such a Bureau Director, they would not be able to say anything at all.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, actually, most of the views you have expressed in your speech so far should only be expressed in the debate on whether the two resolutions proposed by the Secretary should be supported.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I agree. However, the reasons I have explained can also be used for supporting the adjournment motion moved by Mr Albert CHAN, because I do not support the two resolutions proposed by the Secretary. Therefore, I will definitely support Mr Albert CHAN's adjournment motion. Even one day is already too long in politics. Maybe, LEUNG Chun-ying will no longer be here next week, and people may change their minds then.

President, since you have said so, you must know that I am going to reprove Gregory SO for building one more house, thus making it necessary to employ two housekeepers and more workers, and so on. I am not going to repeat my points lest you may be upset. I do not want to act against your instruction.

However, the fact is that the Secretary or the Government has never examined other alternatives seriously and discussed them in detail with Members. As we often say, the Bureau, its Political Assistant and Under Secretary have never said anything to us, and Fanny LAW is perhaps the only exception. Secretary SO did say one or two words to us when we came across him in the Ante-Chamber. But all was just casual exchanges of views, not meant for canvassing or lobbying.

We can see that what Hong Kong needs most urgently now is not the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. In order to develop innovation and technology in Hong Kong, there should be a level playing field. The Government must not erect any obstacles that impede people's success and development. I really wonder what they have been doing all this time before the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Simply wait with folded arms and stop working until the birth of the "child"? Are they saying that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12145 whenever Members against the proposed bureau seek to ask more questions, or whenever one more meeting session is held, such Members must be attempting to filibuster or cause delay?

President, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are not capable of posing any hindrance, especially during the stage of discussing the proposed resolutions. The number of Members who will speak later is beyond my control. Afterwards, the 32 amendments will be put to vote one by one, each with a voting time of one minute. When this is all over, the final step is to vote on the two resolutions proposed by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development.

The reason why some Members oppose the resolutions ― I do not know if Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will attend the meeting today ― is that the SAR Government has never encouraged any competition. We can see that in the free television licence application made by Hong Kong Television Network Limited, the Government did not follow the established rules. The Government's proposal of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau at this juncture is aimed at giving him more resources and greater power to transfer more benefits. The aim is to pave the way for him.

No wonder a Member says that despite his intention to run in the Chief Executive election, he will not do so if the 1 200-member Election Committee remains unchanged in composition. This is because LEUNG Chun-ying's current term of office is already drawing to an end but he is still trying to transfer benefits to the sector by establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau and creating new posts. In this way, he will get all the votes. I am not soliciting support for "pocket it first" and "one person, one vote". I am just trying to point out the political reality that even at the end of his term, when there is just a year or so left, he is still trying to create superfluous posts. Therefore, it would be most desirable to pass this adjournment motion and let the next Government raise the issue again. Secretary Gregory SO of the current-term Government should then prepare a review report to assist us in our discussion of the proposal.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

12146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development indicated that he did not wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, you may now speak in reply.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, you asked the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development twice if he wanted to speak on the adjournment motion. He invariably declined to speak.

President, the Government is really very terrible. It thinks that with the 43 votes from the royalists, it can do whatever it wants and needs not offer any explanation, lobby for support, debate with us, or give any account to the public. President, he is a Bureau Director. How can he possibly behave like a mute person in the Chamber? Doesn't he have any views on the adjournment motion? Why can't he follow Mr WONG Kwok-hing's example of enumerating his points one by one in a few simple words? Is it because he is unable to present his points since he has not prepared a script, or he has not prepared anything beforehand in reply to my questions, or his assistant has not prepared a script for him? If he cannot speak good Cantonese after living in Canada for a long time, he can speak in English. If he thinks that this is still not all right, he may even speak in Putonghua.

President, it is absolutely baffling that as a Bureau Director, he has behaved simply like a mute person in the face of this very important adjournment motion put forth by a Member. I do not think that any other governments in the world or any government representatives in a legislature will ever handle such matters in such a manner. In particular, after 1997, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region … I can see that even before 1997, no officials of the British Hong Kong Government was as brazen and couldn't-care-less as this "Secretary for Name Cards", who seems to think that each word he says is "worth a thousand pieces of gold". I find this very ridiculous and really feel sorry for the legislature. President, the very purpose of the legislature is to precisely provide a venue for debates where both sides can put forth their arguments for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12147 and against an issue. If he fears that he may be perceived as filibustering if he speaks, he can simply give a brief speech, as what the four royalist Members did a moment ago. In this way, he can at least state a position of some kind. But he has remained totally silent.

However, President, this may be the mode of governance that the Communist Party wants to promote in Hong Kong ― a mute city with a mute legislature. This honestly leads people to wonder how much Hong Kong has degenerated, and how much our government officials have degenerated. President, you used to be the Chairman of the DAB, and you are a rare political talent in the leftist or pro-establishment camp of Hong Kong. I think your heart also aches when you see all this.

The speeches given by the several Members a moment ago were likewise marked by faulty reasoning and erroneous information. Yesterday, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen mentioned Guangzhou when he should be referring to Shenzhen. Today, the royalist camp and also the media immediately make a big fuss, saying that he made a fool of himself. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan says that we ask for this debate but at the same time request its adjournment. But I must point out that this is just the usual legislative process. After the Secretary has put forth the motion, all will then depend on whether any Members intend to propose amendments. Under the established proceedings of the Legislative Council, arrangements have already been made for a debate on the motion, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. For this reason, I think the President is indeed right in telling her many times that she should not speak too much, because whenever she speaks, she will invariably say something wrong. Am I right?

Sometimes, I really cannot understand certain Members. They must realize their own inadequacies, set higher standards for themselves, and seek to learn and understand different things. Earlier on, I criticized Mr TAM Yiu-chung for ruling "你阿媽" (your mother) as a vulgarism. President, please teach your party member the rules governing our discussions when you have time. In simple terms, he could base on …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have digressed from the subject matter.

12148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, just one more point. Put simply, he should have ruled that the expression was unparliamentary on the basis of the Rules of Procedure, rather than drawing on the ordinary definition of "vulgarism". As the Chairman … If a member accuses another member of using unparliamentary language, he may request the Chairman to make a ruling and ask that member to withdraw his remark. If the member refuses to do so, the Chairman may ask him to leave the meeting. President, please tell the Member to familiarize himself with the rules governing our discussions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not digress from the subject matter again.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, what Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok said in his earlier speech is likewise incorrect. According to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, the issue of innovation and technology can be elevated to the bureau level with the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please note that an existing Policy Bureau is already in charge of innovation and technology ― the Policy Bureau under the "Secretary for Name Cards". The only thing is that this portfolio is now proposed to be dislodged from this Policy Bureau and put under a new one with another name. Therefore, policy-wise, a Policy Bureau is already in charge, and it is wrong to say that no Policy Bureau is responsible for this area. We have recently allocated $5 billion to the Policy Bureau concerned, so that people may apply for funding to conduct studies on innovation and technology. A Policy Bureau is already in charge of this area, President. However, a Member with rich professional experience who has a deep understanding of this issue and also supports the proposal has uttered such nonsense in this Chamber, saying that establishing a new Policy Bureau can elevate the issue to the bureau level. President, don't you think this is absurd?

Speaking of "cardinal principles", I think the royalist camp is very good at elevating an issue to the level of cardinal principles. They have said that nothing can be done without the proposed Policy Bureau. And, LEUNG Chun-ying is likewise good at this. President, let us recall what they said about the need for constructing the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) years back; let us recall what they said about the need for constructing the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge years back; and let us also recall what they said about the need for constructing the cruise terminal years LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12149 back. Their tone, their line of reasoning and also their attitude of handling the issues back then are the same as what we can see and hear in our present discussion on setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau. This is also the case with the constitutional reform proposals. The Government always wants us to "pocket it first". It always says that the rejection of the proposal concerned will adversely affect the Hong Kong economy and undermine our competitiveness, and it always claims that if no actions are taken now, the costs will be higher in the future.

One example is that when discussing the construction of the XRL, I raised a few important issues. I told Eva CHENG that hasty geotechnical investigations would lead to problems, and the tight lead time for drawing up designs would also lead to problems. I also said that since it was the first time that the Government co-operated with the MTR Corporation Limited under an Entrustment Agreement, it must carefully handle the terms of agreement, so as to safeguard public interests and our public money. At the time, the Government assured us that it would examine all such matters. But in retrospect, it can now be seen that the questions I raised five years ago were all to-the-point, and the Government was wrong at the time. Another example is my present query about the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. One cannot say that this is a hasty move; it should have come into being three years ago, but at that time, we struck down the proposal. Nevertheless, many problems with the detailed arrangements have remained unsolved. Three years ago, the proposed Policy Bureau was called "IT Bureau" instead of "Innovation and Technology Bureau". But we struck down the proposal. One year later, they took another approach. But still, they have not explained clearly the difference between the two. Neither have they explained why the name is changed to "Innovation and Technology Bureau", and also how it will operate. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has already commented briefly on all this just now.

President, I want to drink some water now. Please do a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

12150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue to speak in reply.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, lastly, let me respond to some Members' allegation that my adjournment motion is meant to filibuster. Frankly speaking, an adjournment motion is not quite so powerful as a means of filibustering. There are only the two of us, plus other Members who may also speak. If Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and I each speak for 15 minutes, then together with the 10 minutes used by the Members who spoke just now, the debate will take at most 40 minutes. The only thing is that those Members are reluctant to sit down and attend the meeting, so headcounts may be asked for or the meeting may be adjourned. As a result, an act which is not meant to filibuster may end up creating the effect of filibustering.

I would say that this is just like a soccer game between an ordinary club and Real Madrid the Super Club. To the surprise of all, the goalkeeper of Real Madrid was even nutmegged by a rival forward who normally could not handle the ball even after gaining possession of it. In this way, this super club, which was supposed to decide the outcome of the game, was instead reduced to a weak team due to the many slips of its 10-odd players ― disunity, mistakes of all kinds, inadequate skills, poor soccer sense and incapability. Therefore, President, in this circumstance, all of us who call ourselves the opposition are duty-bound to monitor the Government, to point out its mistakes and expose the inadequacies of its governance.

Therefore, concerning this agenda item on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau, I have pointed out repeatedly that the Secretary has not thoroughly considered quite a number of issues. This proposal is just meant to satisfy the personal political need of one single man called LEUNG Chun-ying. He raised this proposal during the election, so he wants to put it into practice as soon as possible after the election. But the Government has not conducted any in-depth internal discussion. In the past, before the Government formulated any major changes, it would invariably conduct thorough studies. There would be reports, proposals and plans. Even the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge or the cruise terminal and so on was also preceded by detailed studies, and this was also the case with the XRL. But, well, even with all these studies, many problems have still occurred, the reason being that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12151 there was insufficient time or inadequate consideration. This explains why consultation is so important. The importance of consultation lies in the fact that it involves open discussions under the sun, during which the Government can put forward its ideas and collect the opinions of people from various social sectors. These people may be professionals and one-time practitioners or even experts in the relevant industries. Through their involvement in the relevant studies, people from different sectors, be they experienced Members or just the man in the street, may well be able to provide insightful views. They will be able to provide advice.

As I mentioned when I criticized the proposal of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau just now, I have held a discussion with a veteran of innovation and technology who was once a member of an advisory body and who is now running a business in the sector. When our discussion came to certain details, he too suddenly realized that the whole design was still marked by various inadequacies. When I pointed out the various problems to a person who tried to persuade me to support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, he also thought that the notion should be integrated with production. And, he even said that it would be difficult for Hong Kong to do so because we are not supposed to do any wasteful research that can only yield some kind of rubbish at the cost of several million dollars.

In the example I have cited many times, one of the 1 000-odd research items in the past was on how clothing fabrics will help improve sports performance. It makes sense to do such research in the United States or other great powers in sports. Or, if a large factory manufacturing such garments is found in Hong Kong, it will also make sense for Hong Kong to do this kind of research. However, such research is totally irrelevant to Hong Kong's present needs. The outcome of the research may only benefit one certain cyclist in Hong Kong. What is the use of the research then? What is the benefit for the overall economy of Hong Kong? What is the benefit for Hong Kong people's livelihood? If we conduct research simply for the sake of doing research, why don't we fly up to space or Mars instead?

The issue now under discussion is a public policy requiring public spending. LEUNG Chun-ying says that it concerns Hong Kong's economic future. But what kind of research will be carried out? For many years I have been advocating that the Hong Kong Government should promote the five 12152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 high-value-added industries of clocks and watches, jewelleries, catering, pharmaceuticals, environmental products and garments. But all the research … I am not saying that the scope of research must cover these five or six industries. My point is that we should set a scope of research that dovetails with production and Hong Kong people's livelihood. Sadly, the Government has never made any undertaking in this regard. Who knows which industries his "royal household" members or the "LEUNG Fans" are engaging in? Will there be another Barry CHEUNG, Paul CHAN or Eddie NG?

At present, the problem in many cases is that some "LEUNG Fans" who are totally unknown in the industries concerned are suddenly appointed to very important posts, and what they do all runs totally counter to the avowed objectives. When LEUNG Chun-ying took office, he also said that he wanted to tackle the housing issue. But over the two years since his assumption of office, property prices ― I am talking about property prices, not housing supply ― have risen to unprecedented levels. He claims that he wants to curb increases in property prices, but many of his actions and policies … He has taken a small number of measures on curbing price rises, but they are mere gestures, and their practical effects and results are simply the frantic rises of property prices in his past two years of administration.

The present proposal of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau is just the same. LEUNG Chun-ying once again resorts to "doublespeak". He is such a big liar … I always say that he is a pathological liar, and I have criticized many times that the whole Government is just like a mental asylum. The problem now is that this new patient, this dumb person with speech difficulties who is dubbed the "Secretary for Name Cards" has been put in charge of the matter. Specifically, how is the present governance of Hong Kong like? Previously, they already told one lie after another, and they asked us to "pocket it first". Are they once again asking us to "pocket it first"? Is the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau another project that we must "pocket first"? Is the present proposal a repetition of the XRL and the North-East New Territories (NENT) Development project? It is obvious that the NENT Development project is designed to enable large consortiums and the "Secretary for Sub-divided Units" to reap huge profits. Even if he just sells the land he owns, he will already make a profit of more than $100 million. But now, the land will even be used for residential development, so his profit will certainly increase geometrically.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12153

Therefore, we can see that the whole series of policy decisions made by the Government are invariably meant to enable certain rich and powerful people to reap excessive profits. Whoever he appoints to a certain committee as the chairman, that person must have secretly donated huge amounts of money beforehand, and all such appointments are ultimately connected with some overseas consortiums and the industries that the Government wants to develop. Moreover, LEUNG Chun-ying did receive $50 million before he took office, right? (The buzzer sounded) … Therefore, President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): … I just wish to remind the Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr CHAN Kin-por have both requested to speak. However, I already asked if any other Members wished to speak just now, and since no Member indicated a wish to speak, I called upon the mover of this adjournment motion, Mr Albert CHAN, to reply. According to the debate arrangement, after the mover of this motion has replied, the debate will come to a close.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion that the debate on the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, as well as the relevant amendments moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Albert CHAN be now adjourned, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

12154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members that we are going to vote on the adjournment motion moved by Mr Albert CHAN. If the motion is agreed to, the debate on the question then before the Council shall stand adjourned and the Council shall proceed to the next item of business.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Frederick FUNG voted for the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12155

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Emily LAU, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, one was in favour of the motion and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, four were in favour of the motion 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 motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will continue the joint debate on the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion as well as the two Members' amendments.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, a Subcommittee was set up by the House Committee to study the two proposed resolutions relating to the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. In my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I now report on the results of the deliberations made by the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee held a meeting with the Administration to consider the above two proposed resolutions. The first proposed resolution aimed to repeal the resolution made and passed by the Legislative Council on 29 October 2014 under section 54A of Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. The resolution ("the original Resolution") aimed to transfer statutory functions under 12156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 the Electronic Transactions Ordinance from the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development and Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (Communications and Technology) to the Secretary for Innovation and Technology and Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology. The relevant commencement clause stated that the original Resolution would commence on the 14th day after the day on which the Finance Committee approves the funding proposal to make changes to the Estimates of Expenditure 2014-2015 for the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau; or the 14th day after the day on which the original Resolution is made and passed, whichever is the later. The original Resolution could not commence consequently, the reasons concerned and the reasons for the authorities' recommendation to repeal the original Resolution are detailed in the report of the Subcommittee.

The second proposed resolution is a new resolution which is basically the same as the original Resolution, differing in the reference made to Estimates of Expenditure 2014-2015 in the commencement clause of the original Resolution, which is changed to the Estimates of Expenditure 2015-2016. The commencement date of the new resolution is set as the 14th day after the day on which the Finance Committee approves the changes made to the 2015-2016 funding proposal; or the 14th day after the day on which the new resolution is made and passed by the Legislative Council, whichever is the later. The majority of members of the Subcommittee expressed support for the two proposed resolutions and urged that the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau should be established as soon as possible to spearhead the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong, while some members objected the proposed establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, and queried the rationale for not transferring the telecommunications and broadcasting portfolios under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to the new bureau.

According to the Administration, the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau will focus on the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong, including the commercialization of research and development deliverables through further strengthening the co-ordination among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors. The authorities consider it undesirable to transfer the telecommunications and broadcasting portfolios to the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau as they are more related to regulatory and licensing matters. Nevertheless, the authorities said that the future Innovation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12157 and Technology Bureau will review its operational requirements from time to time.

The Subcommittee raised no query about the legal and drafting aspects of the two proposed resolutions, nor would any amendment to the proposed resolutions be moved.

President, the following are my personal views. First of all, I would like to declare that I am now a director of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, but I have no pecuniary interest. My speech intends to express the views of the engineering industry as well as the science and technology sector on the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's economy has already come to a crossroads. On the one hand, Hong Kong has relied too heavily on such pillar industries as finance, trading and tourism over the years, neglecting the development of emergent industries, and focusing entirely on financial techniques, rather than science and technology. A lack of adequate diversity in economic development has weakened Hong Kong's capability to withstand external economic impacts. On the other hand, other economies in the region, including the Mainland, Korea, Singapore and others, have all sought to reform and strengthen themselves. Their positive approaches to economic and industrial development have yielded evident achievements.

As we decline and others grow, some competitive advantages of Hong Kong have started to wane, thus leading to our decline in a number of global competitiveness rankings. For many years, Hong Kong occupied the top positions in the World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the World Competitiveness Center, International Institute for Management Development (IMD). It was even ranked first for two consecutive years in 2011 and 2012, but in 2014, Hong Kong was excluded from the first three positions for the first time since 2005, thus arousing worries about its decline in competitiveness. However, in the recently published World Competitiveness Yearbook 2015, Hong Kong's ranking climbs back to the second, up from the fourth position last year. This can be described as quite a positive rating amidst all the negative news about Hong Kong's competitiveness recently.

The comprehensive assessment in the Yearbook is based on the four major factors of economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency and infrastructure. According to the analyses done by some scholars, the various infrastructure projects in progress in Hong Kong have enabled it to score a higher 12158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 rating in respect of infrastructure, and since its performance in business efficiency is also quite good, its overall ranking is driven up.

However, the excessive political disputes in recent years will hinder the progress of economic development, and the ranking may fall again at any time.

President, in the City Competitiveness Blue Book: China Cities Competitiveness Report No. 13 published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Hong Kong is surpassed by Shenzhen for the first time in 13 years, losing the top position in comprehensive competitiveness. This is undoubtedly another warning signal for Hong Kong. Shenzhen's success in getting the top position certainly does not come as a result of sheer luck. The city has been making vigorous efforts to develop its innovation and technology industry in recent years, attracting a huge pool of technological talents. It is learnt that Shenzhen accounts for half of the registered patents in the country, and it is home to large numbers of technological firms, including internationally renowned corporations like Tencent, Huawei and ZTE Corporation. Within merely 30 years, Shenzhen has transformed itself from a peripheral township into a major city of the innovation and technology in the country.

In contrast, while Hong Kong has never been short of competitive advantages, such as free flow of information, rule of law, an efficient and corruption-free administrative system, world-class infrastructures and an abundance of talents from universities with outstanding performance in research and development, it is not backed up by any appropriate policies. As a result, its development in emergent industries such as innovation and technology has been very sluggish. As the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences mentions in the Report, Hong Kong is able to keep its past success but short of innovative capacity. How to perfect the industrial structure of Hong Kong and enhance its competitiveness to ensure the sustained economic development of Hong Kong and the stable growth of government revenue has already become a subject of extreme urgency to the Hong Kong society.

The Hong Kong Government has all along upheld the principle of positive non-intervention, so it has not formulated any specific industrial policy. But times have changed. For the sake of economic revitalization and job creation, places such as the United States, Europe and Japan which also uphold the market economy have all put in place proactive fiscal and monetary policies, in a bid to drive industrial development through well-planned resource allocation and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12159 promote industrial development. That was why I moved a motion at the Legislative Council meeting on 19 March, and it was passed. The motion urges the SAR Government to expeditiously formulate a long-term, comprehensive and balanced industrial policy, set a clear policy vision and objective, uphold and implement the public finance principle of committing resources as and when needed. The Government is also urged to make use of fiscal measures and resource deployment to provide comprehensive ancillary measures in respect of land supply, tax concessions, dedicated grants, manpower training and co-ordination among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors for strategically boosting the growth of different industries and attracting inward investments, with a view to driving industrial diversification in Hong Kong, strengthening the pillar industries, promoting emerging industries and revitalizing the traditional ones.

Innovation and technology is one emerging industry in Hong Kong which enjoys certain relative advantages, and the promotion of innovation and technology is even a major global trend. All these years, the technology sector and the business sector have been advocating the establishment of a technology bureau, hoping to improve the set-up of the Government and elevate the policies and measures on promoting technology to the level of a separate bureau which draws up and implements related development strategies on commercializing, industrializing and internationalizing scientific research deliverables. Heeding our advice and in response to the demand of various social sectors, the current-term Government has proposed to establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau. But some Members have tried to stop the establishment of the proposed bureau with the aim of undermining the Government's authority. The Legislative Council already passed the resolutions on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau in October last year, but due to the filibustering of certain Members, the relevant funding application could not be passed before the end of the previous financial year. As a result, we now need to undergo the whole legislative process once again. How can Hong Kong compete with other cities if such internal attrition persists?

In the Government's proposal, the new Innovation and Technology Bureau is responsible for formulating policies and promoting the development of innovation and technology as well as IT in Hong Kong. It will take charge of the Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. At the same time, the Communications and Technology Branch under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will be restructured as the Communications and Creative Industries Branch to 12160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 oversee policy matters in respect of telecommunications, broadcasting and creative industries. At the meeting of the Subcommittee on the Two Proposed Resolutions Relating to the Establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, some members queried why the telecommunications and broadcasting portfolios under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau are not transferred to the new bureau.

Many members of the sector also hold the view that innovation and technology is closely related to the protection of intellectual property rights, and the two are complementary to each other. Therefore, they consider that the Intellectual Property Department should report to the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau. I agree with them, and have reflected this view to the authorities time and again. However, in my opinion, irrespective of whether these ideas are accepted, the proposed bureau should still be established expeditiously, so that focused efforts can be made to promote the development of innovation and technology. Even though the set-up may not be entirely satisfactory in the beginning, continuous improvement and enhancement are always possible in the future.

It must be stated very clearly that even before the proposed bureau is established, Hong Kong should not stop promoting the development of innovation and technology. The Budget this year introduces many measures in respect of developing the innovation and technology industry, including the injection of $5 billion into the Innovation and Technology Fund, and the inclusion of the Research and Development Cash Rebate Scheme under the Innovation and Technology Fund to provide more a stable source of support. At the same time, the Government proposes to set up the Enterprise Support Programme to strengthen the support for private enterprises in research and development. The Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation has also earmarked $50 million for setting up a corporate venture fund for co-investment on a matching basis with private fund, seeking to encourage private participation in the form of co-investment in start-ups. The Chief Executive announced on 2 March the appointment of Nicolas YANG as the Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology and a Non-official Member of the Executive Council for advising the Government on issues relating to innovation and technology. All these measures have proved that the Government is determined to promote innovation and technology. These measures have the strong support of the industry.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12161

However, some Members have not only tried to block the establishment of the proposed bureau, but have also attempted to upset the operation of those departments responsible for related matters. This is really baffling. The marathon debates and voting conducted in the Legislative Council in respect of the Appropriation Bill 2015 ended yesterday. The amendments proposed by some pan-democratic Members were full of unreasonable demands. For example, with respect to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, they proposed to reduce their respective annual estimated expenditures on related general departmental expenses and staff remunerations. Under the current administrative structure, the promotion of innovation and technology depends most heavily on these departments, so it may become impossible to sustain the efforts of promoting innovation and technology if these amendments were passed. This is tantamount to committing suicide under an increasingly competitive global situation, and the operation of various government departments and different sectors in the digital era will be impacted with serious consequences. The consequence is not difficult to imagine. Do pan-democratic Members wish to see this consequence?

President, IMD points out in the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2015 that the challenges facing Hong Kong include the need to find a way out amid uncertainties over the outlook for the global competition environment. It is also pointed out that we should pay attention to the economic impact of population ageing, and the need to encourage industrial diversification, as well as promoting economic co-operation with the Mainland and exploring overseas markets. I believe Hong Kong can still regain its competitiveness if we can administer the right remedies. Hong Kong needs to develop a knowledge-based economy and promote innovation and technology as a matter of urgency. We must facilitate integration between the Internet and various sectors in order to strengthen competitiveness, with a view to improving the economy and the people's livelihood, sustaining Hong Kong's development and providing more upward mobility to the next generations. To achieve this, we have to reduce internal attrition in society. The Government must formulate a long-term and comprehensive industrial policy, facilitate co-ordination among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors, concentrate on high value-added and diversified industrial development using innovation and technology, as well as seizing the opportunities arisen from the National 13th Five-Year Plan to revitalize Hong Kong's innovativeness and entrepreneurship.

12162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

President, I and my fellow members from the industry support the establishment of the proposed bureau expeditiously, and we hope that those filibustering Members can stop impeding the development of society, and endorse the legislative amendments and funding applications related to the establishment of the proposed bureau as soon as possible lest Hong Kong may lose valuable and opportunities.

President, I so submit

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I initially did not want to press the button and request to speak, and I know I was a bit late in pressing the button. But Mr Albert CHAN talked about the textile industry just now, saying that the functional fabrics we developed for the textile industry were all useless. This is of course not the case. I must therefore press the button and explain to Mr Albert CHAN. Actually, the research and development of functional textiles in Hong Kong has already progressed to the stage of commercialization, and many international brand names have started negotiations with Hong Kong with the intention of purchasing its research and development products. If such products really prove to be successful in the future and can be adopted by international brand names, they will definitely serve as successful examples of Hong Kong's research and development. President, this is the only point I want to respond to.

Let me now come to the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. A month ago, Mr Nicholas YANG, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology, met with the Liberal Party. Before Mr YANG invited us to the meeting, the Liberal Party and I of course did not know him. After the meeting, we find that his vision, background, knowledge and working experience are quite satisfactory, because he once worked in private organizations and the industrial sector, served as the Executive Vice-President of a university, and spent long periods of time working in research and development institutions. After communications with him, I find that I can accept a person with such a background as the "probable Secretary", not least because he will voluntarily set up meetings with different political parties.

At present, the biggest problem with the Government is that in many cases, it does not have any discussions with political parties. All of us therefore cannot quite understand the policies introduced by the Government. Nevertheless, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12163 because of Mr YANG's attitude, I think he should be acceptable. Hence, during the meeting, we also asked Mr YANG whether he would also invite pan-democratic Members to a meeting. Up to this morning, Mr Alan LEONG still said that he had not been invited. I call upon Mr YANG, "the probable Secretary for Innovation and Technology of the future", to discuss further with pan-democratic Members so that they can deepen their understanding. I believe that since he can even manage to persuade the Liberal Party, he should also be able to persuade other people.

Nonetheless, the biggest problem at the moment is that the Government only intends to place two departments (namely the Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer) under the new Bureau. I asked Mr YANG a question: suppose he becomes the Secretary for Innovation and Technology in the future, will he think that the responsibility for two departments is already his full capacity? He answered in the negative, saying that he could still handle other work. He also thought that the two areas of intellectual property rights and creative industries could be combined. As Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok also mentioned earlier, both the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp maintained that the two areas should be combined. However, the Government was not willing to do so.

Secretary Gregory SO is here in the Chamber. I forgot to bring a magazine, the last issue of Capital. This issue of the magazine carries Secretary Gregory SO on the cover and a long featured interview with him. According to Secretary Gregory SO, his responsibility for more than 10 departments makes him very tired indeed. Apart from dealing with Legislative Council-related business, he must also handle the work of various departments, thus making him very tired. He longs for vacation, but this is simply impossible. He was outside Hong Kong on business two days ago, and then he must hasten back afterwards.

The serving Secretary now says that he is fatigued by his work. But, on the other hand, a person going to be a new Secretary in the future says that he does not mind taking up more work, and the various political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council also think that some work can be transferred to the new Bureau if necessary. In that case, why should the Government refuse to transfer the work? Hence, the Secretary must consider the idea later. The "probable Secretary" says that he does not mind doing more work, and the Secretary is so tired. So, it is better for him to hand over the work to other 12164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 people. In that case, should the "one single man" still insist on his decision, which will leave one Secretary with a lighter workload and continue to burden another with so much work? In this regard, they need to do more thinking later.

President, apart from the above, Mr YANG has also told us a lot and has conveyed a very clear message: he is politically neutral and not a supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying. Therefore, pan-democratic Members must not say that all people who are prepared to work for the Government must be LEUNG's supporters. Under the circumstances, I once again call upon the Secretary to ask Mr YANG to meet with pan-democratic Members and other political parties. Thank you, President.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please speak.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, since the two CHANs have kept asking for a headcount to waste Council business time and I notice that the Council meeting this morning is about to end … the meeting will end at 1 pm … I will thus be brief. I speak in support of the expeditious passage of the resolutions on setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau.

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has delivered an impassioned and indignant speech on behalf of his industry. I strongly support his view. I also salute Secretary Gregory SO, who has borne all the affronts and humiliation in silence, refraining from answering back and showing tolerance and patience throughout.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12165

President, I am a Legislative Council Member representing the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. I am of the view that the Innovation and Technology Bureau should be expeditiously established because of four urgent needs, all of which are related to the interests of Hong Kong people.

The first urgent need is that since Hong Kong is a tiny and densely populated place and the structural transformation of our economy has come to a halt, Hong Kong must urgently develop new technology-intensive industries before it can find a way out. At present, the development of industrial estates and the Science and Technology Park … I am not criticizing the Government or the technology and industrial sectors for not working hard … They only focus on short-term goals, or medium-term goals at the most. Indeed, in respect of long-term goals, the Government must carry out structural reform and provide resources as a means of support, so as to achieve co-operation among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors and make a big stride forward. Otherwise, Hong Kong will soon lag behind other regions. At present, Shenzhen has caught up with Hong Kong, and its GDP is already on a par with ours. Hence, if we still do not start recovering our lost ground immediately, we will lag far behind. This is the first urgent need.

I will now move onto the second urgent need. With our country as our support and its mega trend of reform, opening and development under the National 13th Five-Year Plan, the "One Belt One Road" initiatives and the "Made in China 2025" master plan, Hong Kong will gradually be marginalized and knocked out if we fail to catch up with our country on the technology front. Hence, with our country as our support and the mega trend of reform, opening and development, we must also carry out reform on our part; otherwise, Hong Kong will soon be past any redemption. I believe this is understood by all. I thus think that this is an urgent need.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

The third urgent need concerns the future of young people, the next generation and those who have received higher education. Let us take a look of the present situation in Hong Kong. According to a recent report on employed persons in Hong Kong compiled by the Census and Statistics Department, the 12166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 majority of the Hong Kong population worked in the financing, real estate, tourism, retail, services and logistics sectors, and employment opportunities also came mainly from these few services sectors. Members must imagine what will happen if this situation continues. Will it be possible that there will come a day when our next generation, young people or university graduates can only find jobs in these few sectors? If this situation persists, Hong Kong can hardly move forward nor can it have any new hope. Then, how can our universities commercialize their scientific research deliverables?

This gives rise to the fourth urgent need. Although various universities have many scientific research deliverables … Yesterday I read a recent news report … I may not be so exact in terminologies … It is about the application tempered glass screens to mobile phones. This is an new invention, but if we are to commercialize this scientific research deliverable …

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I am also very interested in tempered glass screens. Please do a headcount and summon Members back to the Chamber, so that they can listen to the speech of the Honourable Member.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): I am again interrupted.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members talked loudly)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would Members please keep quiet.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12167

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue with your speech.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now, I was talking about a news report published yesterday. According to this news report, a local university is leading the world with one research deliverable. It has developed the film used for mobile phone or computer screens into a tempered thin film. If an Innovation and Technology Bureau can be established in Hong Kong, it can then co-ordinate the efforts of the Government, industry, academia and research sectors, commercialize such scientific research deliverables, and build up related industries in Hong Kong.

I am glad to learn that the Bureau is now preparing the legislation on the "original grant" patent system and is aiming to secure its passage in 2016-2017. What Hong Kong needs now is precisely an Innovation and Technology Bureau that can assist local inventors and scientists in commercializing their scientific research deliverables and drive the establishment of technology-intensive and high value-added industries in Hong Kong. This is a way to inject "new blood" into Hong Kong and to make it unnecessary for us to rely solely on tertiary industries like tourism, logistics and financial services. I am of the view that there is a dire need to establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau, and we cannot afford any further delay. Besides, I am also of the view that considering our economic transformation, the future of our next generation and young people, the need for Hong Kong to expeditiously tap the opportunities offered by the reform and opening of our country in its overall development, and also the prospects for our scientific research deliverables, we must establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau urgently.

Deputy President, last but not least, I wish to take this opportunity to strongly condemn the Members who have blatantly resorted to filibustering to hinder the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau and prevent our technological development from keeping abreast of the times. Their filibustering has already delayed the establishment of this Bureau for years. In this debate today, they have again resorted to requesting a headcount to delay voting on the resolutions. I must express my deep regret and my strong condemnation of them once more.

Thank you, Deputy President.

12168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have worked in the information technology (IT) sector for years, and from the "killing" of the IT and Broadcasting Bureau in 2002 and the "killing" of the Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau in 2007, I have come to realize that government policies are paying diminishing attention to technology. This explains why I have long since joined hands with the sector to fight for the re-establishment of a technology bureau. After I joined the Legislative Council in 2012, my first task was to implement my election platform and urge the Government to immediately split up its proposal and proceed with the establishment of a technology bureau first, that is, to separate the proposed technology bureau from the proposed culture bureau, and first set up the former. Very few arguments arose at the time, and the sector and even political parties generally supported this idea.

Why do we still think that Hong Kong needs a technology bureau after all these years? Why do we think so? To begin with, when the Information Technology and Broadcasting Bureau was still in existence, the work of developing technology was more focused and effective, in contrast to the time after the "killing". What is more, a policy bureau with sole responsibility for technology is found in other Asian places, such as Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan and China. The biggest problem with the Hong Kong Government's technology policies is the lack of co-ordination and an industry policy. There is the lack of high-level and specialized policy leadership and also the absence of any co-ordination among different policy bureaux. All this shows the difference between having a dedicated bureau and not having one. I have talked a lot about the advantages of having a dedicated bureau, so I will not repeat myself today.

Then, why did huge opposition suddenly emerge two years ago, when LEUNG Chun-ying said at long last that he wanted to establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau? Although I support the establishment of a technology bureau, I still have the duty to learn the opposite views and the related justifications. Hence, when the proposal of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau was going through the various legislative procedures last year, particularly before it was discussed in the Finance Committee (FC), I arranged a sharing session for members of the industry and pan-democratic Members. By doing so, I hoped that pan-democratic Members could understand why the industry supported the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Besides, I also invited several dozen people from the industry who opposed the proposal to the meeting, in a bid to know the reasons for their objection.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12169

It must be admitted that some people from the industry or the IT sector were then opposed to the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. For instance, several dozen front-line IT personnel, all very young, came to the Legislative Council and discussed the matter with me for two to three hours. Their main reason for their opposition, it must be admitted, was their distrust of the LEUNG Chun-ying Government. The political climate of Hong Kong has indeed changed a lot since 2012. LEUNG Chun-ying has successfully made many Hong Kong people totally distrustful of all government actions.

Besides, many opponents said that the Government simply did not know how to develop technology. They even asserted that the Government itself was part of the problem, or even a large part of the problem, so no one could possibly believe that the Government could handle technological development properly. Yes, it is true that when the Government sought to sell the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau last year, it simply made no lobbying efforts and offered no explanation whatsoever. It did not put forward any strategy either, and only said that there would be further plans and consideration after the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Even when the proposal was discussed in the FC, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development did not answer many questions asked by Members. Maybe, the Government simply thought that Members would not understand what it said anyway, so it was a waste of time to give any replies at all. But such an attitude was counter-productive.

Besides, in January, the Government withdrew the items before the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau on the agenda of the FC. This apparently aimed to secure the endorsement of the proposed bureau as soon as possible. But in actual effect, since this move of the Government was not in accordance with Council procedures, many more Members who basically wanted to voice opposition turned even more determined to oppose the establishment of the proposed bureau. What is more, in hindsight, we can clearly see that it was simply an impossible mission to force Members to endorse this controversial proposal within a period of time that obviously could not allow any sensible discussion. In the end, the Government really failed to secure the endorsement of the proposed bureau on 14 February. However, for two months, LEUNG Chun-ying and his team of officials never attempted to lobby the opponents, and he focused only on bombarding pan-democratic Members. He said that because their stance, the 27 of them should be "eradicated". People thus thought that LEUNG Chun-ying's only aim was to seek political benefits.

12170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

On 14 February, the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau was not endorsed by the FC. That very night, I received a message from an acquaintance in the IT sector whom I had known for years. He owns a sizeable IT firm in Hong Kong. In the message, he told me for the first time that he also did not support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, because he did not think that the Government should step in, and he feared that this might bring more problems than benefits.

That said, Deputy President, I still support the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. But I need to point out that some people in the sector are against this proposal. I do not buy their views entirely, but I cannot rule out their concerns either, nor will I skip their views altogether in my speech. I have previously put forward many reasons for supporting the establishment of the proposed bureau, so I do not want to repeat them now. I still maintain that these reasons are valid. However, when I come across any opposite views that are reasonable and not nonsensical, I must still reflect them in my speech, so as to alert the Government and remind it to address the worries and concerns of the opponents. Close monitoring is always necessary, both before and after the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Their concern is that the Government itself is precisely part of the problem, and they do not believe that the Government knows how to assist the industry. Some young IT people say that they have worked very hard, but they cannot receive reasonable reward. The monthly salary of IT graduates 20 years ago was some $10,000, and that of the IT graduates nowadays is still around $10,000. The Government itself is the leader in outsourcing and sub-outsourcing. In fact, the Government's T-contract IT staff have already outnumbered the IT staff on civil service establishment and non-civil service contracts. These young IT people told me that they could not believe that the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau could really be of help to them. Why does the Government refrain from tackling these problems first?

Interestingly, people in the industry, be they supporters or opponents of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, all share one common view about the Government's performance: it has not been doing a good job. They may differ on what role the Government should perform. But both sides agree that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12171

Government has not been doing a good job. More importantly, they opine that the Government has never set any performance indicators for itself. They say it will be totally beyond their tolerance if money is spent ineffectively, and no one, not even the Government itself, can find out the reasons. Hence, they all say with one voice that if an Innovation and Technology Bureau is really established one day, it must set down specific key performance indicators, rather than dragging on and on, doing different tasks haphazardly and then calling it a day.

They are also worried about Government-business collusion. In this regard, LEUNG Chun-ying's nepotism and the recent rumour that Mr LAU Ming-wai will be appointed the Under Secretary of the proposed bureau have intensified people's worry that the new bureau may become a club of the LEUNG camp. The relationship between Mr LAU Ming-wai and LEUNG Chun-ying looks very unusual. Mr LAU once made a generous donation of US$50 million (roughly HK$390 million) to the Karolinska Institute. The donation is for establishing a regenerative medicine centre named after him in Hong Kong, and the centre is to conduct stem cell research. Mr LAU later told the media through his public relations agent that LEUNG Chun-ying had told him that his son, LEUNG Chuen-yan, was then working for the Karolinska Institute. How come certain people, notably the Chief Executive in charge of the SAR, do not see any problems with such sensitive connections? Of course, the root problem is that Mr LAU Ming-wai is not familiar with the sector and the sector is not familiar with him either. He is not from the sector, so why should he be appointed to this very post? What else could it be if it is not nepotism? To be fair, the appointment has not yet been made, but the sector is already full of suspicion.

President, as I have said in the Budget debate, we IT people only want to do our job well. We just want to build a future for ourselves and the industry with our ability, creativity and hard work. We just want to focus on the application of technology as a means of creating a better tomorrow for society. We do not work for money only, nor will we do whatever we are told for the mere sake of money. Honestly, we do not want to build this or that kind of connections, still less do we want the industry to degenerate into a field where the availability of policy opportunities and commercial benefits must be built on connections. Therefore, when we see that the very nice idea of establishing a technology bureau has turned into a cause of worry to many people due to the Government-business collusion in Hong Kong, and when we see that our own industry is caught between society and LEUNG Chung-ying's political tricks, we are extremely sad.

12172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

Another cause of concern which has drawn the attention of many is free speech on the Internet in Hong Kong. Of particular concern is the attempt by the Police to abuse section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) "Access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" as a means of punishing people for expressing their opinions. Moreover, government departments have even collaborated with each other, refusing to provide prosecution information about such cases to the public and Legislative Council Members. Over the past two years, I have been tricked by the Security Bureau. The Security Bureau first "kicked" me to the Department of Justice, and after more than half a year, the Department of Justice now wants to kick me back to the Security Bureau. Both have refused to give me any information about the cases. I will continue to follow up this issue. I will not give up. I will raise this issue for discussion again in the Panel on Security next Tuesday. But our concern about this matter actually stems from the performance of the Security Bureau and the Police. It is not related to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau under discussion today and the policy portfolio area of the Innovation and Technology Bureau in the future.

President, if a system or a governmental framework is deemed to be desirable, we should accept it; and the Legislative Council, society and the industry should then monitor this system or framework properly. A good governmental framework will be sustainable. It will certainly outlive the LEUNG Chun-ying Government. Technology changes the world and innovation creates more development opportunities for young people to move upward in society. I believe that young people and technology people in Hong Kong are all able to make use of technology as a means of making Hong Kong a freer and fairer place with greater openness and more democracy.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As a gathering with the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the District Councils has been scheduled at noon time today, I will adjourn the meeting at about 12.40 pm.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12173

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, please speak.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, I support the passage of the resolutions moved by the Government. I support the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau and oppose all the amendments.

President, it was 22 October last year when I last spoke on this motion. Today, I do not intend to repeat my arguments. I just want to reiterate that the development of science and technology is a major trend of the whole world. Nowadays, various trades and industries must rely on science and technology to maintain their impetus for development and competitiveness. Hong Kong should also develop science and technology as one of the main strategies of development. Hong Kong was once ahead of others in innovation and technology, but it has been overtaken by other places now. Instead of making any progress, the development of science and technology in Hong Kong has retrogressed. One reason is that the Government has not given sufficient attention to science and technology over the years. As I also mentioned last time, Hong Kong likes to compare itself with its neighbouring countries and cities, such as the South Korean and Singaporean economies. However, these competitors have all made all-out efforts to develop science and technology. When our competitors are racing ahead in full speed, Hong Kong, in contrast, still moves at a leisurely pace. There is no dedicated department responsible for formulating policies and co-ordinating resources to drive the development of science and technology. Hence, we are lag behind others.

President, many people acknowledge the importance of developing science and technology. Today, many Members also express their support for the 12174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 development of science and technology. However, when it comes to the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, they voice their objection. They also did so last time. In fact, the development of innovation and technology is not just the concern of the science and technology sector; rather, it is also related to how various trades and industries in Hong Kong are to upgrade their competitiveness. Following all the discussions these days, I believe that most Hong Kong people now agree that Hong Kong basically cannot bear the consequence of not developing innovation and technology, and that the establishment of this new Policy Bureau brooks no delay. Unfortunately, although the resolutions last year were passed, we must now start from the beginning again due to the filibuster in the Finance Committee. President, the road to happiness is always strewn with setbacks.

After seven months, we have still made no progress. Again, we must debate the same issue here today. Members of the opposition camp continue to filibuster and oppose the proposal for the sake of opposing. Even if the resolutions are once again passed today, they will still filibuster in the Finance Committee. The establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau will still be something very, very far away. These two days, Members of the opposition camp filibustered on this motion. They kept requesting headcounts and even proposed adjournment of the meeting just now. Our time and energy will continue to be wasted in this way.

Hong Kong people are by now extremely dissatisfied with all the filibuster and delay in the Legislative Council. People abhor the incessant ringing of the quorum bell. People can no longer tolerate the Legislative Council's failure to do proper business, as well as all the rows and shows put up by opposition Members. We have calculated the time spent on making headcounts and filibustering in the Budget debate alone. In 2014, 218 headcounts were made and about 23 hours were used, while the filibuster lasted for 148 hours. In the filibuster of the Budget this year, 133 headcounts were made and about 21 hours were used, while the filibuster lasted for 121 hours. The entire Legislative Council has already used 254 hours on the filibuster of the Budgets in these two years. Time has thus been wasted. And we have not calculated the time spent on filibuster in other Committees yet.

The Legislative Council is idling today, delaying the development of Hong Kong. Opposition Members are good at destruction but incapable of construction. When many Hong Kong people agree that the industries in Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12175

Kong lack diversity and Hong Kong is too dependent on the traditional pillar industries; when most Hong Kong people also agree that the neglect of the innovation and technology industry has gradually made Hong Kong lose its lustre in the international arena; when various trades and industries all see the need to make good use of innovation and technology to enhance competitiveness; when the younger generation longs for more opportunities and room for development; and, when the adjacent cities have already elevated the development of science and technology to a strategic position, opposition Members still oppose the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. They say that the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau is just a move to dole out "political rewards". They say that they support the development of science and technology, but they oppose the establishment of the Policy Bureau concerned. They express support in words, but oppose everything in practice. They pick on the person they dislike, rather than seeking to get things done. They denigrate an economic and livelihood issue as a political issue. In order to cripple the administration of the Government and increase their own political capital, they hijack the Legislative Council by fair means or foul, and sacrifice the overall interests of Hong Kong. This makes the sectors concerned and the public very angry.

President, the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, of course, cannot resolve all problems. Nor can the proposed bureau enable the development of science and technology in Hong Kong to experience any meteoric rise overnight. Even if this Policy Bureau is established, we still need to have lots of co-ordination work and the joint efforts of various sectors before Hong Kong can regain the leading position in the development of science and technology. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the establishment of this Policy Bureau will bring forward a change. When there is a change, there is a chance. The development of science and technology in Hong Kong has remained stagnant for a very long time and we can wait no longer. Hong Kong at present really needs an opportunity to change, a new chance of development for the younger generation. I hereby hope that Members can, putting aside their personal interests and preconceived ideas, support the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau for the future of Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

12176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I have not intended to speak today. But having heard so many Members talk eloquently about economic diversification, the importance of the innovation and technology industry, and how the problems with lands, talents and tax concessions have caused the stagnancy of technological development in Hong Kong, I have one question in mind. Members have put forth many slogan-like comments, but do they have any concrete suggestions? President, my stand is neutral on the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, because whether there is such a Policy Bureau, the sound, diversified and long-term development of our economy must still depend on people's emphasis on technological development and the Government's willingness to think outside the box.

I do not intend to repeat those slogan-like suggestions as they are devoid of any substance. Maybe, I should apply Harvard Business School's case method, a case-based pedagogical approach in business education. Technological development usually follows two directions: (1) homegrown research and development, encouraging local universities and institutions to conduct scientific and technological research, and (2) drawing on technologies and investments from the outside. President, the following part of my speech will focus on the second direction, that is, how to draw on technologies and investments from the outside. In fact, for a decade or two already, the Government has been talking about how we should encourage businesses to invest in Hong Kong. But what has it done so far? And, what have gone wrong? I will conduct case analyses with reference to these questions.

The first case. About 12 years ago, a credit card company ― almost everyone has a credit card of this company ― was planning to set up its headquarters in Asia. After a long discussion with me, the company concluded that it was very inconvenient to run a business in Hong Kong, as it could not know which government department it should approach for setting up its headquarters here. It was in the early 2000s, not long after the establishment of InvestHK, I believe. But InvestHK is just a statutory body which will only provide information to foreign investors, rather than assisting them in setting up their companies here. Eventually, the credit card company chose Singapore. What advantages did Singapore have?

I have recently read many obituaries after the passing away of Mr LEE Kuan Yew. There is a unit called the Business Development Unit in the set-up of the Singapore government. This is only a very small unit under the Prime LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12177

Minister's Office, but it has very great powers, as it is responsible for co-ordinating all relevant departments in discharging its biggest function of attracting foreign investors. I therefore hope that when foreign investors come to Hong Kong, they will not need to approach different government departments one by one ― the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Education Bureau and Security Bureau. We should likewise set up a cross-departmental body with higher authority, which can give foreign investors the required information and assistance within a few days, rather than requiring them to approach different departments one by one.

The international credit card company finally established its Asian headquarters in Singapore. It also runs a branch office in Hong Kong. But I can tell Members that the company's headquarters in Singapore employs several hundred people, while its branch office in Hong Kong employs only several dozen people. The credit card company told me at that time that InvestHK ― I must disclose its name ― responded very slowly and its assistance was very limited. In contrast, the Business Development Unit of Singapore could obtain the information required by the company from all relevant departments within just three days. Moreover, the Business Development Unit also managed to identify an office in a commercial building for the company to start operation. It has long been criticized that there is no co-ordination among our government bodies. Even if an Innovation and Technology Bureau is established, what can it do?

The second case is about a gigantic civil aircraft manufacturer. As Members are aware, there are only two aircraft manufacturers of this kind in the world. I will not disclose the name of the company lest I may be accused of having a conflict of interest. But honestly, there is no conflict of interest on my part, as I no longer provide services to this client. As early as the 1990s, this company already ran a number of training centres and large-scale repair facilities in the Mainland. The company sought my advice on whether it was a good idea to set up its Asian headquarters in Hong Kong. I of course supported the idea. However, after doing some research and analyses, the company changed its mind and said that Hong Kong was not a good place because its employees, particularly those from Europe and the United States, were not so willing to come to Hong Kong. I asked for the reasons. The answer was that the air in Hong Kong was unbearable, highly polluted and very poor in quality, and the children of its employees experienced either skin allergies or asthma after coming to Hong Kong. The company therefore chose another Asian city as the seat of its 12178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 regional headquarters. This company also runs a branch office in Hong Kong, but only 10 people or so are employed. This is the second case.

From the first case, I can observe the mindset problem with the Government's internal operation, and from the second case, I can see the environmental problems in Hong Kong. The third case, President, occurred in just the past few days. The four leading accounting firms have been experiencing a shortage of talents recently. It is not a shortage of accounting graduates, but a shortage of upper-middle managers, particularly professionals with international exposure who are capable of handling certain complex cases in Hong Kong. These days, there are the liquidation of the Asia Television Limited and many commercial deals involving liquidation and cross-boundary businesses. Very often, it is necessary to hire professionals with international exposure to provide support in Hong Kong. In some cases, such professionals may even need to station in Hong Kong for several years. Nonetheless, the top echelons of some accounting firms ― Chairmen of the Asia-Pacific region or senior partners ― have told me that they are unable to find any professionals who are willing to station in Hong Kong. Even if they are required to station here for just two to three years, they still do not want to come. Why?

President, this is the third problem. Such professionals have been working for more than 10 years, and they are all married with children. The biggest issue is their children's education. In the past, primary schools of the English Schools Foundation (ESF) could provide affordable education in English to children from overseas. However, President, the SAR Government has politicized education and economic issues. The Government no longer subsidizes ESF primary schools as it considers that the ESF is a legacy of the British-Hong Kong administration. This is politicization. I strongly disapprove of this decision, as the existence of ESF primary schools has its value. Are the British the only people who speak English? President, the answer is of course no.

During my recent visit to the Civil Aviation Department, I reminded the air traffic controllers that English was the most important language for air traffic controllers, because everywhere in the world, all communications between aircraft and control towers on the ground were conducted in English. It follows that if we do not operate any quality and affordable schools where the children of expatriates can receive education, it will be impossible for us to induce global enterprises to set up regional headquarters in Hong Kong. Two years ago, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12179

Government announced that it would stop providing subsidies to ESF primary schools. This is certainly a wrong decision which politicizes issues purely economic and educational in nature. I find this deeply disappointing.

Let me return to the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Do I support the idea? In fact, I do not any strong views on this, but for two reasons, I support the establishment of this Policy Bureau. Firstly, as I can observe, Secretary SO is extremely busy, so busy that he has no time for a vacation. He must be very tired as a result of his work, and there are many policy areas beyond his reach. I therefore agree that the organizational framework should be rationalized. Secondly, the establishment of this proposed bureau should have nothing to do with whether the right candidate has been identified. This is not a temporary organization, and regarding the proposed bureau, I do hope that it can be here to stay and seek solutions for Hong Kong people. Moreover, the establishment of this bureau has nothing to do with my approval of or opposition to any particular person in power. As everyone knows that power and glory are not everlasting. There are bound to fade one day.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I agree very much to Mr Kenneth LEUNG's remarks on air pollution. I have just returned from Singapore, and I went swimming every morning during my several days there. But I did not experience any attack of nasal allergy, and I did not have a runny nose either. Yet, I started to have a runny nose again the day after my return, and I even had to apply nasal spray. This shows the seriousness of air pollution in Hong Kong. I think if we are to tackle the issue of innovation and technology, we must first tackle the problem of air pollution.

President, actually, we already debated this issue last year. In March this year, the Government announced that the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology (Steering Committee) would be re-organized into the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee is responsible for advising the Government on the strategic and phased upgrading of innovation and technology in Hong Kong, with special emphasis on exploring how to leverage on the advantages brought by "one country" and "two systems" and on further strengthening the co-ordination among 12180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 the Government, industry, academia and research sectors (This is government jargon).

I am going to raise a few issues, and I hope that the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development can respond to them later. The old Steering Committee led by John TSANG has been re-organized and replaced. However, how is the Steering Committee different from the Advisory Committee regarding terms of reference? Is it merely a change of name and the functions of both committees are in fact the same? Mrs Regina IP of the New People's Party once remarked that the Financial Secretary had chaired the Steering Committee for many years, but he seemed to have no interest in technology, and he had not made any achievements either. Has he been requested to give up the position for this very reason?

Second, many of the committees appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying are full of "LEUNG fans", and Mr Charles Peter MOK, who commands popular support as the representative of the IT sector, is surprisingly not on the list of appointments this time. Mr Charles Peter MOK says that he does not mind ― maybe, he fears that people may criticize him if he cannot achieve anything as a member of the Advisory Committee ― But is the Advisory Committee just a "one-voice" committee that rejects all dissident opinions? Or, is it because LEUNG Chun-ying thinks that Mr Charles Peter MOK is incompetent and does not deserve an appointment? However, I would think that if he were really incompetent, he would not have been elected a Member of the Legislative Council. Right?

Mr James TO is surprised to see that Mr Charles Peter MOK is not offered any appointment. Mr James TO says that Mr Charles Peter MOK is the representative of the industry, and he also supports the Government's proposal on establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Mr James TO therefore thinks that the Government has ignored the opinions of the IT sector, and the appointments this time around cannot help improve the relationship between the Government and the sector. He also criticizes the Government for once again drawing a line of distinction and formulating the appointment list with an antagonistic attitude. Though Mr Charles Peter MOK says that whether he is on the list does not matter at all, he nonetheless thinks that the predominance of academics, the industrial sector and pro-establishment figures is indicative of the heavy political inclination of the appointment list. He also reproves the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12181

Government for treating the appointments more as a political mission than as a task related to innovation and technology, saying that this may not be a good start.

Let me now put my third question to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. LEUNG Chun-ying's appointment arrangements will cause chaos in administration, and such arrangements are also attempts to circumvent the Legislative Council because appointing Nicolas YANG as the Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology (Advisor) and a Member of the Executive Council does not require approval from the Establishment Subcommittee and the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. If he commits a mistake that causes losses of public money and policy failure, how should he be held accountable? Also, this may render accountability officials and civil servants unable to know whom they should obey. My fellow party member, Mr James TO, also criticizes that Nicolas YANG's role is ambiguous, and he further questions whether this will result in chaotic administration and overlapping powers and responsibilities. He is the Advisor, but he has no manpower support. Will he become the Secretary for Innovation and Technology after the passage of the relevant resolutions? Innovation and technology is the responsibility of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, but Nicolas YANG is now the Advisor. In that case, during the tenure of the latter, is there any division of labour between the Secretary and him? Do the two of them have to be held accountable for the same matters?

Let me now put my fourth question. According to CHOY Chi-keung, an academic from the Department of Government and Public Administration of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the appointment shows that LEUNG Chun-ying is determined to establish an Innovation and Technology Bureau. His stance is tough and adamant. Even though Members put up delay by filibustering, they cannot possibly stop him. Another scholar, Prof Ray YEP from the Department of Public and Social Administration of the City University of Hong Kong, is of the view that LEUNG Chun-ying has never given up the idea of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau. He also thinks that the Advisory Committee may be deficient in professional expertise, and consideration should be given to the creation of a policy consultant post for the purpose of promoting policy formulation and implementation in the future.

12182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

President, having asked all these questions, I wish to state the Democratic Party's stance. In 2014, the Democratic Party abstained from voting on the resolution concerning the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. We cited a number of reasons at that time. Firstly, the Innovation and Technology Bureau proposed to be established by the Government differed widely from the proposal of the Democratic Party and society. Furthermore, since the LEUNG Chun-ying administration had shown no commitment to the implementation of many policies, especially the broadcasting policy (encompassing creativity and innovation), our distrust of LEUNG Chun-ying was naturally another reason.

However, we must also emphasize that the Democratic Party actually supports the development of innovation and technology. When Mr Albert HO of the Democratic Party ran in the 2012 Chief Executive Election, he also proposed that the Communications and Technology Branch under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should be dislodged and established as a separate bureau. He further proposed that policies on economic development should be put under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and the new innovation and technology bureau should be headed by a new Bureau Director with responsibility for broadcasting, telecommunications, innovation and technology, as well as IT. His proposal covers a wider range of areas than the Government's present proposal to the Legislative Council. The Democratic Party is of the view that the broadcasting policy alone has already drastically increased the workload of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. From the "television licensing saga" in the last two years, we can observe that the Government's broadcasting policy has actually intensified many deep-rooted problems of our society. The Government's proposal will not be able to ease the tension, nor will it bring forth any synergy between technology and innovation. Therefore, we do not consider the proposal desirable.

LEUNG Chun-ying suggested before taking office in 2012 that the Communications and Technology Branch under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should be dislodged for the formation of a new information and technology bureau with responsibility for broadcasting, telecommunications, as well as innovation and technology. This was the proposal he put forward during the Chief Executive 2012, and it is very similar to the Democratic Party's proposal. Besides, at that time, he also intended to put creative industries under a cultural bureau. However, I think his present proposal seems to be different from his proposal in 2012. I hope the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development can offer an explanation. Given such differences, it is impossible LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12183 for us to support the present proposal of establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau, and we will also abstain from voting this year.

I wish to add that the Government's proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau will only take over the functions of the Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) currently under the Communications and Technology Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Other technology-related matters, including broadcasting and creative industries, will not be put under the new bureau. The proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau will thus have a very restricted portfolio. Therefore, we query whether it is necessary for the Government to establish a new bureau that merges just two small departments, the Innovation and Technology Commission and the OGCIO.

The Government has mentioned time and again that one reason for establishing an Innovation and Technology Bureau is the heavy workload of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. It claims that the bureau has to handle matters related to economic development, and at the same time it must also attend to technology and broadcasting. In that case, after putting the Innovation and Technology Commission and OGCIO under the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau, to what extent can the Secretary's workload be reduced? In fact, the proposed bureau is like a bicycle with a missing wheel. The Government must fit it out with one more wheel, the broadcasting policy and so on, before it can really function.

Today, I will not repeat the ideas we have already put forward. Actually, the rows over television licensing have clearly shown that the LEUNG Chun-ying administration lacks any commitment to broadcasting and innovation policies, or that its policies in these areas are at variance with mainstream opinions in society. I hope that the Government can take heed of our words.

I hope that the Secretary can reply to the questions I have raised. Actually, the Government should first get a comprehensive blueprint from the recently reorganized Advisory Committee before submitting relevant proposals to the Legislative Council. I believe it will then be able to command greater support in this Council.

I so submit.

12184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, there is actually a story behind the proposal of setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau. I believe the President may also remember that during the time after his election success and before his assumption of office, LEUNG Chun-ying already requested the then Chief Executive Donald TSANG to put forth the proposal of setting up this Policy Bureau to this Council. At the time, he said he wanted to have five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux. Having observed LEUNG Chun-ying for three years, we have come to know more clearly that he is actually a bruiser who thinks that he can achieve what he wants through head-on confrontation with the Legislative Council. I wonder when he will understand the moral of the fable "The North Wind and the Sun". I also wonder if he ever learnt this fable when he was in primary school. He has always played the role of the "North Wind". Of course, the Legislative Council will naturally pull his coat more tightly in place and press its hat even harder, as in the case of the man in the fable. This is only natural. But, it looks like LEUNG Chun-ying has no idea about what "modesty" means. He has not learned a lesson from his failures. Worse still, he has emerged even tougher every time.

President, our memory of this matter is rather unhappy. The Finance Committee (FC) began to scrutinize the appropriation request concerning the proposed bureau on 23 January this year, and it met for a total of 24 hours. On Valentine's Day, it even held as many as four sessions of meeting. As we knew at the time, this was because the Government wanted to secure the passage of the appropriation request before the Budget went to press lest the proposal would end up in a fiasco. The whole process somehow enabled us to see the personality of LEUNG Chun-ying. He always claims that he attaches a great deal of importance to people's livelihood. When mentioning residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) at the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session yesterday, he even said that he himself also visited RCHEs from time to time in the past. President, however, you should be able to recall that in an attempt to secure the passage of the appropriation request concerning the proposed bureau before the Budget went to press in late February, he even took out some 20 appropriation proposals requiring scrutiny by the FC of the Legislative Council and put them into the Budget. The items already on the FC agenda included the procurement of 18 police launches, one crash fire tender, and a dedicated fund he had promised to set up for the agricultural and fisheries sector. Hence, there is a story behind the whole thing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12185

We can understand why LEUNG Chun-ying requested to set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau before he assumed office in 2012. This was because he wanted to try to complete this task as far as possible within his five-year term. In fact, there could have been a turn of the matter at one time. We once told the government official in charge of this matter that if the Government did not insist on creating the two Deputy Secretary of Departments posts, we could consider supporting the proposal of setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau. But with his belligerent personality, LEUNG Chun-ying of course refused to concede and insisted that anything less than five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux would not be unacceptable. In this way, we could not do anything because seeing that this already diseased political accountability system was to be laden with one more tier comprising two Deputy Secretary of Department posts, it would be totally impossible for us to show any acceptance. Neither did we have any idea about the real intention of Mr LEUNG, as he was full of secret plans in his mind. We were honestly unclear about his intention at all.

But it is now almost three years after his assumption of office. Indeed, we can hardly understand why he still wants to press ahead with the proposal on setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau at this very time when only two years at the most are left before he leaves office. Besides, the tasks he wants the proposed bureau, or its responsibilities, are likewise suspicious, as many Members pointed out a moment ago. We have kept asking why only the Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer are to be incorporated into the new bureau, and also why matters pertaining to communications, broadcasting and creative industries currently under Secretary Gregory SO's purview should remain in his portfolio. This does not seem quite so reasonable. Moreover, even if we approve the Government's proposal on setting up the proposed bureau today, it will still take time to make preparations. But LEUNG Chun-ying will leave office around one year later. In that case, why should he still do so now?

For these reasons, we raised many questions during our scrutiny at the FC meetings. Coincidentally, the press reported at the time that Mr LAU Ming-wai had donated some money to Karolinska Institutet in Sweden and would be appointed as Under Secretary. All this inevitably led us to wonder whether LEUNG Chun-ying had made any undertaking during the Chief Executive election, with the result that he must complete this task during his five-year term no matter what. We thought that if this was really the case, then it was very 12186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 likely that he was just honouring his undertaking to somebody else, rather than the sector represented by Mr Charles Peter MOK. We asked a lot of questions at the FC meetings. For instance, was it because the country wanted to make use Hong Kong's brand name reputation in an attempt to expand into the global medicine areas of life science, research and development as well as pharmaceutical manufacturing, so it was necessary to set up a specialized bureau with special responsibility for clearing obstacles, so that Mainland capitals in this regard can find its way to the world?

Certainly, we had many other queries. Here is an example. According to a paper submitted by the authorities at the time (I quote): "The new ITB will strengthen, both in depth and breadth, the policy and support for the development of innovation and technology, from research and development to application and commercialization, thereby enhancing the ecosystem." (End of quote) We thought that these words of the authorities sounded very appealing, but we also wondered if they could provide us with any plans and blueprints and adopt a more sensible approach that would not put the cart before the horse. We must note that the appropriation request put before the Legislative Council by the authorities involved as much as some $30 million. Therefore, we wondered if they could provide us with a general picture beforehand to assure us that the proposed bureau would really seek to serve the local innovation and technology sector rather than realizing other secret plans.

President, you can probably recall that all such questions were asked over and over again during the FC meetings totalling 24 hours. But we could not get blood from a stone. Secretary Gregory SO failed to offer any clear explanation all the time. In this way, we could not complete the scrutiny of the appropriation request before the deadline on 14 February. Consequently, on 2 March, LEUNG Chun-ying made an innovative government announcement. He announced the appointment of Mr Nicholas YANG to three public offices all at the same time. First, he renamed the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology then led by the Financial Secretary as the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology (the Advisory Committee). Mr Nicholas YANG was appointed as its Chairman. At the same time, he also appointed Mr YANG as Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology, and also an Executive Council member. At the time, we criticized this arrangement for showing no respect to the executive-legislature relationship. And, from this, we could clearly see that he wanted to pay Mr YANG a salary by way of appointing him as an Executive Council member, so as to avoid turning him into a "volunteer LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12187 worker". The reason why I say so is that various signs and news reports invariably indicated that Mr YANG did not renew his Executive Vice President agreement with The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Rather, he only wanted to become as a Bureau Director.

While we considered this arrangement to be very inappropriate, we nonetheless thought that LEUNG Chun-ying would learn from the mistake. We already told him last time that he should not put the cart before the horse and should "hand in his homework" by telling us how to connect the various links, how to assist the local innovation and technology sector in "going global", and also how to capitalize on Hong Kong's competitive edge in taking forward this task. So, we naturally thought that he would first "hand in his assignment" before trying to force through the proposal again, as Mr YANG had served as Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology and also Chairman of the Advisory Committee for quite some time.

But things did not turn out the way we thought. On the contrary, he just could not wait and hastened to employ the same tactic. President, we once asked, for example, if a blueprint specifically for the development of the innovation and technology industry would be available. At the time, it was not available. And now, it is still not available. Information shows that in fact, Mr YANG only held a meeting on 15 April (that is, only last month), and that was also the first meeting. I believe the 20 members merely met with one another briefly and discussed the way forward. As a result, the proposed resolution put forward by the Government before the Legislative Council has still failed to put forth a development blueprint for the innovation and technology industry.

Here is another example. At the time, we asked about the reason why the policy areas of creative industries and communications technology should be excluded from the portfolio of the proposed bureau. President, several Members have likewise asked the same question today. Members from both the pro-establishment camp and also the pan-democratic camp are invariably doubtful about this. But still, there has been no answer. We can therefore say that the proposal this time around is actually no different from the one we scrutinized on 14 February. Why is it impossible to implement the relevant policies under the existing system? Why is it impossible to entrust, for example, Commissioner Janet WONG with the implementation of the relevant policies first? Only one year or so is left in her terms of office, and that means even if the proposal is passed, she at most only has one year to implement the policies. 12188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

In that case, why is he so adamant about implementing the proposal now? I cannot think of any other reasons, except that he is being confrontational.

We also asked if any mechanism would be set up for assessing whether the new Bureau Director and the new bureau could fulfil their functions and achieve the policy objectives set by the authorities. We also asked if it was possible to draw up certain "KPI" (meaning "Key Performance Indices") for this purpose, just as certain Members proposed just now. We asked these questions over and over again at the FC meetings. But no answers were given to us in February. Not only this, no answers have been given today either. But LEUNG Chun-ying has still decided to force through the proposal in the Legislative Council. After passing the present stage, he will brush aside other livelihood items. Regardless of how many items have been endorsed by the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee, and no matter how closely they are related to people's livelihood, they must all give way. I believe that very soon, he will submit the appropriation request concerning the proposed bureau the Legislative Council again. And, he will resort to the same old ploy of brushing aside all livelihood-related items.

In a word, President, the Civic Party and I cannot see any reason for supporting the resolution at this moment, because regarding information provision, the Government's behaviour today is no different from its behaviour in February. I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Government has time and again turned something originally good into something bad. It is of course not true to say that Hong Kong does not respect innovation and technology or this industry. Over the years, even without a so-called Innovation and Technology Bureau, the many professionals engaged in this industry and the continuous emergence of young recruits have still enabled the industry to make huge progress.

According to the latest statistics, at present, totally 200 000 people are engaged in innovation and technology trades in Hong Kong, and 37 000 enterprises are involved in culture and innovation, yielding a value added amounting to $98 billion per annum, or 4.9% of Hong Kong's GDP. Such data are collected from Hong Kong Fact Sheets 2014. Some may ask, "The industry will probably fare still better if something can be done for it, won't it?" To LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12189 answer this question, we must look at history and see if this Government, LEUNG Chun-ying and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau under Gregory SO have done anything that can assure the Legislative Council that the innovation and technology industry will be adequately taken care of.

I have listened to many Members' speeches, the contents of which are very amusing. Theirs are all standard viewpoints characteristic of the Mainland. For example, they keep talking about our country's strategy, "One Belt One Road" and many economic issues of the Mainland. They seem to be saying that since the Mainland is handing out money, since certain rich men on the Mainland are handing out money to Hong Kong, we are bound to take the money. Mr NG Leung-sing's remark yesterday is exactly one example of such viewpoints, and I believe there must be reverberation on the Internet today. People will think that a remark of such poor quality is a shame to Hong Kong. To him, what do Hong Kong people need? According to him, Hong Kong people find democracy important, but money even more important. In other words, he thinks that money is extremely important, is everything and can make certain Members go down on their knees.

Fortunately, however, people in the innovation and technology industry are not so money-oriented, and the whole thing can even enable us to see that the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau may well be meant to dovetail with the country's strategy. What kind of strategy? We all know that the Internet is very well-developed on the Mainland, but I think our country's Internet control must be the tightest in the whole world. A friend of mine who was employed to work on the Mainland told me a story. He once asked a friend to a meet him after two hours at a restaurant called Jasmine. Upon his arrival at the restaurant, he was immediately interrogated by the state security personnel who were sitting in the restaurant. They asked him why he was in Jasmine Restaurant. He said he was only meeting a friend. He later realized that all was due to the outbreak of the Jasmine Revolution in the Middle East at the time. So, the mammoth stability maintenance forces of our country, which have more resources than the national defence forces, would certainly not let him go.

We can also see that there are many well-known Internet surveillance technologies on the Mainland, including the Green Dam, which can screen all Mainland people's communications thoroughly ― official correspondences, personal chats or even WeChat dialogues. The screening is even harsher than the "rice washing" described by Mr Paul TSE, as it covers each and every word. 12190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

Are we supposed to dovetail with this kind of suppression? Are we supposed to dovetail with the Mainland's tactic of suppressing innovation and technology under the guise of promotion? The proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau is just like another wolf, and the Government now seeks to don it with sheep's clothing, saying, "Come down here. This is a very nice place." Nonetheless, when you get close, you will see they are whetting their knives.

In my opinion, young people in Hong Kong all respect themselves. They will never give up. Even without an Innovation and Technology Bureau, they have never stopped working hard for their ideals and careers. Were they to bank on officials like Gregory SO and the new bureau, they would have seen the demise of all their hopes. How could they have contributed 4.9% of the local GDP in that case? Are all the 200 000 people supposed to wait for alms from the new bureau?

What worries us most is that this is yet another political mission. To begin with, there were actually lots of time and opportunities at the meetings of the Finance Committee (FC) for the Secretary and the officials under him to explain clearly and persuade the Council to acknowledge the importance of the new bureau. Unfortunately, the officials either spoke like tape-recorders or simply avoided the important questions. They either avoided giving direct answers or simply gave irrelevant replies. And, with a little bit of support from the FC Chairman, the time for Members to ask questions was limited to five minutes, then four minutes, three minutes, two minutes and one minute. When the time limit was reduced to one minute, I really had no idea as to what I could ask. Treating the legislature with such "violence", the authorities have sought to shift the focus of this issue and then put the blame on us, saying, "You don't obey me and listen to me, so it is your fault."

Should the Government behave so nastily, seeking to impose its will on others so entirely blatantly? Members wanted to raise many questions but the Government said no. I simply wonder why the Government should think that it is qualified to put this motion before the Legislative Council today and tell us that it can make this decision for the community. This Government has never had any public approval. Here are some examples. We can see that in various opinion polls, the popularity ratings of both Gregory SO and his boss LEUNG Chun-ying are always negative. The Government is not clearly aware of all this, but it still seeks to accomplish political missions citing some high-sounding reasons. I have great doubts about this approach.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12191

Actually, what we find most terrible is whether this new bureau will become an enterprise of software control in the future. It is widely known that on the Mainland, enterprises are gigantic and they can spend large sums on acquisitions. We do not want this to become a political mission.

In fact, the success of innovation and technology requires fertile soil. But Hong Kong has sought to drive away the practitioners. We know that many industries related to innovation and technology are located in factory buildings, because they hope to survive with cheaper rents. Yet, the Government has sought to take away what little room is still left for them, forcing them to leave.

As the Government seeks to turn Kowloon East into an area of high-end offices in what is called "Energizing Kowloon East", these industries find themselves in a very miserable situation, because "energizing Kowloon East" will boost rents continuously, forcing them to relocate. The situation in Fo Tan is the same. The Government allows and condones property developers' transformation of these buildings originally designed for industrial purposes into geese which lay golden eggs, meaning high-end commercial buildings, hotels or even residential buildings. Consequently, talents and young people who are engaged in innovation and technology cannot even have a foothold. What kind of help has the Government offered them, may I ask?

I can remember Mr WONG Kwok-hing's advice to young people that they should have their eyes on innovative industries as this will make them thrive in the future. How can young people thrive anyway? Over the years, in the field of higher education, the Government has never sought to provide enough first degree places for them. Even though some students are qualified for university education, they are compelled to turn to associate degree courses as the Government is determined not to increase the number of subsidized places. Then, they have to borrow more money from their family members in order to continue their studies in private universities. Some even have to borrow a yet bigger amount to finish their degree courses overseas, thus ending up being debt-ridden. This is how the Government is treating young people. However, it now claims that it has done its job to encourage innovation and technology. This is downright nonsense. If this is really the case, if it really respects young people, please provide them with sufficient tertiary education places, so as to really equip them with the abilities required.

12192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015

Moreover, at present, many young people who hold bachelor degrees would like to continue with their studies in IT through enrolment in post-graduate research programmes. Do they have any opportunity? No, of course. Our young people have told us that most places are now offered to Mainland students on a priority basis. Our young people are not as competitive, because they may not be machines for examinations or thesis-writing. Thus, certain places, especially research programme places with teaching assistant duties that can help students tide over their financial difficulties, are mostly offered to Mainland students instead of local students. Should the Government treat talents in this way? Who do you want us to trust? This Government? If it is sincere, before the establishment of this bureau, there are a lot of good things which Secretary Gregory SO and his Bureau can do. Unfortunately, they have not done anything.

On the other hand, regarding the Innovation and Technology Fund, we do not need to say anything more. Even the Director of Audit's report can also point out that the Fund is itself a big problem and a cause of concern because its recoupment rate is low, and the proportions of subsidies in some cases were wrong. The report points out that the Government should review the funding criteria of the Fund and recoup the subsidies promised to be returned to the Fund. We should not allow institutions with commercial background to take advantage of this Fund for conducting research and development projects and then avoid surrendering the profits they should return to the Fund.

All of the above can show us that the Government has not done what it should do, nor has it made enough efforts to provide proof and justifications to convince the public and the Legislative Council of the necessity of its proposal. Quite the contrary, some of its acts have been invidious. When the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau could not be established within the time frame set by the Government, LEUNG Chun-ying remained vindictive and appointed Mr Nicholas YANG, rumoured to be the Director of the Bureau for long periods, to three important posts: adviser to the Executive Council, and chairman of existing advisory committees. I will not repeat these posts here. Such behaviour is nonetheless disgusting and serves to show us how narrow-minded LEUNG Chun-ying and many principal officials are. They will employ various tricks and ruses just to get things done. This will not convince Members and the public, but will only make us all the more suspicious and distrustful, even to the extent of thinking that the Government only wants to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 29 May 2015 12193 achieve a political objective, rather than really intending to accomplish the task properly.

We hope that this Government can forgo belligerency as the underlining philosophy, and refrain from treating political objectives as the main purposes of its policies. We hope that it will instead go about its tasks in a proper manner. Of course, we do hope that in the future, the Government will no longer be returned by a coterie election, and the Chief Executive and principal officials are all returned by universal suffrage ― genuine universal suffrage without any screening. We further hope that they will all join hands with the people in the course of decision-making and governance, rather than clinging to their present approach of spoiling the executive-legislature relationship at the expense of Hong Kong's long-term interests simply for the sake of political struggles and motives.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 3 June 2015.

Adjourned accordingly at 12.44 pm.