LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11523

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11525

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

11526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11527

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

PROF THE HONOURABLE SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

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

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

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

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

11528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in ): 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)

TABLING OF PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.

Tramway Ordinance (Alteration of Fares) (Amendment) Notice 2018 ...... 108/2018

Immigration (Places of Detention) (Amendment) Order 2018 ...... 109/2018

Immigration Service (Designated Places) (Amendment) Order 2018 ...... 110/2018

Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 2) Notice 2018 ...... 111/2018

Other Papers

No. 109 ― The 29th Report on the Work of the Advisory Committee on Post-service Employment of Civil Servants (1 January - 31 December 2017)

Report No. 14/17-18 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

Report of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen- Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11529

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

Measures to promote the development of cinemas and the film industry

1. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, quite a number of cinemas have closed down one after another. At present, there is no cinema in certain districts (e.g. Tai Po), resulting in fewer entertainment choices for the residents in those districts. In March last year, the Government announced a series of new measures to facilitate the development of cinemas in Hong Kong, with a view to assisting in movie audience-building and promoting the long-term development of the film industry. However, some members of the public have pointed out the slow progress made by the Government on the implementation of such measures. Regarding the measures to promote the development of cinemas and the film industry, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, in respect of each District Council district in each of the past three years, the number of cinemas, the respective numbers of seats and screens of cinemas, and the year-on-year percentage changes of such numbers and the average ticket price;

(2) of the latest progress made by the Government on the implementation of the measures to facilitate the development of cinemas; the measures in place to assist the film industry in setting up more cinemas, so that there will be cinemas in each district, as well as to encourage and assist the film industry in showing more locally produced films and lowering ticket price, so as to attract members of the public to go to the movies; and

(3) whether the Government will consider amending the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines to reclassify cinemas as "cultural facilities" instead of "retail facilities"; if not, of the reasons for that; whether the Government will conduct regular surveys and studies on local film consumption and the development of the local film industry, in order to assist in the formulation of a more comprehensive development policy for the film industry?

11530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LUK Chung-hung for his question. The film industry is among the eight major creative industries in Hong Kong, with direct employment of about 12 550 in 2016. Hong Kong was once a major player in Chinese films but has been faced with numerous challenges in recent years. The Government has been sparing no efforts in promoting the development of local film industry on all fronts, mainly through the Film Development Fund ("FDF"), to support and promote film productions and other marketing and audience-building activities.

In respect of local cinemas, the Government announced in March 2017 new measures to facilitate cinema development in Hong Kong, including incorporation of a requirement to include cinema in the land sale conditions of two designated Government land sale sites to increase the supply of cinemas, with a view to helping the long-term development of the film industry.

My reply to Mr LUK Chung-hung's question is as follows:

(1) From 2015 to 2017, the average price of a movie ticket in Hong Kong had remained stable, at HK$73, HK$76 and HK$75 respectively. The number of cinemas, seats and screens categorized by District Council districts in the three years are set out in Annex.

Overall speaking, from 2015 to 2017, the number of cinemas had increased by 12.8% from 47 to 53; the number of seats by 3.2% from 37 779 to 38 976; and the number of screens by 13.4% from 209 to 237.

Out of the 18 District Council districts, all of them now have cinemas except Tai Po, which will also see the opening of a cinema in 2019. In the past three years, the number of cinemas had increased in six districts, reduced in two districts and stood the same in the remaining nine districts.

(2) As aforementioned, we will incorporate requirement to include a cinema in the land sale conditions of two designated government land sites in Kai Tak and Sha Tin, with a view to increasing the supply of cinemas. The Kai Tak site has been included in the 2018-2019 Land Sale Programme, while a technical assessment by the Government is underway for the Sha Tin site. Upon completion of the relevant procedures and work, the two sites will be made available to the market at appropriate junctures. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11531

While adopting the above measure, the Government considers that the provision of cinemas should still largely be market-driven. We are delighted to see the upward trend in respect of the numbers of cinemas, seats and screens in the past three years. With the upcoming launch of a cinema in Tai Po in 2019, there will be provision of cinemas in all the 18 districts.

The Government will continue, through FDF and relevant measures, to keep pace with the development of the film market and broaden the audience base. For instance, the Government has provided additional screening facilities to the auditorium of the North District Town Hall and commissioned the Hong Kong Film Art Association to organize film screening activities on a regular basis with post-screening seminars in a bid to promote the film industry and build up audience base among students. Moreover, we have provided additional funding to the Hong Kong International Film Festival Society for adding Chinese subtitles to non-Chinese films screened in the Hong Kong International Film Festival and offering student discount tickets, thereby fostering the public's film-watching habit and their ability to appreciate films of different genres.

(3) The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") stipulates the general guidelines for determining the various land uses and facilities in accordance with the population size and other factors. The relevant guidelines serve as general reference for the Government to, at the planning stage, reserve land for different developments and facilities to meet the public's needs. Relevant government bureaux and departments would review, update and formulate HKPSG from time to time in light of different policy and development needs, while the Planning Department would assist in coordinating the formulation of the relevant standards.

According to HKPSG, cinemas operating on a commercial basis are categorized as retail activities, and can be built within land use zones where commercial uses, including retail, are permitted. Generally speaking, the provision of commercial and retail facilities should be market-led.

11532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

We understand that the development of cinemas and the development of the film industry complement each other. The Government has been consulting the Hong Kong Film Development Council ("FDC") on the overall strategies, policies and practical arrangements for promotion and development of the film industry, as well as the use of public funds to support the industry, to understand the needs of the industry and offer support as appropriate.

In view of the considerable changes in the film market in recent years, the Government has engaged a consultant to review the operation and effectiveness of the various funding schemes under FDF, to study the latest market development trends and to propose feasible corresponding measures. The study report will be completed shortly. We will consider the recommendations therein and, in consultation with FDC, formulate proposals to enhance the operation of FDF so as to assist the industry to respond to the needs of the market more effectively.

Annex

Numbers of cinemas, seats and screens from 2015 to 2017

Year 2015 2016 2017

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

cinemas seats screens cinemas seats screens cinemas seats screens District 1 Central and 2 1 151 11 2 1 148 11 3 1 344 16 Western 2 Wan Chai 5 2 351 13 5 2 351 13 5 2 373 13 3 Eastern 3 3 449 14 4 3 427 16 5 3 794 21 4 Southern 1 789 4 2 1 379 7 2 1 382 7 5 Yau Tsim 12 10 969 57 11 10 334 54 11 10 346 54 Mong 6 Kowloon 2 1 810 5 2 1 629 5 2 1 587 5 City 7 Sham Shui 1 1 193 7 1 1 196 8 1 1 196 8 Po LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11533

Year 2015 2016 2017

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

cinemas seats screens cinemas seats screens cinemas seats screens District 8 Wong Tai 1 1 625 6 1 1 614 6 1 1 614 6 Sin 9 Kwun 5 4 344 31 5 4 344 31 5 4 289 31 Tong 10 Kwai 2 1 300 10 2 1 300 10 2 1 255 11 Tsing 11 Tsuen Wan 2 1 439 9 2 1 439 9 3 1 853 14 12 Tuen Mun 3 2 329 11 3 2 329 11 3 2 312 11 13 Yuen Long 2 1 006 7 2 931 7 3 2 174 15 14 North 0 0 0 1 228 2 2 511 5 15 Tai Po 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Sha Tin 2 956 6 2 956 6 2 1 020 6 17 Sai Kung 2 1 576 13 2 1 576 13 2 1 576 13 18 Island 2 1 492 5 1 350 1 1 350 1 Total 47 37 779 209 48 36 531 210 53 38 976 237 % change N.A. N.A. N.A. +2.1% -3.3% +0.5% +10.4% +6.7% +12.9% (c.f. the preceding year)

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, we welcome the Government's act of incorporating the requirement to include cinema in the land sale conditions of new sites. Although the Government claimed that the provision of cinemas should be market-driven, it has unshirkable responsibilities, particularly in promoting the showing of local films (i.e. Hong Kong films) and supporting the development of the industry.

At present, many theatre chains mainly show Hollywood movies or other foreign imported movies. This is a business consideration of the industry but the showing time of Hong Kong films …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, please put your supplementary question directly.

11534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): … has been greatly suppressed. Does the Government have specific policies for promoting the film industry and Hong Kong films? For example, can HKPSG ensure that there are a certain number of cinemas in each district, or can further consideration be made to operating cinemas by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department? Can some time slots be set aside for showing Hong Kong films? Can the Government make greater efforts?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LUK Chung-hung for his supplementary question. First, I have mentioned in the main reply that the Government provides support to the film industry in two aspects. As stated by Mr LUK, the Government has, through FDF and certain measures, provided assistance to the industry in respect of production, filming, talent training and film screening. Of course, an important factor is that the Government has to adequately provide cinemas and other venues.

Mr LUK is concerned about whether the number and distribution of cinemas are adequate. The numbers I have just cited well illustrate two points. First, in the past few years, the numbers of cinemas, seats and screens have increased. Second, as far as the distribution of cinemas is concerned, with the commissioning of a new cinema in Tai Po next year, there will be cinemas in each district. In some districts covering a large area, such as the North District, the authorities will provide filming entertainment to local residents at some venues. However, the operation of the film industry is indeed a commercial activity and I believe the industry also hopes that the Government will continue to support the film industry as a business activity rather than take over the business by certain government acts.

Therefore, I have mentioned in the main reply that we support the film industry and we are pleased to see an increase in the number of cinemas.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, cinema is categorized as a retail facility and the Secretary has just emphasized the market-led approach. After all, it may not be an effective approach to rely on incorporating a requirement to include cinema in the land sale conditions to increase the number of cinemas. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11535

Will the Government consider providing some incentives, such as exempting cinema sites for inclusion in gross floor area calculation, so that existing retail facilities can be converted into cinemas?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as I have mentioned in the main reply, the Government not only determines the various land uses by using HKPSG as a general guideline, it also proposed last year to incorporate a requirement to include cinema in the land sale conditions of two Government lands (Kai Tak and Sha Tin sites). It can also be said that this is the new measure other than the work in the past.

Recently, we have also learnt that an enterprise in Sham Shui Po District will open a cinema in a shopping mall upon its redevelopment. Under the new policy, we will examine whether the above two sites containing cinemas can further meet the needs of the public. However, based on the figures I have just provided, the number of cinemas has increased.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the Government should certainly strongly support film production. We have recently learnt that some people were charged for possessing counterfeits of currency notes claimed to be used as film props. This case reflects how keen the Government is in supporting the film industry. As disclosed by an industry player, the persons concerned had applied to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") for reproducing prop currency notes, but the application was not approved. But they would be prosecuted by the Police if they had not made an application. Information shows that the Film Services Office ("FSO") under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for promoting the development of the film industry. FSO's website sets out 21 items related to film production but an application form for reproducing prop currency notes is not available. Shouldn't the Secretary apologize to the industry for this? Have the officials failed to discharge their duties, making it difficult for the industry to apply for reproducing prop currency notes?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr KWONG for his supplementary question. Firstly, reproducing banknotes to be used as film props is regulated under 11536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 section 103 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The objective of the provision is to prevent the reproduced currency notes from falling into the hands of law breakers.

I agree with Mr KWONG that in addition to imposing regulation, the Government should assist the industry in undertaking legal normal tasks. Although the law requires HKMA to approve applications for reproducing prop currency notes, FSO regularly meets with the industry. Concerning the incident just mentioned by Mr KWONG, FSO met with the representatives of four industry groups yesterday, including the Hong Kong Film Directors' Guild, the Hong Kong Film Assistant Directors' Association, the Hong Kong Film Arts Association and the Hong Kong Movie Production Executives Association, to discuss with them and listen to their views. We will also discuss this issue with the industry, HKMA and the Police on 19 June. If there is room for improvement in respect of the application procedure or other matters, we will be pleased to undertake the liaison work.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Is it a dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities for not making available an application form for reproducing prop currency notes on the website?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, regarding whether it is necessary to apply by way of submitting an application form as well as the proposals made by the industry in our meeting yesterday, we will consider the relevant issues together.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, with regard to cinema licences, application for renewal has to be made to the relevant government department each year. The formalities and procedures involved are very complicated and many cinema operators also believe that annual renewal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11537 involves uncertainty. Can the authorities issue multiple-year licence so that operators will be more willing to make long-term investments to promote the development of the industry?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, if the industry has problems in this connection, FSO is pleased to discuss with the industry to solve the problems. The figures I cited just now show that the number of cinemas has increased in recent years, and the mode of operation of cinemas has also changed, such as having a few houses in a cinema, etc. We will continue to liaise with the industry and the Bureau will also take follow-up actions.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, if the Government really commits to supporting the development of the Hong Kong film industry and enabling the tourism industry to prosper, it must consider in a holistic approach, including the number of cinemas. However, it seems that the Government lacks vision in this respect. According to the Regional Development Plan in the 1960s and 1970s, cinema was regarded as a cultural and entertainment facility and there should be 38 cinema seats per 1 000 people, but this requirement was later abolished. Will the Government consider resetting the proportion of the population to cinema seats according to HKPSG and encourage developers to earmark floor space for the provision of cinema, in order to achieve the long-term goal of "multiple cinemas in one district"? Moreover, I have just mentioned that …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, you have raised two supplementary questions, please sit down. Secretary, you can choose to answer one of the supplementary questions.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Yes, President. I thank Mr LAM for his supplementary question. I would like to clarify one point, Mr LAM said that the Regional Development Plan was revised in 1975, but cinema has still been classified as a venue for commercial activity. Up till now, the operation of cinemas is still a commercial activity.

11538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

We agree that the number of cinemas has fluctuated in the past 20 years. I believe this has something to do with the audience and the development of the film industry. At present, the audience may expect to have more options or have better seats and audio equipment. Therefore, the film industry will continue to upgrade. As I said in the main reply, the Government has been promoting the development of the film industry. Mr LUK and Mr LAM have expressed the wish of having one cinema in each district. In fact, this wish will come true as the number of cinema has actually increased in many districts.

Under the present circumstances, especially with increasing opportunities and competition in the Mainland, the most ardent wish of the film industry is to maintain local production, so that a new generation of film producers can take over. In this connection, we also hope to provide support to the film industry and assist movie producers in film shooting. This is our policy directive and direction.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Last week, CHEUNG Wai-chuen, the props foreman of the movie Trivisa, was convicted for possessing prop currency notes because the fidelity of these prop currency notes was really high. Has the Secretary considered amending the law to make it keep pace with the times, so as to avoid more filmmakers from breaching the law inadvertently due to the outdated legislation?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. First, the Crimes Ordinance stipulates that any person who wants to reproduce any Hong Kong currency note for film shooting purpose must obtain the prior written consent of HKMA. Dr CHENG asked if it was necessary to amend the law, I believe it is not necessary to do so. However, in respect of the enforcement of the law and the processing of application, there is indeed room for discussion. When answering the supplementary question of other Members, I mentioned that we had discussions with the industry yesterday and they put forward various views, including how to meet the requirements of the industry while meeting the legal requirements. We have collected their views and we will discuss with HKMA and the Police at the upcoming meeting.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11539

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, in the era of Cantonese movies, the cinema industry was very prosperous and hundreds of viewers watched movies together in a cinema. There was also a Cheung Chau Cinema in Cheung Chau. Watching movies was a pastime for factory workers after work, as well as a dating and family activity. However, the film industry has been shrinking since the 1990s, and coupled with the continuous increase in rents, cinemas have become smaller and smaller. Some cinemas have been relocated from shopping malls to the top floors and some of them had even closed down. The number of venues for public entertainment has greatly reduced.

Movies can reflect social situations and cinemas are places where Hong Kong people's creativity and culture are presented. The operation of cinemas is a commercial activity and a cultural mission …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU, please put your supplementary question directly.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): … but it has become more difficult for cinemas to be effective. The Secretary mentioned that the number of cinemas has increased but high technology development of the film industry is essential. In this regard, what supporting measures does the Government have in place?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. Regarding the support for the industry in the use of new and high technology, we will not focus solely on film screening. As I said just now, the film industry is one of the important industries employing quite a large number of people, including many professionals. In recent years, film production, especially post-production, tends to become more international and many local practitioners have certain status in the area.

New technology is also applied in film shooting, production, post-production and promotion. As I said earlier, our work in promoting the development of the film industry and supporting the industry involves the following: First, encouraging the production of Hong Kong films through funding assistance, in particular, encouraging newcomers in the industry to engage in film 11540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 production; second, nurturing talent in film production; third, expanding audiences; and fourth, promoting Hong Kong movies. In addition, we will gladly assist the industry in applying technology and innovative ideas to allow the film industry to keep pace with the times and tap business opportunities.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (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, but some Members did not return to their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.

Electoral arrangements

2. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, once again, a few minutes of the Council's time have been wasted.

President, in November last year, the Government published a Consultation Paper on Review of Electoral Arrangements, launching a public consultation on three issues related to elections, including the polling hours. The consultation report was released last month. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as some members of the public are of the view that the existing polling hours and the time taken in counting votes are unduly long, causing impacts on society, the electors and the candidates, but the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11541

consultation report proposes that the polling hours of the Legislative Council ("LegCo") and District Council ("DC") elections be maintained, of the authorities' measures to alleviate the relevant impacts;

(2) as the Government has indicated in the consultation report that it will study the making of arrangements to enable those civil servants who serve as polling staff or are on shift on the polling day to cast their votes in advance, and to enable eligible electors who are Hong Kong permanent residents working or residing on the Mainland to cast their votes in advance at the offices of the SAR Government on the Mainland, whether such studies can be completed expeditiously so that the relevant arrangements can be implemented in the 2020 LegCo general election; and

(3) whether it will review the vote counting arrangement for the election of District Council (second) functional constituency seats in LegCo, such as by drawing reference to the vote counting arrangement for geographical constituencies in which a polling station will be converted into a counting station immediately after the close of poll for counting votes on the spot; whether it will conduct a feasibility study on introducing electronic counting to LegCo and DC elections; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, my reply to Ms Starry LEE's question is as follows:

The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau published the Consultation Paper on Review of Electoral Arrangements in November last year and launched a public consultation that lasted for about seven weeks on three issues related to electoral arrangements. The public consultation period ended in late December last year. Having collated and analysed the views received, we published the Consultation Report in mid-May to set out the outcome of the consultation and our proposed way forward for the three issues.

In respect of the polling hours of Legislative Council and District Council ("DC") elections, as mentioned in the Consultation Report, among the written submissions received during the public consultation period, the political parties 11542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 which supported slightly shortening the polling hours pointed out that Hong Kong's polling hours were the longest as compared to other countries and regions. The advantages of shortening the polling hours are that the relevant counting work can commence earlier, thereby enabling the venues of the polling stations to be returned as early as possible on the day after the polling day, alleviating the fatigue suffered by the stakeholders concerned, as well as lessening the disturbance caused to the neighbourhood of the counting stations. On the other hand, some political parties and quite a few members of the public who opposed shortening the polling hours pointed out that if the closing time of the poll was advanced, some electors may not be able to or find it inconvenient to vote because the revised polling hours may conflict with their working hours. After carefully considering all the views and recommendations received for the public consultation, we proposed that the present polling hours of Legislative Council and DC elections should be maintained for the time being before the Government completes a holistic review on other issues related to polling hours.

We will study a host of issues related to polling hours, including the feasibility of extending the time of procurement of venues for setting up polling and counting stations, use of information technology in the counting process, and formulating alternative arrangements for electors who are unable to go to polling stations in person on the polling day to vote due to the shortening of polling hours, etc. We will critically examine the various operational details and legal issues involved, with the aim of ensuring that elections are conducted in a fair, open and honest manner.

During the public consultation period, we also received proposals from political parties and Legislative Council Members on arranging advance polling for civil servants who serve as polling staff and who are on shift on the polling day, and allowing eligible electors who are Hong Kong permanent residents working/residing in the Mainland to cast their votes at the offices of the Government in the Mainland. While examining the proposal on formulating advance polling arrangements for civil servants who serve as polling staff and who are on shift, we must carefully consider the storage and safe-keeping of the marked copies of the final register, ballot papers and ballot boxes between the commencement of advance polling and the actual polling day, and how to regulate exit polls conducted on the advance polling day, so as to prevent electors' voting preference on the actual polling day from being influenced by the results of these exit polls. Besides, to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair, open and honest manner, any proposed arrangements for polling outside Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11543 must be critically examined, such as how the polling and counting process could be effectively monitored by candidates and their agents, transportation of ballot papers and ballot boxes to and from polling stations outside Hong Kong, as well as the relevant arrangements during polling and counting and application of Hong Kong's relevant electoral legislation and regulation during the process, the risks involved in the process and ways of handling any emergency and unforeseen incidents occurring at polling stations outside Hong Kong, etc.

As regards expediting the counting procedure, the Registration and Electoral Office is proactively studying ways to introduce electronic counting of votes for the DC (second) Functional Constituency ("DC (second) FC") in future Legislative Council elections, taking into account the technical aspects, work flow and cost-effectiveness, etc. We have examined the feasibility of counting the votes of DC (second) FC in polling stations. We consider that this option would involve much operational difficulty as polling staff are already responsible for the counting of votes of the geographical constituency, and most of the polling stations need to be returned to the venue management in the early morning on the day following the polling day. As for DC elections, since the number of ballot papers for respective constituencies is comparatively smaller, the implementation of electronic counting of votes may not significantly reduce the counting time and achieve cost-effectiveness. As such, we do not recommend the implementation of electronic counting of votes in DC elections for the time being. We will continue to review the relevant procedures and examine whether there is any room for streamlining the counting procedure.

The raft of measures mentioned above, if implemented, would help facilitate early announcement of election results and alleviate the fatigue suffered by relevant stakeholders. We will proactively study and follow up on these issues, with a view to realizing some of the measures as early as in the 2020 Legislative Council election.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I am disappointed with the Secretary's reply. In part (1) of the main question, I asked the Secretary what measures are in place to alleviate the impacts of the current proposal to maintain the polling hours on society, the electors and the candidates, but basically the Secretary has not answered. To put it simply, no measures are in place to alleviate the relevant impacts.

11544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Besides, I wish to ask the Secretary a supplementary question in respect of part (2) of the main question. Nowadays, more and more Hong Kong people travel frequently to the Mainland because of their livelihood needs. There are probably hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people who actually work and live on the Mainland. They often travel between the two places, and they have the right to vote in Hong Kong. However, the existing arrangement has not taken account of changes in society over the years. The Secretary's reply is that this issue must be critically examined, but then he only considers this issue from the perspective of how arrangements should be made in Hong Kong for the counting of votes and the monitoring of the polling process, rather than from the point of view of safeguarding every Hong Kong citizen's due right to vote. May I ask the Secretary whether the relevant studies are now underway, and whether the results of the studies will be available soon enough so that they can become part of the measures to be implemented in the 2020 Legislative Council election?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms LEE for her supplementary question.

First of all, Ms LEE has mentioned that the existing polling hours and the time taken in counting votes are unduly long, and asked how the relevant impacts can be alleviated. This matter involves several issues, the first of which, of course, is whether the polling hours can be shortened. I have already explained in the main reply why we think the polling hours should be maintained for the time being. We will holistically review issues related to polling hours, and will proceed to deal with this matter after taking everything into consideration. In addition, we will study the feasibility of electronic counting of votes and whether there is room for streamlining the counting procedure, with a view to reducing the impacts of the polling hours and counting time being unduly long. So, in fact, we are considering and studying some measures.

As regards some Hong Kong residents who live or reside on the Mainland, or often travel to the Mainland, how can we facilitate their voting? I think this involves two issues. First, if the Hong Kong people concerned are eligible to be registered as electors, the issue is how we can facilitate their voting on the polling day. Will they have to return to Hong Kong to vote, or will they be allowed to vote outside Hong Kong? We need to consider the operational feasibility of voting outside Hong Kong and whether the public has confidence in the relevant electoral arrangements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11545

Second, in the case of those Hong Kong residents who often travel to the Mainland, or who will need to move around more often in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area") because of the development of the Bay Area in the future, we also need to consider whether they are eligible to be registered as electors in Hong Kong. This involves certain legal issues and their ties with Hong Kong. We are exploring these issues and hope that they can be addressed as soon as possible.

As for the measures being studied as mentioned by me in the main reply, our aim is to implement some of the measures in the 2020 Legislative Council election. Some of them may be relatively simple, yet some are rather complex. We need time to study them, but we will do that proactively and expeditiously.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, like Ms Starry LEE, I am very disappointed with the Secretary's reply, particularly the argument mentioned by him that shortening the polling hours may render some electors unable to vote. In the eyes of people like us who have real experience of standing for election, this argument is untenable, because electors are motivated by candidates to vote. If they want to support a candidate … In a past election, some electors were still waiting to vote at 2:00 am at a polling station in Taikoo Shing.

If the polling hours are changed by the Government, political parties will naturally adapt to the change. It is especially worth mentioning that very few people would vote in the first polling hour in the morning, whereas in the last polling hour at night … I believe that if the polling hours are changed by the Government, every political party, be it pan-democratic or pro-establishment, will adapt to the change expeditiously. This is not a problem at all. It is perhaps because the Secretary has never really stood for election that―allow me to say this―he is somewhat out of touch with reality. I implore the Secretary to reconsider, given that the unduly long polling hours are certain to seriously fatigue candidates, volunteers and all supporting units, and Hong Kong's polling hours are the longest in the world. Changing the polling hours does not entail amending the legislation. I therefore hope the Secretary will reconsider from the perspective of the public interest.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question.

11546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

First of all, I very much agree with a point she made. Our existing polling hours are 15 hours. In the world, only the United Kingdom has the same polling hours as we do, while the polling hours in other places are shorter. Therefore, our polling hours are rather long indeed. As the relevant personnel need to work long hours from the start of the polling hours to the end of the counting time, they are bound to be fatigued. In view of this, we had proposed exploring whether there was room to slightly shorten the polling hours.

Nonetheless, after the consultation, our conclusion is that the polling hours should remain unchanged for the time being because we do not want to tackle this issue in an isolated manner. Meanwhile, we are studying other issues related to polling hours, including whether the counting procedure can be expedited through electronic counting of votes; whether we can plan in advance when looking for venues for polling stations to make sure that they are big enough, so as to avoid the scenario of many people having to wait in queues to vote; and other ways to streamline procedures. We intend to study these issues before implementing the relevant arrangements and proposals holistically. So it is absolutely not the case that we think the polling hours are not too long. This is absolutely not the case. I hope Members can understand that we are actually considering taking forward the relevant work.

We also agree that if the polling hours are changed, electors will adapt to the change accordingly as long as there is enough publicity about it. However, regarding some electors who have to work long hours or work shifts, can we provide them with alternatives? As a first step, we are now exploring whether advance polling arrangements can be made for colleagues engaged in electoral work and civil servants who need to work shifts. These measures and issues are also matters that we are exploring.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, as the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Secretary Patrick NIP should know two terms: "Hong Kong drifters" and "northward drifters". The term "northward drifters" refers to the 500 000 Hong Kong people currently studying, working or even spending their twilight years on the Mainland. On the one hand, Secretary Patrick NIP has been promoting the development of the Bay Area and encouraging us to work, seek employment, start businesses and even live on the Mainland, but on the other hand, he has deprived "northward drifters" of their right to vote. Is this not contradictory? Can the Secretary answer whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11547

SAR Government's offices on the Mainland can be used as polling places for "northward drifters" with the help of current technology, so that they can exercise their civil right to vote?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question.

In fact, as I mentioned in my reply just now, more and more Hong Kong people are working on the Mainland, particularly in Guangdong Province, and there will be many Hong Kong people working in the Bay Area and travelling frequently between Hong Kong and the Mainland in the future. We are aware of this situation, and we need to study how to deal with it. As I said just now, this situation involves two issues. First, if those citizens are eligible to be registered as electors, will they have to return to Hong Kong to vote, or will they be allowed to vote outside Hong Kong? This depends on the number of those citizens, how the relevant arrangements are to be actually implemented, how we can ensure the high efficiency of the relevant arrangements, and whether members of the public think that voting outside Hong Kong is an arrangement that does not worry them. These are things that we need to consider.

Second, at present, to be eligible for registration as an elector in Hong Kong, an individual must ordinarily reside in Hong Kong, and the residential address notified by him must be his only or principal residence in Hong Kong. With the development of the Bay Area, there may be more Hong Kong people residing on the Mainland and travelling between the two places in the future. The impact of this on those Hong Kong people's right and eligibility to vote is something that we are going to explore. It is a complicated matter, as it involves certain legal issues that must be taken into account, but we are working on it.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, originally I thought that this question was merely about the pro-establishment camp's intention to shorten the period of time during which people can vote―despite the already low voter turnout rates, pro-establishment Members still demand that the polling hours be shortened and the Government is unwilling to use technology to expedite the counting of votes―but strangely, a Member actually linked the topic to voting in the Bay Area and "northward drifters".

11548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Yet, apart from working in the Bay Area, our young people may also buy properties in Taiwan or work in other countries. Countless technology talents have left Hong Kong for Silicon Valley. Twenty years ago, when I lived in the United States, I already advocated allowing Hong Kong people to vote overseas. If such a policy is introduced, it must be applied globally without discrimination rather than only in the Bay Area or on the Mainland. The Government can use technology to make this happen if it is willing to do so. As early as some 30 years ago, in the wake of the 4 June incident, we already advocated the implementation of such a policy, but it has yet to come to fruition.

If such a policy is implemented, can the Government allow all eligible Hong Kong permanent residents who live in foreign countries but often return to Hong Kong to vote overseas? When considering the pro-establishment camp's demand that Hong Kong people be allowed to vote in the Bay Area, can the Government also consider a similar demand concerning all Hong Kong people around the world?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr MOK for his supplementary question.

As I mentioned just now, two points have come to our attention. First, regarding a person's eligibility to be an elector in Hong Kong, we primarily assess it on the basis of whether he or she resides in Hong Kong. That said, as there are more and more Hong Kong people who reside outside Hong Kong but travel frequently to and from Hong Kong or still have close ties with Hong Kong, do we need to explore this matter? Our view is that this matter needs to be explored. Second, in the process of exploring this matter, we have fully realized that it is a complicated matter involving certain legal issues that must be taken into account, and we have to consider the eligibility of individuals to be electors when they are outside Hong Kong, as opposed to when they are in Hong Kong. We need to seriously consider all such issues, including the point mentioned by Mr MOK just now, when we explore this matter.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, as Hong Kong people are busy at work, shortening the polling hours would affect not only the integrity of elections but also people's political rights and their right to expression. Therefore, any proposal for shortening the polling hours without the support of other relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11549 arrangements should be criticized. The Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the New People's Party who made suggestions of this kind and blatantly pressurized the Secretary just now should be criticized.

In the second and third paragraphs of the main reply, the Secretary, in response to part (1) of Ms Starry LEE's main question, touches on the proposal for shortening the polling hours and indicates that the present polling hours will be maintained for the time being before the completion of a holistic review of the related issues. I certainly agree with this approach. However, with regard to the related issues referred to by the Secretary, such as introducing electronic counting of votes or formulating alternative arrangements, the authorities have to put the relevant ideas into practice before they can see their effects, so as to decide whether to shorten the polling hours ultimately. If you ask me, I think the polling hours should not be shortened at all, and the authorities have to put the relevant ideas into practice before they can decide whether to do that. It is precisely because the relevant ideas have not been put into practice that the polling hours will be maintained for the time being.

The report submitted by the authorities in December clearly indicates that the polling hours will not be shortened but will be maintained until the political system in Hong Kong has further developed, i.e. until our democratic conditions have improved. In fact, the polling hours should be maintained not only for the time being but for good.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, you have made many comments. Please ask your supplementary question directly.

(Mr Gary FAN indicated that he had finished his question)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have any response?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, with respect to Mr FAN's supplementary question, I wish to point out that, firstly, we conducted a consultation on whether there was room 11550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 to slightly shorten the polling hours because we were aware that compared to other places in the world, Hong Kong's polling hours (15 hours) were rather long. We only proposed shortening them slightly, not substantially.

Secondly, we note that diverse views were received during the consultation period, and we are reviewing other issues related to polling hours. We therefore think the polling hours should remain unchanged for the time being. But then, we still hold the opinion that the polling hours are rather long. I must point out clearly that in forming this opinion, we have thought of nothing else but purely considered whether the polling hours are really rather long, and whether there is room for slight adjustments without precluding elections from being conducted in an open, fair, honest and orderly manner.

I have already explained in the main reply why we think the polling hours should be maintained for the time being. Meanwhile, we are considering issues related to polling hours.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.

Provision of new targeted therapy drugs and financial assistance for cancer patients

3. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Some patient groups have relayed that quite a number of new targeted therapy drugs with significant benefits in curing cancers have come onto the market in recent years, but most of them have not been incorporated into the list of Self-Financed Items ("SFIs") under the Drug Formulary of the Hospital Authority ("HA"). This, coupled with the stringent eligibility criteria for applications under the Samaritan Fund and the Community Care Fund, has resulted in cancer patients who cannot afford the medication costs not being able to grasp the opportunities for treatments, thereby undermining patients' rights and interests. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will request HA to expedite its appraisal procedure so as to incorporate those new targeted therapy drugs with significant benefits in curing cancers into the list of SFIs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11551

(2) whether it will relax the eligibility criteria for applications under the two aforesaid relief funds and raise their subsidy ceilings, so that more cancer patients in need can obtain assistance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider setting up a new dedicated fund to subsidize cancer patients with financial difficulties in receiving expensive treatments (including treatments with targeted therapy drugs); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Government and the Hospital Authority ("HA") place high importance on providing optimal care for all patients, including cancer patients, and assuring patients of equitable access to safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs under our highly subsidized public health care system. My consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is as follows:

HA has an established mechanism for regular appraisal of new drugs and review of its Drug Formulary and the coverage of the safety net. As pledged in last year's Policy Address, the Drug Management Committee under HA and other committees concerned will more closely monitor the research developments and the accumulation of medical scientific evidence for new drugs so that needy patients could receive early treatment. The Drug Advisory Committee of HA currently conducts meetings once every three months to appraise new drugs. The whole appraisal process follows the principles of evidence-based medical practice, rational use of public resources, targeted subsidy, opportunity cost consideration and facilitation of patients' choice, and takes into account the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drugs and other relevant factors, including international recommendations and practices, advance in technology, disease state, patient compliance, quality of life, actual experience in the use of drugs as well as the views of professionals and patient groups. In appraising new drugs, especially expensive ones, HA will also carefully examine the long-term financial sustainability of the drug therapies with a view to providing all patients with appropriate treatments. HA will include approved drugs in the Drug Formulary or under the coverage of the safety net as appropriate.

Currently, HA Drug Formulary includes effective drugs for the treatment of various diseases. These drugs, including targeted therapy drugs for treating cancer, are provided for patients at standard fees and charges. HA has been 11552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 extending the coverage of its Drug Formulary through regular review. Self-financed cancer drugs are incorporated into the Drug Formulary's special drug category in phases and provided for patients with specific clinical indications at standard fees and charges.

HA provides a safety net for patients with financial difficulties in respect of specific self-financed items through the Samaritan Fund and the Community Care Fund ("CCF") Medical Assistance Programmes, under which eligible patients are subsidized to purchase self-financed drugs covered by the safety net. As at April 2018, a total of 29 self-financed drugs proven to be of significant benefits were covered by the Samaritan Fund. Among them, 13 are for cancer treatment, of which 10 are targeted therapy drugs.

To provide cancer patients with more support, the Government and HA launched the First Phase Programme of the CCF Medical Assistance Programmes in August 2011 to offer patients financial assistance to purchase specified self-financed cancer drugs which have not yet been brought into the Samaritan Fund safety net but have been rapidly accumulating medical scientific evidence and have relatively higher efficacy. As at April 2018, a total of 16 self-financed cancer drugs have been covered by this Programme and 13 of which are targeted therapy drugs.

The appraisal of drugs is an ongoing process driven by evolving medical evidence, latest clinical developments and market dynamics. At this stage, more scientific evidence is required to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of most newly-developed drugs for cancer treatment and the actual benefits to patients. HA will keep abreast of the latest development of clinical treatment and scientific evidence, heed the views and suggestions of patients' groups, and continue to review the Drug Formulary and the coverage of the safety net under the principle of rational use of limited public resources while maximizing the health benefits for patients in need. HA is also examining the extension of the coverage of CCF Medical Assistance Programmes to provide patients with subsidies for specific drug treatments according to individual patients' special clinical needs, including subsidizing eligible patients to participate in compassionate programmes of individual pharmaceutical companies.

To alleviate the financial burden on cancer patients, HA has been in close liaison with pharmaceutical companies on the setting up of risk sharing programmes for specific cancer drugs. Under the programmes, HA, patients and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11553 pharmaceutical companies will contribute to the drug costs in specific proportions within a defined period, or the drug treatment costs to be borne by patients will be capped. The aim is to facilitate patients' early access to drug treatments and provide the patients with sustainable, affordable and optimal drug treatments in the long term.

HA has commissioned a consultancy study to review the current financial assessment and patient's co-payment mechanism under the Samaritan Fund and CCF Medical Assistance Programmes. Improvement measures will be put forward in the light of the review findings with the aim of providing more appropriate assistance for patients in need. The Government has earmarked funding in the 2018-2019 Budget for this purpose. Actual use of the funding will be subject to the review findings and recommendations.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I am very pleased to hear that the authorities will earmark more resources in next year's Budget to help cancer patients. I hope that the Secretary will extend the current coverage of CCF to include cancer drugs already registered in overseas countries but still not incorporated into the Drug Formulary of HA.

As I have mentioned in part (3) of the main question, will the Secretary consider setting up a new dedicated fund to subsidize cancer patients with great financial difficulties in taking new drugs?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for the question. We have also noticed the present demand for cancer drugs by members of the public and some of the drugs are very expensive. Many people have expressed their views about the scope of the Samaritan Fund and CCF Medical Assistance Programmes and we have also commissioned a consultancy study to review the current patient's co-payment mechanism. The Government has already set up a dedicated fund for this purpose, but since the public have various views on the said mechanism under the dedicated fund, we have commissioned a consultancy study to review the situation.

11554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Resources have been earmarked in the previous budgets and once a conclusion has been drawn after the consultancy study, and improvement schemes or other recommendations have been proposed, the Government will provide support if resources are needed.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said that the Government has commissioned a consultancy study to review the dedicated fund. I believe that the Secretary, as a member of the medical profession, should be well aware of the incessant changes in cancer treatments, such as targeted therapy drugs, biopharmaceuticals, and immunotherapies, so on and so forth. Although under the present system, CCF and the Samaritan Fund can reduce the burdens of grass-roots patients, the Secretary should not forget that even if a new drug has been proven effective, has been incorporated into the Drug Formulary and listed as a self-financed drugs under the coverage of the safety net, and even if HA is willing to prescribe the drug, a patient still has to spend $30,000 or $40,000 a month to buy the drug.

The Secretary has not answered part (3) of the main question concerning whether the Government will consider setting up a new dedicated fund to subsidize middle-class cancer patients to buy drugs. At present, a patient is only eligible to apply to the Samaritan Fund or CCF for subsidy or co-payment after he has exhausted all his savings.

Secretary, there is a group of middle-class people who has just fallen out of the safety net. Since the Government has ample reserves, will it set up a safety net solely for the middle class, so as to subsidize these people to buy the right drugs? That is achievable policy-wise. Financially, the Secretary can propose to the Financial Secretary to set up a dedicated fund to target this group of middle-class people so that they do not have to exhaust all their savings on treatments before they are eligible to apply for assistance from the Samaritan Fund or any other funds.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Prof Joseph LEE for his question and opinion. As I said just now, HA attaches great importance to all patients and does its best to provide them with the appropriate treatments. At present, we already have the Samaritan Fund and CCF; the problem is that the Funds only provide means-tested assistance. In LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11555 respect of the middle class mentioned by the Member, some of them may not be covered by the safety net under the present criteria of the means test. Hence, the present review is conducted in two general directions: first, the patient's co-payment mechanism; and two, the criteria of the means test. The Government will improve the mechanism in a gradual and orderly manner, subject to the review results and the proposals made.

The Government has earmarked resources in the 2018-2019 Budget to implement the proposals made after a review of the existing mechanism. Of course, the proposals will be related to the means test and the patient's co-payment mechanism which, we hope, will remedy the inadequacies of the present work. We will continue to pay attention to the needs in this respect. Other than taking on board the views of Members, we will also consider the views of patient groups and the latest development of HA's Drug Formulary.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, many people who unfortunately suffer from cancer or rare diseases really cannot afford expensive drugs. In the main reply, the Secretary said that under the present system, the Drug Advisory Committee conducts meetings once every three months to appraise new drugs in terms of such factors as safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and others. While safety and efficacy of drugs are essential considerations, the factor of cost-effectiveness is unfavourable for cancer or rare disease patients, because for the same amount of money, the cost-effectiveness of treating patients requiring less expensive drugs or diseases affecting more people will definitely be higher. President, I would like to ask the Secretary, in fact other Members have also asked the same question, that is, should the Government draw up another set of criteria or set up an independent fund and mechanism to help cancer or rare diseases patients who need expensive drugs, so that the speed and criteria of appraising such drugs will be different from those of other drugs?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for raising this supplementary question.

As I said earlier, the Government and HA launched the First Phase Programme of the CCF Medical Assistance Programmes in 2011 to offer patients financial assistance to purchase specified self-financed cancer drugs which have not yet been brought into the Samaritan Fund safety net but have been rapidly 11556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 accumulating medical scientific evidence and have relatively higher efficacy. At present 16 self-financed cancer drugs have been incorporated into the Programme, 13 of which are targeted therapy drugs. We have, as a matter of fact, taken note of the problems mentioned by Dr CHEUNG.

In respect of cost-effectiveness, what Dr CHEUNG cited was only one of the examples. In fact, the Drug Management Committee is mindful of patients' needs. Apart from the fact that the drugs should be safe and effective, the clinical needs of patients and whether patients can benefit the most from the drugs are also the factors that must be taken into account. As regards cost-effectiveness, referring to the example cited by Dr CHEUNG, HA has in fact always acted in a responsible manner in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies about the purchase of drugs, striving for the best drugs for patients while ensuring that public funds will be well utilized. HA will surely take the interest of patients into account, not just the cost-effectiveness of drugs.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has pointed out in the main reply that in deciding the inclusion of new drugs to the Drug Formulary, the Government will continue to adhere to the principle of rational use of limited public resources while maximizing the health benefits for patients in need. However, the clinical efficacies of new drugs often vary. When a new drug was first launched, it might not meet the criteria of effectively treating most patients in need and was thus not included in the Drug Formulary. During the research and development period, many new drugs might only have an efficacy rate of 30% to 60% at first and were not effective in treating all patients. Will the Secretary adjust this criterion by adopting the greatest clinical efficacy as the guiding principle in its decision on including the drug into the scope of subsidy; instead of merely considering the rational use of limited public resources while maximizing the health benefits for patients in need? Otherwise, many drugs which may be very effective to patients will not be subsidized.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr WU Chi-wai for the supplementary question.

The Drug Advisory Committee of HA currently conducts meetings once every three months to appraise new drugs. Other than the principles of evidence-based medical practice, rational use of public resources, targeted subsidy and opportunity cost, it will also take into consideration other criteria or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11557 factors that would facilitate patients' choice, such as international recommendations and practices, advance in technology and also disease state. As regards whether a new drug will benefit patients the most, it must depend on the disease state, patient compliance, whether the drug can improve a patient's quality of life, and the actual experience in the use of drugs. Very often we will also take the views of professionals and patient groups on board. In appraising a new drug, HA will also carefully consider all relevant treatment options and the aforementioned factors.

(Mr WU Chi-wai stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I was asking whether the Bureau would take the greatest clinical benefit available to patients as the guiding principle.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Thank you. The best interest of patients, especially the relevant clinical condition, is one of our essential considerations.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

Immunization for children

4. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, at present, the Department of Health ("DH") provides vaccines and boosters for children from birth to Primary Six under the Hong Kong Childhood Immunisation Programme ("the Immunisation Programme") in order to protect them from 11 infectious diseases, such as measles, poliomyelitis and chickenpox. Parents may bring 11558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 their children from birth to five years of age to the various Maternal and Child Health Centre for immunization. Inoculators of DH will visit primary schools to provide immunization service to primary students. Moreover, children aged six months to under 12 years are eligible for free and subsidized seasonal influenza vaccination ("SIV") via the Government Vaccination Programme ("GVP") and Vaccination Subsidy Scheme ("VSS") respectively. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number and percentage of children in the relevant age groups receiving the various types of vaccines and boosters under the Immunization Programme, as well as the number of inoculators visiting schools to provide immunization service, in each of the past three years;

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

(2) of the number of primary schools participating in the outreach SIV activities at schools organized under VSS in each of the past two years, and the number of primary school students thereby receiving vaccination; the total number of children receiving free SIV via GVP in each of the past three years; and

(3) whether it will consider including SIV in the Immunization Programme in the near future, and deploying inoculators to schools to provide SIV for primary students; if so, of the details, including the additional number of inoculators needed to be recruited; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, vaccination is an effective means to protect oneself against infectious diseases. The Government is currently conducting several free vaccination programmes or subsidy schemes(1) to provide free or subsidized vaccination services for children of different target groups.

(1) They include the Hong Kong Childhood Immunisation Programme, the Government Vaccination Programme and the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11559

Having consulted the Department of Health ("DH"), I now give a reply to the three parts of the question by Mr Holden CHOW as follows:

(1) Eligible children will receive different types of free vaccines and boosters under the Hong Kong Childhood Immunisation Programme ("HKCIP") for the prevention of 11 types of infectious diseases. Vaccines are first given to newborn babies in hospitals. During their pre-school period, children will receive different types of vaccines and boosters at recommended ages of vaccination at the DH's Maternal and Child Health Centres ("MCHCs"). As for primary school children, vaccination is provided at schools by the DH's outreaching School Immunisation Team ("SIT") (details at Annex 1). Apart from the free vaccination provided by DH, parents may arrange their children to receive vaccination in private health care facilities or clinics at their own expense.

In each of the past three years, about 112 000 to 120 000 doses of vaccine were given to newborn babies by public and private hospitals; about 600 000 doses to children by DH's MCHCs; and about 160 000 doses to all Primary One and Six school children by SIT under HKCIP (details at Annexes 2, 3 and 4 respectively). The number of staff of SIT was 58 in the financial years from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 (details at Annex 5).

Since 2001, DH has conducted territory-wide immunization coverage surveys regularly to monitor the vaccination coverage of pre-school children.(2) The most recent survey conducted in 2015(3) indicated that the overall coverage of various vaccines under HKCIP had reached as high as above 95% (details at Annex 6). In addition, SIT examines the immunization records of primary students when vaccination is provided at schools annually. Statistics show that the vaccination coverage of Primary One and Six students has been consistently maintained above 97% (details at Annex 7).

(2) It refers to the percentage of children having received vaccination at recommended ages under HKCIP.

(3) Immunization records (or vaccination cards) of children born between 2009 and 2012 were randomly examined. 11560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(2) Regarding seasonal influenza vaccination, children aged 6 months to less than 12 years can receive subsidized vaccination at the clinics of private doctors enrolled in the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme ("VSS").(4) These private doctors can also organize outreach vaccination activities in primary schools. In the seasons of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018,(5) about 17 000 students in 54 primary schools and 24 000 students in 65 primary schools received influenza vaccination respectively under VSS. While these school outreach vaccination services were provided by private doctors enrolled in VSS, the logistics and inspection of services were carried out by the Centre for Health Protection ("CHP") of DH.

In addition, children from families receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance or those holding valid Certificate for Waiver of Medical Charges may receive free influenza vaccination under the Government Vaccination Programme ("GVP") at DH's MCHCs (for children aged 6 months to under 6 years) or the Student Health Service Centres (for children aged 6 years to under 12 years).(6) In the seasons of 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018,(7) some 2 400, 1 600 and 1 900 eligible children received influenza vaccination respectively under GVP.

(3) CHP has kept abreast of the latest position of the World Health Organization on immunization and vaccination, the scientific development and application of new vaccines as well as their cost-effectiveness, the latest global and local epidemiology of vaccine preventable diseases, and the experience of other health authorities. The Scientific Committee on Vaccine Preventable

(4) In the seasons of 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 (as at 20 May 2018), some 45 200, 110 600 and 150 000 eligible children received influenza vaccination respectively under VSS.

(5) As at 20 May 2018.

(6) In 2016-2017, the Government extended the scope of the eligible target groups of GVP and VSS to cover eligible children aged 6 years to under 12 years. These enhancement measures have been regularized from the season of 2017-2018 onwards.

(7) As at 20 May 2018. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11561

Diseases under CHP holds regular meetings and makes recommendations to CHP regarding the types of vaccines to be incorporated into HKCIP from the public health perspective. Generally speaking, the incorporation of a new vaccine to HKCIP will be based on scientific evidence, taking into account a number of public health considerations including the overall disease burden on society, the efficacy and safety of the vaccine, the availability of other effective preventive measures, cost-effectiveness and public acceptance of the vaccine.

CHP is actively preparing for the launch of the School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme ("Pilot Programme") in the 2018-2019 school year. Under Pilot Programme, the Government will provide free outreach influenza vaccination services for participating primary schools by either the Government Outreach Team or the Public-Private-Partnership Outreach Team. Meanwhile, CHP is working to enhance the school outreach vaccination services(8) under the existing VSS (enhanced outreach VSS) by such ways as increasing the amount of subsidy and strengthening the support for participating private doctors. A list of doctors participating in the enhanced outreach VSS will be uploaded to CHP's website in due course. No extra fees will be charged by these participating private doctors for the service.

Primary schools which will not participate in Pilot Programme may take the initiative to invite private doctors on the list to provide free outreach vaccination services at their schools. CHP will review various modes of influenza vaccination, including services provided by the Government Outreach Team, the Public-Private-Partnership Outreach Team and the enhanced outreach VSS, with a view to working out a mode of vaccination for the future, including whether Pilot Programme will be regularized and the manpower required.

(8) Primary schools, kindergartens and child care centres will be covered. 11562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex 1

HKCIP

Immunization given at birth in hospitals:

Age Immunization recommended Newborn - Bacillus Calmette-Guerin ("BCG") vaccine - Hepatitis B ("Hep B") vaccine―first dose

Immunization at MCHCs of DH:

Age Immunization recommended One month - Hep B vaccine―second dose Two months - Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis and Inactivated Poliovirus ("DTaP-IPV") vaccine―first dose - Pneumococcal vaccine―first dose Four months - DTaP-IPV vaccine―second dose - Pneumococcal vaccine―second dose Six months - DTaP-IPV vaccine―third dose - Pneumococcal vaccine―third dose - Hep B vaccine―third dose One year - Measles, Mumps and Rubella ("MMR") vaccine―first dose - Pneumococcal vaccine―booster dose - Varicella vaccine―first dose* One and a half - DTaP-IPV vaccine―booster dose years

Immunization provided by DH's SIT at schools:

Age Immunization recommended Primary One - Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella vaccine―second dose* - DTaP-IPV vaccine―booster dose Primary Six - Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis ("reduced dose") and Inactivated Poliovirus ("dTaP-IPV") vaccine―booster dose

Note:

* Varicella vaccine has been incorporated into HKCIP and is applicable to children born on or after 1 January 2013. Children who were born before this date will continue to receive MMR vaccine when they reach Primary One.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11563

Annex 2

Number of doses of vaccines administered to newborn babies at hospitals

Year BCG vaccine First dose of Hep B vaccine 2015 59 236 59 520 2016 59 809 60 522 2017 55 852 56 403

Note:

The above figures include vaccination at public and private hospitals.

Annex 3

Number of doses of vaccines administered at MCHCs

Number of doses of vaccines administered at MCHCs* 13-valent Year BCG Hep B DTaP-IPV pneumococcal MMR Varicella vaccine# vaccine vaccine conjugate vaccine vaccine vaccine 2015 583 97 218 186 401 218 108 53 591 53 980 2016 549 96 728 188 494 214 950 52 682 52 572 2017 570 92 425 181 118 211 995 52 644 52 884

Notes:

* Some children may have received vaccines outside MCHCs and they are not included in the above statistics.

# Most of the babies receive BCG vaccine at birth in hospitals.

Annex 4

Number of doses of vaccines administered by DH's SIT

School year Type of vaccine 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Primary One DTaP-IPV vaccine 55 491 55 361 57 085 MMR vaccine 54 507 52 125 54 483 11564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

School year Type of vaccine 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Primary Six dTaP-IPV vaccine 49 669 48 558 50 414 MMR vaccine* 3 236 3 178 3 031 Hep B vaccine* 2 413 2 234 1 472 Total 165 316 161 456 166 485

Note:

* Mop-up vaccination is provided for a small number of Primary Six students who have not completed the vaccination.

Annex 5

Number of staff in DH's SIT

Rank* Number Senior Nursing Officer 1 Nursing Officer 2 Registered Nurse 9 Enrolled Nurse 12 Senior Inoculator 4 Inoculator 28 Assistant Clerical Officer 2 Total 58

Note:

* Not including four drivers and four workmen providing logistic support.

Annex 6

Territory-wide immunization coverage survey 2015 (pre-school children)

Year of birth Type of vaccine^ 2009 2010 2011 2012 BCG vaccine 99.7% 99.6% 99.5% 99.6% Completed Hep B vaccine 99.2% 99.2% 99.2% 99.2% Completed Polio vaccine# 96.0% 96.9% 96.9% 97.4% Completed Diphtheria, Pertussis and 98.5% 98.6% 98.1% 97.4% Tetanus vaccine# LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11565

Year of birth Type of vaccine^ 2009 2010 2011 2012 Completed Measles vaccine* 99.1% 99.3% 99.0% 99.6% Completed Mumps vaccine* 98.6% 99.2% 98.8% 99.6% Completed Rubella vaccine* 98.6% 99.2% 99.0% 99.6%

Notes:

^ Including vaccines received in private health care facilities and outside Hong Kong.

# Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis and Inactivated Poliovirus vaccine has been adopted by DH since 2007.

* Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine has been adopted by DH since 1990.

Annex 7

Vaccination coverage according to students' immunization records

School year Type of vaccine^ 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Primary One Completed DTaP-IPV vaccine 98.9% 98.9% 98.0% Completed MMR vaccine 98.6% 97.1% 97.8% Primary Six Completed DTaP-IPV vaccine 98.7% 98.7% 97.5% Completed MMR vaccine 99.2% 97.9% 98.2% Completed Hep B vaccine 99.3% 97.9% 98.2%

Note:

^ Including vaccines received in private health care facilities and outside Hong Kong.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I raise this main question because the previous vaccination programmes had been riddled with loopholes as arrangements had not been made to deploy personnel to schools to vaccinate primary students. Students may receive different types of vaccines, but not influenza vaccination, and parents have to bring their children to clinics for vaccination, which has caused inconvenience. Noting that the percentage of primary students in Hong Kong having received influenza vaccination is really lower than other regions, and given that the Government has learnt from the 11566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 bitter experience and decided to respond to aspirations in this regard by launching the Pilot Programme, under which school outreach influenza vaccination services will be provided for primary students, may I ask the manpower deployed by the Government for the Pilot Programme to provide school outreach influenza vaccination services for all primary students in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Holden CHOW for his supplementary question. As mentioned in the main reply just now, over the past two years, school outreach vaccination activities have been provided for children, especially primary students, but this kind of outreach vaccination activities must be arranged by schools. As stated in the main reply, students from 54 and 65 primary schools received influenza vaccination under VSS in the seasons of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively.

We do understand that it is less than satisfactory to provide influenza vaccination for students from a mere 50 to 60 schools in each of the past years, and we hope that the number can increase. We have therefore launched a Pilot Programme for the next influenza season, under which different modes of vaccination will be adopted so that we can work out how the Pilot Programme can be regularized and the manpower required.

Let me explain more clearly. The first mode of vaccination is the school outreach vaccination services provided by DH, which deploys the necessary manpower to provide vaccination services at schools, and of course, the schools concerned should accept the relevant arrangement. The Government has already commenced the preliminary work with the schools. The second mode is the public-private partnership arrangement, under which the Government strengthened its support for private doctors who provide influenza vaccination for primary students at schools. This is likewise school outreach vaccination service. We are liaising with various schools via the Education Bureau to ascertain their intention to participate.

The third mode is schools taking the initiative to approach private doctors with whom they are familiar and invite them to provide vaccination services at schools, which is indeed the enhanced outreach VSS. The difference of this scheme does not only lie with an increased amount of government subsidy, but also greater administrative support from DH in response to the feedbacks of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11567 members of the public in the past regarding the need for special refrigeration facilities to transport the vaccines and the need for special vehicles to carry the waste disposed after the vaccination.

It is hoped that by implementing these three different schemes, both the vaccination coverage and take-up rate can be enhanced. Of course, we have also provided the fourth option for parents to take the initiative to bring their children to receive vaccination in private clinics. Also, we have increased the amount of subsidy for private doctors this time around and the vaccination services are provided free of charge.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Members are very concerned about the seasonal influenza vaccination in view of the serious outbreak last year, and therefore welcome the launching of the Pilot Programme by the Government. From my contacts with the principals of primary schools, I learnt that the feedback is very positive. While there is a lack of confidence in the existing VSS, there is a greater expectation for the Pilot Programme to be launched.

However, in this interim, the Secretary may need to make clarification on certain information. We learnt from the relevant briefings that the Pilot Programme only involved 50 primary schools, but subsequently it was reported that it involved 200 schools. As there is a great difference between 50 and 200, and the corresponding action to be taken to prevent a serious outbreak, I hope that the Secretary can clarify on that.

Furthermore, according to the information collected from schools, the Government will notify them of the outcome in May. It is now June but many schools told us that no notification has been received so far. Can the Secretary clarify on the progress in this regard?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr IP Kin-yuen for his supplementary question. Deputy President, as I have just said, there are three types of school outreach teams: the first type is the Government Outreach Team with staff deployed from DH to provide school vaccination services; the second type is the Public-Private-Partnership Outreach Team, under which private doctors provide vaccination services in schools; the third type is 11568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 enhanced outreach VSS, which is an enhanced system rather than a brand new scheme whereby schools take the initiative to approach private doctors, and the Government will only provide additional support for private doctors in administration and the transportation of vaccines as well as increase the amount of subsidy. We hope that with the provision of the above mentioned school outreach vaccination services, especially the first two types, we can achieve what Mr IP Kin-yuen said just now, that is, to enable students from nearly 200 schools to receive vaccination. Take the second type of Public-Private-Partnership Outreach Team as an example. We have to line up with interested private doctors to take part in the relevant scheme. Apart from organizing briefings to encourage the participation of schools, DH will also approach private doctors to invite them to take part in the partnership scheme. Therefore, the number of participating schools is not final yet. As we are working on the matter in full steam, it is hoped that the schools will be notified once the relevant data is available.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, please hold on.

(Mr WU Chi-wai stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, what is your point?

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount, will the Member waiting to ask his supplementary question please hold on.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11569

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats soon to facilitate a headcount.

A quorum is present in the Chamber now. The meeting now continues. Mr Michael TIEN, please raise your supplementary question.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Secretary, at the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session held in February, I proposed that the Government should establish an influenza vaccination team for all primary schools and kindergartens in Hong Kong and the Chief Executive replied that it might not be possible. But then, the Government launched a Pilot Programme of a similar nature in March. Deputy President, I am so glad that the Chief Executive is resolute in words but soft in heart, for this is better than making empty promises.

At present, the take-up rate of school children is about 20% but only a Pilot Programme will be launched this time. Between January and March this year, more than 300 people died of influenza in Hong Kong whereas only 3 people in Macao died given that the take-up rate for that age group was as high as 70% to 80%. I think Hong Kong should work its way to achieving this goal, that is, raising the take-up rate of all primary and kindergarten pupils in Hong Kong to 70% to 80%. May I ask how the Pilot Programme can raise the take-up rate to 70% to 80%?

I would like to ask the Secretary: If, after some time, the take-up rate fails to reach 70% to 80%, will the Government consider requiring all school children to receive vaccination? Of course, the Government may allow parents to opt-out, that is, not giving permission for their children to receive vaccination, or even streamline the procedure by waiving the need to state the reason, but the goal must be achieved no matter what. I would like to ask if the Secretary will consider requiring all school children to receive vaccination if the goal cannot be achieved in the end.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, you have clearly raised your supplementary question. Secretary, please reply.

11570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Michael TIEN for his supplementary question.

In my view, in order to achieve a high take-up rate, other factors are involved besides the launching of the Pilot Programme. Even if we provide the school outreach vaccination services to make it much more convenient to receive vaccination, past experience showed that not all school children would receive vaccination. Therefore, publicity and education for schools, teachers and parents must be stepped up, with a view to enhancing parents' understanding of the benefits of vaccination and addressing their queries, which is also very important. In addition to launching a Pilot Programme to provide school outreach services, we will also step up publicity and education to gain wider public acceptance for vaccination. Our efforts in these few respects will be stepped up at the same time to boost the take-up rate.

We also understand that the take-up rate is now less than satisfactory, but we have the confidence as well as plans for the allocation of resources and manpower to boost the rate. We believe raising the take-up rate is not only beneficial to the children and their parents, but also the community at large.

(Mr Michael TIEN stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary I know is someone who calls a spade a spade, but she has not answered my supplementary question just now.

My supplementary question is very simple: Can the Secretary advise how long it would take to provide all the publicity needed? Will the Government require all school children to receive vaccination if the take-up rate still fails to achieve 70% to 80% by then?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11571

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please be seated. Secretary, can you directly respond to Mr TIEN's question?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Okay. As I said just now, we will surely work our way to achieving a high take-up rate.

After launching the unprecedented Pilot Programme, we will certainly conduct a review to access the effectiveness of various school outreach services and the coverage rate achieved.

With regard to Mr TIEN's question of whether all school children will be required to receive vaccination if we fail to or cannot achieve the goal within a short time, we must first study if the low take-up rate is due to the reluctance of school children to receive vaccination or some other factors. We intend to review the results after the implementation of the Pilot Programme with a view to making improvements.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Building maintenance of Tenants Purchase Scheme estates

5. MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Chuk Yuen North Estate is one of the housing estates under the Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS"). Some owners of the estate have relayed to me that earlier on, many cracks appeared on the external walls of the buildings in the estate. A structural engineer found after inspection that the design of eight buildings in terms of the thickness of the concrete slabs of canopies, the number and spacing of steel bars, etc. were different from the working drawings for construction approved by the Housing Department ("HD") (as shown in the photo which I am holding), and there were extensive spalling of mosaic tiles from the external walls of the buildings due to the use of improper materials. The Owners' Corporation of the estate wrote repeatedly to HD, requesting it to take follow-up actions on the problem, but was refused. Regarding the building maintenance of TPS estates, will the Government inform this Council:

11572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(1) of the number and contents of complaints and requests for assistance received by the authorities in the past five years concerning the structural safety of the buildings in TPS estates, with a breakdown by name of estate;

(2) whether the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") carried out major or estate-wide maintenance works for TPS estates in the past five years; if so, of the items of the works carried out, the number of households benefited and the criteria based on which HA decided to carry out such works; and

(3) of the current percentage of HA's ownership shares in the aggregate ownership shares of each TPS estate; the role currently played by HA, being one of the owners of TPS estates, in the maintenance of those estates; whether HA will take on more responsibility for maintenance and step up its monitoring on the structural safety of the buildings in those estates; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my consolidated reply to the various parts of Mr Wilson OR's question is as follows:

The Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") launched the Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") in 1998 to enable public rental housing ("PRH") tenants to buy the flats they lived in at a discounted price, thereby helping to achieve the then policy objective of attaining a home ownership rate of 70% in Hong Kong in 10 years' time. The Government subsequently re-positioned the housing policies in 2002. In keeping with the overall strategy of withdrawing from direct provision of subsidized sale flats, HA decided to cease the scheme after launching Phase 6B of TPS in August 2005. However, sitting tenants of the 39 TPS estates can opt to buy the flats they are living in.

HA has carried out comprehensive investigation and completed all necessary maintenance and repair works prior to the sale of individual TPS estates. HA also provides a seven-year Structural Safety Guarantee for TPS estates. During the guarantee period, HA is responsible for all structural repair and maintenance works relating to structural components such as columns, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11573 beams, walls and floor slabs, including repair works for spalling and cracking, in order to ensure the overall structural safety of the buildings. Besides, HA has also made a one-off injection equivalent to $14,000 per residential unit to the Maintenance Fund for each TPS estate to meet the expenses of post-sale repairing works. Also, if a tenant reports that any installation in his/her flat is defective before purchasing the flat, HA will carry out the final one-off repair for that flat so that flats in TPS estates are sold in good condition.

As at 1 May 2018, the percentage of ownership shares of TPS estates held by HA against the total amount of ownership shares was about 26% (see Annex 1 for details of individual estates). Regardless of the percentage of ownership shares held by HA, there is no difference between TPS estates and other private properties in terms of property management. As with private housing estates, TPS estates are subject to regulation under the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO"), relevant land leases and Deeds of Mutual Covenant ("DMCs"). Day-to-day estate management matters are discussed and resolved at meetings of management committees or general meetings convened by Owners' Corporations ("OCs") pursuant to the provisions of BMO and DMCs. At present, all TPS estates have already formed their OCs, which have appointed property management companies to undertake the management and maintenance work of the common areas and facilities in the estates.

As one of the owners, apart from paying the management fee according to its ownership shares, HA also appoints representatives to take part in OC's work and liaises with other government departments in order to provide assistance when necessary. HA also gives advice to OCs on matters including the day-to-day management of the estates and requirements of DMCs and relevant legislation, etc. from time to time, as well as encourages other owners to put emphasis on the overall interests of the estates so as to safeguard the interests of all owners (including HA) and to ensure the quality and the effectiveness of estate management work. Moreover, HA will also convey the views of its tenants to OCs and encourage OCs and the property management companies to maintain communication with the tenants.

As mentioned above, TPS estates are no different from private properties. The day-to-day management and maintenance of common areas and facilities are undertaken by OCs. As one of the owners of TPS estates, HA has not, on its own, carried out any major or estate-wide maintenance works for TPS estates in the past five years.

11574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Currently, the Independent Checking Unit ("ICU") under the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Housing) has been carrying out building control pursuant to the Buildings Ordinance over properties developed and sold by HA, including TPS buildings, in accordance with the delegated authority from the Director of Buildings and the prevailing policies and guidelines of the Buildings Department. In the past five years, ICU received about 5.5 cases of complaints and requests for assistance concerning the structural safety of the buildings in each TPS estate per year on average (see Annex 2 for details). ICU does not maintain any statistics on the breakdown of these cases by category.

Regarding Chuk Yuen North Estate as mentioned in the Member's question, its then construction works were undertaken by the works contractor according to the working drawings endorsed by HA, and the construction process and engineering quality control were under the direct supervision of a professional project team. HA has in place stringent regulatory procedures on the construction of reinforced concrete. Only steel reinforcing bars that have passed the relevant tests are permitted for use. In case any irregularity is identified during HA's inspection of formworks and steel fixing, the contractor will be immediately notified for rectification. HA will also conduct inspections and acceptance tests upon completion of steel fixing at the appropriate locations by the contractor. If any steel reinforcing bars are found to be non-compliant with the requirements in the working drawings, the contractor will be instructed to conduct modification works immediately. At the same time, in the course of the construction period, the contractor may occasionally put forward requests for alteration of steel reinforcing bar arrangements in the light of the actual circumstances on site, such as for addressing the position and spacing problems that may arise from pipe installation. HA would consider accepting the alteration proposals if the measures involved would not compromise structural safety. The contractor will not be permitted to commence concrete pour works until HA is satisfied with the re-examination results.

As regards the safety of the canopies at Chuk Yuen North Estate, representatives of ICU have conducted site inspections on 9 April and 30 April 2018. Only some minor cracks and concrete spalling were observed on the top and at the bottom of the slabs of the canopies, which may probably be due to ageing of the buildings and issues relating to repair and maintenance. In respect of the opening at the canopy at Mui Yuen House, it was observed on site that the concrete was in sound condition and without signs of segregation. The steel bars were at a healthy condition, except some minor rusting. In any case, just LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11575 like what I have just said, HA has appointed representatives from the Housing Department at all TPS estates. We will offer assistance to the OC of Chuk Yuen North Estate with a view to easing the concern of the public by clarifying the facts.

Annex 1

Undivided (Ownership) Shares in TPS Estates Held by HA (As at 1 May 2018)

Approximate Percentage of Number Name of Estate Ownership Shares Held by HA 1 Kin Sang 16 2 Cheung On 11 3 Wan Tau Tong 16 4 Fung Tak 17 5 Wah Kwai 33 6 Heng On 12 7 Chuk Yuen North 16 8 Tak Tin 29 9 Tsui Wan 18 10 Tin King 27 11 Wah Ming 23 12 Yiu On 21 13 Fu Heng 26 14 Tai Wo 21 15 Fung Wah 19 16 Choi Ha 7 17 Hin Keng 13 18 Tin Ping 17 19 Hing Tin 13 20 King Lam 23 21 Tsing Yi 22 22 Lower Wong Tai Sin (I) 27 23 Leung King 29 24 Kwong Yuen 21 25 Pok Hong 29 11576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Approximate Percentage of Number Name of Estate Ownership Shares Held by HA 26 Kwai Hing 24 27 Tsui Ping (North) 37 28 Lei Cheng Uk 19 29 Tai Ping 17 30 Tung Tau (II) 24 31 Cheung Wah 29 32 Lei Tung 27 33 Shan King 54 34 Po Lam 33 35 Cheung Fat 21 36 Fu Shin 35 37 Long Ping 65 38 Nam Cheong 24 39 Tsui Lam 28

Annex 2

Number of complaints and requests for assistance received by ICU under the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Housing) in each TPS estate in the past five years concerning the structural safety of the buildings

Number Name of Estate Number of Cases 1 Kin Sang 31 2 Cheung On 113 3 Wan Tau Tong 5 4 Fung Tak 13 5 Wah Kwai 32 6 Heng On 24 7 Chuk Yuen North 36 8 Tak Tin 16 9 Tsui Wan 14 10 Tin King 8 11 Wah Ming 15 12 Yiu On 30 13 Fu Heng 17 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11577

Number Name of Estate Number of Cases 14 Tai Wo 54 15 Fung Wah 10 16 Choi Ha 35 17 Hin Keng 48 18 Tin Ping 74 19 Hing Tin 29 20 King Lam 11 21 Tsing Yi 24 22 Lower Wong Tai Sin (I) 22 23 Leung King 36 24 Kwong Yuen 26 25 Pok Hong 35 26 Kwai Hing 1 27 Tsui Ping (North) 55 28 Lei Cheng Uk 26 29 Tai Ping 16 30 Tung Tau (II) 45 31 Cheung Wah 10 32 Lei Tung 28 33 Shan King 34 34 Po Lam 18 35 Cheung Fat 15 36 Fu Shin 13 37 Long Ping 26 38 Nam Cheong 11 39 Tsui Lam 11

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Secretary please collate his expanded reply to facilitate its circulation to Members by this Council.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am furious about the Secretary's main reply. Although the Secretary often said recently that "safety cannot be compromised", he only relied on information given by his colleagues to answer this question on building safety which concerns human lives. This shows that he has totally lost touch with the public. Secretary, please look closely at 11578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 the steel bars in this photo and do not tell us that the condition does not exist. The steel bars in the photo shows the situation of Chuk Yuen North Estate. Besides, Deputy President, I would like to point out that the 39 TPS estates across the territory are homes to hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people. If the Secretary considers it unnecessary to address the safety issues, he does not even have to come to the Legislative Council today.

Deputy President, in fact, the building problems of Chuk Yuen North Estate only represent the tip of an iceberg and I believe there may be similar problems in the other 38 TPS estates. The Secretary has adopted a very defensive attitude in his main reply and said that the works were carefully supervised by a professional project team. Please bear in mind that when the incidents of substandard piling works in Tin Shui Wai and the territory-wide lead-in-water problem were first discovered, the Secretary of Department and the Director of Bureau at the time also said that there was no problem, didn't they? Finally, these incidents caused widespread public grievances.

Deputy President, the public demand is simple, they hope that the matter will be investigated and handled in a fair, equitable and open manner. Nevertheless, it can be said that ICU, led by Director of Housing Stanley YING, is conducting an "investigation by peers" with no credibility at all. Furthermore, the OC of the estate has commissioned structural engineers to investigate the matter. As each side is now presenting its own interpretation, is the Secretary willing to openly tell the public and the media that, since the matter concerns the safety of human lives which cannot be compromised, the Policy Bureau will set up an independent investigation committee composed of third-party members to clarify the facts and ease the concerns? Secretary, please answer the question.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr OR for the supplementary question. In relation to the regulation and safety guarantee for TPS estates, I have basically given a detailed response. Certainly, if Mr OR found it unsatisfactory, I respect his view, but I cannot ignore the fact that colleagues of HD have very professionally and conscientiously handled their work in building construction, works supervision and follow-up matters.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11579

Regarding the particular conditions of the specific estate, we have to handle matters according to the facts too. The report of ICU which I mentioned earlier contains professional judgment made after an on-site inspection by the relevant staff members. They had also discussed with the relevant professionals on the site. I understand that Members may have different views on certain matters, but regarding whether structural safety will be affected by the conditions of Chuk Yuen North Estate, our colleagues have confirmed in their report that structural safety would not be affected and the alleged non-compliance with the requirements did not exist. As I said earlier in the main reply, we understand that some members of the public may be worried about the conditions of a particular estate. Regarding the canopies of Chuk Yuen North Estate, I have pledged earlier that representatives of HA at general meetings convened by OCs or at meetings of management committees will assist the management committees to clarify the facts and allay the concerns of the public.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned time and again that HA would make an injection to Maintenance Fund of various TPS estates and there was a seven-year maintenance guarantee, etc. I think the Secretary may have shifted the focus of the question. When a member of the public purchased a residential unit, he expected that the main structure of the building complied with the requirements, but the structural engineer found that the thickness of the concrete slabs of canopies, the number and spacing of steel bars, etc. were different from the working drawings for construction approved by HA; and there were also extensive spalling of mosaic tiles from the external walls of the buildings due to the use of improper materials. In fact, when a member of the public purchased a residential unit, he expected that the unit complied with the statutory requirements as well as the construction requirements of HD at the time. That is the main issue. It seems that the Government has now shifted the focus and told the public not to be afraid and that the Government would assist in the maintenance of the buildings. The structure of the building itself may be problematic and it may be unsafe; or even if it is safe, the steel bars and the materials used do not comply with the requirements of the drawings approved by HD. The situation is like giving an apple to a person buying an orange. That is the problem, will the Policy Bureau admit it or not?

11580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Basically, in supervising construction works, we have very strict regulatory procedures governing structural work process and such process can only be carried out according to proper and very strict management procedures. The construction issues mentioned by the Member do not affect the safety of the main structure. Canopies may, for example, be suitably altered to cater for the positions of pipes. If the change does not affect structural safety and the engineer thinks that there is an actual need, the position of the pipes may be suitably altered. As we understand it, the change in the number of steel bars of the canopies in question represent only a small part and it does not affect the structural safety of the building. The Member has used the term "may be" more than once in his supplementary question. My view is, something which "may be" true "may not be" true. I hope that Members can adopt an objective and professional attitude and clarify what has really happened in accordance with facts. As I said earlier, we are willing to take appropriate steps to dispel any public misgivings. Let me reiterate, HA's representatives in the relevant estate will assist the management committee to conduct suitable testing to clarify the facts and dispel public misgivings.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it seems that the case of Chuk Yuen North Estate is not one of general maintenance problems. The allegations of the OC are very serious as two structural engineers had been commissioned to conduct investigation and they found that the steel bars and the concrete slabs, etc. did not comply with the drawings approved by HD. Since HA is the developer of public housing estates, if it is really found that there are problems with the original design and drawings, may I ask the Secretary how HD will follow up and handle the matter in accordance with the procedures?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I wish to state clearly that in asking questions today, some Members have used words which mean "possibly exist", including Mr LAU's comment "if it is really found that" just now. I personally think that in the process of seeking the truth, if we have some reasonable doubts and then confirm that the alleged conditions do exist, we will conduct an independent investigation as suggested by Members and commence the process so as to ensure that the facts are clarified and the doubts of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11581 the public are removed. Nevertheless, I hope that Members will also give us some room for our colleagues to make professional statement and assist the management committee to understand the matter. If our colleagues clearly state that the conditions do not exist, I think the matter should then be resolved.

In response to Members' comments made just now, I would like to tell Members and the public that the government team considers that there is absolutely no room for compromise as regards the structural safety of buildings. If we found any condition which affects the safety of building structures, we will spare no effort in following up the matter and we will definitely not condone any personnel involved. But, at the same time, we hope that Members now present can give us some time for our colleagues to take actions to handle the matter with professionalism.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I thank the Secretary for his explanation, but public misgivings have not been dispelled. Although the Secretary has categorically said that public officials are very concerned about the matter, we must note that with regard to this case, we are not merely asking the Secretary to handle the matter impartially, but his impartial handling should also be seen by members of the public.

In the present case mentioned by Mr OR, the professionals had pointed out that the thickness of the concrete slabs of canopies, the number and spacing of steel bars, etc. were different from the drawings, but the Secretary said just now that suitable alternations might have been made. The fact is, will the big differences between the specifications and the requirements of the drawings result in having problems? We certainly hope that they will not, but what if they do? The consequences will be very serious. Certainly, now that …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, please ask your supplementary question directly.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: As 36 out of the 1 000-plus complaints shown in Annex 2 concern Chuk Yuen North Estate, I think the long-term solution is to establish an independent committee. I certainly 11582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 have confidence in Mr YING and his staff members, but owing to the perception problem, will the Government consider establishing an independent committee to deal with the structural problems of the estate concerned?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please hold on. Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think Dr Junius HO has raised a very good supplementary question. I request a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You only need to raise your request for a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.

Dr Junius HO has asked his supplementary question earlier and I now ask the Secretary to reply. Secretary, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Dr HO for the supplementary question. Basically, building maintenance works have to be regularly conducted in all housing estates to ensure that they are in good condition.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11583

As I understand it, it has been almost 20 years since Chuk Yuen North Estate was sold in 1999 and during this period, many building maintenance works have been conducted to ensure that the buildings are in good conditions. Nevertheless, we have currently found some unsatisfactory conditions. What is the crux of the problem? Is it due to the passage of time or due to the inferior works quality back then? We have to understand the matter comprehensively to ensure that the current conditions of the building will not affect structural safety and are not related to any non-compliance of works procedures or even dereliction of duty on the part of individual staff members.

As I have repeatedly said in the Legislative Council, HA's representatives at Chuk Yuen North Estate will spare no effort in assisting the management committee to conduct a comprehensive investigation, review the issues we have discussed earlier, so as to clarify the facts and remove any doubt of the public.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Impacts of hot weather on members of the public

6. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): The Hong Kong Observatory recorded a highest temperature of 34.7 degrees Celsius in the urban areas on 21st of last month. On that day, that temperature reading broke the highest temperature record of this year, was the highest temperature on record for the month of May in 42 years, and marked the third hottest day in May since records began in 1884. Some members of the public have pointed out that hot weather has brought considerable impacts on the daily lives and health of the grass roots and outdoor workers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of reports received by the authorities in the past five years about employees suffering from heat strokes while working outdoors; whether the authorities will review the guidelines and legislation relating to employees at work under hot weather, with a view to better safeguarding the health of employees working in a hot environment;

11584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(2) of the average number of persons each night who sought shelter at the various temporary night heat shelters ("TNHSs") operated by the Home Affairs Department during the days of last month when they were open; whether the authorities have considered setting up more TNHSs and ensured that there is at least one TNHS in each District Council district; if so, of the specific plan; if not, the reasons for that; whether the authorities will install additional water dispensers in various districts throughout the territory so that members of the public can replace fluid lost in time to avoid heat strokes caused by dehydration; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) as quite a number of members of the grass roots (including families residing in sub-divisions of flat units (commonly known as "sub-divided units") have relayed that they need to turn on air-conditioners or fans under hot weather to beat the heat, but the relevant expenditure on electricity charges places a heavy burden on them, whether the authorities will consider introducing afresh an electricity charges subsidy to alleviate the financial pressure on the grass roots; whether the authorities will, by making reference to the experience and practices of overseas countries, take measures to cool down the city, such as increasing urban greening features and green roofs, adopting more green building designs, promoting a greater use of building materials that enable green cooling, providing water mist systems at passenger waiting areas, increasing urban water bodies, encouraging members of the public to save energy in their daily lives and lead a green lifestyle, so as to mitigate the urban heat island effect; if so, of the specific plan; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having consolidated the information provided by relevant bureaux and departments, I would like to reply on behalf of the Government as follows:

(1) The numbers of heat stroke related work injury cases registered at the Labour Department ("LD") in the past five years are provided at Annex.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11585

LD is highly concerned about the hazard of heat stroke to employees working under hot weather. In addition to strengthening inspections and enforcement, LD raises the awareness of employers and employees on heat stroke prevention by publicity and education. LD has produced two pamphlets, entitled Prevention of Heat Stroke at Work in a Hot Environment and Risk Assessment for the Prevention of Heat Stroke at Work, to provide guidance to employers on assessing the risk of heat stroke at workplace and assist them in taking suitable preventive measures. Besides, LD has produced heat stress assessment checklists specifically for the construction and outdoor cleansing industries.

LD also assists the Construction Industry Council ("CIC") in formulating and reviewing their guidelines on preventing heat stroke of construction workers. In 2013, CIC updated the guidelines, recommending the industry to provide an additional 15-minute rest break to construction workers in the morning every day from May to September every year. LD will continue to pay close attention to the guidelines on working in hot environment. It will also strengthen inspections and enforcement, and conduct reviews when necessary to ensure the occupational safety and health of employees.

(2) The Home Affairs Department ("HAD") has designated 15 Community Halls or Community Centres as temporary night heat shelters ("shelters") for people to take refuge from very hot weather from 10:30 pm to 8:00 am the next day.

For the month of May 2018, the shelters were open from 18 to 31 May with a total of 2 409 people (man times) registered for using the service, i.e. 172 people per night on average, which is similar to that in recent years. The number of shelters has increased from 9 to 15 in the past decade. HAD will keep in view the locations and number of the shelters from time to time to meet public needs. Our target is that shelters will be set up in each of the 18 districts shortly. We would explore if it is possible to identify suitable locations for such purpose in the districts concerned.

11586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

There are a total of over 10 000 water dispensers at government premises, of which about 2 700 mainly serve the general public. These water dispensers are mostly installed at the active leisure facilities managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, such as sports centres, sports grounds and swimming pools. To create a social atmosphere that encourages the public to bring their own water bottles as a habit that will help reduce plastic bottles at source, the Environmental Protection Department is coordinating with various bureaux and departments to, depending on needs, install water dispensers at new government premises and suitable existing government premises during renovation where it is physically and technically feasible.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

(3) Under the post-2018 Scheme of Control Agreements signed between the Government and the two power companies, the power companies will reserve funding under their Community Energy Saving Funds to assist disadvantaged groups, including tenants of subdivided units. The power companies will announce details in due course.

Apart from this, the Government promulgated the Energy Saving Plan for Hong Kong's Built Environment 2015~2025+ in 2015, which sets a target of reducing Hong Kong's energy intensity by 40% by 2025. Various measures have been rolled out.(1)

To mitigate the heat island effect, the Government is embarking on a tiered strategy to tackle the issue at the territorial, building and facility levels. At the territory level, the Government is implementing the Greening Master Plans ("GMPs") to create coherence with the existing plants of the respective districts and thus

(1) including setting an electricity saving target for government buildings and implementation of energy saving projects; continuing with implementation of the Mandatory Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme; championing the Energy Saving for All campaign; and reviewing and tightening the Overall Thermal Transfer Value for commercial buildings and hotels and the Residential Thermal Transfer Value standard for domestic buildings, etc. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11587

improve our living environment. The formulation of GMPs followed after completion of the Urban GMPs in 2011.

An urban forest helps alleviate extreme air temperature, improve air quality, and provide shade. The Government endeavours to integrate quality landscape and planting provisions into public works projects. This includes the allocation of sufficient space for roadside planting, requirement to achieve site coverage of greenery of 20% to 30% for site areas that exceed 1 000 sq m, and planting on the roof level of suitable existing structures, etc. In the past 10 years, the Government has planted approximately 71.7 million new plants in projects outside country parks.

To improve urban climate and respond to climate change, we are incorporating urban micro-climatic and air ventilation considerations in planning and urban design.

The District Cooling System ("DCS") in the Kai Tak Development is in operation. The Government will also consider the provision of DCS in other new development areas or redevelopment areas. Buildings connecting to a DCS will not need to install heat rejection units and chillers for their air-conditioning systems.

When planning new drainage provision, the Government will seize every opportunity to incorporate the elements of Blue-Green Infrastructure, including the provision of water bodies (such as construction of flood attenuation lake). These provisions can alleviate the heat island effect as well.

As regards buildings, the Buildings Department has introduced a new mechanism to promote the construction of environmentally friendly and sustainable private buildings(2) by imposing an overall cap on gross floor area ("GFA") concession since 2011 with a view to achieving better air ventilation, enhancing the environmental quality of our living space particularly at the pedestrian level, providing more greenery, and mitigating the heat island effect.

(2) under the mechanism, the pre-requisites for granting GFA concessions include compliance with the sustainable building design elements including building setback, building separation and site coverage of greenery. 11588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Another pre-requisite is registration of the project under BEAM Plus, which encourages buildings to include green spaces and the use of good ventilation design to help mitigate the heat island effect.

The GFA concession mechanism also encourages the provision of an appropriate level of green and amenity features in buildings, such as sunshades, that would improve the quality of living space and enhance the environmental performance of building developments.

The Government has been leading by example in promoting sustainable buildings, including introducing green design in government buildings. From 2012 to 2017, the Government has completed 192 green roof projects and approximately 40 projects are under construction.

Franchised bus companies have been paying attention to the passengers waiting environment, including improving the design of bus shelters to mitigate the heat of the waiting areas. The Government also conducts regular inspections and maintenance on the ventilation systems of covered public transport interchanges under our management so that passengers can wait in a comfortable environment. We have no plan to provide water mist systems at passenger waiting areas at the moment.

Finally, the Government announced Hong Kong's Climate Action Plan 2030+ in 2017 which sets the carbon reduction target for 2030 and the key measures to combat climate change. Some of the measures on adaptation and resilience, such as incorporating urban climatic and air ventilation considerations in planning and urban design, can help mitigate the urban heat island effect.

Annex

Numbers of heat stroke related work injury cases registered at LD from 2013 to 2017

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number of cases 17 14 14 24 31

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11589

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, the worsening of climate change is likely to cause frequent and extreme hot weather in the future. Has the Government exhausted all means to cool down the city? I think the Government should implement the wide range of measures that I proposed in part (3) of the main question instead of talking vaguely about publicity and encouragement for public action. In the case of bus stops that I mentioned just now, what can be done to create a comfortable environment for passengers to wait for buses under 40°C? In my view, the reply of the Secretary is a bit unrealistic and too general. I hope that the Government will put in extra efforts.

President, while the Government stated in part (1) of the main reply that there were relevant guidelines for the construction industry, some trade members relayed to me that such guidelines had not taken into account the actual operation of the industry. For instance, it is suggested in the guidelines that workers should minimize physical demands and avoid long hours of outdoor work, but working outdoor for long hours is actually part of the job of construction workers and the guidelines are not at all practicable for some trades. We have therefore learnt from many workers that the current guidelines exist only in name because for most of the time, the second, third and fourth subcontractors will not bother to follow the guidelines and provide workers with the described work environment. In this connection, I would like to ask the Government how it will enhance protection for outdoor employees. Will the Government consider providing assistance in terms of equipment by, for example, improving the design of helmet, providing water mist systems or air-blowing devices, setting up tents or installing ventilation fans at construction sites, as well as providing water dispensers, so that the work environment of outdoor employees can be improved to lower the risk of heat stroke?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this question?

UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, regarding the supplementary question raised by Dr Elizabeth QUAT, LD is indeed greatly concerned about the working conditions of employees under hot weather. In order to enhance publicity for heat stroke prevention, we have collaborated with the Occupational Safety and Health Council ("OSHC"), the relevant trade associations and workers' unions to promote the work procedures for preventing heat stroke at work to employees in high-risk industries (such as 11590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 construction workers, outdoor cleansing workers and professional drivers) and to carry out outreach publicity campaigns, during which heat stroke prevention guidelines, heat stress assessment checklists and promotion items like water bottles and towels will be distributed.

Last month the weather was hot, Member may notice that LD had specially instructed more frequent broadcast of television and radio announcements about heat stroke prevention in times of hot weather, so as to remind employers of taking extra precautions to prevent employees from suffering heat stroke. In fact, employers are serious about this. As recruitment has become more difficult, they also want to see their employees working safely. Moreover, this is the responsibility of employers under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.

In times of hot weather, LD will issue press releases to remind workers in different trades of the risk of heat stroke at work. Of course, we should also step up our efforts by, for example, liaising with the proponents of large-scale projects (including government departments) to request contractors to take effective heat stroke precautions. The relevant letters will include the occupational safety and health complaint hotline number of LD. We must work harder to take one more step forward. Should there be any contraventions or non-compliances, workers and safety officers are encouraged to complain to LD for follow-up action.

As I said just now, CIC updated the guidelines in 2013, recommending contractors to provide an additional 15-minute rest break to construction workers in the morning every day in hot summer (i.e. from May to September). We find that many contractors have actually provided workers with an even longer break. Of course, the relevant government departments have already made this recommendation a term of the Government's public works contracts. We will step up our efforts in inspection, publicity and education to minimize the impact of the heat stroke risk on workers in terms of work and health.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr POON Siu-ping, please speak.

(Dr Elizabeth QUAT stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11591

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): The Under Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. As I pointed out clearly just now, it is not enough to talk vaguely about things like publicity, promotion, education and encouragement, and I have made a number of requests which are highly practical. Will the Government ask contractors to meet my earlier requests?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, the Under Secretary has already answered your various questions. Mr POON Siu-ping, please ask your supplementary question.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, according to the annex to the main reply, the numbers of heat stroke related work injury cases registered at LD were 14, 24 and 31 in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively, showing an increasing trend. While the publicity and education measures mentioned by the Under Secretary just now are the same every year, heat stroke can be fatal. As it is a matter of life and death, legislation is necessary to safeguard work safety under hot weather.

Although CIC has updated the relevant guidelines to recommend the provision of an additional 15-minute rest break to construction workers in the morning every day from May to September, such guidelines are not applied to all industries. There are workers other than construction workers who have to work under hot weather. Some workers engaging in indoor works have relayed to me that their work environment is sometimes hotter than a sauna room.

My major question is: Will the Government draw reference from the practice of the United States and legislate for the formulation of a heat index, the provision of rest breaks to workers under hot weather and the provision of cool drinking water and relevant protective measures by employers? Will the Government learn from the United States in this regard?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare, please answer.

11592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Despite the fact that the work environment of different industries varies greatly, we will continue to follow up in order to minimize the possible work hazards facing employees in different industries.

Regarding the drinking need of workers, there are some relevant requirements under the current laws. As for the issue of overwork, Members may be aware that in October 2017 LD duly commissioned OSHC to conduct a study on this issue, with the relevant interviews having been started since the first quarter of this year. We will explore how to further enhance the existing management practices and reduce the risks of industrial accidents.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I believe the Administration has shown great concern about the impacts of hot weather on members of the public, as evidence from the attendance of five Directors of Bureaux on this subject today. As we all know, on 31 May, the temperature was as high as 38°C in some parts of the New Territories; in some areas, the temperature under the sun even exceeded 43°C and high humidity might have contributed to an even higher apparent temperature. Therefore, many elderly persons complained of breathing difficulties on that day.

Since the Observatory only reports the overall temperature without telling the apparent temperature, it is difficult for members of the public to know the actual temperature …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please ask your supplementary question directly.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … I would like to know whether the Observatory will take on board my earlier suggestion and report both the actual and apparent temperatures in different districts, should there be any special weather conditions in the future.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11593

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for the Environment, please answer.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Observatory makes a nine-day temperature forecast every day. In times of hot weather, particularly when the humidity is high and the wind is light, the Observatory will issue the Hot Weather Special Advisory to remind members of the public to remain vigilant. If the Observatory forecasts a high temperature reaching the level of "very hot", it will issue the Very Hot Weather Warning to call for the public to take necessary precautions and watch out for heat stroke or sunburn under hot weather. The aforesaid messages will be broadcast through different media, such as radio, television and the platform of the Observatory.

Owing to climate change, many measures need to keep abreast of the times. I would like to add that the SAR Government has established a high-level Steering Committee on Climate Change chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration and comprised of 13 Policy Bureaux and the Observatory, etc. after governments from around the world reached the Paris Agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Paris. We will, depending on the circumstances, study in which areas (including the concerns of Members) further enhancement can be made and consider what kind of information is needed by the public. We will take timely action to keep pace with the times.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please speak.

(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is about whether the Observatory will provide additional information on temperature in the future. Which Secretary should be responsible for answering this question? Should it be answered by the Secretary for the Environment or the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development?

11594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is for the Government to decide who should answer.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the decision made by the Government was inappropriate and the answer given by the Secretary was wrong.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary's answer, be it right or wrong, will be recorded in the Hansard faithfully.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, a number of coaches have relayed to me that the absence of water pipes in many outdoor pitches/courts makes the installation of water dispensers impossible. Will the Government consider laying water pipes for outdoor pitches/courts in the future to allow the installation of water dispensers?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for the Environment, please answer.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for his concern. As I remarked in the main reply, water dispensers will be installed at newly-built government premises as far as practicable. As for the existing government premises, we will take the opportunity of renovation or maintenance to provide water dispensers in suitable places. Therefore, we share the vision of providing water dispensers in an urban environment through the optimal use of space, with a view to reducing the risk of heat stroke in members of the public and making it easy for the public to refill drinking water while reducing waste.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11595

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Redevelopment projects on private residential buildings carried out by land owners and developers

7. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Chinese): President, regarding the redevelopment projects on private residential buildings carried out by land owners and developers ("redevelopment projects"), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the following details of each of the redevelopment projects for which the relevant building plans were approved for the first time within the past five years (set out in a table):

(i) name,

(ii) address and lot number,

(iii) site area and details of site amalgamation,

(iv) the completion date for the demolition works of the old building(s),

(v) the date on which the building plan was approved for the first time,

(vi) whether an application was made for an order for compulsory sale of land under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (Cap. 545) (if so, of the application number),

(vii) original land use and total gross floor area of site,

(viii) land use and total gross floor area of site upon redevelopment,

(ix) total gross floor area and number of residential units upon redevelopment,

11596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(x) total gross floor area and number of commercial premises upon redevelopment (if any),

(xi) amount of land premium payable, and

(xii) whether an occupation permit has been obtained from the Buildings Department; and

(2) whether it will enact a dedicated legislation to govern those redevelopment projects and stipulate that the relevant information of those redevelopment projects must be made public to facilitate the public to assess, from the perspective of overall planning, the impacts of those redevelopment projects on the various aspects of the communities concerned?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) For development projects (including redevelopment projects) carried out by land owners/developers, approval of building plans must be sought from the Building Authority in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) ("BO"). Besides, land owners/developers have to obtain approval of demolition plan and demolition consent from the Building Authority before the commencement of demolition works in accordance with the requirements of BO, if the development project involves the demolition of existing buildings. Summary information on new building plans approved in the month (except amendment plans) including the address of the development project, types of new buildings, total gross floor areas for domestic or/and non-domestic uses as shown in the approved plans, numbers of domestic units (if applicable), occupation permits already obtained from the Buildings Department ("BD") and sites with demolition consents issued of all private development projects are set out in the Monthly Digest of BD and uploaded to the BD website for public inspection. Members of the public may also request to inspect and copy the approved plans of individual completed private development projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11597

As the release of information aims at providing information contained in approved building plans, it does not contain records as to whether the projects involved are redevelopment projects or any relevant information on the original buildings of the redevelopment projects.

For details of compulsory sale orders issued in the past five years, please refer to our written reply to the supplementary question (question serial number: S0105) raised by the Finance Committee in examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2018-2019 .

The amounts of land premium payable for lease modifications involved in development projects are set out in relevant land documents, and members of the public may obtain relevant land documents by searches at the Land Registry.

(2) There are relevant legislations at present to regulate development projects (including redevelopment projects) and we consider it unnecessary to enact a dedicated legislation to govern redevelopment projects. Specifically, development projects are governed by BO to ensure that the planning, design and construction of new buildings comply with the building design and construction standards under BO on various aspects such as structure and fire safety and sanitation. In addition, development projects have to comply with the requirements stipulated in the Outline Zoning Plans ("OZPs") prepared under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) ("TPO"). For development projects requiring planning permission from the Town Planning Board ("TPB") or amendment to OZP, the proponent must file an application to TPB under TPO. The application will be published according to the provisions of TPO for public comment. Also, land owners/developers are also bound by the respective land lease conditions.

The Government has all along been releasing information on development projects for public inspection. As mentioned above, members of the public can access information on the approved building plans of individual completed development projects through the Monthly Digest available on the BD website or by making a 11598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

request to BD. According to existing mechanism, if a development project is the subject of an application for planning permission, the Planning Department ("PlanD") will prepare a gist of the application which will be deposited at PlanD's planning enquiry counters and uploaded to the TPB website for public inspection. Planning documents submitted by applicants are also kept at PlanD's planning enquiry counters. Under TPO, members of the public may submit their views on amendments to OZPs and planning applications. Information on OZPs and planning applications are available on the TPB website and the Statutory Planning Portal 2 . Moreover, regarding development projects involving applications for lease modification or land exchange, the Lands Department will upload the information on each completed application to its website for public inspection.

Broadcast of international sports events

8. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, in recent years, organizers of international sports events, such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup, have sold the broadcasting rights of those matches to media organizations around the world through a competitive bidding process. The broadcasting rights of those matches have often been awarded to pay television broadcasters, rendering members of the public who are not pay television subscribers being unable to watch those matches. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that matches of the 2018 World Cup finals will be held starting next week, and it has been reported that the media organization which has secured the exclusive broadcasting right for those matches will air only 19 out of 64 matches on its own free-to-air television station, whether the Government will discuss with the media organization the broadcasting of all those matches on free-to-air television stations or free websites;

(2) whether it will consider paying a fee to media organizations which have been awarded the broadcasting rights of various large-scale international and regional sports competitions in order that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11599

arrangements can be made to broadcast those relevant matches in community halls or other venues to enable members of the public (especially the grass roots) to watch them for free; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will discuss with organizers of large-scale international and regional sports competitions to urge them to ensure, when awarding the broadcasting rights for Hong Kong, that all Hong Kong people can watch those relevant matches for free; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consolidated information provided by the Home Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Communications Authority, my consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

Major sports events are held around the world each year. The broadcasting arrangements of such events are made by the organizers having regard to the nature of the events and their operational needs. In respect of the World Cup and the Olympic Games, the organizers award the broadcasting rights to eligible media corporations or their related companies under market mechanism in accordance with their policies and regulations. It is understood that the relevant organizers have required the organizations awarded with the broadcasting rights to allow local free television broadcasters to relay certain hours of the events or the key events therein. As such, a mechanism is already in place to ensure that the public may view some of the matches of the World Cup and the Olympic Games free of charge. In general, governments around the world will not intervene in the process and Hong Kong is no exception.

As for the broadcasting arrangements of the 2018 World Cup Russia in Hong Kong, we note that PCCW Content Limited, a company related to HK Television Entertainment Company Limited ("HKTVE") (which is a domestic free television programme service licensee), has acquired the exclusive broadcasting rights in Hong Kong. The company has reached a commercial agreement with HKTVE on the broadcasting arrangements of the World Cup matches. Under the agreement, HKTVE's free television channel (i.e. ViuTV) will broadcast 19 matches of the World Cup (including the opening match, two semi-final matches and the final).

11600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Issuance of bus lane permits

9. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. G) provides that unless for special reasons such as avoiding a traffic accident or conforming with a direction given by a police officer, the driver of a motor vehicle who is not a permitted user shall ensure that his vehicle does not enter a bus lane. It has been reported that early last month, the saloon car of the Financial Secretary was found travelling along a section of bus lane in Wan Chai in order to jump the queue and cut into a lane heading to the Cross Harbour Tunnel. In responding to media enquiries subsequently, his Press Secretary indicated that the car concerned might use bus lanes when "necessary" because the Commissioner for Transport had issued a bus lane permit ("BLP") in respect of that car. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of government officials who have been issued with a BLP, and set out by government department (i) a breakdown of such number and (ii) the registration marks of the vehicles concerned;

(2) apart from the government officials mentioned in (1), whether the authorities have issued BLPs to the personnel of (i) consulates and (ii) other types of organizations; if so, of the reasons for issuing the BLPs, and the number of BLPs issued to the personnel of each type of organizations;

(3) of the traffic regulations with which BLP holders are exempted to comply;

(4) whether, when issuing BLPs in the past five years, the Transport Department ("TD") imposed any conditions specifying the circumstances under which the use of BLP was regarded "necessary"; if so, of the details, and whether TD has issued (i) guidelines to BLP holders and (ii) law enforcement guidelines to the relevant law enforcement agencies, in relation to such conditions; if so, of the details; if not, whether the authorities will formulate such guidelines; and

(5) whether TD has required BLP holders to attend courses before using BLPs to ensure that they are familiar with the conditions therein; if so, of the unit offering such courses; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11601

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Transport Department ("TD") designates bus lanes on roads in accordance with the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G). Any person who wishes to drive a motor vehicle, or wishes a motor vehicle to be driven, in a bus lane may apply to TD for a bus lane permit ("BLP"). TD may issue a BLP pursuant to the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374E).

In processing applications for a BLP, TD will assess each case on individual merits. When assessing the applications, TD will review the actual needs of the applicant, the justifications and the proofs provided. Consideration will also be given to factors such as the prevailing traffic conditions, road safety, the availability of alternative arrangements, and impact on other road users and public transport services.

My reply to the various parts of Mr James TO's question is as follows:

(1) At present, TD has issued 520 BLPs to 31 bureaux, government departments and related government bodies. The details are set out in Annex 1. Given the sizable number of departmental vehicles involved, and that some of them are used for security/enforcement/patrol duties, the disclosure of the registration marks of those vehicles may hinder the carrying out of those duties, TD has therefore not set out further details. Furthermore, in accordance with regulation 60 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G), if the bus lane hinders the use of vehicles for fire services, ambulance, police or customs and excise service purposes, the restrictions of the traffic signs and road markings of such bus lane do not apply to these vehicles.

(2) At present, TD has issued 2 165 BLPs to other organizations and bodies, including public transport operators, government service contractors, non-governmental organizations, and operators of transport service for students. BLPs have not been issued to vehicles of consulates. The numbers of BLPs issued to various organizations and bodies are set out in Annex 2.

(3) to (5)

TD will normally incorporate appropriate additional conditions into BLP, such as limiting the use of the permit to the discharge of official duties and provision of public services, the dates and hours 11602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

during which the permit will be valid, and certain specified restrictions applicable only to specific road sections. When using BLPs, vehicles are obliged to comply with the conditions set out in their BLPs when passing through bus lanes, and must not cause inappropriate obstruction to the operation of buses.

Since there are clear traffic signs and road markings for the area and the entrance of a bus lane, holders of a driving licence should be able to identify a bus lane and comprehend the relevant restrictions. Furthermore, a BLP already sets out the scope of its application and its conditions of use in writing. Hence, TD has neither issued separate guidelines to BLP holders, nor required drivers of vehicles issued with BLPs to enrol on additional courses.

Any police officer on duty who has found a vehicle travelling along a bus lane without displaying a valid BLP will issue a fixed penalty ticket to the driver on the spot pursuant to the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G) and charge him for failure to conform with the road marking. In case the driver claims to the Police that he has been issued a valid BLP from TD but has nevertheless failed to display it to the Police at the scene, the Police will suggest the driver to dispute the fixed penalty ticket already issued to him. If police investigation confirms that the driver does hold a valid BLP, the Police will cancel the fixed penalty ticket concerned. However, the Police will charge the driver for contravention of the conditions of the BLP pursuant to the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374E), as the vehicle involved has failed to display a valid BLP at the designated position on its windscreen.

Annex 1

Number of BLPs Issued to Bureaux, Government Departments and Related Government Bodies

Bureaux, Government Departments Number of BLPsNote and Related Government Bodies Chief Executive's Office 8 Chief Secretary for Administration's Office 3 (including Administration Wing) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11603

Bureaux, Government Departments Number of BLPsNote and Related Government Bodies Secretary for Justice's Office 2 Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office 2 Civil Service Bureau 1 Development Bureau 4 Education Bureau 2 Food and Health Bureau 5 Home Affairs Bureau 11 Security Bureau 6 Transport and Housing Bureau 4 Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department 6 Buildings Department 36 Civil Aviation Department 1 Civil Engineering and Development Department 16 Customs and Excise Department 264 Electrical and Mechanical Services Department 50 Environmental Protection Department 13 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department 6 Highways Department 2 Home Affairs Department 1 Hong Kong Monetary Authority 2 5 Immigration Department 42 Information Services Department 8 Lands Department 4 Registration and Electoral Office 1 Transport Department 11 Independent Commission Against Corruption 2 Judiciary 2 Total 520

Note:

The above information reflects the position as at 31 May 2018.

11604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex 2

Number of BLPs Issued to Various Organizations and Bodies

Organizations and Bodies Issued with BLP Number of BLPsNote Public Transport Operators (including Franchised Bus 1 320 Companies, Green Minibus Companies, MTRCL and Hong Kong Tramways Limited) Government Service Contractors (including management, 354 cleansing, maintenance and repair etc. of roads and relevant facilities) Non-Governmental Organizations 318 Operators of Transport Service for Students 173 Total 2 165

Note:

The above information reflects the position as at 31 May 2018.

Promoting the wider use of technology within the Government

10. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Innovation and Technology Bureau ("ITB") established the TechConnect (block vote) in mid-2017 to assist various government departments in implementing technology projects, with a view to enhancing operational efficiency and improving public services. It is learnt that the committee concerned has supported the allocation of funding to 24 technology projects. Regarding the efforts to promote the wider use of technology within the Government, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the (i) commencement dates, (ii) commissioning dates, (iii) estimated non-recurrent and recurrent expenditure, and (iv) anticipated achievements (including the numbers of beneficiaries and the anticipated amounts of saving in expenditure) of the aforesaid 24 technology projects;

(2) of the details of ITB's current work to assist various government departments in implementing technology projects under the aforesaid block vote mechanism; whether ITB will send its staff to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11605

the various departments to understand their operations and recommend the implementation of technology projects which may enhance work efficiency and improve services; besides ITB, whether there are other policy bureaux or government departments which are currently exploring the application of technology to enhance work efficiency; if so, of the details;

(3) apart from the aforesaid 24 technology projects, whether the various government departments implemented in the past three years other projects on the application of new technology for the provision of public services; if so, of the details; of the various government departments' plans in the coming year to implement projects on the application of new technology for the provision of public services;

(4) of the current number of civil servants who are holders of degrees related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics ("STEM"), with a breakdown of such number by (i) whether such civil servants are directorate grade officers as well as by (ii) the grades and (iii) the government departments to which they belong;

(5) as the Chief Executive's Council of Advisers on Innovation and Strategic Development and the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology focus respectively on the macro economic development of Hong Kong, and steering innovation and technology development as well as smart city projects, of the authorities' measures to increase the opportunities for civil servants with a STEM academic background to take part in formulating the relevant policies; whether the authorities will make reference to the practices of overseas governments and create in the Chief Executive's Office or the various government departments positions such as Science Advisors to be filled by professionals outside the civil service, so as to allow them to offer independent technology advice to the Government; and

(6) whether it will study the implementation of digital government transformation to enable the Government to use more technology to enhance operational efficiency, and promote a wider application of innovation and technology at the community level?

11606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The Innovation and Technology Bureau set up the TechConnect (block vote) in mid-2017. To date, the internal committee responsible for vetting applications has supported funding for 24 technology projects proposed by 14 departments. The fund will be used to support the non-recurrent expenditure of the projects. Some of the projects have commenced in the 2017-2018 financial year, whereas the remaining will be launched in the 2018-2019 financial year. Details are set out at Annex.

(2) The Innovation and Technology Bureau set up the TechConnect (block vote) to support government departments in planning and implementing technology projects, so as to enhance operational efficiency and improve public services by use of technology. The departments concerned are required to submit regular reports to the TechConnect Unit of the Innovation and Technology Bureau who will monitor the progress and expenditure of the approved projects. When necessary, the TechConnect Unit will conduct meetings or pay visits to the departments to understand the project progress and offer advice. As for new projects to be launched in 2019-2020, the Innovation and Technology Bureau will accept and assess proposals by departments within the year. We do not have relevant information at this moment.

(3) Apart from the TechConnect (block vote), bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") implement computerization projects through the Capital Works Reserve Fund Head 710. In the past three financial years, the average annual expenditure is about $1.8 billion, covering projects including strengthening information technology ("IT") security, system technology upgrade, enhancing internal operational efficiency and improving public services through IT. In addition, the Smart City Blueprint for Hong Kong published in December 2017 outlined B/Ds' initiatives that adopt technology to build smart city in different areas (such as transport, health, environment and education etc.) in the next five years. B/Ds also make use of their annual budget estimates and other funding items to implement projects which improve public services through applying technologies. We do not have information of the relevant projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11607

(4) and (5)

According to the information provided by the Civil Service Bureau, heads of Department/Grade will set the entry requirements for grades under their purview on the basis of operational needs of the grades. Currently, as far as academic requirement is concerned, grades involving science and technology related duties, such as Analyst/Programmer, Chemist, Scientific Officer, Fisheries Officer, and Environmental Protection Officer, require their appointees to possess a Bachelor degree in STEM-related disciplines. However, the Government has not maintained statistical information on relevant academic qualifications of all civil servants. B/Ds will consider whether to establish non-civil service posts requiring specific professional knowledge according to their needs.

(6) To promote digital transformation of the Government, we are taking forward the following smart city infrastructure projects:

(a) to provide an electronic identity for all Hong Kong residents, allowing them to use a single digital identity and authentication to conduct government and commercial transactions online; and

(b) to implement the Next Generation Government Cloud Infrastructure and a Big Data Analytics Platform to expedite system development of e-government services, improve service level and enhance operation efficiency and cyber security.

At the society level, the Innovation and Technology Bureau launched the $500 million Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living ("FBL") in May 2017 to encourage and fund different sectors of society to make use of innovative ideas and technologies to develop projects that bring more convenience, comfort and safety to citizens, or address the needs of specific community groups. As at end-May 2018, FBL has approved 13 applications, with a total amount of grant at about $38 million.

11608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex

List of projects supported by TechConnect (block vote)

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Agriculture, Pilot Project of To improve the 5.4 Q2 2020 Fisheries and Real-time detection and Conservation Phytoplankton response capacity Department Taxa of red tide Monitoring incidents by System real-time monitoring phytoplankton taxa Buildings The use of To enhance the 5.0 Q2 2018 Department advanced efficiency of water technological seepage testing methods investigation to assist water seepage investigation in buildings Customs and "Smart To enhance the 9.0 Q1 2019 Excise Crossing"― efficiency of Department deployment of clearance service ("C&ED") radio-frequency by increasing the Identification recognition ("RFID") accuracy of the technology on licence plate the recognition numbers of of licence plate cross-boundary numbers of private cars cross-boundary private cars A study on the To strengthen the 9.8 Q1 2020 development of risk management a "Cargo Big capability of Data System" C&ED on cargo clearance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11609

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Civil Provision of To provide traffic 0.5 Q4 2018 Engineering applications to and recreation and promote smart information to Development mobility, Lantau residents Department sustainable and visitors leisure and recreation information of Lantau Department of Feasibility study To enhance public 1.9 Q1 2019 Health for the understanding on implementation Chinese medicine of a digitalized and its safe use, Chinese and respond to the medicine demand of quality Herbarium and safety standards of Chinese medicine from the industry Drainage Provision of To enhance the 9.7 Q3 2020 Services ultrasonic utilization of Department sludge renewable energy pre-treatment and reduce carbon facilities at the footprint by using Tai Po Sewage ultrasonic Treatment technology in Works sludge pre-treatment Smart Sewerage To enhance the 5.5 Q4 2020 Monitoring performance in System monitoring sewerage system and improve the drainage preventive and maintenance works 11610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Retrofitting the To reduce the 9.6 Q3 2020 SANI small generation of scale plant at the sludge in the Sha Tin Sewage course of sewage Treatment treatment, which Works in turns optimize the treatment capacity and reduce carbon footprint Pilot study to To increase the 2.0 Q1 2020 investigate monitoring rainfall capacity of rainfall infiltration in infiltration in existing sewage existing sewage systems in urban systems in urban area area, strengthen the maintenance of sewage system, and increase the capacity of sewage treatment during heavy rainfall Energizing To conduct a To monitor and 8.0 To Kowloon East feasibility study enhance the commence Office, to monitor control of illegal field test Development illegal parking/stopping, in Q3 Bureau parking/stopping hence reducing 2018 and by utilizing traffic congestion to video analytics and air pollution complete and to conduct a the project pilot trial at in Q1 Kowloon East 2020 Environmental Air pollution To enhance the 7.6 Q2 2019 Protection sensor efficiency of air Department practicality trial quality monitoring LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11611

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Housing Develop the To promote the 8.0 Q3 2020 Department technology to use of Building produce plans Information for statutory Modelling submission from technology in the the Building industry and Information improve the Modelling efficiency of statutory submission of plans Hong Kong Integrated urban To enhance the 8.2 Q2 2019 Observatory weather integrated weather monitoring and monitoring and data-sharing provide an open platform for data sharing smart cities platform Hong Kong E-statement To enhance the 9.5 Q4 2019 Police Force (speech effectiveness and recognition) and efficiency in data mining statement taking system and content analysis through the utilization of automation technology RFID system for To enhance the 3.4 Q2 2020 management of planning of rescue affected people missions through during major boosting the incidents efficiency of information management, and to facilitate multi-agency response and enhance efficiency of large-scale rescue operations 11612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Video explorer To enhance the 9.9 Q3 2020 prevention and detection of crime by improving the accuracy and efficiency of video analysis Automation of To facilitate 6.8 Q1 2020 cybercrime analysis of capturing, emerging trends categorization and latest modus and correlation operandi of (AC4) cybercrime, and to enhance the prevention and detection of cybercrime Advanced image To utilize image 6.7 Q4 2019 processing enhancement in system the context of crime investigation and the presentation of digital evidence for court proceedings Leisure and Non-invasive To enhance 6.5 Q1 2021 Cultural conservation non-invasive Services studies of art conservation Department and antiquities studies of art and with innovative antique to enact imaging better conservation technologies plans Non-invasive To better preserve 9.0 Q1 2021 conservation the cultural studies of heritage with cultural heritage non-invasive with X-ray conservation computed technologies tomography LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11613

Estimated Planned Bureau/ Non-recurrent Live Run Project Title Expected Benefits Department Expenditure Date ($ million) (Tentative) Office of the Pilot cyber To improve cyber 8.5 Q3 2018 Government security security resilience Chief information of Hong Kong by Information sharing promoting and Officer partnership facilitating the programme closer collaboration among local stakeholders of cyber security Water Provision of To enable real 2.0 Q2 2020 Supplies in-line time monitoring of Department hydropower the water supply harnessing network, optimize device for water the maintenance intelligent works and crisis network management, so as to reduce carbon footprint and water leakage Study on To enhance water 1.1 Q3 2019 anti-corrosion pump efficiency in and order to reduce anti-biofouling carbon footprint coating for enhancing water pump efficiency

Supply of sites for private housing

11. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, according to the information from a think tank, it is projected that 24 280 residential units can be built on the private housing sites launched in the first three quarters of the past financial year. As many as 64% of such units will be provided by privately-led 11614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 development projects, which is 49 percentage points higher than the average percentage (around 15%) for the past five financial years. The think tank has also pointed out that the current problem of acute housing shortage in Hong Kong can be attributed to a certain extent to the lack of reserves for "spade-ready" sites (i.e. the sites concerned have been properly zoned, and do not require resumption, clearance or reprovisioning of existing facilities, site formation, or provision of additional infrastructure) by both the Government and private developers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has explored why as many as 64% of the aforesaid 24 280 residential units will be provided by privately-led development projects; if so, of the details; as the Secretary for Development remarked in December last year that there was no guarantee that the momentum for private development projects would be maintained in the coming years, of the authorities' ways to increase Government-led land supply so as to achieve the annual supply target for private residential units;

(2) given that a number of the sites included in the Land Sale Programme for the 2017-2018 financial year (e.g. the sites located in Pak Shek Kok of Tai Po and Castle Peak Road-Area 48 of Tuen Mun, as well as the eight sites located in Kai Tak) are not spade-ready sites, whether the authorities have drawn up a timetable for converting such sites into spade-ready sites; if not, of the reasons for that; if so, the details and the estimated total number of residential units to be built on such sites;

(3) whether it will set up a reserve for spade-ready sites and improve the existing land premium mechanism in order to increase land supply; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will resume major reclamation projects for setting up a land reserve; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11615

(1) Private housing land supply sources include government land sale, railway property development projects, projects of the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and private development/redevelopment projects. The aggregate private housing land supply in 2017-2018 (i.e. from April 2017 to March 2018) can provide a total of about 25 500 housing units. Details are set out below:

Source of land supply Estimated flat number Government land sale 5 840 Railway property development projects 2 600 Projects of URA 280 Private development/redevelopment 16 780 projects Total 25 500

While there was a significant boom in private developments and redevelopments in 2017-2018, with an estimated flat yield significantly higher than the 10-year average (i.e. 2007 to 2016) of 4 200 flats, the Government is unable to accurately forecast whether this situation will continue as private developments or redevelopments are initiated by the private land owners taking into account different considerations, including the owner's assessment on the market outlook, development initiative and financial consideration, etc. Hence, the Government does not and should not rely on a single source of land supply. We will continue to maintain a sustained and stable private housing land supply to meet the needs for private housing land in the community.

(2) The 2018-2019 Land Sale Programme comprises a total of 27 potential residential sites capable of providing about 15 250 private housing units. As at May 2018, out of the 27 sites, amendments to the outline zoning plan ("OZP") are not required or have been completed for 20 sites (including nine sites in Kai Tak), capable of providing about 11 760 units. The other seven sites require amendments to OZPs for rezoning or increasing the development 11616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

density; these sites are capable of providing about 3 490 units. We will complete the statutory processes in a timely manner having regard to the land sale programme.

Following established practice, government sites expected to be put up for sale will be decided and announced on an annual basis, shortly before the start of the financial year concerned, taking into account prevailing circumstances such as the readiness of individual sites, the supply situation from other private housing land supply sources, the housing supply target set under the Long Term Housing Strategy and market conditions.

(3) and (4)

Land development takes time and we need sustained efforts for the planning and development of land resources. Under a multi-pronged approach, the Government endeavours to identify and provide land to meet the emerged, foreseeable and unforeseeable needs for housing, economic and social developments. Over the past few years, the Government has identified, through land use reviews, over 210 sites with housing development potential in the short to medium term, involving a total of over 310 000 housing units (with over 70% being public housing). These sites, together with the initiative to suitably increase development intensity as well as the implementation of the Kai Tak Development, Anderson Road Quarry Site, railway property developments and urban renewal projects, could provide over 380 000 units in the short-to-medium term. As for the medium-to-long term, the Government is pressing ahead various New Development Areas and railway property developments (including Siu Ho Wan Depot) projects to provide over 220 000 residential flats.

In the medium-to-long term, reclamation as a means of land formation is indeed capable of providing more sizeable new land to accommodate different uses. Among other efforts, reclamation works for the Tung Chung New Town Extension has commenced in end-2017. We will seek funding from the Legislative Council in due course to commence the detailed studies for other reclamation projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11617

Besides, the Task Force on Land Supply ("Task Force") launched a five-month public engagement exercise on 26 April 2018 to lead a discussion in the community on the pros and cons and relative priority of 18 land supply options (including near-shore reclamation outside Victoria Harbour) and relevant issues (such as building a land reserve), with a view to making a compromise on the land supply options and strategy while achieving the broadest consensus in the community. Based on the public views collected, the Task Force will submit a report to the Government tentatively by end-2018.

Regarding streamlining and expediting the premium assessment process, the Government has implemented various measures in recent years. For example, premium assessments are centralized at Lands Department ("LandsD") Headquarters in respect of lease modification/land exchange cases involving a premium of over $100 million or a gross floor area permissible exceeding 10 000 sq m after the lease modification/land exchange. LandsD has also adopted a new set of updated construction costs data as a common reference by the Government and market practitioners to facilitate agreement in premium negotiations. The Government introduced the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium ("Pilot Scheme") in October 2014 to facilitate early agreement on land premium payable for lease modification/land exchange applications, with the objective of expediting land supply for housing and other uses. Given the limited number of completed arbitration cases, the Government after consideration has extended the Pilot Scheme for two years until October 2018 to accumulate more experience and will conduct a review towards the end of the trial period.

Supply of and demand for parking spaces

12. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the supply of and demand for parking spaces, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of private cars, motorcycles and the various classes of commercial vehicles that were (i) registered and (ii) first registered, in each of the past five years;

11618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(2) of the respective numbers of (i) private cars, motorcycles and the various classes of commercial vehicles, and (ii) the various types of parking spaces, as projected by the authorities, in each of the coming three years (with a breakdown by Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories);

(3) of the number of car parks provided on short-term tenancy sites and the number of parking spaces provided therein, in each of the past five years (with a breakdown by Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories);

(4) of the number of multistorey car parks under the Transport Department ("TD") and the number of parking spaces provided therein, in each of the past five years (with a breakdown by Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories);

(5) of the respective average (i) daily, (ii) peak hour and (iii) non-peak hour utilization rates of the parking spaces in the multistorey car parks under TD, in each of the past five years;

(6) of the respective numbers of parking spaces used to be provided in the Middle Road Multi-storey Carpark and Murray Road Multi-storey Carpark, which have ceased operation, as well as those currently provided in the Rumsey Street Carpark, which is proposed to be converted for commercial development, and whether the authorities have plans to increase the number of parking spaces in the same districts to make up for the shortfalls; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(7) whether it will consider providing additional parking spaces for commercial vehicles in redeveloped and newly built multistorey car parks; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has always been concerned about the supply of, and demand for, parking spaces for different types of vehicles, and understands that different types of vehicles have different parking needs. The Government is actively pursuing the following measures to increase the supply of parking spaces:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11619

(i) designating night-time parking spaces at suitable on-street locations;

(ii) requiring developers to provide in new development projects parking spaces with reference to the higher end of the range under the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines;

(iii) providing public car parks in suitable new Government, Institution and Community facilities;

(iv) allowing school buses to park in the school premises after school;

(v) providing more coach parking spaces and pick-up/drop-off facilities;

(vi) taking forward a consultancy study on parking spaces for commercial vehicles; and

(vii) examining the feasibility of providing government multi-storey car parks in various locations and the suitability to adopt an automated parking system.

As regards multi-storey car parks, in view of limited land resources in Hong Kong, generally speaking, sites suitable for stand-alone multi-storey car park uses also have potential for other development purposes. It would make the most optimal use of land and bring more benefits to the community as a whole if public parking spaces could be planned with and integrated into development projects.

My reply to the various parts of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's question is as follows:

(1) The number of private cars, motorcycles and various classes of commercial vehicles registered and first registered in the past five years is set out in Annex 1.

(2) The size of the vehicle fleet is influenced by a basket of factors, including economic conditions, transport and taxation policies, ancillary public transport facilities, travel habits of the public, population structure, etc. As it is difficult to accurately predict how 11620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

these factors, and the interplay of these factors, affect the propensity to purchase new vehicles, the Government has not compiled any forecast on the future fleet size of different types of vehicles.

On the supply of parking spaces, under the current policy, the Government mainly requires the provision of parking spaces in private development projects to meet their own parking demands. Where practicable, the Government will require developers, through Land Sale Programme, to provide additional public parking spaces so as to meet the parking needs for surrounding areas. Since the provision of new parking spaces through the above means is contingent on the progress of individual development projects, the Transport Department ("TD") has not compiled any forecast on parking space provision.

(3) Generally speaking, there is no provision in the tenancy mandating short-term tenancy ("STT") car parks to provide a prescribed number of parking spaces. This allows the operators to make arrangements flexibly having regard to actual circumstances to cater for the parking demands of different types of vehicles. TD had commissioned a consultant to conduct surveys on the number of parking spaces in fee-paying STT public car parks in the past four years. Relevant details are set out in Annex 2.

(4) The number of multi-storey car parks managed by TD and the number of parking spaces therein in each of the past five years are set out in Annex 3.

(5) The peak hours and non-peak hours vary among individual car parks managed by TD. The respective average daily, daytime and night-time utilization rates of the multi-storey car parks managed by TD in each of the past five years are set out in Annex 4.

(6) Middle Road Multi-storey Carpark and Murray Road Multi-storey Carpark, both decommissioned, provided 900 and 443 parking spaces respectively prior to their cessation of operation. As regards Rumsey Street Carpark, 983 parking spaces are provided.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11621

When the Government considers resuming car park facilities for other development purposes, it will examine the potential impact of the cancellation of the parking spaces involved. Under the current policies, if so required under the land lease conditions, the developer responsible for a redevelopment project should not only provide parking spaces designated for own use of the development project, but should also provide additional parking spaces for public use. This approach integrates public parking spaces with the development project. In this connection, the developer responsible for the Middle Road Multi-storey Carpark redevelopment project is required to additionally provide 345 and 39 parking spaces for private cars and motorcycles respectively for public use, on top of the 71 parking spaces for private cars needed for the development project itself. As regards the Murray Road Multi-storey Carpark redevelopment project, the developer will additionally provide no fewer than 102 and 69 public parking spaces for private cars and motorcycles respectively, on top of the 163 and 9 parking spaces for private cars and motorcycles respectively needed for the development project itself based on the latest building plans submitted by the developer.(1) For the Rumsey Street Carpark, its redevelopment plan is pending further assessment and so no implementation schedule is available at this stage.

(7) TD commenced a consultancy study on parking for commercial vehicles in December 2017 for completion in 2019. The study includes an assessment of the parking demand of commercial vehicles by district, and formulation of short to long term measures to address the demand. TD will consider, in the context of the study, the proposal for providing additional parking spaces for commercial vehicles in redeveloped and newly built multi-storey car parks.

(1) As the building plans concerned are still subject to vetting, the exact numbers of parking spaces are yet to be confirmed. 11622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex 1

Registration of private cars, motorcycles and various classes of commercial vehicles from 2013 to 2017

Commercial vehicles* Non- Private cars Motorcycles franchised Private Public light Private light Goods vehicles Taxis public buses buses buses buses

Year#

registered registered registered registered registered registered Registered Registered

------Registered Registered Registered Registered Registered Registered Registered Registered First First First First First First First First

2013 45 382 517 997 4 360 60 180 9 249 125 106 491 6 930 57 581 765 18 138 47 4 350 338 2 793 2014 46 636 541 751 5 134 63 860 13 271 116 542 705 6 926 52 592 1 714 18 138 92 4 350 437 3 021 2015 50 322 567 886 6 037 68 368 14 467 114 194 720 6 911 63 617 2 340 18 138 164 4 350 404 3 081 2016 41 182 583 037 5 544 72 332 10 798 114 757 757 6 909 88 651 1 822 18 163 214 4 350 323 3 122 2017 43 642 600 443 5 803 76 438 10 574 115 468 622 6 898 70 680 1 947 18 163 222 4 350 270 3 094

Notes:

# As at end-December of the year

* Excluding franchised buses

Annex 2

STT fee-paying public car parks from 2014 to 2017

STT fee-paying public car parks Area Year# Number of car parks Number of parking spaces Hong Kong Island 2014 19 2 041 2015 18 2 009 2016 19 2 052 2017 21 2 231 Kowloon 2014 50 8 779 2015 40 7 208 2016 40 7 164 2017 34 6 066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11623

STT fee-paying public car parks Area Year# Number of car parks Number of parking spaces New Territories 2014 125 21 175 2015 128 22 456 2016 128 22 882 2017 131 23 197

Note:

# As at end-December of the year

Annex 3

Number of multi-storey car parks managed by TD and number of parking spaces therein from 2013 to 2017

Multi-storey car parks managed by TD Area Year# Number of car parks Number of parking spaces Hong Kong Island 2013 8 3 548 2014 8 3 560 2015 8 3 563 2016 8 3 578 2017 7 3 135 Kowloon 2013 3 2 090 2014 2 1 189 2015 2 1 189 2016 2 1 188 2017 2 1 188 New Territories 2013 2 1 270 2014 2 1 226 2015 2 1 224 2016 2 1 224 2017 2 1 224

Note:

# As at end-December of the year

11624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex 4

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11625

11626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Reducing the use of plastic bottles and raising their recycling rate

13. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, on reducing the use of plastic bottles and raising their recycling rate, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the Government has stipulated a ban on the sale of plastic bottled water measuring one litre or less in the tender exercises, conducted on or after 20 February this year, for the provision of automatic vending machines at government venues, of the current number of automatic vending machines at the various government venues that do not sell plastic bottled water; whether it has assessed the impact brought about by such a measure on the disposal quantity and recycling rate of plastic bottles; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) of the current number of water dispensers at the various government venues; the number of water dispensers to be added to the various government venues in the coming three years and the relevant details;

(3) of the respective quantities of waste plastic bottles that were (i) exported, with a breakdown by export destination, and (ii) recovered and recycled locally, in each of the past five years; the processing procedures as well as end-uses of waste plastic bottles that are recycled locally;

(4) whether it has set targets on the disposal quantity and recycling rate of waste plastic bottles; whether it will enact legislation to impose a total ban on the sale of the various kinds of drinks in plastic bottles; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) of the latest progress and outcome of the feasibility study on the producer responsibility scheme on plastic product containers; the details of the next step of work and timetable?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11627

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government strives to encourage all sectors of our community to rise up to the challenge of waste management. Efforts are focused on minimizing the generation and use of one-off disposable plastics while promoting clean recycling, thereby reducing the overall disposal of waste plastics. To this end, we have adopted a multi-pronged approach by taking forward initiatives on various fronts. They include introducing legislation and policies, strengthening education on and support to community recycling, and upgrading the operational standards and efficiency of the recycling industry, etc. These initiatives also help the sector address challenges brought about by the tightening of Mainland requirements on imports of recyclables, and at the same time embrace new opportunities thus arise. My responses to the questions raised by Mr LEUNG are as follows:

(1) and (4)

The measure on ceased sale of plastic bottled water by automatic vending machines ("AVMs") at government venues is applicable to plastic bottled water measuring one litre or less. Currently, there are some 1 600 AVMs at government venues. Over 40% of these AVMs implemented the arrangement of ceased sale on 20 February 2018, and by mid-2019 the arrangement will be implemented by over 80% of these AVMs. We have already issued internal guidelines to encourage government bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") to persuade their AVM suppliers/operators to voluntarily implement the arrangement under their existing contracts as early as possible. By launching the measure on ceased sale, the Government hopes to further create a social environment where the public is encouraged to cultivate the habit of bringing their own water bottles, and to enhance collaboration in waste reduction at source among various quarters and enterprises of the community. Such measures will help promote the practice of "Use Less, Waste Less" and have positive impacts on reducing the disposal of waste plastic bottles. However, the actual impacts of these measures might not be reflected directly in the relevant waste statistics within a short period of time. The Government will continue to step up promotion of reducing the use of plastic bottles as well as support the relevant recycling efforts on various fronts. Nonetheless, as formulation of many initiatives is underway, we are unable to set targets for the disposal quantity and recovery rate of waste plastic bottles. 11628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

As to the proposal on totally banning the sale of plastic bottled beverages through legislation, we understand that most countries worldwide enhance the recycling rate of waste plastic bottles and alleviate the burden to the environment posed by disposed waste plastic bottles mainly through multiple measures, and do not head towards the direction of totally banning the sale of plastic bottled beverages through legislation. When the relevant proposal is considered, a prudent balance has to be struck among the various considerations, and a consensus at community level must be reached. At this stage, the Government has no plan in this respect. Meanwhile, the Government will continue to implement a series of measures to enhance reduction of plastics at source with strengthened recycling support. The specific measures are detailed in parts (2) and (5) of the reply below.

(2) Currently, there are a total of over 10 000 water dispensers at government venues, with about 2 700 mainly serving the public. These water dispensers are mostly installed at the active leisure facilities managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, such as sport centres, sport grounds and swimming pools, to provide drinking water for the public. To further promote waste reduction at source, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") is coordinating with various government B/Ds to install additional water dispensers as necessary at new government venues and suitable existing government venues when conducting renovation works, subject to actual circumstances and technical feasibility.

In addition, we also launched at the end of last year a Waste Reduction Guidebook for Large Scale Event Organisers ("Guidebook"), which provides clear information and practical examples to encourage and assist event organizers and participants in achieving waste reduction at source. The Guidebook recommends, among other things, that organizers set up on-site water refilling stations at the event venues and encourage participants to bring their own reusable bottles.

(3) The volumes of domestic exports and re-exports for waste polyethylene terephthalate ("PET") bottles in 2017, broken down by destination, are set out at the Annex. We have not compiled any trade statistics on waste PET bottles for 2016 or before. Besides, as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11629

no particular code number is assigned to waste plastic bottles other than those made of PET under the Hong Kong Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, trade figures on such bottles are unavailable.

Locally recycled products only refer to plastic or mixed-material products that are made of recovered plastic materials through deep processing (involving procedures such as melting and pelletizing). Currently, EPD does not compile a breakdown of the waste plastic bottles that are recycled locally, nor breakdowns by their local processing procedure as well as end-use.

To assist the recycling sector to address the progressive tightening of Mainland requirements for import recyclables, the Recycling Fund announced in September 2017 that $20 million had been earmarked to expand the list of fundable items under "Standard Projects" to help upgrade recyclers' ability in turning waste plastics into plastic products or raw materials as well as processing waste paper. The Recycling Fund has also earmarked $50 million for encouraging recyclers to use compactor trucks for more effective and efficient transportation of waste plastics and waste paper, thereby reducing the collection and transportation costs incurred. We will also continue to support development of the recycling sector (including the plastics recycling trade) through the provision of sites under short term tenancy or long term lease (such as the EcoPark).

(5) EPD appointed a consultant through open tender in October 2017 to conduct a feasibility study on how to implement a producer responsibility scheme ("PRS") targeting suitable plastic product containers, mainly those carrying beverages or personal care products. The consultant will review and analyse the practices in other jurisdictions and the actual situation in Hong Kong, as well as the implications of introducing PRS on different stakeholders. In the process, the consultant will engage with relevant trade associations and seek their views before submitting a proposal to EPD. The consultant is collating relevant information so as to draw up an operational framework for PRS on plastic product containers. The whole study is expected to be completed in the first half of 2019. We plan to publicize the preliminary proposal of the consultant in due course.

11630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

In view of the low economic value of waste plastics, EPD and the Environmental Campaign Committee are stepping up their current efforts in publicity and public education on clean recycling. The key areas include encouraging citizens to recycle waste plastic bottles first, in particular those of beverages or personal care products, and practise clean separation and recycling to facilitate subsequent recycling processes and seeking of further outlets. To encourage members of the public to proactively practise source separation and clean recycling, we have launched the Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection in collaboration with the 18 District Councils, introduced the Source Separation of Waste Programme at community level, established the Community Recycling Network and Community Green Stations ("CGSs") across the territory, and supported non-profit-making organizations in such areas as conducting educational activities and promoting community recycling through the Environment and Conservation Fund, etc. Besides, EPD is preparing for the implementation of a pilot scheme on district central collection of waste plastic bottles to collect those received by CGSs and Community Recycling Centres and, where necessary, those from public and private housing estates as well as public bodies, such as schools, in a direct manner. These waste plastic bottles will then be delivered to competent recyclers for onward processing. Moreover, we are pressing ahead with the preparations for municipal solid waste charging to provide financial incentives for our citizens to reduce their overall waste disposal and actively participate in source separation and recycling of waste materials including plastics, with a view to fostering a circular economy.

Annex

Volumes of Domestic Exports and Re-Exports for Waste PET Bottles by Destination in 2017

Destination Domestic Exports (tonnes) The Mainland 3 580 Malaysia 80 Total 3 660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11631

Destination Domestic Re-export (tonnes) The Mainland 8 760 Vietnam 80 Total 8 840

Access to government information

14. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have complained that they had made applications for access to government information under the Code on Access to Information ("the Code") to the policy bureaux and government departments ("B/Ds") covered by the Code, but then the B/Ds concerned rejected such applications without giving any reasons. They have pointed out that the criteria adopted by various B/Ds for vetting and approval of such applications are vague, thereby lowering the transparency of public administration and hindering members of the public from effectively monitoring the use of public funds. Besides, it has been reported recently that the Government, when commissioning consultancy studies, often incorporates a confidentiality clause in the contracts, and then claims on this ground that the relevant study reports are within the scope of exemptions under the Code, and hence rejects the access applications concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the applications for access to information which were made by invoking the Code as received by various B/Ds in the 2017-2018 financial year, including the (i) names of B/Ds, (ii) number of applications received, (iii) number of pieces of information involved, (iv) number of applications under process, (v) number of applications the applicants of which were provided with all the requested information, (vi) number of applications the applicants of which were provided with part of the requested information, and (vii) average time for processing an application (set out in a table);

(2) of the number of applications for access to information which were rejected by various B/Ds in the 2017-2018 financial year, together with a breakdown by (i) category of information requested and (ii) reason for rejection; the number of times for which the applicants of such cases requested a review of the refusal decisions;

11632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(3) as paragraph 2.2 of the Code stipulates that if the harm or prejudice which arises from disclosure of the information may outweigh the public interest, including both actual harm or prejudice and the risk or reasonable expectation of harm and prejudice ("harm or prejudice outweighing the public interest"), a department may refuse to disclose the information, and paragraph 2.2.3 of the Guidelines on Interpretation and Application of the Code states that a civil servant is required to act reasonably in reaching his/her decision, of the procedures for various B/Ds to conduct the "harm or prejudice" tests and the number of the tests conducted last year; whether a mechanism is currently in place to review if (i) the decisions concerned and (ii) the justifications therefor are reasonable; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) of the number of applications for access to information that were rejected by various B/Ds in the past five years on grounds of "harm or prejudice outweighing the public interest", together with a breakdown by name of B/D; the procedure (e.g. conducting the "harm or prejudice" tests, and assessing public interest) that various B/Ds went through in reaching the decisions to reject the applications;

(5) of the number of cases in which various B/Ds set out the aforesaid confidentiality clause in the contracts when commissioning consultants or other organizations to conduct studies in the past three years and the details, including the (i) names of B/Ds, (ii) names of the study projects, (iii) dates on which the studies were conducted, (iv) consultancy fees, and (v) reasons for keeping the study reports and the relevant documents confidential (set out in a table); and

(6) of the figures relating to the study reports which were classified by various B/Ds as information available for public access after they had commissioned consultants or other organizations to conduct the studies in each of the past three financial years (set out in the table below)?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11633

Financial year 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Number of consultancy studies Number of study reports available for public access

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the Government has always been committed to providing information requested by members of the public in accordance with the Code on Access to Information ("the Code"). Having consulted the Policy Bureaux, our consolidated reply to different parts of Mr Charles MOK's question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

The number and details of applications for access to information made by invoking the Code as received by various Policy Bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") between January 2017 and December 2017 are set out at Annex 1. Of the 6 051 applications for access to information received during the above mentioned period, 136 were refused. B/Ds involved, together with the statistical data on reasons for refusal, are at Annex 2. There had been 10 requests by members of the public for reviews against these refusals. As for the number of pieces of information sought in the applications for access to information, and the category of information requested in the refused cases, no statistics or records had been kept by the relevant B/Ds.

(3) and (4)

Part 2 of the Code sets out the categories of information that a department can refuse to disclose, including information the disclosure of which may harm or prejudice certain kinds of work or matters (such as the conduct of external affairs, or relations with other governments or with international organizations). The Guidelines on Interpretation and Application of the Code gives a detailed interpretation in this respect. In deciding whether harm or prejudice may arise in disclosure of the information, a department must consider all relevant material and balance the public interest in 11634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

disclosure against any harm or prejudice that could result in order to reach a reasonable decision. Where the harm which may arise from disclosure would be extremely serious, then it is not necessary to establish that the harm would be likely or certain to occur to take it into account. On the other hand, if the perceived risk is neither very likely nor serious, this point should be given less weight. In addition, in circumstances where there is no statutory restriction or legal obligation which prevents disclosure, and where there is a clear public interest in the disclosure of information sought, and this public interest outweighs the harm or prejudice that may result to the Government or to any other person, such information may be disclosed. We have not collected information from departments on the number of cases where departments refused disclosure of information on the consideration that the harm or prejudice that may thus be caused had outweighed public interest in disclosure. Any person who believes that a department has failed to comply with any provision of the Code may ask the department to review the situation. Any person who believes that a department has failed to properly apply any provision of the Code may also complain to The Ombudsman.

(5) The number and details of cases involving the setting of confidentiality clause in the contracts by B/Ds when commissioning consultants or other organizations to conduct studies in the past three financial years which prevent the Government from disclosing the related reports are at Annex 3.

(6) The figures relating to the study reports which were classified by various B/Ds as information available for public access following commissioned studies by consultants or other organizations in each of the past three financial years are provided in the table below:

Financial year 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Number of consultancy studies 114 138 131 Number of study reports 94 99 122 available for public access

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11635

Annex 1

The number and details of applications for access to information under the Code on Access to Information (January to December 2017)

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Agriculture, 46 3 3 39 1 0 41 2 Fisheries and Conservation Department Architectural 308 4 38 215 9 10 256 16 Services Department Audit 9 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 Commission Auxiliary 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Medical Service (department) Buildings 949 59 26 799 8 8 567 274 Department Census and 34 3 8 20 1 0 29 0 Statistics Department Chief Executive's 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Office Civil Aid Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (department) Civil Aviation 10 0 4 4 1 1 9 1 Department Civil Engineering 53 2 5 27 6 10 43 5 and Development Department Civil Service 54 2 6 39 4 0 48 1 Bureau 11636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Commerce and 8 0 2 4 1 1 4 4 Economic Development Bureau Companies 13 0 0 11 1 0 11 1 Registry Constitutional 7 1 0 6 0 0 5 1 and Mainland Affairs Bureau Correctional 9 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 Services Department Customs and 61 3 2 45 0 2 47 2 Excise Department Department of 29 0 7 19 1 1 25 3 Health Department of 14 1 3 4 1 5 13 0 Justice Development 22 2 5 10 3 0 14 4 Bureau Drainage 26 3 2 16 0 0 18 0 Services Department Education Bureau 69 4 5 48 8 2 60 3 Electrical and 20 1 2 15 0 2 14 5 Mechanical Services Department Environment 49 1 2 41 0 0 41 2 Bureau/Environm ental Protection Department LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11637

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Financial 6 0 0 5 1 0 6 0 Services and the Treasury Bureau Fire Services 140 6 1 125 1 3 122 8 Department Food and 637 32 20 545 4 3 490 82 Environmental Hygiene Department Food and Health 15 1 2 12 0 0 11 3 Bureau Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flying Service Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laboratory Government 43 0 1 42 0 0 43 0 Logistics Department Government 12 0 1 9 0 0 9 1 Property Agency Highways 44 1 5 22 4 4 34 1 Department Home Affairs 15 3 0 9 2 0 11 0 Bureau Home Affairs 148 4 8 120 11 4 115 28 Department Hong Kong 4 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 Monetary Authority Hong Kong 6 0 0 6 0 0 5 1 Observatory 11638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Hong Kong 275 11 15 228 3 7 239 14 Police Force (the number including Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force) Housing 445 4 13 400 9 5 418 9 Department Immigration 427 10 30 346 6 1 376 7 Department Independent 46 0 9 23 1 13 41 5 Commission Against Corruption Information 5 0 2 3 0 0 5 0 Services Department Inland Revenue 892 13 0 852 2 9 863 0 Department Innovation and 6 0 2 4 0 0 5 1 Technology Bureau Intellectual 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Property Department Invest Hong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kong Joint Secretariat 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 for the Advisory Bodies on Civil Service and Judicial Salaries and Conditions of Service LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11639

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Labour 54 1 5 40 3 0 40 8 Department Labour and 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 Welfare Bureau Land Registry 25 0 7 16 0 2 24 1 Lands 131 11 16 75 5 10 77 29 Department Legal Aid 6 0 0 6 0 0 5 1 Department Leisure and 84 2 5 62 8 6 76 5 Cultural Services Department Marine 24 0 5 14 0 1 20 0 Department Office of the 13 0 3 9 0 1 13 0 Communications Authority Offices of the 27 3 2 18 1 3 20 4 Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary Official 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Receiver's Office Planning 80 2 15 45 2 3 65 0 Department Post Office 7 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 Radio Television 4 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 Hong Kong Rating and 12 0 0 8 0 4 12 0 Valuation Department Registration and 32 0 6 22 2 2 29 3 Electoral Office 11640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Cases completed during Processing the period time

Number of

applications Number of being

Name of B/Ds applications processed t received as at in full in par (cases) (cases) 31 December refused 2017 21 days or less not kept by B/Ds not kept by More days than 21 Number of Number applications Number of cases where the the where of cases Number information requested were requested were information Number of Number applicationsmet of Number applicationsmet Secretariat, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance Secretariat of the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Service Commission Security Bureau 17 0 3 12 0 2 14 3 Social Welfare 96 7 9 39 30 5 73 10 Department Trade and 7 0 3 2 2 0 6 1 Industry Department Transport and 5 0 0 3 1 1 4 1 Housing Bureau Transport 177 2 10 158 2 2 160 12 Department Treasury 5 0 1 4 0 0 4 1 University Grants 6 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 Committee, Secretariat Water Supplies 226 33 39 86 0 1 75 51 Department Working Family 46 0 1 41 0 0 42 0 and Student Financial Assistance Agency

Note:

Cases completed during the period exclude withdrawals by applicants concerned. The sum total of cases therefore may not tally with the number of applications received by individual B/Ds.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11641

Annex 2

Applications for access to information which had been refused under the Code on Access to Information (January to December 2017)

Reasons for refusal (relevant paragraph of Number of times requests were refused by B/Ds the Code) Defence and security 3 times [Architectural Services Department (1 time), (para. 2.3 of the Code) Immigration Department (1 time), Security Bureau (1 time)] External affairs 1 time [Department of Justice (1 time)] (para. 2.4 of the Code) Law enforcement, legal 22 times [Architectural Services Department (6 times), proceedings and public Customs and Excise Department (2 times), Department safety of Justice (4 times), Hong Kong Police Force (2 times), (para. 2.6 of the Code) Immigration Department (1 time), Independent Commission Against Corruption (2 times), Inland Revenue Department (1 time), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (1 time), Office of the Communications Authority (1 time), Social Welfare Department (2 times)] Management and 47 times [Architectural Services Department (2 times), operation of the public Civil Engineering and Development Department service (4 times), Department of Health (1 time), Department (para. 2.9 of the Code) of Justice (1 time), Fire Services Department (2 times), Highways Department (4 times), Hong Kong Police Force (2 times), Independent Commission Against Corruption (11 times), Inland Revenue Department (1 time), Land Registry (1 time), Lands Department (9 times), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (1 time), Planning Department (1 time), Rating and Valuation Department (4 times), Social Welfare Department (2 times), Transport and Housing Bureau (1 time)] 11642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Reasons for refusal (relevant paragraph of Number of times requests were refused by B/Ds the Code) Internal discussion and 6 times [Buildings Department (1 time), Civil advice Engineering and Development Department (1 time), (para. 2.10 of the Code) Department of Justice (1 time), Lands Department (1 time), Registration and Electoral Office (1 time), Security Bureau (1 time)] Public employment and 4 times [Education Bureau (1 time), Food and public appointments Environmental Hygiene Department (1 time), Offices (para. 2.11 of the Code) of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary (1 time), Registration and Electoral Office (1 time)] Research, statistics and 10 times [Civil Aviation Department (1 time), Civil analysis Engineering and Development Department (4 times), (para. 2.13 of the Code) Highways Department (1 time), Hong Kong Police Force (1 time), Housing Department (1 time), Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary (1 time), Planning Department (1 time)] Third party information 37 times [Architectural Services Department (3 times), (para. 2.14 of the Code) Buildings Department (7 times), Civil Engineering and Development Department (2 times), Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (1 time), Department of Health (1 time), Education Bureau (1 time), Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (2 times), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (1 time), Home Affairs Department (2 times), Hong Kong Police Force (1 time), Housing Department (1 time), Land Registry (1 time), Lands Department (3 times), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (2 times), Planning Department (2 times), Registration and Electoral Office (1 time), Social Welfare Department (2 times), Transport and Housing Bureau (1 time), Transport Department (2 times), Water Supplies Department (1 time)] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11643

Reasons for refusal (relevant paragraph of Number of times requests were refused by B/Ds the Code) Privacy of the 21 times [Civil Engineering and Development individual Department (2 times), Fire Services Department (para. 2.15 of the Code) (1 time), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (1 time), Home Affairs Department (1 time), Hong Kong Police Force (1 time), Housing Department (2 times), Independent Commission Against Corruption (2 times), Inland Revenue Department (3 times), Lands Department (1 time), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (2 times), Marine Department (1 time), Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary (1 time), Social Welfare Department (2 times), Transport Department (1 time)] Business affairs 6 times [Civil Engineering and Development (para. 2.16 of the Code) Department (2 times), Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (1 time), Independent Commission Against Corruption (1 time), Planning Department (1 time), Transport Department (1 time)] Premature requests 5 times [Education Bureau (1 time), Home Affairs (para. 2.17 of the Code) Department (1 time), Lands Department (1 time), Leisure and Cultural Services Department (1 time), Planning Department (1 time)] Legal restrictions 12 times [Department of Justice (1 time), Hong Kong (para. 2.18 of the Code) Monetary Authority (2 times), Housing Department (1 time), Inland Revenue Department (7 times), Transport Department (1 time)]

Note:

The total number of refused cases is less than the total number of times the reasons for refusal are cited by B/Ds, as a request may be refused for more than one reason.

11644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Annex 3

The number and details of cases involving the setting of confidentiality clauses in the contracts which prevent the Government from disclosing the related reports

Reasons for keeping Dates on the study reports and Name of Name of the which the Consultancy the relevant B/Ds study projects studies were fees documents conducted confidential Audit Consultancy on 29.12.2015 $420,000 This consultancy Commission insourcing an to 1.2.2017 study involved the IT Audit audit work process, Consultant to internal discussion conduct an IT and third party System Audit information. (Paras. 2.10 and 2.14 of the Code on Access to Information―Internal discussion and advice and third party information) Independent Enhancing 20.11.2014 $796,000 Information the Commission private sector's to 21.1.2016 disclosure of which Against awareness of would inhibit the Corruption ICAC's efforts frankness and ("ICAC") in assisting the candour of discussion private sector to within the ICAC. prevent Such information corruption may include: Study on factors 19.8.2016 to $498,885 opinions, advice, leading to the 20.3.2017 recommendations, development of consultations by corruption-free advisers to the ICAC. Hong Kong (Para. 2.10 of the Code on Access to Information―Internal discussion and advice)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11645

Protecting jurors from clandestine video-recording and photo-taking

15. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that four alleged incidents of clandestine video-recording and photo-taking in courtrooms occurred in the past three months. Three of such incidents occurred during the trial of cases of the offences of riot, etc. committed in Mong Kok, and the latest one occurred during the trial of contempt of court case relating to the Occupy Mong Kok movement in 2014. On 23 February, a man pointed his mobile phone to the direction of the jury and took photos and videos, and disseminated the photos and video clips through an instant messaging software. However, the judge who tried the case decided not to pursue the matter after the man deleted the photos and video clips. On 18 May, when the jurors of that case retired for deliberation, the Judiciary received an email with words which read "there are a lot more" and with a photo with features of the jurors. Some members of the legal profession have considered that the person who sent the email attempted to challenge the court's impartiality in the trial of the case. On the other hand, it has been reported that in an article entitled "Smart tips to observe trials in High Court" posted on a Mainland website with a number of photos featuring local courts, the author said that, "fortunately, the clandestine photo-taking was not discovered by the judge". Also, an article entitled "What kind of experience is it to observe trials in Hong Kong's High Court", along with photos of local courts, can be found through a Mainland Internet search engine. Those articles show that the courts in Hong Kong seem to have become a tourist attraction for Mainland tourists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid acts of clandestine video-recording and photo-taking, as pointed out by the media, relate to politically sensitive cases, and whether such incidents (i) involved the intention of some people to influence the trials by sending out threatening messages, (ii) will cause members of the public who serve as jurors to worry about their identities being exposed and their personal safety, and (iii) has an impact on the confidence of members of the public on the court's impartiality in trying cases;

(2) whether it will seriously pursue the criminal liability of the aforesaid persons involved in the clandestine video-recording and photo-taking;

11646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(3) whether it knows if the Judiciary has stepped up measures to prevent the recurrence of incidents of clandestine video-recording and photo-taking of the jury in court to ensure that they discharge their duties impartially without worries and free from threats; and

(4) whether it will request the relevant Mainland authorities to (i) address squarely the aforesaid issues and (ii) step up education of Mainland residents of their obligation to abide by the laws of Hong Kong, including the requirement that no video-recording and photo-taking is allowed when observing trials in court, when they are in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, trial by jury for criminal cases at the Court of First Instance ("CFI") is an indispensable component of the criminal justice system and a deep-rooted aspect of the common law tradition of Hong Kong. Article 86 of the Basic Law provides that "[t]he principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained."

In HKSAR v Lee Ming-tee and another (2001) 4 HKCFAR 133 (FACC No. 8 of 2000), the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in its judgment that "[r]eliance on the integrity of the jury and its ability to try the case fairly on the evidence, to put aside extraneous prejudice and to follow the directions of the judge is fundamental to the jury system itself."

Any intended or actual threat that constitutes undue pressure on jurors and judicial officers resulting in biased acts on their parts is completely unacceptable. Such acts may not only bring about injustice to the defendants in certain cases, but also weaken public confidence in the jury system and the criminal justice system.

In a recent case of criminal contempt of court handled by CFI of the High Court involving photo-taking in court, the defendant was convicted by the Court for criminal contempt of court. In the reasons for verdict and sentence, the Court clearly pointed out that photo-taking in court would very likely prejudice or interfere with the due administration of justice. This is because photo-taking in the courtroom would possibly disrupt or interrupt court proceedings. Moreover, photo-taking may cause concern or unease among jurors and witnesses (including victims in sexual assault cases), in particular when their identities are disclosed, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11647 thereby leading to issues of their safety. If the photographs are misused, it will deal an even more serious blow to the due administration of justice. Therefore, photo-taking in court would very likely constitute the offence of criminal contempt of court.

Under existing laws, there are generally two ways to deal with the acts of taking photographs in court:

(1) Under section 7 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), certain acts of taking photographs in court are prohibited. Offenders are liable to a fine of $2,000 upon conviction.

(2) Suspected offenders may also be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court, and could be sentenced to a fine and imprisonment upon conviction.

In a most recent case involving clandestine photo-taking during court proceedings in CFI referred above, the trial judge has taken forward proceedings for contempt of court according to summary procedures in respect of the act of clandestine photo-taking by the offender. The offender was ultimately convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven days. As regards another incident involving clandestine photo-taking of jurors during a trial at CFI, the Police have launched investigation into the case. The Department of Justice ("DoJ") will take a serious approach in following up on the case, and on receipt of the Police's investigation report and evidence gathered, it will consider, in accordance with the Prosecution Code and the applicable law, whether to initiate prosecution or proceedings for committal for contempt of court.

In respect of the question raised by Mr Paul TSE, DoJ has consulted the Judiciary Administration, whose response to part (3) of the question is as follows:

"The Judiciary takes the view that due administration of justice is of paramount importance for all court proceedings. In particular, trial by jury is an important part of the administration of justice under the common law, which is constitutionally protected under Article 86 of the Basic Law. Serving jurors must be free from all actual or perceived interference or pressure. An important safeguard is the prohibition of photography and audio or video recording inside courtrooms.

11648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

According to the Judiciary, the Judiciary has all along been taking measures to remind court users that photo-taking is not allowed in courtrooms. For example, clear signage is posted inside courtrooms and at court lobbies. The Judiciary staff has been reminding court users of such restriction as necessary. The Judiciary has also been referring cases involving photo-taking at court buildings to the Department of Justice and/or Police for follow-up actions as appropriate.

The Judiciary is very concerned with the recent incidents of photo-taking in courtrooms when proceedings were held and takes the matter seriously. Besides taking the necessary follow-up actions, the Judiciary has recently put in place the following enhancement measures:

(a) making public announcements in courtrooms before commencement of court proceedings to remind court users of the photo-taking prohibition. The announcements are made in Cantonese, English and Putonghua;

(b) putting up more notices and signage on the prohibition of photo-taking in more prominent areas in courtrooms and at court lobbies;

(c) reminding court users of the prohibition of photo-taking more extensively by Judiciary staff verbally or through written notices as appropriate; and

(d) strengthening security personnel manpower during court proceedings for monitoring the situation as necessary.

In addition, the Judiciary is actively considering the issuance of a Practice Direction to regulate the use of mobile phones and other devices with photo-taking or audio/video recording capability for jury proceedings."

As regards parts (1), (2) and (4) of Mr Paul TSE's question, DoJ's response is as follows:

(1) and (2)

We do not provide specific comments on individual cases. In respect of the incident of clandestine photo-taking of jurors referred above, it is already under police investigation. DoJ attaches great LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11649

importance to the incident. But to avoid affecting the related follow-up actions, it is inappropriate for us to comment any further or disclose any specific details at this stage. On receipt of the Police's investigation report and evidence gathered, DoJ will make an independent professional consideration as to whether to initiate prosecution or proceedings for committal for contempt of court in accordance with the Prosecution Code and the applicable law, and the offender may also be subject to arrest or punishment. In the most recent case involving clandestine photo-taking during court proceedings in CFI referred above, the trial judge emphasized in his judgment that the court must protect the privacy and safety of jurors and witnesses, so that they would not be subject to unnecessary interference. And because photographs taken inside the court may also be disseminated quickly and fall into the hands of the bad elements, thereby seriously disrupting the court's judicial proceedings, it is necessary to impose penalties with deterrent effect on offenders for illegal photo-taking in court.

(4) Taking into account the various measures set out in the Judiciary's response to part (3) of the question set out above, it is considered that there are sufficient measures to ensure that people observing trials in court are aware of the requirement that photo-taking is not allowed in court. The sentence imposed in the most recent case involving clandestine photo-taking during court proceedings in CFI has also sent a clear and deterring signal to the public: that the court definitely would not tolerate acts of illegal photo-taking in court.

Safety, repair and maintenance of lifts

16. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, recently, incidents of lift failures causing casualties have occurred frequently, arousing grave public concern about issues such as the safety, maintenance, repair and replacement of lifts. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of written notifications, received by the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services from the responsible persons for lifts in each of the past five years, in respect of the lift incidents specified in Schedule 7 to the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance 11650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(Cap. 618) (with a breakdown by (i) District Council district and (ii) whether the notification was made within the deadline of 24 hours after the incident came to the person's knowledge), as well as the number of such incidents made public by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD"); the penalties imposed on the persons convicted for failing to give notifications within the deadline;

(2) whether EMSD will make public more information about registered lift contractors ("contractors"), including the company scale, the number of workers/engineers, the qualifications held by the workers/engineers and the records of non-compliance; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether EMSD will publish reference costs for repair and maintenance of lifts for reference by members of the public; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) of the current total number of lifts throughout the territory and, among them, the respective numbers and percentages of those which are over 20 and over 25 years old;

(5) given that the Code of Practice for Lift Works and Escalator Works ("the Code") issued by EMSD has no legal effect and does not contain provisions on penalties, whether the Government will consider (i) increasing the penalties for contractors whose aggregate points under the current performance monitoring points system have reached a certain level (e.g. prohibiting them from bidding for the Government's lift works contracts for a certain period of time), and (ii) implementing a performance monitoring points system for registered workers/engineers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) whether the Government will consider incorporating into Cap. 618 those clauses in the Code which are particularly important to the protection of users' safety; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11651

(7) of the current number of lifts inspected by EMSD each year on average, as well as the mechanism, workflow and criteria for selection of targets for inspection; whether it will consider giving priority to the inspection of lifts which are 20 years old or above; whether it will step up the monitoring of contractors and registered lift engineers, including stepping up the review of their work and surprise inspection; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(8) whether the Government will draw up an action plan for enhancing the safety of lifts throughout the territory and give priority to enhancing the safety of those lifts which were installed before 1993, including requiring lifts to have/be retrofitted with (i) a double brake system, (ii) an unintended car movement protection device, (iii) an ascending car overspeed protection device, (iv) advanced car door mechanical lock and door safety edge, (v) an intercom and CCTV system, (vi) an obstruction switch to protect suspension ropes, and (vii) automatic rescue devices; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(9) whether the Government will expeditiously establish a dedicated subsidy scheme for enhancing lift safety, with a view to subsidizing safety enhancement works for lifts 20 years old or above; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(10) whether it has assessed if the existing manpower establishment of EMSD is adequate for dovetailing with the implementation of various measures to enhance lift safety; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, of the number of staff members needed to be recruited;

(11) whether it knows the annual average (i) number of graduates from lift repair and maintenance courses and (ii) number of persons joining the industry, in the past five years; whether the Government will take measures to improve the remuneration packages of lift and escalator repair works practitioners so as to attract new blood to join the industry; and

(12) as some contractors who are not the original manufactures of the lifts concerned are unable to obtain the lift plans from the original manufacturers, which has undermined the quality of their repair 11652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

work, whether the Government will enact legislation for mandatory provision of lift plans by the original manufactures to their counterparts, so as to ensure the quality of repair works; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the operation of lifts in Hong Kong is regulated by the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618) ("the Ordinance"), which was put into operation on 17 December 2012, to replace the repealed Lifts and Escalators (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 327). The Ordinance introduces a series of new and enhanced regulatory measures including stipulating clearly the responsibilities of the Responsible Person (i.e. owner of the lift/escalator and any person who has the management or control of the lift/escalator), the Registered Contractor, the Registered Engineer and the Registered Worker. Since the Ordinance came into operation, the number of incidents(1) that must be reported to the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") involving failure of lift and escalator equipment has been remarkably reduced as compared with that before the Ordinance was put in effect, with a reduction of 72% from an average of 28 cases per year in 2010 to 2012 to an average of 7.8 cases per year in 2013 to 2017. EMSD will continue to strictly enforce the Ordinance and is committed to introducing various measures to enhance the safety of aged lifts, so as to ensure that the public can enjoy safe lift services.

Our reply to the question raised by Dr QUAT is as follows:

(1) In accordance with the Ordinance, the Responsible Person for a lift must notify the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services of the following lift incidents:

(i) A person dies or is injured and the death or injury involves a lift or any associated equipment or machinery of a lift;

(ii) A failure of the main drive system of a lift;

(iii) A breakage of any suspension rope of a lift;

(iv) A failure of any brake, overload device, safety component or safety equipment of a lift; or

(v) A failure of any interlocking device for any door of the lift-way of a lift.

Upon receiving notification of the above lift incidents, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department will arrange on-duty staff for an investigation as far as practicable. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11653

(1) The number of written notifications, received by the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services from the Responsible Persons for lifts in each of the past five years, in respect of the lift incidents stipulated in Schedule 7 to the Ordinance(2) is 330 in 2013, 446 in 2014, 439 in 2015, 427 in 2016 and 461 in 2017. Their distribution (by District Council district)(3) is as follows:

District 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Central and Western 8.2% 6.6% 7.5% 5.9% 7.8% Eastern 10.1% 11.1% 9.6% 10.3% 7.5% Southern 3.7% 2.9% 3.9% 3.3% 4.0% Wan Chai 5.0% 7.7% 8.1% 7.3% 8.7% Kowloon City 4.2% 5.3% 7.3% 6.8% 5.4% Kwun Tong 8.0% 9.0% 5.5% 6.8% 8.0% Sham Shui Po 5.0% 7.7% 6.0% 4.9% 2.8% Yau Tsim Mong 2.7% 4.5% 11.7% 11.2% 11.6% Wong Tai Sin 3.2% 3.4% 4.4% 3.5% 5.4% Islands 2.4% 2.6% 3.1% 5.9% 4.0% Kwai Tsing 10.3% 7.7% 7.0% 4.7% 7.3% North 5.0% 4.0% 2.6% 2.6% 3.8% Sai Kung 6.9% 6.3% 2.6% 5.9% 3.8% Sha Tin 6.6% 3.4% 3.1% 5.4% 3.1% Tai Po 3.4% 2.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.8% Tsuen Wan 6.6% 6.9% 6.2% 4.2% 4.7% Tuen Mun 4.8% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 4.7% Yuen Long 3.7% 3.7% 1.8% 2.3% 3.5%

EMSD will publish quarterly the statistics of the reportable incidents together with the announcement of "Registered Contractors' Performance Rating" on the department's website.

According to records, the main reason that the Responsible Persons did not notify EMSD within 24 hours after the incident was that they did not immediately know that or could not clearly distinguish whether the case was a reportable incident. At present, EMSD does

(2) See footnote (1).

(3) The figures have been shown by rounding up or down and they may not be equal to 100% when summing up. 11654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

not keep statistics of such cases by categories. EMSD will take into account the seriousness of the case (such as whether the Responsible Person has been repeatedly in breach of the requirements) and whether they have reasonable excuse, to decide if enforcement actions should be taken, which may include issuing of advisory or warning letters or carrying out of prosecution. In the past five years, EMSD has issued a total of 16 advisory letters to relevant Responsible Persons for their failure to notify EMSD of the incident within 24 hours after the incident came to their knowledge.

(2) and (3)

Registered lift contractors are required to arrange and supervise qualified persons to carry out lift works. Registered lift contractors are also required to provide sufficient workforce and provide adequate training and instructions to their workers so as to ensure the lift works can be carried out safely and properly. EMSD will conduct regular audits on registered lift contractors to check whether there are sufficient workforce, skills, staff training, etc.

In order to assist Responsible Persons for lifts in selecting a suitable registered lift contractor, EMSD provides the following information for reference by the Responsible Persons:

- The maintenance price figures for lifts at private residential and commercial premises are released on a half-yearly basis to increase the transparency of the market prices;

- The "Registered Contractors' Performance Rating" is announced on a quarterly basis to indicate the performance of each contractor in terms of safety and services quality. When the contractor is involved in a serious incident under investigation, EMSD will add remarks to the contractor concerned in the web page announcing the performance rating; and

- In order to facilitate the Responsible Persons to invite tenders for the maintenance or modernization works for their lifts, EMSD has prepared the "Sample Contract for Procurement of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11655

Comprehensive Lift/Escalator Maintenance Service" and "Sample Specifications for Engagement of Registered Lift Contractor for Carrying out Lift Modernisation Works" for reference by the Responsible Persons during tendering.

EMSD will continue to listen to the views of various stakeholders and provide appropriate technical support for the Responsible Persons.

(4) As of the end of 2017, there were about 66 200 lifts in Hong Kong, of which about 35 200 (about 53% of the total) and about 27 900 (about 42% of the total) were more than 20 and 25 years old (years that the lift has been put into service) respectively.

(5) and (6)

The Code of Practice for Lift Works and Escalator Works ("the Code") is issued by EMSD under the provisions of the Ordinance. The Code provides practical guidance for reference by the registered persons and states that they must comply with the procedures stipulated under the Ordinance when carrying out lift or escalator works.

During the daily surveillance checks and incident investigations, if EMSD discovers that a contractor and/or Registered Worker/Engineer has performed unsatisfactorily or even contravened the Ordinance, EMSD will take appropriate action according to the seriousness of the case. For serious cases, prosecution will be taken in accordance with the Ordinance and/or the cases will be submitted to the Disciplinary Board Panel for hearing, and the contractor and/or Registered Worker/Engineer concerned may eventually be subject to cancellation or suspension of registration. As the relevant procedures will take time, EMSD has introduced the "Registered Lift and Escalator Contractors' Performance Rating System", as an administrative measure other than enforcement under the Ordinance. This will enable EMSD to deduct the score of a contractor immediately according to the seriousness of the incident. The scores will be uploaded to the department's website so that the public can know the performance of each contractor in a timely 11656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

manner, thus enabling them to choose a suitable contractor to provide maintenance services for their lifts. EMSD will also make remarks in the said website promptly when a contractor is involved in a serious incident under investigation, so that the public can make a holistic assessment when choosing their lift contractors.

EMSD will review and revise the "Registered Lift and Escalator Contractors' Performance Rating System" from time to time. As EMSD has received suggestions from many stakeholders recently, it will initiate a new round of review with a view to further improving the system.

(7) EMSD adopts a risk-based approach and strengthens inspections for lifts with higher risk factors, such as those with longer in-service years, frequent complaints/failures, etc., so as to monitor the maintenance works and check for contraventions of the Ordinance. EMSD conducted about 11 200 inspections of lifts and escalators in 2017.

EMSD will make greater efforts to inspect the maintenance and examination of lifts, in particular those components which will affect the safe operation of lifts. It is expected that the number of inspections this year will increase to about 14 000, i.e. an increase of 25%.

EMSD will also review to step up the monitoring and regulation of Registered Contractors and Registered Engineers.

(8) and (9)

Lifts must have proper regular periodic examinations and maintenance to ensure their safe use. However, as the lifts get aged, the maintenance problems encountered will be more and more in terms of number and complexity. Owing to rapid technological advancement in recent years, modern lifts are equipped with more comprehensive safety devices than the aged ones. There are thus rooms for improving and enhancing aged lifts from the lift safety perspective. In view of this, EMSD promulgated "the Guidelines for Modernising Existing Lifts" in 2011, which aims at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11657

recommending that the Responsible Persons should install safety devices (including the unintended car movement protection device) for their aged lifts to make the lifts safer, more reliable and comfortable.

As of the end of 2017, there were about 66 200 lifts in Hong Kong, of which about 80% were not equipped with safety devices of the latest standard. Owing to the fact that the lift modernization is carried out on a voluntary basis, modernization works of different level have been carried out to about 5 200 lifts since 2011. The progress is not remarkable.

In view of the above, the Development Bureau and EMSD are actively formulating new measures(4) in short term, medium term and medium to long term to enhance the safety of aged lifts, thereby further protecting public safety.

(10) EMSD attaches great importance to lift and escalator safety, and has set up a dedicated team responsible for regulating lift and escalator safety throughout the territory. In 2018-2019, EMSD has increased the manpower of the dedicated team to 43 staff members, in order to strengthen the inspections of aged lifts. Regarding the new series of measures that will be implemented in the future, EMSD will further examine the manpower requirements to cope with the additional workload.

(11) As of the end of 2017, there were about 66 200 lifts and about 9 300 escalators in Hong Kong. From 2012 to 2017, the total number of lifts and escalators increased from about 69 000 to about 75 600, i.e. an increase of about 10%, while the number of Registered Workers increased from about 4 900 to about 5 700, i.e. an increase of about 16%. In recent years, Registered Contractors have also been actively recruiting general workers in addition to Registered Workers and there was an increase in general workers from about 700 in 2012 to about 1 850 in 2017. After these general workers have received relevant training and accumulated sufficient

(4) Information of the proposed measures has been included in our paper submitted to the Legislative Council Panel on Development for discussion at its meeting on the 29 May 2018 (LC Paper No. CB(1)996/17-18(07)). 11658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

experience, they can apply to become Registered Workers. Therefore, the total number of workers increased from about 5 600 in 2012 to about 7 570 in 2017, i.e. an increase of about 35%, which was higher than the increase in number of lifts and escalators in the same period. This shows that the industry's manpower situation is gradually improving.

In the past five years, the average annual number of intakes and graduates of relevant lift courses, and the change in manpower of registered workers and general workers are as follows:

Academic Number of Intakes of Number of Graduates of Year Apprentice Course Apprentice Course(5) 2013-2014 95 27 2014-2015 102 31 2015-2016 205 32 2016-2017 251 53 2017-2018 255 This academic year has not yet finished

Note:

(5) The number of graduates is the number of students who completed the course and were graduated in the respective academic year. In general, the apprenticeship course is a four-year course and therefore the graduates of the respective year are normally students who enrolled the course four years ago or before.

Increase in Number of New Increase in Number of New Registered Workers as General Workers as Compared with Last Year Compared with Last Year(6) 2013 43 22 2014 219 380 2015 89 411 2016 114 273 2017 299 125

Note:

(6) The number of new general workers is compiled based on the regular survey of Registered Contractors' manpower situation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11659

Although the manpower situation has gradually improved, the current supply of manpower is still relatively tight. In order to attract more new bloods to join the lift and escalator industry, we have implemented the following series of measures in recent years:

- The Vocational Training Council ("VTC") and the Construction Industry Council ("CIC") jointly introduced "Earn & Learn" Scheme in 2014. The number of new apprentices enrolled each year has increased remarkably, from about 70 in the past to more than 200 in 2015 and 250 in both 2016 and 2017.

- In 2016, VTC and the HKU School of Professional and Continuing Education launched two different courses related to lift and escalator for the practicing workers to acquire the required academic qualifications to meet the registration requirements of Registered Workers;

- CIC has implemented the "Contractor Cooperative Training Scheme" for Electrical and Mechanical ("E&M") trades (including lift and escalator mechanics) to provide financial support to those who wish to join the lift and escalator industry;

- Since 2016, EMSD has started to invest more than $600 million in recruiting over 1 000 technician trainees in five years to provide new bloods for the entire E&M industry (including lift and escalator trade) to cope with future challenges; and

- In early 2018, EMSD collaborated with the industry to produce a promotional video to attract newcomers to the industry. Production of the video has been completed, which has been uploaded onto the department's website for public viewing.

11660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

In light of the fact that more new bloods have joined the industry in the past three years and most of them are still undergoing apprenticeship training, we expect that these apprentices will be graduated in the next two to three years and join the industry. By that time, the manpower in the industry will increase further, and will be able to take up more lift modernization and maintenance works in the future.

(12) According to the Code, documents such as manuals and drawings, equipment, spare parts, and tools, etc., of the lift or the escalator being held by the outgoing Registered Contractor should be returned to the Responsible Person for safe custody. Registered Contractors undertaking installation of a lift or an escalator should also consolidate instructions provided by the manufacturer of the lift or the escalator and other relevant information, such as type examination certificates, layout drawings, calculations, circuit diagrams, power supply drawings, testing and commissioning results, etc., for preparation of an Operation & Maintenance ("O&M") manual for the lift or the escalator system. Such O&M manual should be provided to the Responsible Person upon completion of the installation works. When changing lift/escalator maintenance contractors, the smooth handover of maintenance work is extremely important for continuous safe and proper operation of the lifts/escalators. Therefore, EMSD requires contractors who hand over or take over maintenance work shall complete and sign the "Checklist for Handover and Takeover of Lift/Escalator Maintenance" (including maintenance manuals and drawings). Registered Contractors shall provide full support to the Responsible Persons in accordance with the checklist and the latest requirements of the Code during the process of handover/takeover. Registered Contractors should also keep a copy of the completed and signed checklist. In order to make the Registered Contractors strictly follow the relevant requirements, EMSD listed such requirements as a point-deduction item in the last review of the "Registered Lift and Escalator Contractors' Performance Rating System", which came into effect in February 2018.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11661

The Tenants Purchase Scheme flats

17. MR WILSON OR (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") launched the Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") in 1998 for the tenants of selected public rental housing ("PRH") estates to buy the flats in which they lived at a discounted price. Those tenants who purchased their flats within the first and second years of the offer of the TPS flats for sale, or those new tenants who purchased the TPS flats within the first and second years from commencement of their tenancies, may enjoy a full credit and a halved credit respectively. HA has not added any PRH estate to TPS after launching Phase 6B of TPS in August 2005. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of TPS flats in each of the existing 39 TPS estates which have been sold; whether it knows, among such flats, the respective numbers of those which are currently rented out and left vacant; if it has not compiled such statistics, whether it will do so;

(2) of the total number of TPS flats sold by HA in each of the past five years and, among such flats, the respective numbers of those which were sold at (i) full credit prices, (ii) halved credit prices and (iii) prices without credit; and

(3) of the current calculation methods for and other details of (i) full credit and (ii) halved credit?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President,

(1) At present, there are 39 Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") estates under the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA"). As at 31 March 2018, the number of flats sold in these estates was 138 550. For those TPS flats sold, HA does not have statistics on the number of flats that have been leased or vacated. We have no plan to conduct such survey.

(2) The number of TPS flats sold by HA at a price with "full special credit", "halved special credit" and "no special credit" in the past five years (2013-2014 to 2017-2018) are set out below:

11662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Number of flats Number of flats Number of flats Year sold with "full sold with "halved sold with "no special credit" special credit" special credit" 2013-2014 757 101 2 388 2014-2015 840 70 2 557 2015-2016 820 57 2 182 2016-2017 686 61 1 444 2017-2018 825 91 2 678

(3) Under TPS, a new tenant who purchases a TPS flat within the first two years from the commencement date of his/her tenancy agreement will enjoy a full or half "special credit". The "special credit" will be given in full in the first year and half in the second year. No "special credit" will be offered if the tenant purchases the flat from the third year onwards. The "special credit" is reviewed every two years, the prevailing full credit and half credit are at 35% and 17.5% of the List Price respectively.

Coping with typhoons and other natural disasters

18. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, last year, five typhoons of tropical cyclone warning signal No. 8 or above struck Hong Kong and, among them, two typhoons respectively called Hato and Pakhar inflicted particularly serious damages. Some scientists have pointed out that global climate change will lead to increasingly frequent occurrence of extreme weather conditions (including typhoons). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that during the passage of Hato through Hong Kong, seawater surged into coastal areas such as Heng Fa Chuen, Siu Sai Wan and Cheung Chau, causing flooding and serious damages, whether the Government will install more facilities for preventing flooding caused by storm surge at those coastal areas that are vulnerable to storm surge; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) of the areas where the stormwater collection systems currently have inadequate drainage capacity (set out by District Council district), and whether the Government has plans to carry out improvement works to the stormwater collection systems in those areas;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11663

(3) given that after the onslaught of Hato and Pakhar, large quantities of rubbish and other objects were found adrift in inshore waters at a number of locations across the territory and affected environmental hygiene, whether the Government will consider making it a standing arrangement to deploy workers to clean up the inshore waters and carry out disinfection after the onslaught of a typhoon; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether the Government currently stockpiles supplies and food in preparation for the needs during a natural disaster; if so, of the types of such stockpiled items and food, and for how many days the stockpiled quantities can meet the needs of Hong Kong residents; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) given that the Macao Government held a large-scale drill on typhoon response in April this year, whether the Government currently has any plan to conduct a similar drill; if so, of the details; if not, whether the Government will consider conducting a similar drill in view of the possibility of increasingly frequent occurrence of extreme weather conditions; and

(6) under what circumstances the Government will request the Central Government to direct the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison to assist in disaster relief and recovery efforts?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, Hong Kong's geographical position makes it susceptible to weather-related threats such as tropical cyclone ("TC"), rainstorm and storm surge. Such threats are expected to increase in frequency and severity as extreme weather becomes more likely while climate change goes drastic. The Government maintains a Contingency Plan for Natural Disasters ("CPND"), which sets out the Government's alert system and organizational framework for responding to natural disasters including TCs, as well as the functions and responsibilities of Government departments and other organizations. The weather warning system, emergency response and delineation of responsibilities as laid out in the CPND are generally effective. The response procedures are well defined, ensuring prompt activation of departmental actions. The weather forecast and warning systems are based on a scientific foundation and properly administered. Departments and auxiliary 11664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 services responsible for emergency rescue and relief have been professional and effective in discharging their duties. In consultation with the relevant departments, I reply to the various parts of the question as follows:

(1) As regards sea flooding in the coastal areas during TCs, various departments have measures in place. After the Severe Typhoon Hagupit in 2008, the Government has identified several locations vulnerable to sea flooding and established an early alert system with a view to alleviating the impact of sea flooding on the local residents. The Drainage Services Department ("DSD") has formulated action plans for these locations and carried out relevant works. The action plans mainly involve deployment of teams to handle flooding, provision of temporary pumping facilities and carrying out temporary flood-proofing measures. Meanwhile, the Government has carried out works of rock-armoured bund, concrete walls, gabion walls and water-stop boards in several locations to alleviate the impact of the land being directly inundated by sea water and enhance the protection to the public.

(2) The public stormwater drainage systems in Hong Kong are planned and designed in accordance with flood protection standards. DSD has completed a number of flood prevention projects in various areas over the territory in the past. With the commissioning of these drainage trunk systems, flooding situations in urban areas, New Territories North and Northwest, etc. have been significantly improved. To cope with the needs of future development in various districts and having regard to the impact of climate change, since 2008, DSD has initiated reviews of the efficacy of stormwater drainage systems in all districts, and planned and carried out relevant works as required. All these works have been planned, designed and constructed according to the said flood protection standards and taking into account the impact of climate change.

(3) Regarding the clearance of marine refuse, the Marine Department will mobilize its staff to strengthen patrols in regions likely to be affected as soon as possible once being notified under the notification and alert mechanism on marine refuse developed by the Environmental Protection Department, and deploy resources to clean up marine refuse where necessary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11665

(4) As for relief related to natural disasters, the Government has put in place the CPND which sets out that in case of major natural disasters or such disasters are assessed to be probable, where widespread damages will be done to Hong Kong, the Security Bureau will activate the Emergency Response System and the said CPND. The Social Welfare Department ("SWD") will provide food or cash and other relief items to victims in need at the disaster scenes or temporary shelters. In emergencies, SWD may also liaise with four hospitals under the Hospital Authority to provide meals to these victims. Besides, as rice is a staple food in Hong Kong, the Government has devised the Rice Control Scheme under the Reserved Commodities Ordinance to ensure a stable supply of rice and to keep a reserve stock sufficient for consumption by the population for a reasonable period of time to cater for emergencies or any short term shortage of supply.

(5) In respect of exercises, in fact, various emergency departments and agencies of Hong Kong will put in place typhoon contingency plans prior to typhoon seasons. They will also conduct response exercises for major incidents or natural disasters in Hong Kong from time to time. In these exercises, weather deterioration and typhoon attacks in Hong Kong will be simulated to test the departments' contingency plans, with a view to strengthening officers' responsiveness and coordination capabilities in response to major disasters for protecting the life and property of the citizens. Moreover, the Security Bureau convened its annual Inter-departmental Risk Assessment and Preparation Meeting in April this year. At that meeting, relevant departments and agencies reported on their pre-typhoon risk assessment and reduction work as well as their corresponding preparedness programmes, which include in-house drills and staff briefings, departmental contingency plan review, liaison with other departments and precautionary works programme against flooding. In May, the Security Bureau also held an inter-departmental table-top exercise in which various extreme weather conditions caused by TCs were simulated. The exercise aims to ensure that all the participating departments understand their own and each other's roles and responsibilities in order to enhance their preparedness and the communication and collaboration among them.

11666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(6) Under Article 14 of the Basic Law, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR Government") may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief. That said, the HKSAR Government is fully confident of its experience, deployment and capability. We are capable to effectively perform disaster relief and recovery work. We have put in place a CPND which sets out comprehensive emergency response arrangements in case of natural disasters. In terms of rescue, recovery and restoration of normal operation of society, all government departments and ancillary units have accumulated considerable experience, and as demonstrated in various disastrous incidents, they have the ability to respond to the damages caused by major natural disasters in a professional, timely and effective manner. Looking ahead, all departments will keep enhancing their equipment and training for major natural disasters and from time to time, review their disaster relief strategies and arrangements. The HKSAR Government is confident and capable of performing disaster relief work in the future.

Unlicensed medical practice

19. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in the year before last, four persons of South Korean nationality who claimed that they were medical staff and two Hong Kong women suspected of acting as intermediaries allegedly used a hotel in Hong Kong as a medical clinic, solicited patronage through online advertisements and conducted, for customers in the hotel, medical examinations prior to plastic surgery. Those four persons of South Korean nationality were subsequently prosecuted for, among other offences, practising without registration as medical practitioners (commonly known as "unlicensed medical practice"). Regarding the issue of foreign nationals engaging in unlicensed medical practice in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of cases involving foreign nationals engaging in unlicensed medical practice in Hong Kong received by the authorities in the past three years, together with a breakdown by nationality; among them, of the respective numbers of those who were prosecuted and convicted; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11667

(2) whether intermediaries were involved in the cases mentioned in (1); if so, of the details;

(3) whether it received in the past three years reports of medical incidents involving foreign nationals engaging in unlicensed medical practice in Hong Kong; if so, of the details; of the channels through which members of the public may pursue so as to hold the other party responsible; which policy bureau or government department is dedicated to the handling of the relevant complaints lodged by members of the public;

(4) of the measures put in place to alert members of the public that they should, before receiving medical services relating to plastic surgery, verify whether the persons providing such services for them are medical practitioners registered under the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 161);

(5) given that talks held by intermediaries are available in the market from time to time to induce members of the public in Hong Kong to join cross-boundary/cross-nation plastic surgery packages, whether the authorities have compiled statistics on the current number of intermediaries engaging in such business in Hong Kong; whether the authorities will study the enactment of legislation to regulate plastic surgery intermediaries with a view to enhancing the protection for members of the public; and

(6) as the Code of Professional Conduct for the Guidance of Registered Medical Practitioners stipulates that practice promotion by medical practitioners is not permitted, whether overseas medical practitioners coming to Hong Kong to provide consultation service for patients is subject to similar restriction and regulation; if so, of the details; if not, whether the authorities have studied amending the legislation to plug the loopholes?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the questions raised by Mr Paul TSE is as follows:

11668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(1) to (3)

The Department of Health ("DH") refers complaints of suspected illegal practice of medicine to the Police and provides professional support if needed. In 2015-2017, DH referred 67 cases of suspected illegal practice of medicine to the Police.

As the progress of cases involved varies, the Government does not maintain statistics on number of cases of illegal practice of medicine involving foreign nationals, number prosecuted and convicted, and number involving intermediary agent.

Members of public should report suspected illegal practice of medicine to the Police. DH will provide professional support to the Police if needed.

(4) DH has been providing information to the public on the possible risks and complications associated with certain cosmetic procedures through various media, including television, radio, newspapers and websites. Besides, DH has produced pamphlets and booklets on common beauty procedures advising the public that certain beauty procedures should only be performed by locally registered medical practitioners (e.g. procedures related to injection). A list of registered medical practitioners can be found at the website of the Medical Council of Hong Kong . Further information is available at the DH website .

(5) The Food and Health Bureau and DH do not have the statistics on number of intermediaries engaging in business involving cross-boundary/cross-nation plastic surgery packages. The reply to part (4) of the question above has set out the current measures of the Government on increasing public awareness on possible risks associated with cosmetic procedures.

(6) The Medical Council of Hong Kong issued the "Code of Professional Conduct" to provide guidance on professional conduct for registered doctors in Hong Kong. The Code is not applicable to any person not registered in Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11669

Moreover, according to section 28 of the Medical Registration Ordinance ("MRO"), subject to the provision of section 28(3) of MRO, if any person who is not being registered or provisionally registered or exempted from registration practises medicine or surgery, or does any medical diagnosis, prescribes any medical treatment or performs any medical treatment (including surgery) in relation to a person which results in personal injury to that person, he commits an offence and is liable to fine and imprisonment. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years.

Improvement of Hongkong Post's modus operandi in order to increase its revenue

20. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Post Office Trading Fund ("POTF") was established in August 1995 to manage and account for the operation of the Hongkong Post ("HKP"). On the other hand, the Director of Audit's Report No. 65 published in October 2015 pointed out that for the 20-year period from 1995-1996 to 2014-2015, HKP had recorded operating losses in eight years and had not achieved the target rates of return in 14 years. There are views that HKP should, apart from improving its operation by implementing measures to generate revenue and manage costs, also draw reference from overseas successful experience and revamp the modus operandi of postal services in order to increase revenue. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of POTF's target rate of return and actual rate of return, as well as HKP's operating cost and trading receipt, in each of the past five years;

(2) of the specific measures taken by HKP in the past five years to reduce its operating costs, and boost the percentage of revenue from sources other than traditional postal services, in its total revenue; the effectiveness of such measures, including the resultant increase in HKP's overall revenue;

11670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

(3) apart from rationalizing the post office network and closing down those post offices which have been operating at a loss, whether HKP has studied ways to further diversify, through collaboration with various types of organizations, including non-profit-making organizations and commercial establishments, the services provided by various post offices so as to enhance HKP's operational efficiency and increase its revenue; and

(4) whether it has plans to comprehensively review the current arrangement under which HKP operates under the trading fund mode, and to re-engineer HKP upon drawing reference from the experience of overseas governments in revamping their postal departments, so as to bring the operation of HKP closer to a business model; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, a consolidated reply to the questions raised is set out below.

The Post Office Trading Fund ("POTF") started operation in August 1995. The operating revenues and expenditures and the rates of return(1) of the POTF from 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 are as follows:

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018(2) Operating $5,249 million $5,344 million $4,878 million $4,881 million $5,016 million revenue Operating $5,252 million $5,175 million $4,663 million $4,728 million $5,171 million expenditure Actual rate -0.5% 4.9% 6.5% 4.7% -4.0% of return Target rate 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 2.6% of return

Note:

(2) Pending audit review.

(1) The rate of return on fixed assets = total comprehensive income (excluding interest income, interest expenses and net realised and revaluation gains or losses on derivative financial instruments and structured notes) divided by average net fixed assets. Fixed assets include properties, plants and equipment and intangible assets. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11671

Hongkong Post ("HKP") has been making sustained efforts to contain its operating costs and increase revenue.

Initiatives to contain operating costs include revising the procurement terms for major expenditure items such as airfreight services and vehicle hiring services to better encourage market competition; formulating bilateral agreements with other postal administrations to reduce expenditures on terminal due(3); and business process re-engineering, automation and mechanization such as implementing the Integrated Postal Services System and the Mail Flow Management and Tracking System to streamline mail processing procedures, improve operational efficiency and enhance user experience.

On revenue generation, HKP has been developing new services with a wider range of service features to capture the varied needs of e-commerce, including introduction of the e-Express Service and expansion of the service network to provide an economical and speedy delivery solution with priority delivery at the destination and basic mail tracking functions; and introduction of Express Lanes in collaboration with individual postal administrations based on a work-sharing model. For the new services developed to capture e-commerce, the revenue generated for 2017-2018 is estimated to be about $700 million, constituting about 14% of HKP's total revenue for that year. The revenue generated to a certain extent helps mitigate the drop in revenue caused by e-substitution of traditional mail items. HKP also engages with the Airport Authority Hong Kong and other postal authorities to explore collaboration with a view to maximizing the use of the Air Mail Centre's transit handling capability to foster cross-border logistics and trading activities.

In addition, HKP has been collaborating with various organizations to offer a more diverse range of services, including collaborating with the Airport Authority Hong Kong to provide free delivery service for purchases reaching specified amounts at the Hong Kong International Airport to designated destinations(4); collaborating with GS1 Hong Kong ("GS1 HK") to launch the "Hong Kong Trusted Product" programme on HKP's ShopThruPost e-market place, so that small and medium enterprises can offer products authenticated by

(3) The fee charged by the destination postal administration from the originating postal administration for handling the mail.

(4) Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, Mainland China, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, United States and Vietnam. 11672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

GS1 HK and delivered by HKP to achieve "Double Trust in e-Commerce" to customers all over the world; and collaborating with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council ("HKTDC") to provide international courier service via HKTDC's "Small Order Zone" platform to support local merchants to reach out to the global market.

We have no plan at this stage to change the mode of operation of the HKP as a trading fund. This arrangement allows HKP to manage its resources in a more flexible manner to better achieve cost-effectiveness, and to formulate appropriate business strategies in response to changes in the operating environment so as to provide customers with quality, reliable and value-for-money services. HKP will continue to explore and implement measures to contain expenditure, increase revenue and improve productivity to improve the financial performance of POTF.

Regulation of home-stay lodgings and short-term accommodation

21. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, in recent years, home-stay lodgings and short-term rental sleeping accommodation provided through the use of idle resources (collectively known as "short-term accommodation") have been in the ascendant around the world. Such type of accommodation offers a travel experience different from that offered by hotels and helps drive the local economy. Some members of the tourism sector have pointed out that many cities around the globe (e.g. Paris, London, Tokyo and Singapore) have formulated policies and regimes to regulate short-term accommodation. However, Hong Kong plans to amend the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance ("HAGAO") (Cap. 349) to step up efforts to combat unlicensed guesthouses and throttle the room for survival of short-term accommodation. Such members have also pointed out that the demand for short-term accommodation from in-bound visitors has continued to increase in recent years, and they therefore have proposed that the Government should introduce a licensing regime to legalize the operation of short-term accommodation. They have proposed that the following should be prescribed under the licensing regime: (i) the upper limits on the number of letting days and the number of licences, (ii) the types of premises which may be used for short-term accommodation, and (iii) the respective conditions applicable to short-term accommodation for guests staying, and that for guests not staying, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11673 with hosts (such as the requirement that there must be a trained property manager to oversee the premises). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the authorities explored, when conducting studies for amending HAGAO, the introduction of a licensing regime for short-term accommodation and made reference to the relevant experience and policies in other places; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will consider formulating a licensing regime to regulate short-term accommodation in accordance with the aforesaid proposals, and implement the regime by expanding the proposed scope of the amendments to HAGAO, so as to facilitate the development of sharing economy; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office will commission a consultancy study on the impacts and potentials of sharing economy and short-term accommodation on the economy, consult the relevant stakeholders and put forth a comprehensive proposal on a licensing regime for short-term accommodation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, operation of hotels and guesthouses in Hong Kong is regulated by the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (Cap. 349) ("HAGAO"). The purpose of HAGAO is to ensure that premises intended to be used as hotels/guesthouses comply with the statutory standards in respect of building and fire safety in order to safeguard lodgers and members of the public. According to HAGAO, "hotel" and "guesthouse" mean any premises whose occupier, proprietor or tenant holds out that, to the extent of his available accommodation, he will provide sleeping accommodation at a fee for any person presenting himself at the premises. Any premises providing short-term sleeping accommodation at a fee, including home-stay lodgings or short-term rental sleeping accommodation provided through the use of idle resources as mentioned in the question, if the mode of operation falls within the definition of "hotel" and "guesthouse" under HAGAO, a hotel or a guesthouse licence must be obtained before lawful operation. However, premises in which all accommodation is provided for a period of 28 11674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 continuous days or more for each letting are excluded from the application of HAGAO, as stipulated in the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Exclusion) Order (Cap. 349C). The Office of the Licensing Authority ("OLA") under the Home Affairs Department is responsible for administering HAGAO, including issuing licences and performing enforcement duties.

My reply to Mr Charles MOK's question is as follows:

(1) The main purposes of the Government's plan to amend HAGAO are to improve the licensing regime, minimize nuisance caused by licensed hotels and guesthouses to nearby residents, facilitate enforcement actions against unlicensed hotels and guesthouses, and increase deterrent effect against operation of unlicensed hotels and guesthouses. This was in response to public concerns over the safety problems posed by operation of guesthouses inside multi-storey buildings, in particular having regard to a serious fire outbreak at a multi-storey building in 2013, causing death and injury of tourists accommodating in guesthouses operating at the building concerned.

Currently, HAGAO does not preclude licence applications for home-stay lodgings or other forms of short-term rental sleeping accommodation. Any premises may apply for a licence for lawful operation provided that they comply with the fire and building safety requirements. As the current HAGAO has already included regulation for short-term rental sleeping accommodation as mentioned in the question, we consider it unnecessary to introduce another licensing regime to regulate the relevant premises.

The proposed amendments to HAGAO have already been discussed for years. Further to the consultation exercise conducted in 2014, the Panel on Home Affairs, the trade, relevant stakeholders and the public generally support relevant legislative proposals. We hope to implement the proposed amendments to HAGAO as soon as possible to address public concerns.

(2) As mentioned above, the current HAGAO does not preclude licence applications for home-stay lodgings or other forms of short-term rental sleeping accommodation. In fact, OLA has all along been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11675

issuing guesthouse (holiday flat) licences to village-type houses in the New Territories operating in the mode of home-stay lodging with reference to "A Guide to Licence Application for Holiday Flat" ("the Guide"). Having considered the general scale and design of holiday flats, the fire and building safety requirements set out in the Guide are generally more relaxed than those for guesthouses (general). OLA will continue to adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach as usual in processing relevant licence applications.

We have noted that regulation of hotels and guesthouses, home-stay lodging or other forms of short-term rental sleeping accommodation varies in different jurisdictions depending on the overall environment and living conditions, without any uniform standard. Therefore, if other proposals are to be further considered, we have to take full account of the views from different stakeholders and the actual circumstances, such as the proliferation of densely populated multi-storey buildings in Hong Kong, to ensure that the regulation of hotel and guesthouse accommodation suits the needs of Hong Kong.

(3) According to information provided by the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination Office ("PICO"), since its establishment on 1 April this year, PICO has been meeting relevant government departments and stakeholders to gather their views on issues relating to sharing economy. Insofar as home-stay lodgings or other forms of short-term rental sleeping accommodation are concerned, PICO is conducting research on the regulatory regimes adopted by various cities with a view to examining their implications under different social environments and providing evidenced-based input for consideration by the Policy Bureaux concerned.

Arrangements for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between Hong Kong and Taiwan

22. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in March this year, the Taiwan Police found, after investigation, that a Hong Kong woman was killed in Taiwan and her corpse was dumped there. The Taiwan Police suspect that a Hong Kong man who went to Taiwan with the woman and subsequently returned to Hong Kong alone is the murderer. However, in the 11676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 absence of an arrangement for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters or surrender of fugitive offenders ("SFO") between Hong Kong and Taiwan, there is no formal channel for exchange of intelligence and documents and for SFO between the two places, which has made it difficult for the law enforcement agencies of the two places to track down the suspect's criminal liability along the line of murder. To ensure that offenders cannot elude justice, and to demonstrate to the public the Government's determination and capability in upholding the rule of law, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will facilitate a prompt discussion between the law enforcement agencies of Hong Kong and Taiwan about the exchange of intelligence and documents relating to the aforesaid case;

(2) whether it has studied if special arrangements may be made to surrender the aforesaid suspect to the law enforcement agency of Taiwan, and assist it in gathering evidence for the case and instituting prosecution; and

(3) whether it will explore entering into a reciprocal judicial assistance agreement with the Taiwan authorities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, a consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

According to Article 95 of the Basic Law, "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, through consultations and in accordance with law, maintain juridical relations with the judicial organs of other parts of the country, and they may render assistance to each other". According to Article 96 of the Basic Law, "[w]ith the assistance or authorization of the Central People's Government, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may make appropriate arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal juridical assistance". Since Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government has been actively taking forward cooperation with other jurisdictions on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters ("MLA") and surrender of fugitive offenders ("SFO") in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11677 accordance with the Basic Law, with a view to combating crimes and upholding justice. At present, Hong Kong has signed MLA agreements with 32 jurisdictions(1) and SFO agreements with 20 jurisdictions.(2) The HKSAR Government will continue its proactive work on this front.

It is stipulated in section 2(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap. 525 of the Laws of Hong Kong) that MLA arrangements are applicable to "the Government and the government of a place outside Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong and a place outside Hong Kong" other than "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China" or "any other part of the People's Republic of China". It is also stated in section 2(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503 of the Laws of Hong Kong) that SFO arrangements are applicable to "the Government and the government of a place outside Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong and a place outside Hong Kong" other than "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China" or "any other part of the People's Republic of China". At present, Hong Kong does not have MLA or SFO arrangements with Taiwan. Prior to the implementation of a new MLA or SFO arrangement between Hong Kong and any jurisdiction ("prescribed arrangement"), both parties have to go through the processes of negotiation and signing of the relevant agreement or arrangement as well as completing the respective procedures required for entry into force of the relevant agreement or arrangement before the prescribed arrangement can take legal effect.

Apart from MLA and SFO arrangements, the Hong Kong Police and other law enforcement agencies liaise and cooperate with their counterparts of other places from time to time to exchange intelligence for combating crimes. Besides, under Part VIII of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8 of the Laws of Hong Kong), Hong Kong may, via letters of request issued by the Court, seek assistance on criminal matters from courts of other places; similarly, if other places need

(1) Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Ukraine.

(2) Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom and the United States. 11678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 assistance on criminal matters from Hong Kong, they may make relevant applications to the Hong Kong Court. Parties concerned are required to strictly comply with their respective laws and requirements in the liaison and cooperation.

The HKSAR Government is very concerned about and attaches great importance to the case of the victim Poon Hiu-wing. The Hong Kong Police arrested the suspect on 13 March 2018. The case was brought before the Kwun Tong Magistrates' Courts on 15 March, and the suspect was detained under the court order on the same day. Hearings were held on 12 April and 10 May. At the hearing in May, the prosecution indicated that the investigation would continue for potential new charges and advice from the Department of Justice ("DoJ") would be sought. The case has been adjourned to 5 July for further hearing, and the suspect is remanded in the custody of the Correctional Services Department during the period.

The HKSAR Government is now continuing to handle the case proactively. Police investigation is in full swing under their purview according to laws of Hong Kong and in light of the actual circumstances of evidence collection. Three police officers were sent to Taiwan on 21 March 2018 to follow up the case. The body of the deceased, after returning to Hong Kong, was examined by a forensic pathologist on 4 April. The Police are now striving to collect all evidence that may be useful and will not skip any small clue. Also, as the case involves two jurisdictions, DoJ is contemplating how the case should be handled and followed up under the existing legal framework. As legal proceedings of the case are underway, relevant investigation details and evidence cannot be disclosed in order not to affect the conduct of such proceedings. Meanwhile, the Police have been providing assistance and support to the family members of the victim Poon Hiu-wing.

The HKSAR Government fully understands the community's concern about the case. The Police and DoJ will definitely spare no effort to obtain a thorough and clear understanding of the incidents happened, crimes involved and evidence collected in the two jurisdictions, with a view to handling the case in the most appropriate manner.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11679

GOVERNMENT BILLS

First Reading and Second Reading of Government Bill

First Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: First Reading.

(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Please allow me to speak in Putonghua.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Putonghua): President, I now move under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") a motion that the Council do now adjourn, and the wording is as follows: "That the Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the works quality and safety risks of the Shatin to Central Link."

President, I think this incident, in the view of the public …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please stop speaking.

As Mr AU Nok-hin moved a motion for adjournment under RoP 16(2), I now suspend the meeting to consider the motion moved by Mr AU.

1:50 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:05 pm

Council then resumed.

11680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin moved a motion for adjournment under RoP 16(2). Mr AU Nok-hin, do you have anything to add?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, have you made your ruling?

(Some Members suggested in their seats that Mr AU Nok-hin should speak in Putonghua)

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Putonghua): Sure, no problem. I will now speak in Putonghua.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, please wait for a moment. I need to first get back my script. I handed my script to the Secretariat staff earlier and I must get it back before I can state the justifications for moving the motion.

(Mr AU Nok-hin talked to other Members loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please respect the Council.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I have great respect for the Council. I handed over my script during my previous discussion with you. I must get it back before I can state the justifications. President, can you now please let me state the justifications for moving the motion?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You can only briefly state the justifications for moving the motion.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I see. A moment ago, Mrs Regina IP asked me to keep on speaking in Putonghua. I will then …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please do not make things difficult for interpreters.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11681

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Just now, I also wondered why they understood my words. So, I will first speak in Cantonese. Is that okay?

I consider this incident urgent because, as currently revealed by a works supervisor, it is suspected that some steel bars have been cut short and there are problems with the works. To me, this incident is serious. If it is not dealt with properly and the works continue to proceed, I am afraid that the structure of the Shatin to Central Link will be greatly affected in the future, causing massive casualties …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): That is fine. Mr AU Nok-hin, you have briefly stated the justifications. Please stop speaking.

I understand that Members have grave concern over the works quality and safety risks of the Shatin to Central Link. Regarding Mr AU Nok-hin's request that this issue be debated by the Council immediately, I hold that this issue, though of grave public concern, is not urgent within the meaning of RoP 16(2) because even if it is not debated at this meeting, Members will not lose the opportunity to express their views on it. Therefore, I do not approve the request of Mr AU Nok-hin.

(Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Just now, the President suspended the meeting immediately after I had read out the wording of the adjournment motion. President, did you listen clearly to the content of my motion?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Although I am not good in Putonghua, I could understand your speech. During the suspension of the meeting, I studied all your justifications for moving the motion before making the ruling. Please sit down.

(Ms Claudia MO indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

11682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to ask you for a clear explanation. Are you saying that the issue is important but non-urgent? How can an issue concerning the safety of on-site workers be non-urgent?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made my ruling. Members should not query the ruling of the President.

Government Bill: First Reading.

UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018

CLERK (in Cantonese): United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018.

Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Second Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Second Reading.

UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President and Honourable Members, I move the Second Reading of the United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill").

The Bill seeks to amend the United Nations Sanctions Ordinance (Cap. 537) ("the Ordinance") to enable regulations made under the Ordinance to impose sanctions directly against persons (including groups, undertakings and entities) whom the Security Council of the United Nations ("UNSC") decides to sanction.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11683

It is the obligation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") to implement sanctions decided by UNSC under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, on the instruction of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. Throughout the years, the Government of HKSAR has made regulations to give effect to the instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China to implement sanctions imposed by UNSC against places outside China.

In light of the threats posed by the development of terrorism to international peace and safety, UNSC has also imposed sanctions against terrorist groups. Hence, the subjects of UNSC's sanction are no longer confined to particular "places" but extended to terrorist groups that are not based in particular "places".

UNSC adopted Resolution 2368 in July 2017 to impose the three sanctions of asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant ("ISIL"), Al-Qaida, and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has instructed the Government of HKSAR to implement the relevant sanction measures.

The above three sanction measures were commonly imposed by UNSC against "places" in the past. However, given that the Ordinance in HKSAR only provides for the implementation of sanctions against "places", UNSC's sanction measures against ISIL and Al-Qaida cannot be implemented by regulations made under the Ordinance.

The Bill introduced to the Legislative Council today by the Government precisely aims to amending the Ordinance, so as to enable the making of regulations under it to implement direct sanctions against persons (including groups, undertakings and entities), in addition to "places", as decided by UNSC.

Subject to the passage of the Bill, we will make a regulation under the Ordinance to implement the sanction measures against ISIL, Al-Qaida, and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as decided by UNSC.

President, the Bill will facilitate Hong Kong to comprehensively fulfil its international obligation. As regards the legislative proposal, we have consulted the Panel on Commerce and Industry of the Legislative Council earlier and 11684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 secured its support. I thus implore Honourable Members to support and pass the Bill as soon as possible.

President, I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018 be read the Second time.

(Mr Gary FAN stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point?

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. I move a motion without notice under Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") that the Second Reading debate of the United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018 shall not be adjourned and referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN requested to move a motion without notice under RoP 54(4) that the United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018 shall not be referred to the House Committee under RoP 54(4).

According to the provision, a Member can only move this motion with the consent of the President of the Legislative Council. Therefore, Mr Gary FAN, you can now only concisely state your reason for moving this motion but cannot move the motion directly. Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, how much time do I have?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A minute or two.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11685

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I have somehow prepared for giving a speech, but I will try my best to be concise.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, My point of order is very simple. Although the House Committee has provided that a Member shall not speak for more than half a minute, on what basis or according to which provision in RoP did you decide that a Member may speak only for a minute or two?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Member concerned can only state concisely the justifications for moving this motion but he cannot move the motion directly. The Member should be as concise as practicable in presenting his justifications, and should not speak at length. Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I am not going to speak at length …

(Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, please define what do you mean by "concise". I think you are too casual in restricting that a Member can speak only for a minute or two.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU, this is not a point of order. Please sit down. Mr Gary FAN, do you wish to illustrate briefly your reason for moving this motion?

11686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I support the United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") to proceed directly to the Second Reading. I will speak concisely, hoping that the President can grasp my justifications. Otherwise, please give me some time to explain my justifications to you on other occasions outside the Council meeting. Having considered the Bill's significance, urgency, scope of impact, targeted and non-controversial areas as well as its impacts on Hong Kong's international status, I move under RoP that the Council proceeds directly to the Second Reading debate of the Bill. Also, this motion will not set a precedent to affect the future arrangement of the Legislative Council for processing the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please sit down. To my understanding, the Bill seeks to enable regulations made under the United Nations Sanctions Ordinance to impose sanctions directly against persons whom the Security Council of the United Nations decides to sanction.

I consider that the Bill is not urgent, and so far there is no information to convince me that this Council should depart from the established practice of referring the Bill to the House Committee for considering whether a Bills Committee should be formed for detailed deliberation. Hence, I do not consent to Mr Gary FAN's moving of this motion.

(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Will the President please read RoP 36(5) carefully, which provides that subject to RoP 37, a Member shall not, without the permission of the President or the Chairman, to be given only in exceptional circumstances, make a speech lasting more than 15 minutes. President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU, this is not a point of order. At this stage, the Member can only briefly explain his reasons for moving the motion concerned and cannot speak on the motion. Please sit down. This is not the speaking time for Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11687

In accordance with RoP, the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill is adjourned.

(Mr Gary FAN stood up and spoke)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, if you consider that I fail to grasp your points, you may discuss with me on other occasions.

In accordance with RoP, the debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill.

GUANGZHOU-SHENZHEN-HONG KONG EXPRESS RAIL LINK (CO-LOCATION) BILL

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 31 January 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, will first address the Council on the Bills Committee's Report. Mrs Regina IP, please speak.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee"), I would like to report on the deliberations of the Bills Committee.

The Bills Committee notes that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") made an announcement on the proposed "Three-step Process" to put in place the co-location arrangement on 25 July 2017. The "Three-step Process" is summarized as follows: step one: the Mainland and 11688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

HKSAR are to reach a cooperation arrangement; step two: the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") makes a decision approving and endorsing the cooperation arrangement; and step three: both sides implement the arrangement pursuant to their respective laws. Subsequently, on 15 November 2017, the Legislative Council passed a non-binding motion moved by the HKSAR Government in support of the Government in taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement pursuant to the "Three-step Process".

Thereafter, the HKSAR Government formally commenced the "Three-step Process" by signing with the Mainland the "Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement" ("Co-operation Arrangement") on 18 November 2017. NPCSC subsequently approved the Co-operation Arrangement through the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement" ("Decision") on 27 December 2017, completing the second step of the "Three-step Process".

As the final step of the "Three-step Process", the HKSAR Government published the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") in the Gazette on 26 January 2018 to commence the local legislative process pursuant to the aforesaid Decision and the Co-operation Arrangement. The Bill received its First Reading on 31 January 2018 at the Legislative Council.

The Bill seeks to (1) declare an area as the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") Mainland Port Area ("MPA"); (2) provide that a train compartment of a passenger train in operation on the Hong Kong Section ("HKS") of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") is to be regarded as part of MPA of WKS; (3) provide that MPA of WKS is to be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland for certain purposes; and (4) make supplementary provisions for certain rights and obligations and related matters and for the interpretation of certain documents in relation to rights and obligations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11689

The Bills Committee held the first meeting on 12 February 2018 and the last one on 7 May. During this period a total of 17 meetings that lasted 45 hours were held, and two whole-day public hearings that lasted a total of 19 hours were held. I sincerely thank various members for their vigorous support and participation. This Bills Committee has been one with the largest membership in the history of this Council. Divergent views persist amongst members on the Bill. Some members of the Bills Committee support the Bill while some members strongly oppose it. Members who have expressed their support consider that the Bill is necessary for the implementation of the proposed co-location arrangement at WKS, for it is vital to the timely commissioning of HKS of XRL in September 2018. These members concur with the Administration that the Decision has provided a sound legal basis for implementing the co-location arrangement at WKS.

Some other members, however, are deeply concerned about the constitutional and legal basis of the Bill and consider that the Bill would contravene various articles of the Basic Law, including Articles 4, 11, 18, 19 and 22(3).

Members who oppose the Bill hold the view that Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that national laws shall not be applied in HKSAR except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. They consider that Article 18 of the Basic Law prohibits the application of Mainland laws in HKSAR, and implementing the co-location arrangement at WKS would set a bad precedent for a national law to be implemented in Hong Kong without having to include it in Annex III to the Basic Law.

However, the Administration considers that the intent of Article 18 of the Basic Law is to restrict the general application of national laws to all persons within HKSAR, in order not to undermine the high degree of autonomy and the legal system of HKSAR. The Administration considers that the intent of Article 18 of the Basic Law is to prevent the application of Mainland laws in the entire HKSAR; the imposition of Mainland laws on all persons in Hong Kong; and the enforcement of Mainland laws by Hong Kong authorities in the entire HKSAR.

The Administration has explained that for the following reasons, the establishment of MPA and the application of Mainland laws there in accordance with the Co-operation Arrangement would not give rise to the situations as mentioned above. First, it is proposed under the Bill that MPA would be 11690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 established for a specific purpose to meet a real policy need, namely conducting Mainland clearance procedures on high-speed rail passengers, pursuant to the Co-operation Arrangement and does not extend to the entire HKSAR. Second, Mainland laws would be mainly applicable to high-speed rail passengers in MPA but not all persons in Hong Kong. Third, Mainland laws would be enforced by Mainland authorities in MPA but not Hong Kong authorities. Fourth, the entire arrangement would not undermine the immigration system of Hong Kong. Fifth, citizens can make their own choice as to whether to use the high-speed rail and enter MPA. The Administration submits that the arrangement does not compel the application of Mainland laws on any person. The HKSAR Government therefore considers that Article 18 of the Basic Law is not engaged in the Bill.

In addition, members who oppose the Bill also indicate that as Article 19(2) of the Basic Law stipulates that the courts of HKSAR shall have jurisdiction over all cases in HKSAR, some members are gravely concerned about whether the Bill would contravene Article 19(2) of the Basic Law. The reason is that the Bill, if passed, would have the effect of restricting the jurisdiction of the courts of HKSAR. The Administration takes the view that even though the Bill would have the effect of restricting the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts, such restriction would satisfy the proportionality test adopted by the courts in assessing whether a restriction on a right is reasonable. If the court considers that a particular article of the Basic Law provides for conferring powers and rights or guaranteeing freedoms, and allows the executive authorities or the legislature to restrict such powers, rights and freedoms, it would apply the four-step proportionality test to determine whether the restriction concerned is constitutional. The Administration considers it reasonably arguable that the Bill would satisfy the said proportionality test.

Article 80 of the Basic Law states that the courts of HKSAR at all levels shall be the judiciary of HKSAR, exercising the judicial power of HKSAR. A few members raise concern that the establishment of MPA, where the laws of the Mainland would be applied except for reserved matters, might contravene Article 80 of the Basic Law. The Administration responds that none of the provisions of the Bill seeks to affect the role of the courts at all levels of HKSAR as the judiciary of HKSAR. The Administration explains that clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill merely serves to delineate the Mainland's jurisdiction over MPA, but not the role of the courts at all levels of HKSAR as the judiciary of HKSAR or their power to adjudicate cases.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11691

The Bills Committee has discussed legal and drafting issues concerning the Bill. A number of members have commented that certain words in the Long Title of the Bill are not specific enough and may lead to difficulty in comprehension, and called on the Administration to include more details in the Preamble to explain the background of the Bill. The Administration has also responded that under Rule 50(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, every bill must have a long title setting out the purposes of the bill in general terms. In addition, according to paragraph 2.1.7 of "Drafting Legislation in Hong Kong―A Guide to Styles and Practices" compiled by the Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice, the long title puts the reader on notice as to the purpose or subject of the legislation. The Administration has stressed that it has struck an appropriate balance among different considerations, so as to ensure that Rule 50(3) of the Rules of Procedure is complied with.

The Bills Committee has noted that clause 6(1) of the Bill proposes that, except for reserved matters, MPA is to be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland for the purposes of (a) the application of the laws of the Mainland, and of the laws of Hong Kong, in MPA; and (b) the delineation of jurisdiction (including jurisdiction of the courts) over MPA. The legal effect is that the laws of the Mainland would apply to non-reserved matters in MPA over which the Mainland would exercise jurisdiction (including jurisdiction of the courts) under Article 4 of the Co-operation Arrangement set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Some members and the Legal Advisers have enquired why the Administration has adopted the drafting approach of incorporating the texts of Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement into the Bill by way of the proposed Schedule 1, as opposed to re-writing the texts of Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement as substantive provisions of the Bill in order to conform to the normal usage of words and terms prevalent in domestic legislation for the purpose of providing for the meanings of "reserved matter" and "non-reserved matter" under the Bill.

In response to the aforesaid members' enquiry, the Administration has indicated that there are different approaches to drafting local legislation to implement international agreements. One approach is to incorporate the text of an international agreement into the implementing legislation by setting it out in the legislation, usually in a Schedule. Another approach is to transform the text of an international agreement by legislative re-writing. In the course of drafting the Bill, the Administration has taken into account the fact that the Co-operation 11692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Arrangement is an agreement entered into by Hong Kong and the Mainland. The Administration has held that it is appropriate to define "reserved matter" and "non-reserved matter" appearing in clause 3 of the Bill by reference to Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement, which are set out in Schedule 1. In particular, Articles 3 and 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement clearly set out the specific matters to which the laws of Hong Kong apply, and over which Hong Kong exercises jurisdiction. For this reason, the Administration is of the view that the aforesaid way of defining "reserved matter" and "non-reserved matter" is the most appropriate way to implement the Co-operation Arrangement and to accurately reflect the delineation of applicable laws and of jurisdictions in respect of MPA between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

The Bills Committee has studied the area of MPA and the relevant plans as well as the definition of train compartments and related issues, including the location and role of each escalator, and the definition of a passenger train in operation. In addition, it has also studied emergency rescue arrangement, preventive measures against the outbreak of communicable diseases, telecommunication services in the train compartments, as well as security measures and administration of WKS.

The Bills Committee has noted that clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill are supplementary provisions. Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill preserves the rights and obligations arising from acts or omissions before the commencement date in the designated area, and clause 8 of the Bill deals with future documents, namely documents made on or after the commencement date. It does not apply to an enactment, a statutory authority or a court order. The Administration explains that clause 8 of the Bill has the intended purpose of providing an interpretation aid for documents of private nature. If such documents contain a reference to Hong Kong or part of Hong Kong to describe the geographical scope for a right or obligation in relation to a non-reserved matter, MPA is, in interpreting the reference, to be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland. This is a default interpretation subject to a contrary intention. It is stressed that clause 8 of the Bill respects the rights of the private parties to decide among themselves the geographical scope for their rights and obligations arising from contract and the like.

A member of the Bills Committee has queried the Administration as to whether Cap. 556 or Cap. 556B has to be amended in response to the adoption of real-name ticket purchase for HKS of XRL. In addition, some members have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11693 requested the Administration to disclose information relating to the Supplemental Service Concession Agreement to be signed between the Administration and the MTR Corporation Limited, together with the financial estimates and economic benefits of HKS of XRL. The Administration is of the view that the above requested information is not strictly related to the Bill, and may not be relevant to the scope of discussion of the Bills Committee. That said, the Administration has provided its responses vide LC Paper Nos. CB(4)865/17-18(01) and CB(4)1038/17-18(06) to facilitate future discussions on appropriate platforms on the subject matters as necessary.

The Bills Committee will not propose any amendments to the Bill.

President, the following are my personal views. In the almost three-month process of scrutinizing the Bill, the most contentious issues are undoubtedly not those relating to the operation of HKS of XRL, but rather constitutional and legal issues. Some members consider that the co-location arrangement infringes various Basic Law articles, which I have referred to in my speech just now. In addition, some members also told the media before the first meeting of the Bills Committee that they would make every effort to obstruct the passage of the Bill. At the last meeting of the Bills Committee on 7 May, some members refused to cast their votes and displayed banners accusing the Bill of facilitating "cession-based co-location arrangement" and "unconstitutional co-location arrangement", on which I would like to express my personal views.

First, I think the saying on "cession-based co-location arrangement" is untenable, for the Basic Law provides at the outset in Article 1 that HKSAR is an inalienable part of China, and Article 7 provides that the land and natural resources within HKSAR shall be State property. The saying on cession of land allegedly describes Hong Kong as an independent kingdom. Not only is such a description unconstitutional, but also contradicts the facts. I think the arguments allegedly mislead the public.

I likewise have considerable reservations about the saying on the "unconstitutional co-location arrangement". I understand that Members who accuse the Bill of being unconstitutional are legal professionals having received training in common law, and they are perplexed as the Basic Law fails to explicitly authorize HKSAR to implement the co-location arrangement at WKS of XRL. President, I am not a legal professional, but I have read quite a number 11694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 of legal documents. My point is that, as far as I understand, the paramount law in Hong Kong is our country's Constitution. As the fundamental law of our country, the Constitution enjoys the highest legal status and has the greatest legal effect in the territory of the People's Republic of China, including HKSAR. Since NPCSC made the Decision on 27 December 2017 to approve the Co-operation Arrangement, this indicates that the Co-operation Arrangement complies with "one country, two systems", the Constitution and the Basic Law. Those who still accuse the Co-operation Arrangement of being unconstitutional not only lack a broader understanding about our country's Constitution, which has features of statutory law, but also show no respect to the decision made by the highest organ of the state power. I am disappointed in this regard. Though the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs is not present at this moment, I still hope that officials of the SAR Government will make greater efforts to promote the status and essence of our country's Constitution in the future.

Another issue concerns the convenience of high-speed rail. In the process of passing the Bill, various officials and Members indicated that the commissioning of XRL would provide Hong Kong people with great convenience in transport. Some members of the public have also constantly requested me to assist the Government in passing the Bill as soon as possible, so as to make it convenient for them to take high-speed rail trains to various cities on the Mainland. Apart from the factor of convenience, I would also like to say that as at the end of 2017, the total length of China's railways in operation had reached 127 000 km, of which high-speed railways accounted for 25 000 km, representing 66% of the total length of high-speed railways of the world. The high-speed rail network of our country is already very extensive, and it will only keep extending to other countries in the future. If a co-location checkpoint is set up in Futian, Shenzhen rather than West Kowloon, local and foreign travelers will only go to Shenzhen rather than pass through Hong Kong when they plan to take high-speed rail trains to destinations on the Mainland or in the rest of the world. In other words, Hong Kong, if without WKS of XRL, will be excluded from the world of high-speed rail, be forgotten by the world in the future and be placed in a very disadvantageous position. As such, even though the length of HKS of XRL is only 26 km, which is minuscule in comparison with the 25 000 km of our country, it plays a vital role for the future development of Hong Kong.

For this reason, I myself highly support the co-location arrangement. I urge my colleagues in the legislature to support the passage of the Bill with an attitude of respect towards the Constitution, a long-term perspective and an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11695 inclusive mindset. In addition, I hope that allowances will be made by members for the many rulings I made for the expeditious passage of the Bill when I served as the Chairman of the Bills Committee. I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, earlier you notified Members through the Secretariat that 36 hours have been allocated for the scrutiny of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill this time. My point of order is as follows. You have allocated eight hours for the Second Reading, including the speaking time of the Secretary and voting time. Just now the Chairman of the Bills Committee spent over 15 minutes delivering her speech as she also has to express her personal views. I would like to put the following question to the President. Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and our parliamentary practices, a Member may not speak more than once at the Second Reading, that is, a Member may speak once. Now that 27 Members have already pressed the "Request to speak" button, and as you have said, even the duration of the ringing of the quorum bell will be counted towards the total speaking time, I would like to get a clear understanding of your arrangement. If each Member speaks in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, can they all be given a chance to speak once at the Second Reading?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, a Member may speak once at the Second Reading debate. As I have said clearly, Members have around eight hours to speak at the Second Reading debate. I will exercise discretion if Members are serious about the debate, but I will make an alternative arrangement if Members have no intention of debating. Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

11696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, will you please elucidate your remark on having "no intention of debating" just now. How can the President ascertain whether a Member has any intention of debating?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are objective standards in this regard.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Will the President please tell us about such objective standards.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There is no such a need. Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I will now speak on the motion on the Second Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). Since the Chairman of the Bills Committee has, at the outset, spent almost 16 minutes speaking on the report of the Bills Committee, I do not understand why the President only allows us eight hours for the Second Reading debate. Speaking on a Bills Committee report for 16 minutes can be considered a record. It also shows how controversial the Bill is and how far-reaching its impacts on Hong Kong are. Since the President has a sword of Damocles in hand to monitor if a Member's speech is frivolous, lengthy or repetitive, I hope that you will allow us to speak as freely as we like at the Second Reading debate of the Bill.

Having listened to Mrs Regina IP's speech in her capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee, I certainly have to respond. Mrs Regina IP criticized us for calling the co-location arrangement the "cession-based co-location arrangement" and claimed that we did not understand the Constitution. She especially mentioned clauses 1 and 7 of the Bill. I recall that Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Chairperson of the Liberal Party, also asked questions about clause 7. Is it appropriate to implement the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administration Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11697

Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement")? I would like to quote from the statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association") to respond to Mrs Regina IP directly.

The Bar Association had issued three statements in total, the first one was issued before the enactment of the Bill and the other two were issued in March after the enactment of the Bill. Let me quote the 4th paragraph in the second statement. While we use the term "cessation of land", the Bar Association uses the term "de-established", stating that there is no constitutional or legal basis for the establishment of a Mainland Port Area in Hong Kong for the reason that in accordance with Articles 18(1), 19(1) and (2), and 82 of the Basic Law, the laws of Hong Kong are applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") and the courts of the HKSAR are vested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. I believe we have absolutely not misled the public; neither has the Bar Association.

As regards whether the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional, I will quote from the 8th paragraph of the Bar Association's first statement, "The NPCSC [National People's Congress Standing Committee] does not exercise power out of a vacuum. Its functions and powers are provided in Article 67 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and its functions and powers are prescribed (and circumscribed) in Articles 17, 18, 20, 90, 158, 159 and 160, and Annexes I and II to the Basic Law. The NPCSC must abide by these provisions of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law when it makes a decision in respect of the HKSAR." Very ironically, NPCSC has violated the Basic Law that it itself formulated.

Mrs Regina IP said it might be necessary to more proactively educate the public about the Basic Law. I believe that even if public education is to be launched, Mrs IP would definitely not be charged with this task. Moreover, Mrs IP also said that without the co-location arrangement, the Express Rail Link ("XRL") could not be linked to the high-speed rail network because XRL would be connected to other places and countries in the future. If one looks at the geographic location of Hong Kong, they will see that XRL is an appendix, meaning that Hong Kong is situated at the coast. How can XRL be connected to other countries? Will it be connected to Taiwan, Thailand or other places under the sea? Hong Kong is located at the very end of the rail line. No matter what, we cannot possibly go against the geographical facts. We cannot dig a tunnel to connect XRL to the Philippines, right? In this respect, no jokes should be made. If Hong Kong is to connect to other places, it is more feasible to do so via the 11698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 high-speed rail lines in China. How can the connection be made in Hong Kong? The most convenient way is to connect via Shenzhen, Futian or Guangzhou as there are N trains to choose from but Hong Kong is definitely not the origin of connection.

Secretary, I will not argue with you today about how the authorities reneged on its promises in respect of XRL. I just wish to say, Mrs Regina IP should be well aware why she said at the Bills Committee meeting that Members could not propose any amendments at today's meeting. The reason was that she merely spent more than 10 seconds on the voting and said that Members should have enough time. She even challenged if Members were so incompetent. What kind of attitude was that? Was this a kind of broad-mindedness? By insulting her colleagues, she did not seem to be broad-minded at all.

Next, I would like to talk about other issues concerning the Bill. I believe that most importantly, the Government has always maintained that the co-location arrangement was modelled on that of the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance, which has been enforced for years without any conflicts. The Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill was read the Third time on 25 April 2007. The Government confirmed the construction of XRL in April 2008 and then in May 2008, a month later, the pro-establishment camp could not wait to propose to have the so-called co-location arrangement implemented in all port areas in Hong Kong. Ten years later, I believe we can see very clearly how the Bill reflects that the decorum is in tatters, a situation that we have been talking about lately. Next, I will elaborate in what ways the decorum has been in tatters in recent years.

Regarding the Shenzhen Bay Port, if Members still recall, the relevant legislation was enacted prior to the signing of the cooperation arrangement. The cooperation arrangement concerning the Shenzhen Bay Port was signed on 28 June 2007 and the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill was passed on 25 April 2007. But the order is reversed this time. The Bill was formulated within the framework of the Co-operation Arrangement. The Co-operation Arrangement, signed in November last year, is now incorporated in the Preamble of the Bill, which acts as the straitjacket restraining the whole Bill. How many articles of the Co-operation Arrangement have been incorporated in the Bill? It can be said that three articles have been incorporated, but the Secretary said four. The three articles are Articles 3, 4 and 7, and a Note has been sneakily added, explaining "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area" under Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11699

President, is Hong Kong laws still laws? Strictly speaking, only three articles of the Co-operation Arrangement are incorporated in the Bill. Why did you, when appraising our amendments, disallow some of our amendments on the grounds that they digressed from the Co-operation Arrangement? Why is it that only three articles, but not all the articles of the Co-operation Arrangement, are incorporated in the Bill? How come the Co-operation Arrangement, mentioned in the Preamble, has become part of the Hong Kong law? From now on, whatever law the NPCSC likes to enact, it can easily incorporate it in the preamble of the laws of Hong Kong, and then the Legislative Council of Hong Kong will give approval in accordance with the legislative procedure. The Mainland authorities can then direct our actions. How convenient! Other than acting as a "rubber stamp", the entire Council has to take orders from the Executive Authorities of the HKSAR as well as comply with NPCSC. Whenever NPCSC makes an order, it is final and we will have to execute it. It turns out that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has to pass the decision of NPCSC and implement the Co-operation Arrangement.

The Government has never consulted us on the Co-operation Arrangement. No discussion has ever been held. We only learnt about the provisions after the Co-operation Arrangement was signed. It was only by then did we learn about the most formidable provision. If we want to make any amendments, the HKSAR Government has to negotiate with the Mainland authorities, and amendments can only be made after approval has been given by the Mainland authorities. The Legislative Council of Hong Kong has no authority whatsoever. What is the function of the Legislative Council? We are stripped of our power just like that. What is the use of the Basic Law?

Next I would like to talk about the expiry clause. Section 14 of the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance is an expiry clause. But in respect of the Bill, no matter how hard we pled, the Secretary refused to amend any provision. He only allowed Members to propose amendments. What is different this time? We have yet to see the State Council's instructions concerning the coordinates but all the coordinates have been listed in the appendices. When we asked the Secretary, he originally said that all the coordinates had been passed and we could look them up in the documents. But when we asked him again, he said that the documents and correspondence between the Government and the State authorities could not be made public. President, is it true? All the appendices have listed out the coordinates and we can see that there is a Mainland Port Area even in Shek Kong. In the case of the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance, the State Council had 11700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 approved the coordinates before the enactment of local legislation. At least the bases were clear. But now we have nothing to base on. When you say it is A, it is A, and when you say it is B, it is B. You said that the area marked in yellow was the Mainland Port Area. We have not even visited Shek Kong. When I asked the Secretary if the area marked in yellow in the Bill represented the entire Shek Kong, he has yet to answer me. President, please teach me how I should examine the Bill. Perhaps Mrs Regina IP is able to do so because she is a clairvoyant and can see how big the Mainland Port Area in Shek Kong is, as well as what the coordinates are. But it is all beyond me.

In addition, President, another formidable thing about the Bill is that it can take effect at an earlier date, meaning that Hong Kong will lose the Mainland Port Area even sooner. According to clause 1 of the Bill, the relevant Ordinance comes into operation on the day appointed by the Secretary for Transport and Housing by notice in the Gazette. After the Ordinance comes into effect, a Mainland Port Area within Hong Kong will be de-established and subsequently, the area under the jurisdiction of Hong Kong will become smaller. In the past, we thought that the place would only be used for the purpose of XRL, but earlier, the Secretary said that he could do nothing. As Mainland law enforcement personnel had to come to Hong Kong before the commissioning of XRL to gain some onsite experience, the Ordinance would have to take effect earlier. It is all so vague. It turns out that we have to facilitate the work of others and the factor of convenience is all that matters. Is XRL that convenient? I will comment on that later.

Is XRL really so convenient? President, do not think that if you board the train at night, you will arrive in Beijing when you wake up the next morning. Sorry, don't be mistaken. First, there are no couchettes on the train and hence during the 10-odd hour train ride, passengers have to sit up straight on their seats. Besides, what is the most formidable? As rail maintenance works are carried out at night time, there are no overnight high-speed trains. I do not learn this from the Secretary. The information was disclosed by the personnel of the Ministry of Railways of China, thanks to the efforts of the Hong Kong media. Given that passengers cannot sleep during the 10-odd hour journey and there is no overnight train service, how can high-speed trains be compared to aeroplanes?

Besides, President, XRL fare is really very high and the Government said it would make reference to the fares of through trains. The adult fare of through train is $210 while the XRL fare is $260 and that is only the second class fare. How about the first class and premium class fares? They are still unknown. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11701

The Secretary said that during the peak period, there would be 114 train pairs running between Hong Kong, and Shenzhen and Guangzhou. I asked about the number of trains during regular hours but the Secretary said it could not be made public yet. Is XRL providing a minibus service, leaving the station when all seats are filled? We not only have to know the frequency of trains during the peak period but also during the regular hours.

President, XRL can well be called the trains that have reneged on promises. Today it is reported in the press that cracks have appeared in some village houses, meaning that XRL trains may not be running at full speed. What can be done? Will high-speed trains become medium-speed or even low-speed trains? The whole project is a scheme to take advantage of Hong Kong people. It is unconstitutional and has far-reaching impact on Hong Kong. It will also take away l million sq ft from the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. President, I think it is wrong to continue with the discussion. Hence, I propose a motion that the debate be now adjourned in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure.

Motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Ms Tanya CHAN has proposed an adjournment motion, this Council will first deal with the motion.

Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak on the motion now.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. I think there are a number of reasons for proposing an adjournment motion today, particularly in relation to the Basic Law. I believe Members will remember that when we took the Oath in this Chamber, we swore that we would uphold the Basic Law. Article 11 of the Basic Law clearly provides that "[n]o law enacted by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall contravene this Law". As such, can the President of the Legislative Council ascertain whether the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") we are now scrutinizing has contravened the Basic Law? However, the President said in his reply letter to 24 Members today that "the powers and functions of the President of the Legislative Council also do not include ruling on whether a bill introduced by the Government contravenes the Basic Law".

11702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

If the President does not examine whether the Legislative Council would possibly contravene Article 11 of the Basic Law, what then is his role? While the President could rule our proposed amendments as inadmissible on the basis of their unconstitutionality, he immediately handed over a Bill introduced by the Government, which he has not even read, for Members to scrutinize and pass in the Legislative Council. He even told Members that whether or not the Bill contravened the Basic Law was a matter for the court to decide. Certainly, the court has its functions, and so has the Executive Authorities. The Legislative Council also has a very important function of monitoring the Government. Whether we have confidence in the President is one thing, but as the head of all Members of the Legislative Council, the President has not only failed to act as a gatekeeper on our behalf, but has also dealt with a Bill submitted by the Government which may be unconstitutional. How improper it is.

The Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association") reminded Members that they should not pass the Bill which contravened the Basic Law. The Government indicated in its written reply that it was not aware that the Bar Association had ever given the same view on a bill in the past. This indicates that the Bill may be unconstitutional and it can be said that this is unprecedented. Thus, we have to be particularly careful in dealing with the Bill. I have with me a document on the co-location arrangement entitled "Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Arrangements of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link" received by Members on 25 July 2017. President, after you have read the whole document, particularly if you compare its contents with the provisions of the Bill, you will notice that the powers conferred to Mainland law enforcement officers have far exceeded the powers required for conducting customs, immigration and quarantine procedures. I had proposed amendments to restrict the powers of Mainland law enforcement officers to these three areas, but they were ruled inadmissible for the reason that they were inconsistent with the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement").

In fact, how does the SAR Government implement a policy? If the Secretary may recall, on the day when Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG was willing to come to the Legislative Council to give an explanation to the Bills Committee, she compared the policy on the co-location arrangement with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11703 policy on minimum wages. The policy on minimum wages had at least undergone public consultations and had been discussed for many years, but the policy on the co-location arrangement had not undergone any consultation and public hearings were not formal consultation. After the incident on legislating for Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2003, the SAR Government issued a set of guidelines on how public consultation should be conducted. The entire policy on the co-location arrangement at the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") had not been consulted in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the guidelines; only documents were issued for giving an account. Certainly, many different groups have conducted opinion polls in this connection, but they cannot replace formal consultation conducted by the Government.

The Bill cannot be passed thoughtlessly or carelessly. Our view that the Bill contravenes the Basic Law is by no means alarmist. President, if you have read this document, you would have noticed that Rimsky YUEN, who still served as the Secretary for Justice at that time, gave an explanation on the basis of Article 20 of the Basic Law. After that, ZHANG Rongshun went further and tried to explain the co-location arrangement on the basis of Article 19 or Article 17 of the Basic Law. At that time, given that a new version was given, I wondered whether the Basic Law had been complied with. Nevertheless, at present, it is not necessary to cite the provisions of the Basic Law for explanation. The decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") are supreme and Members are required to simply follow them without questioning. Since the Co-operation Arrangement was signed and endorsed by NPCSC, the Government is required to enact local legislation to implement the order made by NPCSC on 27 December 2017. What is the order, President? The order is that the HKSAR Government should enact legislation to ensure the implementation of the Co-operation Arrangement.

Secretary, you are not performing well enough because you have only included some of the articles of the Co-operation Arrangement in section 3 of the Bill while the others are incorporated in the Preamble. However, it does not matter because the President is very obedient. He regards what is written in the Preamble as the main text of the Bill, and he has even used that as a reason to deprive Members of their right to amend the Bill. Why do I say so? The reason is that according to the President, amendments to the Bill have to be consistent with Article 16 of the Co-operation Arrangement. Article 16 provides that if the Co-operation Arrangement needs to be amended, "the two sides must, after consultation and reaching consensus, sign a written document and submit it 11704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 to the Central People's Government for approval". What does "the two sides" refer to? The term certainly does not refer to me and the President, nor me and the Secretary. It refers to the two signatories, namely, the Governor of Guangdong Province and the Chief Executive who is the representative of the HKSAR. Members have been deprived of all their powers and the Government has not conducted any public consultation. If Hong Kong really passes the Bill which contravenes the Basic Law, it will bring very bad and profound effects to Hong Kong.

President, I mentioned the unconstitutionality of the Bill earlier. In fact, our views are not alarmist. As I said earlier, the Bar Association had issued a total of three strongly-worded statements, which is rare in recent years. Certainly, we are now discussing the Bill, but the Bill is really very controversial. As I said earlier, if the authorities insist on implementing the Co-operation Arrangement, the entire process and procedure is very unjust. The reason is that members of the public or the Legislative Council had not been consulted on the Co-operation Arrangement under discussion. The Government only briefly explained the Co-operation Arrangement in its document dated 25 July and briefly described the meanings of "reserved matters" and "non-reserved matters". Then, after Members had a discussion on a non-binding motion, the Chief Executive and the Governor of Guangdong Province signed the document on the following Saturday.

Without conducting any consultation on the co-location arrangement or the Co-operation Arrangement, the Government is forcing Members to accept the practices. We really have to thank the President for giving us a total of 36 hours for discussion, including 8 hours for the Second Reading debate of the Bill, 22 hours for deliberation in committee of the whole Council and 6 hours for Third Reading. There is really a lot of time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, you have proposed an adjournment motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure to adjourn the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill. You should only explain why you have to propose the adjournment motion and should not comment on the merits and demerits of the entire Bill in detail. Please continue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11705

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): That is fine, President. Certainly, as I said earlier, the Bill is unconstitutional, this is a very important point which Members have to consider carefully. As Members of the Legislative Council who have taken the Oath, we have to uphold the Basic Law. However, when the Bar Association or The Law Society of Hong Kong has raised doubt on the constitutional foundation of the Bill, should we Members also think twice? Should we pause and think carefully? Most importantly, the SAR Government should not take the lead to contravene the Basic Law.

Certainly, the authorities can say that if Members are still unsatisfied after their repeated explanations, the matter should be taken to the court. Nevertheless, I have to remind the Secretary or the SAR Government that it is actually the Government's responsibility to introduce a constitutional and lawful bill. Members can scrutinize the Bill or move amendments to it later, but they cannot make the Bill constitutional. Thus, I propose an adjournment motion so that the Government can mend its ways. At present, as the XRL project has encountered a number of setbacks, it is still unknown whether XRL can be commissioned in September as indicated by the MTR Corporation Limited or the SAR Government.

Today, an amber rainstorm warning was issued and the West Kowloon Station has become "the House of Dancing Water". I do not know if the President has read the news report. What is more important: compelling Members to pass the Bill so that XRL can be commissioned hastily, or ensuring public safety and allowing Members to perform their constitutional responsibilities?

The issue of constitutionality, particularly the issue concerning the Constitution which I mentioned earlier, is certainly very important. Towards the end of my speech, I consider it most important to remind Members of it. Certainly, Mrs Regina IP and the Government have all along explained that since the decision is made by NPCSC, it is consistent with the Constitution of China and if Members pass the Bill, implementation of the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong will not be unlawful.

Nevertheless, President, I would like to point out, according to the Basic Law, the power of final adjudication and the laws of Hong Kong are independent, and the Basic Law is the most important constitutional law of Hong Kong, as expounded by the Bar Association in its statement which I read out earlier. The 11706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Basic Law is certainly enacted under the Constitution of China, but the Basic Law also stipulates the procedures to be followed in dealing with certain affairs of Hong Kong. Defence and foreign affairs are not matters which Hong Kong shall deal with. Nonetheless, if the Government wants to coercively implant a decision of NPCSC into the laws of Hong Kong, it has to do so in accordance with the Basic Law.

We understand that a decision of NPCSC is possibly a law in China, but here in Hong Kong, the SAR Government has not explicitly acknowledged it as such, but at the same time, it cannot deny it as a law. This is how the SAR Government puts it: A decision of NPCSC is also a law which can be implemented in Hong Kong, but members of the public need not worry because the law is enforced against some people only. In other words, if you do not take XRL, the provisions will not affect you.

President, the Bar Association has given an example earlier. The University of Hong Kong Ordinance is enacted to apply to the University of Hong Kong and enforced in a designated place, but can we say that it will not be regarded as the laws of Hong Kong for this reason? We certainly cannot. The Government wants to coercively implement the decision of NPCSC, but it has not complied with Article 18 of the Basic Law which requires listing the decision in Annex III; what long-term effects will this bring to Hong Kong?

President, in the future, can the requirement of Article 18 of the Basic Law that national laws shall be listed in Annex III be dispensed with simply by saying that an Ordinance will apply only in a certain place or to certain people? If so, nothing can be done because even if the Government acts unlawfully or unconstitutionally, it will go unregulated. Besides, the drafting of this Bill is not only different from the normal practice of enacting local legislation, but will also affect the way and mode of law drafting in Hong Kong in the future which will bring about very significant effects.

Thus, I hope that pro-establishment Members or the Secretary will understand what we are doing now. We are not "employing the same old tactics" for the purpose of procrastination. We sincerely hope that the Government can understand that in making this decision today, it is actually putting the Constitution of China above the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Once this precedent of the "new constitutional order" is set, and coupled with the implantation of China's mode of law-drafting into Hong Kong's common law LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11707 system, it will bring very profound effects to the entire judicial system of Hong Kong. This operation should definitely not be done by the SAR Government, with pro-establishment Members acting as accomplices. I hope that pro-establishment Members can support this adjournment motion today.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please move the motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move the motion under Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It should be RoP 40(1).

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move the motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has moved an adjournment motion. Members who wish to speak will please press the "Request to Speak" button.

I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill be now adjourned.

Ms Tanya CHAN said earlier that as the President, I have failed to act as a good gatekeeper by allowing a bill which she considered to be inconsistent with the Constitution or the Basic Law to be introduced in the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, just now she also stated clearly that the responsibility of determining whether a bill was consistent with the Basic Law or the Constitution lied with the Government. In my reply letter to non-establishment Members, I also stated that according to the Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure, the 11708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

President of the Legislative Council has no power to rule whether a bill introduced by the Government to the Legislative Council was consistent with the Basic Law or not.

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

(No public officer indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary indicated that he did not wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

MR DENNIS KWOK (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, but some Members did not return to their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, just now Ms Tanya CHAN said that you have not defended for this Council and I think her argument is absolutely correct. You said you did not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"); you are certainly not empowered to make the ruling because only the court has the authority to do so. Even the SAR Government does not have such authority. That said, I think you may recall that when Members proposed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11709 amendments or requested to amend the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") in the past, you did consult the Legal Adviser or outside counsel on the constitutionality of the relevant amendments. Of course, you also need to consider if the relevant amendment, motion or bill is in contravention of the Basic Law …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, please hold on. The President of the Legislative Council is obliged to rule on the constitutionality of the amendments proposed by Members in accordance with RoP. As for the constitutionality of Government bills, just now Ms Tanya CHAN has stated very clearly that the responsibility lied with the Government.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): The Government does not have the authority to decide on the constitutionality of a bill. President, please listen to me first …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have made it very clear that neither I nor the Government has the authority to decide whether a bill is unconstitutional or in contravention of the Basic Law, and only the court has the authority to do so. Both you and Ms Tanya CHAN have made it very clear, so please do not question the President's ruling again.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): You always ask Members not to question your ruling when you fail to convince them. We surely understand that you, as the President of the Legislative Council, do not have the authority to rule whether a bill or an amendment is in contravention of the Basic Law, the question is you must consider whether the relevant bill or any issue raised for discussion at the Legislative Council complies with the Basic Law. No one ask you to make a ruling, but your consideration must be premised on the Basic Law.

I speak in support of this adjournment motion. In our opinion, the major problem is that the "Three-step Process" of the Bill is obviously in contravention of the Basic Law, whereas the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation 11710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Arrangement"), the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Decision") and the Bill do not have any constitutional basis at all and contravene the Basic Law as well. The Legislative Council cannot endorse this unconstitutional Bill. President, we are not asking you to rule on this unconstitutional Bill; we only hope that you will consider if the Bill contravenes the Basic Law as Members will decide how to cast their votes based on your decision. Thus, there is no question of the Legislative Council not having the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the Bill.

Since there are still so many problems with regard to the constitutional basis and legislative process of the Bill, I think there is a point for Ms Tanya CHAN to move this adjournment motion. When the Finance Committee endorsed the Government's Express Rail Link proposal in as early as 2009, the Civic Party had all along queried the viability of the co-location arrangement under the framework of the Basic Law. Apparently, the application of Mainland laws in the Hong Kong territory and the taking of enforcement actions by Mainland law enforcement officers in Hong Kong are not permitted under the Basic Law. This constitutional issue is not only controversial, but also truly unconstitutional. I will continue to discuss this unconstitutional issue during the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Not only is the Bill blatantly unconstitutional, the entire legislative process is also riddled with problems, it is therefore absolutely premature to proceed with the deliberation. All along, the most important essence of "one country, two systems" is that Hong Kong and the Mainland have different laws. Article 18 of the Basic Law clearly provides that except for laws relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of autonomy of HKSAR under the Basic Law, no Mainland law shall be applied in Hong Kong. Laws to be introduced in Hong Kong must be added to list of laws in Annex III to the Basic Law, which is a very important firewall. In the Bill introduced by the Government, a Mainland Port Area ("MPA") is designated at the West Kowloon Station of the Express Rail Link ("XRL") within the Hong Kong territory where Mainland laws will apply, which obviously contravenes Article 18 of the Basic Law. Not only will MPA apply Mainland laws, it will also be completely removed from the jurisdiction and laws of Hong Kong as well as the entire LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11711 system where Hong Kong's human rights, laws and freedom are safeguarded. Although the Bill only deals with the clearance matters at the West Kowloon Station of XRL, the way it is packaged has set a very bad precedent and undermined the important protection that Article 18 of the Basic Law provides to Hong Kong people.

Why should the Basic Law be so clear-cut? Because this can strictly rule out the possibility of applying Mainland laws in Hong Kong since the legal system and maturity level of the two places are not the same. According to the World Justice Report of 2017, Hong Kong ranked 16th out of 113 jurisdictions for its Rule of Law Index, and China ranked 75th. In the protection of rights, judicial independence, and so on, Hong Kong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, the question under discussion now is the adjournment motion moved under RoP 40(1). I have reminded Ms Tanya CHAN earlier and will now remind Members again that they should focus their speeches on why they support or oppose the adjournment motion, and should not comment on the general merits of the Bill or discuss in detail the constitutionality of the Bill. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I am well aware of what is being discussed and I know exactly what I have said and why I said so. I am speaking in support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN. You need not remind me as I know very well that the reason for adjourning the debate of the Bill is its blatant contravention of the Basic Law. If you do not allow me to state how this Bill contravenes the Basic Law, how can I explain to my colleagues why I support this adjournment motion? Therefore, please do not interrupt me again as this is the second time my speech has been interrupted.

President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, let me remind you again …

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, you do not have to remind me again as I know exactly what is going on.

11712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have stated that we are now debating on the adjournment motion, you should not discuss in detail the general merits of the Bill.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, if even the constitutionality of the Bill cannot be discussed, what else can I say? It is precisely because the Bill is unconstitutional that I support the adjournment motion …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You may speak on the question of constitutionality, but should not go into great detail.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, if you do not allow me to present these arguments, what else can I say?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, I have reminded you for the second time.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, you do not have to remind me again, I know very well what I am talking about.

(Ms Claudia MO kept shouting loudly in her seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, if you continue to speak loudly in your seat, I will regard your behaviour as grossly disorderly. Mr Dennis KWOK, please continue with your speech.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, just now I said that under the framework of the Basic Law, Article 18 has clearly specified the circumstances under which Mainland laws shall be applied in Hong Kong and the requirements are perfectly clear. There is a very simple and important legal principle, that is, when interpreting any legal provision, we must clearly examine the drafting of the provisions. Given that the drafting of Article 18 of the Basic Law is so clear, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11713 we cannot turn a blind eye to the provisions of the Basic Law and allow Mainland laws be applied in Hong Kong and Mainland law enforcements officers enforcing Mainland laws in Hong Kong; otherwise, Article 18 of the Basic Law will exist only in name.

President, the Member moved this adjournment motion because it is grossly wrong to endorse a proposed legislation that does not have any constitutional basis or is highly controversial in terms of its constitutionality before the legal and constitutional issues are clarified and a decision is made by the court.

President, the Government's position is that Mainland laws will only apply in MPA but not the entire Hong Kong, and since the area involved is minimal, there is no contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law. As pointed out time and again in the statements issued by the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association"), this is sheer sophistry and is at odds with people's general understanding of the Basic Law because Article 18 will not be read and construed in a way like a play on words. It therefore considers such a remark very naïve.

This Bill relating to the co-location arrangement is apparently unconstitutional. This remark is not merely made by the pro-democracy camp or the Civic Party as the Bar Association issued three statements on the Bill during the deliberation process. The Councils of the Bar Association and of The Law Society of Hong Kong had also issued statements to unprecedentedly declare that the Bill introduced by the Government was unconstitutional. This shows that different representatives of the legal sector have expressed a similar view that the Bill has blatantly contravened the Basic Law.

I would like to cite the views of the Bar Association in particular, which sternly points out that the Bill does not have any constitutional basis and is drafted in the light of the terms of the Co-operation Arrangement signed between the Government and the Mainland and confirmed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in the form of the Decision. The Decision of NPCSC has invoked Article 22(4) of the Basic Law; Article 154(2) relating to the immigration control system; Article 7 relating to the Government's authority to manage the land as well as Articles 118 and 119 relating to the economic and legal environment and the promotion of development respectively. However, as pointed out by the Bar Association in its statement issued on 28 December 2017, none of the provisions could provide a legal basis for the implementation of the co-location arrangement as claimed by the Hong Kong 11714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Government. Worse still, the Decision of NPCSC has not provided any rationale or basis. The Bar Association bluntly expressed that it was appalled as this was tantamount to saying that "it is consistent because NPCSC says so", which is obviously against the rule of law. The Bar Association even went further to say that this was a major retrogression of the HKSAR Government in the implementation of the Basic Law since the reunification, and has dealt a serious blow to the implementation of "one country, two systems" and the rule of law.

Given that the Hong Kong Government has introduced a Bill that is obviously unconstitutional, pro-democracy Legislative Council Members (including the Civic Party and I) will make all-out efforts to carefully examine the provisions and seize all opportunities to safeguard the interests of Hong Kong people. However, will other Members do the same? Members of this Council are duty-bound to stop the passage of any unconstitutional bill. According to Article 11(2) of the Basic Law, "[n]o law enacted by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall contravene this Law." Is the President going to tell us that Article 11(2) of the Basic Law does not apply to him? If it does apply to him, he as a Member and even the President of the Legislative Council must ensure that the legislature of Hong Kong will not endorse any bill that is inconsistent with the Basic Law, and this responsibility lies precisely with every Member of this Council. Under no circumstances shall we lightly remove this protection offered by the Basic Law to the people of Hong Kong. The Bill allows the application of Mainland laws in Hong Kong, allows Mainland courts to have partial jurisdiction over Hong Kong and allows Mainland law enforcement officers to enforce Mainland laws in Hong Kong. It is clear that we cannot undermine the major principle of the Basic Law for the sake of mere convenience.

We understand that the pro-establishment camp will surely support the passage of the Bill and oppose this adjournment motion. The Civic Party and other Members have suggested other proposals to replace the proposed implementation of the co-location arrangement. My party comrade, Ms Tanya CHAN, has also proposed to restrict Mainland law enforcement officers to merely carry out the customs, immigration and quarantine (CIQ) procedures at MPA, with a view to preserving our laws, our jurisdiction and MPA by all means and providing other safeguards for checks and balances. We opine that given the importance of Hong Kong's human rights, laws and freedoms, we must do our best to protect the system as far as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11715

President, I think this Bill has set a very bad precedent. First, the terms of the Co-operation Arrangement signed between the Hong Kong Government and the Mainland cannot be challenged or amended. And, when this Bill on the co-location arrangement is endorsed in Hong Kong, we cannot propose any amendment that is in contravention of the Co-operation Arrangement. Nonetheless, no public consultation had been conducted for this Co-operation Arrangement and we had completely no knowledge of its contents. According to the Co-operation Arrangement, no enacted law shall be in contravention of the Co-operation Arrangement, go beyond its scope or be inconsistent with it. This is tantamount to saying that in case any agreement is signed between the Hong Kong Government and the Mainland in the future, the Legislative Council must basically comply with the decisions of NPCSC. This is an extremely absurd legislative procedure and will deal a heavy blow to the Legislative Council.

Last but not least, President, requiring the Legislative Council to complete the consideration of the Bill within 36 hours and restricting the time for the Second and Third Readings of the Bill in particular, implies that not every Member will have the opportunity to speak. However, giving speeches is the constitutional power (as of right) of Members. Members can speak a number of times during the Committee stage as they have to convince their colleagues and explain why they support the amendments. And yet, the President has imposed some restrictions on the debate. We may perhaps save the trouble of debating in the future and now …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, you have digressed from the subject.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I have not digressed from the subject.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have digressed from the subject.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I have not digressed from the subject.

11716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, if you continue to digress from the subject, I will ask you to stop speaking.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, please listen carefully, in my speech in support of the adjournment motion, I point out that, first, the Bill is unconstitutional, and second, the Council's handling of the Bill, both in terms of procedures and approaches, does not promote debate and this is not the right attitude of this Council. Apparently, the purpose of adjourning the debate of the Bill is to rationalize many constitutional and procedural issues, so as to ensure that the Bill will not undermine "one country, two systems", freedom, human rights and legal systems that the Basic Law has provided for Hong Kong. The most fundamental responsibility that Members should discharge is to uphold the Basic Law. All of us have pledged in our oath to do all we can to uphold the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems", and this is precisely what I am doing now.

Finally, we support this adjournment motion because "the price of freedom and the rule of law requires constant vigilance". What we are doing now is constant vigilance, that is, stay vigilant at all times to safeguard the Basic Law. We have to carefully study the provisions of a bill that may possibly contravene the Basic Law and adjourn the debate when such a need arises, so that the bill can be referred back to the bills committee for further discussion. President, these are the reasons why I support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN.

I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I certainly support the adjournment motion because the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), which seeks to be passed now, may possibly be a bill bringing the most devastating blow to "one country, two systems" in the Legislative Council since 1997. In my interviews with overseas media, I often say that "this is the most damning bill this legislature has ever seen". So, why shouldn't we adjourn the debate on this terrifying Bill to first clarify the problems involved?

Just now, I learnt from the news that works at the construction site for the Express Rail Link ("XRL") still proceeded despite heavy rain, but B2 level―if my memory has not failed me―was again plagued by water seepage problem, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11717 and the condition was very serious, with water dripping along the walls like tears, wetting the whole place. To me, such problems should just be hardware problems which could be fixed over time. I even regard ticketing and train frequency issues as hardware problems which should not be the reasons for requesting an adjournment so as to avoid delays.

However, the problem under discussion right now is not a hardware problem. I will now tell Members why I agree to adjourn the debate on the Bill. That is because, in terms of software, the spirit of the Bill is one hundred percent problematic. I hope the President will not suddenly ask me to withdraw the word "damning" because I will not do so. Everything is so clear to me. It is a circumstance or a situation expressing very apparent guilt or error. Something has gone wrong and will pose devastating effect. So, what is the devastating effect that I am talking about? It is unconstitutionality.

President, neither you as President of the Legislative Council nor the Government is in the position to judge whether the Bill is unconstitutional. Only the court can do so. Therefore, this issue should be left to the court for discussion and the debate on the Bill should now be adjourned. Why can't the President take a step back? Why should the Legislative Council support the Government in this way? The Legislative Council may actually tell the Government that the Bill is believed to be problematic and should hence be postponed.

Of course, in today's Hong Kong, while it is said that there is separation of powers among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary … President, if you are willing to answer my question, you may scare me away by citing a court case in which the Judge told that the court could not make a ruling before the enactment of the bill. In other words, we are now forced to pass the unconstitutional Bill and will then wait for a judicial review on the enacted Bill to see how the court will make its ruling. What do you think the court's ruling will be? We all know too well whether there is separation of powers among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in today's Hong Kong. Yet, your earlier remarks have created a catch-22 situation: It is for the court to decide whether the Bill is constitutional or not, but before a discussion is held in court, the Bill must first be passed now. Does this mean that you will have all the say? The case is just like we need a permit to go out of town, but before we can get the permit, we must first go out of town. Isn't it ridiculous? Therefore, I think the Bill is completely untenable. Why should it be read the Second time at this moment?

11718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

President, have you turned a deaf ear to the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association")? The Chairman of the Bar Association called out loud and clear in our public hearing that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong had no authority to pass an unconstitutional Bill. When we say "unconstitutional", we are saying that the bill is contrary to the Basic Law. Yet, after listening to the speech of Mrs Regina IP, I feel like she is, or may be worse than, a Government's parrot. When she spoke, maybe there was a ventriloquist behind her and she was pretending to be speaking like a dummy. She told us not to forget that the Basic Law was derived from the Constitution of China, which was therefore overriding. If her view is right, I will just throw away the Basic Law that I cling to every day.

The Basic Law has made two points clear. Firstly, the judicial system and the law previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained. Secondly, the Basic Law has at least stated twice that recruitment from other common law jurisdictions is allowed. The reference to "other common law jurisdictions" in the Basic Law indicates that Hong Kong practises common law. Then, what is the law practised in the Mainland? It is civil law. Understand? President, I am not putting the question to you but to Mrs Regina IP …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please come back to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): If everything is derived from the Constitution of China …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you have digressed. Please come back to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Fine, I will do so. I have caught a cold. Please stop clocking my speaking time when I blow my nose.

Just now, Mrs Regina IP said that the remark of "cession-based co-location arrangement" was misleading. How could she say that? This assertion makes her unfit to act as the Chairman of the relevant Bills Committee because a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11719

Chairman should act, or seem to be acting, fairly for his/her fairness to be seen. In her earlier speech, she clearly said that she had resorted to all sorts of tactics in the Bills Committee to speed up the submission of the Bill to the Council. She should not have done so. After listening to her personal views, I am getting increasingly worried and have stronger support for this adjournment motion.

Another reason for me to support the adjournment motion is that … as I said earlier, the Bill is unconstitutional. However, the Basic Law is often said to be of little importance as the Constitution of China is always cited as the legal basis … another reason is also related to a software issue, i.e. the spirit of the Bill. I know that weight of numbers has given the pro-establishment camp a loud voice to have the final say on everything. As they have the support of the Government and the Big Brother in Beijing, the Bill will certainly be passed and they have nothing to fear. Apart from having this impression, I must also ask the Government … under this kind of "cession-based co-location arrangement", i.e. to declare out of the blue that an area no longer lies within Hong Kong, there is no subject in the relevant provision. All it says is that the place in question is "to be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong" and will then apply the Mainland laws …

(There was interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, is your mobile phone with you?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): What?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Is your mobile phone with you? Just now, there was some static noise in the Chamber. Please put your mobile phone away.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Please pause the timer.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I but not you should decide whether to pause the timer or not.

11720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My mobile phone has not rung. I will now switch it off.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now, there was some static noise in the Chamber. If you have problems handling your mobile phone, please ask Mr Charles Peter MOK for help.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I have already switched off my mobile phone. Mr MOK, on the contrary, does not know how to deal with these basic problems.

President, how come the timer is still running?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I but not you should decide whether to pause the timer or not.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, when I asked you to pause the timer earlier, it was paused right away. Yet, I now find that the timer keeps running.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The timer was not activated because you had not yet started to speak.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, you have paused the timer earlier, but you now keep on clocking my speaking time.

My second reason is related to a software issue, i.e. the spirit of the Bill. President, you are now playing hardball and there is no way that I can beat you. What should I do? I believe that we should be peaceful, rational and non-violent. I am not as violent as you are. If I alone walk out from my seat, you will order five security officers to besiege me. What should I do? All I can do is to talk to the Government to see if we can agree on making this arrangement once and for all without setting a precedent. I asked the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11721

Government if it would promise to make this "cession-based co-location arrangement" a one-off exercise. We made this request repeatedly, but the Government was unwilling to give its promise, saying that it would do the same again, though infrequent, to dovetail with its policies when necessary.

I think the Government will not arbitrarily declare that the Legislative Council is no longer part of Hong Kong just for fun, but the problem lies in the lack of trust. If the Administration can later repeatedly apply the Mainland laws to other areas in Hong Kong … in case the Bill in front of us is passed, in the future, it can be applied to other areas after making some amendments. This makes us worried sick. I therefore urge the Government to give a clearer account on this issue. Otherwise, there will be a possibility that the Victoria Park may not be regarded as a part of Hong Kong on the day of 4 June every year. Isn't it terrifying? Such law may apply only on the day of 4 June and the participants of 4 June vigil rather than all Hong Kong people …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I remind you once again that you have digressed.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I have not digressed. Apart from pointing out that the Bill is unconstitutional, I must also say that I have no trust in the Government. Why do I support the adjournment motion? That is because I do not trust the Government, and the lack of trust roots in the details of the Bill or, to put it in another way, the promises that the Government refuses to make. While the Government seems to say in specific terms that the Bill will only be applied to the area in question and the train compartments, as if the "cession of land" is purely for the sake of implementing the co-location arrangement, it refuses to promise that the same tactic will not be employed again in the future to deal with other parts of the territory. As I am afraid that you do not see the point, I have to explain in detail.

Laws may only be applicable at a particular time and in a particular place. The Government cannot argue that the Bill will not be applied to all Hong Kong people, and only passengers entering the West Kowloon Station will be regulated. It cannot argue like that. Laws can be applicable merely for a specified period. Many of our laws have specified where or when they will be applicable. For example, the export control of powdered formulae is time-limited, right? This is 11722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 a case in point. Therefore, the lack of trust has made people feel uneasy. The lack of trust not only originates from the provisions of the Bill or the political inclination of the Government, but also from the dishonest attitude of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the Government when facing the public or the Legislative Council.

I am not sure if Members still recall the press report that I mentioned in the earlier part of my speech on the water seepage problem at the construction site of XRL. In response, MTRCL joined the Government―we must not forget that the Hong Kong Government is the largest shareholder of MTRCL, holding about 75% of its shares―to claim that it was common to have water seepage problem in tunnels and everything was just fine. How could they say that it was perfectly fine to have seepage problem? At first, I also thought that we should not care too much about these hardware problems, as long as MTRCL promised to fix them properly. To my surprise, MTRCL, in response, described water seepage as a common phenomenon … it can lead to flooding. Does MTRCL think that it has a dike? Have Members heard of a Dutch story in which a child plugs a hole in a dike with his finger? If he had not done so, the dike would have been swept away by the floods.

MTRCL has been quite dishonest in many of its responses. Such dishonesty is not only displayed on XRL issues but also on problems with the Shatin to Central Link. Whenever an issue comes up, the responses of MTRCL are often inconsistent. The lack of trust has created worries and doubts. Therefore, on this incident, if the pro-establishment camp insists on pushing the Bill through by relying on weight of numbers and is happy to blindly follow the wish of the Government, I can only say that this Council is too disappointing. It is actually an accomplice in throttling "one country, two systems".

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I speak to support Ms Tanya CHAN's motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be now adjourned.

Let us not beat around the bush, Members of the pro-democracy camp do not support the Bill. We oppose the Bill and do not want it to be passed in this form and contents, thus we move an adjournment motion. This is surely the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11723 most direct cause, yet I will also talk about other reasons in my speech. Personally speaking, I think one of the major reasons for many pro-democracy Members to support this adjournment motion is that we absolutely cannot accept the President's arrangement for this debate.

At present, the Legislative Council very often focuses on securing enough supporting votes. The arrangement for the current debate gives people an impression that the entire legislature is acting to tie in with the Government, or even to tie in with the so-called agreement that the Government signed with the Central Government. The agreement concerned was signed without being scrutinized by the people and the legislature of Hong Kong at all. By scrutiny, it does not only confine to forming a Bills Committee to conduct dozens of meetings and the authorities failing to respond to questions raised; it also means that we should be able to voice our views during government consultation and that our views should be respected and accepted. However, this situation has not arisen, and the authorities have taken no such actions at all. The Government and the pro-establishment camp have joined hands to even limit the time for our discussion in this Council, and have set many bad precedents. President, since we do not wish to see such precedents or to have this draconian law passed, we moved a motion to adjourn the debate.

From the scrutiny of the Bill by the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee") to the present debate arrangement, many bad precedents have been set. While many bad precedents had been set in the past, the number is particularly high this year, and the arrangement for the Second Reading debate is even more outrageous. Therefore, apart from my opposition to the Bill, the above factor also accounts for my support of this adjournment motion.

President, please allow me to discuss the current debate arrangement, because it also relates to my reason for supporting this adjournment motion. Regarding the practice of setting a time limit for scrutiny, you said that you have heard Members' views. Frankly speaking, when several Members (including Ms Claudia MO) and I met with you last week, you did not mention that you would set a time limit for scrutiny, and you did not answer our questions. President, you cannot just say that you have already heard the views of Members. I have no idea which Members' views you have heard, yet your ruling is not subject to debate. After you had made the decision, we indicated our stance 11724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 very clearly, i.e. we were greatly dissatisfied with your decision and strongly opposed it. The Council has adopted this practise time and again simply for the sake of getting enough supporting votes to tie in with the Government.

We have to remind Members from the pro-establishment camp once again that such kind of mindset and practice of getting enough supporting votes is highly unrighteous and unfair. Pro-establishment Members obtained fewer votes than their pro-democratic counterparts in the election, including us, Members returned by functional constituencies. Even for pro-establishment functional constituencies Members, they still have to count on company votes with the narrowest electorate base to get their seats in the Council, so as to reach the goal of getting enough supporting votes.

President, regarding the arrangement for scrutinizing the Bill, you require us to complete the Second Reading within eight hours, and the Third Reading within six hours. Apparently, this arrangement is unfair and unreasonable, and hence I oppose it and support the adjournment motion. If each Member speaks for 15 minutes, and not counting …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, I already allowed you to speak relatively in detail about matters other than the adjournment motion. I remind you again that according to the Rules of Procedures, the President's ruling is not subject to debate. Please refrain from further debating my ruling.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I am not debating …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If necessary, you may arrange another time and place to discuss the matter with me.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I hope you will understand the logic behind. I am just explaining why I do not agree to your ruling, I am not debating with you or querying whether your present ruling is final. Precisely because your ruling is final, I support this adjournment motion. I am explaining why I cannot agree to your ruling. Can I not talk about this as well? I am not querying your power to make a ruling, President, because you LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11725 have mentioned this point. Thus, I am not going to argue with you about it. The President has the power to rule, but I do not agree to your ruling. Can't I talk about this point? I do not agree to your ruling and oppose setting a time limit for the debate, and thus I support the adjournment motion. President, please be patient and truly listen to Members' views. As you had neither invited us for a discussion nor told us the practice when we met, you should at least listen to us patiently today.

President, you have limited the debate time for Second Reading to eight hours. In case each Member is going to speak and Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, shall have a longer speaking time, and assuming that each Member speaks for 15 minutes, then 30 Members may speak at most, because the Government will also speak at the Second Reading debate. The Bills Committee has a membership of over 60 members. Let us bear in mind that the Bill is highly controversial, thus it is absolutely reasonable and fair that Members want to express their views. However, limiting the debate time fails to let all Members share their views.

The President also agrees that the Bill is highly controversial, because he said so in his reply to us. Mrs Regina IP also made the same remark. Is it that, as depicted by Mrs Regina IP, a discussion is unnecessary owing to the coexistence of Members supporting and opposing the Bill? How could it be so? When there was no controversy, she said that it was not necessary to allocate time for debate; when there were controversies, she then said that given the apparent stances, it was not necessary to allocate time for debate. So, shouldn't we all go home and sleep and take no action at all? Is this the desired outcome? Apparently, there are indeed too few Members in the Chamber. Therefore, 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 Charles Peter MOK, please continue with your speech.

11726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I now proceed to talk about another reason for supporting the adjournment motion, and that is, your substantial reduction of the numerous―actually not numerous, just 75―amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members. We oppose the reduction. Nevertheless, I am not querying your decision because your ruling is final. But what else can we do? One of the ways is to move an adjournment motion, because we can do so during the Second Reading of the Bill, but we cannot do so at the Committee stage later. Will the President please remind us if we can actually do so. Since we cannot move an adjournment motion later, we now move the motion.

President, amongst the amendments we proposed, 51 were ruled by you as inadmissible and 24 amendments were admitted, and you limit the debate time to 22 hours. Mathematically, if each of the 67 Members speaks once or twice, and even if no headcount is requested with all Members remain seated, the speaking time for each Member on each amendment is less than a minute, excluding the discussion time for clauses with no amendment. According to the most basic and simplest mathematical analysis, the time allocated is definitely not enough. As such an arrangement will become a procedural precedent, the problem will be even more serious. This is because no time limit has ever been set in the past for the scrutiny of legislative amendments (except amendments to the Budget).

President, when we met with you, you explained to us personally the factors that you take into account in determining whether or not to accept an amendment to the Bill. Amendments to the Bill are different from amendments to the Budget, because the amendments to deduct the emoluments of a particular director of bureau have no material significance; rather, they are simply proposed for debate's sake, and practically the Government will not consequently reduce its funding allocation. As for the amendments to the Bill, they must be scrutinized one by one because of their significance. Of course, the President ultimately said that certain amendments were not admissible as they failed to comply with this and that principle. Nevertheless, following this line of logic, we even need more time for debate, but the President rejected our request. Thus, given that we have no alternative and cannot question the President's decision, we can only move an adjournment motion.

Actually, in his letter to us, the President cited the hours of scrutiny for other bills, e.g. 36 hours were spent for the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012, involving 56 amendments; 40 hours were spent for the Competition Bill, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11727 involving 230 amendments; and 58 hours were spent for the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill, which had as many as 380 amendments. The President wanted to tell us that there were also many amendments to other bills, but the time for scrutiny ranged from 30-odd to 50-odd hours. However, that involved a few questions.

Amongst the examples listed above, the time taken for the scrutiny of the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012 was the least, i.e. 36 hours. The President has thus limited the time for scrutiny of the Bill to 36 hours. I do not know what the logic behind is. Is it based on the least number of hours? Besides, while the President of the Legislative Council back then did not set time limits for the scrutiny of these bills, also, the Council only spent 30-odd to 50-odd hours on scrutiny. Why should a time limit be set this time? There is no logic, reasons or justifications. Hence, very obviously, the Legislative Council and its Members' powers to scrutinize bills have been tightened gradually. In fact, the authorities' focus might not be this Bill on the co-location arrangement, but bills that will give rise to greater controversy and stronger public opposition in the future, such as legislating for national security, etc.

Hence, this is also the main reason for moving the adjournment motion today. We cannot allow this mistake to carry on and we cannot set these precedents. Given the President's handling of our amendments today, we must have sufficient time to tell all members of the public, through this adjournment motion, that such a practice is highly problematic. Here, we are now defending, in this Chamber, the Basic Law and the power vested by the Basic Law to the public, Members and the Legislative Council. We should not allow the Basic Law to be weakened gradually.

Some say that the Bill be get passed anyway. No matter how long we drag on, it will still be passed after all, won't it? Shall we pay no heed and go home to take a rest? Is it that even if we manage to drag on for a couple of weeks, the outcome will still be the same when the Bill is put to vote? Hence, we shouldn't waste time. However, I want to say that we are not wasting time. We are facing the authoritarian power and when we see how the powers of the Legislative Council have been weakening, and worse still, such powers are weaken by people in this legislature, we are most furious. In order to make more members of the public become aware of this situation and stop the situation from deteriorating, we must move the adjournment motion.

11728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

President, lastly I would like to say that Robert KENNEDY was assassinated in the United States on the same day 50 years ago. He once said that "fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it". We are here to fight for justice and stop draconian laws. It is a tough path, but we are not afraid and need not be afraid. Our only fear is that there are too few people taking this path, and that the number of participants is decreasing. Therefore, even if we can only stall for a couple of weeks and cannot stop the passage of this Bill, we still have to let everyone see how outrageous and unjust this Bill is and how it undermines "one country, two systems", so that more people will join us in this path.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the adjournment motion. Mr Charles Peter MOK talked about logic and common sense with you just now. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") has reached a stage where it is basically impossible to understand the Bill based on common sense and logic. President, you have set a precedent by forcibly limiting the speaking time for the Second Reading debate to eight hours. The decision has been solely made by you. President, you often say that Members who have any questions can have further discussion with you on another occasion after the meeting. Please do not forget that once the Bill is passed, how can further discussion be held? Hence, it is well justified to adjourn the debate on the Bill so that Members can have a thorough discussion with the President. Or, conversely, the President may move an adjournment motion to give Members an opportunity to discuss with him.

The meeting arrangement today is neither reasonable nor appropriate. Of course, the so-called common sense, justifications and logic put forward by the Administration only serve to expedite the passage of the Bill. The public officers of the HKSAR Government, pro-establishment Members and even the President share the same mentality―they have to work with the HKSAR Government to pass the Bill expeditiously. As such, further discussion on logic may only be in vain. The President himself has his predetermined stance and way of thinking. He has simply managed to justify the whole matter with some excuses.

Why do we consider the Bill to be highly controversial? As pointed out by Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11729

Bills Committee") just now, the number of members of the Bills Committee was a record high, an indication of the controversy over the Bill. However, the time for the Second Reading debate has been limited to eight hours now. I also pointed out just now that the Bill was extremely controversial. Given the time limit, only about 30 Members can speak, which is fewer than half the number of members in committee of the whole Council and in the Bills Committee. How can this arrangement be considered reasonable?

During the discussion at the Bills Committee, quite a number of issues have simply not been clarified, or the HKSAR Government has been unwilling to explain in greater detail. I cite a few examples. First, what is the applicability of international laws? The authorities have indeed provided a reply. When asked by a Member as to our duties under international treaties in the event of future international disputes, the Administration has replied as follows: "In relation to the MPA [Mainland Port Area], the HKSAR Government has communicated with the CPG [Central People's Government] on the applicability of international treaties thereat. Both sides consider that the MPA, as a clearance port, is mainly used for the purposes of immigration, customs and quarantine, and the area involved is minimal. Substantial difficulties in applying international treaties due to the implementation of co-location arrangement in the MPA would be rather unlikely. Where necessary, the HKSAR Government and the CPG would engage in consultations on the implementation of international treaties in the MPA and handle the matter as appropriate."

In simple terms, the HKSAR and Central Authorities have not tackled the relevant issues, have they? The Government has advised that it would tackle whatever problems which may arise. There are two points in the reply, namely "the area is minimal" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I have repeatedly reminded Members about the question under the current debate. Members should state whether they support the adjournment of the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill. The general merits and principles of the Bill should be the question under the Second Reading debate. You have been discussing in detail the question to be discussed under the Second Reading debate. Please come back to the question under the current debate.

11730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, in simple terms, in this debate, Members should speak on whether they support the motion to adjourn the debate on the Bill. In fact, I am now explaining why I support the adjournment motion. I find it very strange that the President disallows me to talk about the contents of the Bill. It is exactly due to the problems with the contents of the Bill that I support the adjournment motion. By the same token, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, the arrangement on the debate time made by the President is precisely one of the reasons why other Members and I support the adjournment motion … 

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, you may point out what you deem unreasonable about the Bill as an argument for the adjournment motion. However, you should not speak on the details of the Bill. Please continue with your speech now.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): The problem with the Bill lies exactly in its lack of details. What I quoted just now was not excerpted from the Bill but from a reply letter from the Administration. After all, how will the Administration deal with the applicability of international laws? The Bill has not elaborated on this. This is where the problem lies.

President, why have I been worried about the problem? The reason is very simple. What kind of officers can actually enter the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") to discharge their duties? What will be the arrangement for the consular officers stationed in Hong Kong? Oddly enough, some consuls have really told me that they did not know how to handle the situation. In principle, consular officers can carry out their consular duties within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. However, the region concerned has been re-demarcated as MPA. That being the case, can consular officers continue to have access? President, the answer is in the negative. However, does it mean that consuls who are stationed in the Mainland can enter MPA in Hong Kong? President, the answer is unclear either.

Based on the explanation of the Administration, in principle, consuls stationed in the Mainland can do so. However, the relevant arrangement is within the ambit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Government. The reason for this is that consuls stationed in the Mainland and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11731 the Mainland Government might have signed agreements under which Hong Kong had not been included within the scope of application. At present, an interesting situation has appeared. Continental laws are applicable in an area within Hong Kong's jurisdiction. In that case, can consular officers stationed in the Mainland enter MPA, an area which has appeared to them as newly established? We will not know if Hong Kong had been included within the scope of application of the previous agreements signed by the consular officers. As the agreements had been signed between China and other countries, it will be impossible for us to know the terms therein.

On the other hand, consuls stationed in Hong Kong will find themselves in a very awkward position. Under the new arrangement, will consuls stationed in the Mainland be inevitably given access to the area concerned? The Government has not replied to this question and has shifted all the responsibility onto the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As noted in the government reply letter I cited just now, the Government would only take action when problems arise. In the reply letter, the Secretary for Transport and Housing said that "the area involved is minimal" and that substantial difficulties in applying international treaties "would be rather unlikely". In the process of formulating legislation, we must examine whether the Bill can be implemented in a safe and reliable manner under different scenarios without leading to any unusual circumstances. It was not until problems had arisen that the authorities realized that they did not know how to handle them. As the authorities had said, should problems arise, appropriate action would be taken to handle them when necessary. I therefore consider the scrutiny of the Bill to be slipshod, and that is also the reason why I support the adjournment motion. I also hope to take the opportunity of the motion debate to discuss one detail which I expounded just now. It is just among one of the details.

In addition, as Ms Tanya CHAN has also mentioned, in the discussion on matters relating to Hong Kong's co-location arrangements, we have been constantly drawing comparisons with the co-location model of the Shenzhen Bay Port ("Shenzhen Bay model"). To implement the Shenzhen Bay model, the State Council had first issued a state notice setting out the coordinates (namely latitudes and longitudes) of boundary lines and the Clearance Area. The Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill back then had incorporated the 11732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 coordinates set out in the state notice of the State Council. However, the Bill has adopted a different approach. I have asked Secretary Frank CHAN if it was possible for us to inspect the overall arrangements of the Shenzhen Bay Port. The Secretary has advised that he would give me a reply after the completion of studies. His subsequent reply to me was: The model adopted by the Shenzhen Bay Port was different. They had held meetings to decide the coordinates before directly giving an account to the Hong Kong Government. The Secretary has called on us to believe in the Government. He has reassured us that the Government had verified the actual coordinates to be exactly the same as those provided by the Mainland Government.

The problem is, in scrutinizing every piece of legislation, Members must ascertain that every detail is accurate and correct, and Members must be informed of the sources of all information. It is also the responsibility of Members to examine if there are any mistakes and omissions in the legislations and whether the relationships involved are sound. However, the authorities have failed to even provide us with the information in response to our simple question. It has often been said that the co-location arrangement was made with reference to the Shenzhen Bay model. However, it has turned out to be otherwise. In response to the question on legislative procedure I raised just now, the authorities have again failed to provide supporting documents. I feel extremely disappointed by this.

I support the adjournment motion because I want to take this opportunity to clarify and urge the Government to submit the relevant documents. I have browsed the website of the State Council. Of course, I understand that not all business of the State Council have been listed on the website. However, at a minimum, the meetings which had been held should be listed. However, I have not found any meeting on setting out the coordinates as mentioned above. Among the meetings regularly held by the State Council on its website, not a single meeting had been dedicated to defining the scope of Hong Kong's co-location arrangement. Therefore, I consider the relevant arrangement to be a black box operation.

Another reason for me to support the adjournment motion was related to the Shek Kong Stabling Sidings ("SSS"). In this connection, I will further explain one point clearly. The authorities have maintained that SSS has no security issues. Under the Mass Transit Railway By-laws, the SSS area is in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11733 principle off limits to all outsiders. However, I do not consider this to be a problem. Take smuggling activities as an example. It is not against the law for someone to carry certain objects on the streets. For example, it is not against the law to carry 10 tins of powdered formula on the streets. However, someone carrying 10 tins of powdered formula commits a crime if he enters the port area or attempts to go through immigration clearance. Yet, if the very person shows up at SSS, he will likewise not commit a crime. According to the authorities, no illegal activities will take place at SSS because access by outsiders will be banned. However, assuming that an MTR staff member engages in the smuggling of diamonds, and he has carried some diamonds with him intended for smuggling. After he has entered the area concerned, even if he is found to carry diamonds, the relevant department is still unable to gather evidence. As it is impossible for the relevant department to know what action the staff member will take next, no prosecution can be instituted by invoking laws applicable to smuggling in closed area simply based on the discovery of a number of diamonds on his body. As SSS is essentially not a boundary closed area, the relevant activities are not illegal.

I have repeatedly raised this question, but the authorities have kept reiterating at the Bills Committee that the SSS area is a restricted zone where the aforementioned scenario will not occur. The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") will guard against entry by outsiders by erecting a fence wall of about 10 m tall. In fact, the authorities have not directly responded to the question I raised back then. Although the aforementioned scenario might happen, the authorities have refused to give a response. At the 19 meetings held, the authorities have kept evading some questions and have failed to face them squarely. I have even asked Secretary Frank CHAN if it was possible to arrange an inspection of SSS for Members. It would not matter whether the inspection would be conducted before or after the scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, frankly speaking, the Government considers that the Bill will definitely get passed. Will the authorities arrange an inspection of SSS for Members?

SSS is in principle not part of MPA, and entry thereto should not be banned. Anyone who wants to enter MPA may have to seek prior approval from the Mainland Authorities. However, for entry to SSS, it is in principle not necessary to do so. As long as the Government and MTRCL are willing to work in collaboration, Members may go there for an inspection. However, we have so far not received any news and we do not know if the authorities will make such an arrangement.

11734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

At the meeting of this week or next week, the Secretary will have the opportunity to give a consolidated reply to Members' speeches. By then, I hope that the Secretary will answer the question I raised just now as to whether an arrangement will be made for Members to inspect the security condition at SSS. In fact, this will also help ensure railway safety, and will ensure that the railway will not be used for smuggling activities whereby lawbreakers will smuggle goods to and from the Mainland or Hong Kong.

I reiterate my support for the adjournment motion.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Civic Party will certainly support the adjournment motion moved by our party member Ms Tanya CHAN in respect of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). We do not want Legislative Council Members to hastily pass the Bill, which has caused widespread controversy and, in our view, contravenes the Basic Law. Recently, there has been a series of construction scandals involving the company responsible for the hardware behind the Bill, namely the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"). The Chairman of the Bills Committee and the President of the Legislative Council have brazenly pandered to the Government, kept holding additional meetings to scrutinize the Bill and curtailed Members' speaking time, with a view to coercing the Legislative Council into legitimizing the unconstitutional co-location arrangement.

In my opinion, the above reasons are sufficient to persuade any Legislative Council Member who is in his or her right mind and determined to monitor the Government into supporting this adjournment motion and shelving the Bill for the time being.

(Mr Jeremy TAM stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11735

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 Alvin YEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, next, I am going to elaborate, one by one, on the several reasons for supporting this adjournment motion as I mentioned just now, but before I do so, I want to say a few words to Hong Kong people: regardless of whether you support or oppose the co-location arrangement, and regardless of whether you consider the co-location arrangement to be relevant to you, Hong Kong people should be more concerned about how the Government and the majority camp in the Legislative Council have been in cahoots with each other, how they have conspired to damage the separation of powers, and how they have stripped the legislature of its function to monitor the executive authorities. This time, it is the co-location arrangement that you do not care about, but next time, it may well be another bill that is closely relevant to your interests.

President, I believe I do not need to reiterate how much controversy the co-location arrangement has sparked in the Legislative Council, but has it caused controversy in Hong Kong society? What do Hong Kong people think about it? An opinion survey conducted by the Democratic Party last year found that 40% of the respondents supported the co-location arrangement and 40% opposed it, showing that the respondents had very divergent views and there was an intense tug of war over public opinion. Yesterday, on the eve of this Council meeting, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") announced the findings of its opinion survey on the co-location arrangement. Despite the downright misleading methodology of the survey, only less than 70% of the respondents expressed support for the co-location arrangement. President, even DAB, Hong Kong's largest political party which is backed by great financial resources and powers and is so eager to pass the Bill for the Government, failed to "create" a satisfying public opinion report card―as it undertook to do so, it should have produced a report card showing that 90% or 100% of the respondents 11736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 supported the co-location arrangement. After all, when what Members say in this Council and their academic qualifications do not have to be true, why do the findings of an opinion survey have to be true?

President, it is thus clear that the co-location arrangement is controversial not only in the Legislative Council but also among Hong Kong people, who still have diverse views and various doubts about it. We should allow time for the Government to, first, clearly explain the merits and demerits of the co-location arrangement to the community and dispel various misgivings. Only after that should the Government introduce the Bill into this Council for scrutiny again. This is the first reason why I support this adjournment motion.

The second reason is that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional. There is no way that the Legislative Council should pass a Bill that is extremely likely to contravene the Basic Law. I believe all Honourable colleagues sitting here know very well which articles of the Basic Law the co-location arrangement is suspected of contravening, and we have discussed this time and again at the meetings of the Bills Committee. The thing is, some Members of this Council actually said, "After the passage of the Bill, if you think that it is unlawful, just apply to the court for a judicial review!" When the Hong Kong Bar Association issued three statements to challenge the legality of the co-location arrangement; when the Legal Service Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat asked the Administration to clarify the constitutional basis of the co-location arrangement; and when the officials answering our questions here could only say that it is based on "the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress" which has no legal basis at all, how come some Members of this Council could make the above remark? These Members had the effrontery to persuade other Members to support the Bill on the grounds that "it can be annulled after being enacted". President, do these Members think that this Council is imbecile? As Members of this Council, we must be accountable not only to our voters but also to our intelligence quotient. Before the constitutional basis of the co-location arrangement and the question of whether it is unlawful are clarified, I think the Second Reading debate on the Bill should be adjourned.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11737

Deputy President, the third reason has to do with the problems of MTRCL. After the derailment of a Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") train in a trial run, someone said jokingly, "So what if the co-location arrangement is approved? XRL is not ready yet." Indeed, the derailment was followed by revelations of water seepage in an XRL tunnel and severe wear of wheels of XRL trains. All these, coupled with the suspected jerry-building at the Hung Hom Station construction site of the Shatin to Central Link, which has just been revealed, have naturally aroused the public's suspicion and concern that although MTRCL―as its Chairman Frederick MA, recently dubbed "OK Bro", said―is a company with 30-odd years of experience in operating railways, there may be something wrong with the approach taken by its management in the light of such irregularities in two of its largest railway projects that have consumed most public money in recent years. These are cases of unprofessionalism which have caused disquiet among passengers. As the Chinese saying goes, "When the higher-ups do not set a good example, the subordinates cannot be expected to behave well." Today, MTRCL was hit by another scandal about mass cheating in its Engineer's Person-in-Charge exam.

Deputy President, in addition to convenience and punctuality, railway operators must also ensure safety―I believe no Member here will dismiss safety as unimportant. However, as we can see now, not only are there often MTR service delays and suspensions, but there have been so many incidents involving MTRCL as well. Will these affect Hong Kong people's confidence in MTRCL? The Bill and MTRCL are basically inseparable "conjoined twins", and they are like the software and hardware of a computer. Anyone who has assembled a computer certainly knows that he must first put together all hardware parts and make sure they run smoothly without conflicting with each other before he can deal with the software. As the XRL trial runs are still underway and the hardware is not ready yet, I do not see any urgency in dealing with the software, i.e. the co-location arrangement. This is the third reason why I think we must support this adjournment motion.

Deputy President, apart from the above three reasons, we must also look at certain procedural issues which involve various acts of other Members of this Council in handling the Bill. In my view, such acts constitute sufficient grounds for adjourning the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

First, I have to talk about the way Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, dealt with the Bill. The Bills Committee held its first meeting on 12 February and its last meeting on 7 May this year. In less than three months, 11738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 it held a total of 19 meetings, including public hearings, and nine of the meetings were held in April alone. Such a high frequency of the meetings indicates that the political task of ensuring the passage of the Bill is truly "non-negotiable". It also makes people query whether such frequent meetings were really effective in allowing members of the Bills Committee to carefully chew over and discuss the contents of the Bill, and allowing the public to think over the entire Bill. Deputy President, given the importance of the Bill, which has a ripple effect, as well as the unprecedented implications of the Bill for the laws of Hong Kong, was it a correct, appropriate and proportionate approach to hold the meetings in that way? I have serious doubts about this.

Besides, Deputy President, we have to ponder one question: What are the functions of the Chairman of a Bills Committee? The functions of the Chairman of a Bills Committee are to ensure that its meetings can be held, and to effectively allow different parties to state their views and have sufficient time to digest and take reference from relevant information. Regrettably, although the Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mrs Regina IP, was indeed fully capable of ensuring the efficiency of the meetings, that is―to put it objectively―ensuring that the Bill introduced by the Government could quickly get past her, was this something that we expected the Chairman of the Bills Committee to do? We wanted to see that she would ensure that the Bill had a legal basis and was in line with the spirit of the law, but the objective fact we saw this time was that she merely wanted to ensure the commissioning of XRL in the third quarter of this year.

Deputy President, the Legislative Council is not the Government's lackey. To prevent the Government from sinking deeper into the quagmire, should we not pause and think this time? If I must draw an analogy between the Chairman of a Bills Committee and an ancient Chinese official, I would say the Chairman of a Bills Committee (or even the whole Legislative Council) is like a remonstrance official, for he or she must ensure that every bill introduced by the Government can stand the test of time and is legally sound. But unfortunately, the Chairman of the Bills Committee in question was more like a eunuch than a remonstrance official.

A further problem is, of course, the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council, Mr Andrew LEUNG, to "draw the line". As Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said earlier on, there was no justification and no precedent for the President to set a time limit on the Second Reading debate beforehand. Let me do a calculation based only on the number of Members. If all the 67 Members LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11739 would speak, and each of them would speak for 15 minutes, it would at least take 16 hours. Now, with only eight hours allocated for the Second Reading debate, time is absolutely not enough, and Members have been clearly deprived of their right to speak. We should also bear in mind that the Rules of Procedure provide that a Member may speak for an unlimited number of times in committee of the whole Council.

Earlier on, Mr CHU Hoi-dick asked the President what he meant by "no intention of debating", and the President replied that he did not have to give an explanation. This answer reminds me of Frederick MA's remark that "if we tell you it is OK, then it is". Mr CHU, I believe the meaning of the President's reply to you is that if he says you have no intention of debating, then you have no intention of debating. This seems to be a speculation about a Member's intention or motive. Is this the right thing to do? I believe this alone constitutes a sufficient reason to adjourn the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I do not want the Legislative Council to become "the OK Council" when MTR becomes "OKR".

Deputy President, it is undeniable that this adjournment motion is bound to be negatived with the royalists' support for and defence of the Bill, which is very likely to be passed swiftly as expected. My concern is that what will be passed this time is not just a bill pertaining to the co-location arrangement, but "a bill on the Legislative Council officially becoming a rubber stamp". The impact of this on us will even be much greater than the profound impact of the co-location arrangement on the laws of Hong Kong, the Basic Law framework and the spirit of common law. In this connection, I hope my Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp will consider the situation carefully, and pause and think seriously about the price we have to pay for meeting their political needs. This is worth pondering.

This adjournment motion, if successfully passed by us, might buy time to allow the public to fully understand the Bill, and galvanize the Bureau or even the Secretary for Justice, who is not here today, into explaining further to the public whether the co-location arrangement is really lawful and whether we can really bear the social cost that the co-location arrangement is going to forcibly impose on Hong Kong.

We may hastily pass the Bill in 2018, but what will be the consequences of this in the next 10 or 20 years? Our responsibility does not end at this moment. Members of the current Council should work for the future. We should not only 11740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 talk facilely about convenience and seek to accomplish the non-negotiable task of ensuring the commissioning of XRL in the third quarter. These are just transient things. What is more important is how we can establish order for the future of Hong Kong. In particular, it should be noted that the various precedents set by the President of the Legislative Council in making arrangements for debating the Bill this time have indeed led to concerns about what will become of this Council when we are to scrutinize a more controversial bill in the future.

So, Deputy President, I hope Honourable colleagues can stand upright in the face of the non-negotiable task and think carefully about whether it is worth forcing through the Bill. We cannot afford to pay the price for this in 2018. XRL may really be commissioned in the third quarter, but what will happen as a result of that in the future? Can our constitutional framework, our constitutional order and, more importantly, the dignity of this Council withstand challenges?

I hope all Honourable colleagues will consider the situation carefully and support this adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN. I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I speak in support of the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The Democratic Party will also support this motion.

We support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN because just as many colleagues have pointed out, the constitutionality of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") concerning the co-location arrangement is worthy of our discussion. Article 18(3) of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong, except for those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as others listed in Annex III. However, if there is a conflict between national laws and the jurisdiction of Hong Kong or the conflicts involve the territory boundaries of Hong Kong, the matter would be very serious.

Whenever we mention the Bay Area, we would say that the biggest advantage of Hong Kong is "one country, two systems" and the core of which is the Basic Law. The Basic Law, on the other hand, is underpinned by several considerations. Firstly, the Basic Law is formulated on the basis of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China ("the Constitution"); secondly, laws enacted by the Legislative Council shall not contravene the Basic Law, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11741 lastly, should any dispute arise, an interpretation or amendment of the Basic Law can be sought pursuant to Articles 158 and 159 respectively, which is a matter of the system. However, with regard to the co-location arrangement, we have repeatedly asked the Government during the examination of the Bill whether or not the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Decision") and the Explanations of ZHANG Xiaoming are interpretation of the Basic Law. However, the Government replied in the negative and highlighted that it did not have such an understanding, which nonetheless is the truth. As clearly stated in the Decision, it is essential for the entire legislative process to be completed in Hong Kong before the implementation of the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong.

This has given rise to two major problems. First, the Decision has not dealt with the issue of constitutionality, that is, it has not identified any provisions in the Basic Law to serve as the constitutional basis for the co-location arrangement. Second, the co-location arrangement, which found its legal basis in the agreement signed between Hong Kong and the Mainland, would be implemented in Hong Kong by the Decision of NPCSC. This leaves plenty of room for the Basic Law and "one country, two systems".

The Democratic Party's support of this adjournment motion has actually cast the first doubt on constitutionality. As a matter of fact, I have once asked if this approach could be taken as a special case only confined to XRL, given the fact that the construction of XRL has already cost $100 billion and has been subject to various legal challenges. The answer is again in the negative as no one knows what would happen in the future.

I once asked former Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN if the Government could promise that the approach adopted for the Bill pertaining to the co-location arrangement would not be adopted again, but the Government replied in the negative as it could not restrain how the future Chief Executive exercised his legal rights and interests. Therefore, judging from this angle, I support the adjournment motion as the passage of the Bill will not only have an implication on the co-location arrangement, but will also bring endless troubles. Besides counting on and trusting the Government, it seems that we have no other 11742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 alternatives. And yet, do we have enough trust in the Government nowadays? Moreover, in dealing with matters relating to XRL, the Government has arbitrarily opened up a gap and according to our observation, the gap was deliberately opened up by the Government. How can we believe that the Government will not play the same trick again in the future?

The arrangements made by the President in connection with the present discussion of this Bill have already aroused doubts from many colleagues. For me, the biggest doubt is, even if the President has the authority to make rulings, how come he has not provided any legal basis to convince Members that the rulings made are well-founded? According to the President, the Legislative Council does not have the authority to rule whether a bill proposed by the Government is constitutional and whether it has contravened the Basic Law. However, Article 11 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that laws enacted by the Hong Kong Legislative Council shall comply with the Basic Law and must not be unconstitutional, whereas Article 72 of the Basic Law also stipulates that the President has the power to decide on the agenda. Judging from this angle, the President should, though his views may be different from other Members, provide the legal basis for Members to examine and understand the rationale of his decision. He should not turn a deaf ear to our requests, or refuse to seek legal advice from an independent third party to explain his decision. His behavior merely reflects that the Legislative Council is unable to discharge the responsibility of monitoring the work of the Government and examining bills proposed by the Government as prescribed in the Basic Law. How can this not be the powers and responsibilities of the President? How can he turn the Legislative Council into a rubber stamp of the Government? Despite the divergence of views between the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps, should we convince people by reasoning insofar as the system is concerned? If the Legislative Council cannot convince people by reasoning, how can it win the trust and support of people through monitoring the work of the Government? This is a very fundamental issue.

When Members proposed to impose any restriction on the Bill introduced by the Government, the President ruled the relevant proposals unconstitutional and unlawful. And yet, we are simply trying to help the SAR Government by all means as the issue has already come to a dead end. In view that the construction of XRL, costing $100 billion, has been completed, are we really going to leave it idle as advocated by many people? However, if XRL is commissioned, the Hong Kong Bar Association or pro-democracy Members of this Council may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11743 query whether it is necessary to have the door so widely open, even if there is a need to open the door? Is it possible to impose certain constraints and restrictions so that we know the basis on which the power has been exercised by the Government? Even if we are to sign any agreement in the future that may ultimately undermine―perhaps I should not say undermine as some people may not think so―the interests of Hong Kong, should there be any basis for such an agreement? What kind of basis is involved? There is none as the scope cannot be narrowed in any way. We cannot limit the scope of law enforcement of the Mainland Customs to clearance, immigration and quarantine only, which is impossible. But will it perform other functions? This is precisely our concern. Has the Government tried to address people's concern?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, I think you are discussing the question of the Second Reading debate …

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I get it. I just want to clearly explain why I support the adjournment motion …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject and state if you support the adjournment motion.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I get it.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I am well aware of this, Deputy President. The Member moved this adjournment motion in the hope that the Government will think carefully: What is the core issue regarding the present co-location arrangement? Is it purely a linkage with the development of the Bay Area to provide more immigration convenience and bring maximum benefits for Hong Kong society? Or, should we make an all-out effort to avoid, against this background, compromising the special status that Hong Kong enjoys under "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law? Should we also examine the 11744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 differences between Hong Kong and other Mainland cities and provinces as well as the applicability of the national laws in Hong Kong as provided under Article 18(3) of the Basic Law?

Adjourning the debate of the Bill will enable the Government to, when facing members of the public, stop and think what is in the best interests of Hong Kong and how to uphold "one country, two systems". Frankly speaking, if we always consider that cashing in on the Mainland, our hinterland, is the most important factor, then the special status that Hong Kong enjoys under "one country, two systems" will easily be sacrificed and the loss incurred may probably be greater than the commissioning of XRL.

"One country, two systems" is an important issue relating to the future economic development of the Mainland, and the trade war between China and the United States has already revealed that if Hong Kong has not gradually become a Mainland city due to "one country, two systems", we might still have a role to play. But if the SAR Government is reluctant to consider this issue, or to analyse and compare seriously the loss incurred by Hong Kong for not implementing the co-location arrangement or "one country, two systems", then any decision made would be unfair to the entire Hong Kong society.

Therefore, Deputy President, today I would like to ask Secretary Frank CHAN again to seriously answer the following questions: First, is he pretty sure that Hong Kong society is ready to stand another interpretation of the Basic Law? When the SAR Government enacts any law …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please return to the subject of the present debate.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am explaining whether I support the adjournment motion.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are repeating the points of other Members and discussing the impact of the co-location arrangement on "one country, two systems". Please try to be concise …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11745

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I get it. Last of all, I beg the Secretary to consider the following question which no government official has answered so far. I would like to ask whether it is necessary for the Government to prepare for the challenge of judicial review in the course of enacting any law. Since the challenge of judicial review has triggered a new round of interpretation of the Basic Law, will this bring any serious consequences to the economic development of Hong Kong society? These are the questions that I want to ask. For this reason, I support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN. Since the Government has refused to answer these questions time and again in the previous discussions, and has not conducted any serious analysis, the community has all along focused on one perspective alone, and that is, XRL and the co-location arrangement would bring us speedy, quality and efficient services.

As a matter of fact, the concept of "speedy, quality and efficient services" is riddled with problems. As provided by the Secretary, the present fare of XRL to Guangzhou South Station is $260 for a second-class seat and the fare to Futian Station is $80. When compared with the fares of other transportation means to Futian or Guangzhou South Stations, an apparent question will arise as regards whether the competitiveness of XRL can sustain its long-term operation.

Initially, the Secretary confidently advised that XRL would break even at its initial operation, but then he changed the line and said that XRL would break even in the course of operation. This reflects that there are many uncertainties associated with the operation of XRL, especially when Members still have yet to read the relevant Operating Agreement and have no idea of the operating cost to be paid. Against this background, the present adjournment motion may be a better alternative so that the Government can pause and think before giving a clear account to convince members of the public.

Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Ms Tanya CHAN's motion. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that this Council is debating the question of whether the Second Reading debate of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") should be adjourned, will Members please focus on discussing why they support or oppose this adjournment motion. As regards the general merits or amendment details of the Bill, they should be discussed later during the Second 11746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Reading debate. When Members spoke just now, many of them have expressed views on the constitutionality of the Bill, the rulings and arrangements made by the President, as well as and the implication of the passage of the Bill on "one country, two systems". I would like to ask Members who are going to speak not to repeat the same arguments in detail so as to ensure more effective use of the Council's time.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN requesting that the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be returned to the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee") for scrutiny again. It is widely known that the express rail link ("XRL") faced great controversies at the very beginning of its planning, and an avalanche of scandals ensued thereafter, such as cost overruns, delays and construction blunders. I personally even hold that only by consulting the public again on the Bill can procedural justice be upheld. Deputy President, since the announcement by Chief Executive of the enactment of legislation on the co-location arrangement through the "Three-step Process", a deadline has been set for the scrutiny in the Legislative Council, and the Government has been forcing the Legislative Council to hastily pass the Bill on the grounds that time is running short and XRL must be commissioned in September this year. This explains why I support the adjournment of the debate.

We would have had sufficient time to discuss the co-location arrangement given that discussions between the Hong Kong SAR Government and the Beijing Government over the co-location arrangement started in as early as 2011. Over the years, the Legislative Council has constantly asked the Government about the progress of the discussions between the two Governments over the co-location arrangement, but the Hong Kong SAR Government has failed to present a specific proposal, saying month after month and year after year that the proposal is still under discussion. There were cost overruns and delays in 2014 and 2015, and three years after 2015, the scheduled year of its commissioning, XRL has yet to be commissioned. This means that the Government has unexpectedly got three more years to address our concerns, such as whether the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional, and whether it has given rise to various problems. The Government basically has sufficient time to conduct a public consultation on the co-location arrangement, allow the Bills Committee to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11747 scrutinize the Bill, and clarify all such matters as whether the co-location arrangement has infringed the Basic Law and whether it would cause harm or undermine "one country, two systems".

Deputy President, why do I support the adjournment motion? The reason is that the Government had failed to take the actions I mentioned just now, but instead presented a specific proposal on the co-location arrangement only in July 2017, a good seven and a half years after the Legislative Council granted the funding approval for building XRL in 2010, or two and a half years after the original scheduled date of its commissioning. Following the announcement of the proposal, the authorities refused to conduct any public consultation on the grounds that time is running short, and set the deadline for the Legislative Council to pass the Bill in July 2018 before the summer recess. With merely one year left, the Government unexpectedly said that time was pressing; while in the previous seven years it failed to take any moves, present any specific proposal or come to the Legislative Council to give an account. This is the first reason why I support the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN.

During the scrutiny by the Bills Committee, the Chairman, Mrs Regina IP, breached procedural justice to restrain, in a heavy-handed manner, Members from raising questions and proposing amendments, and set a voting time limit to dovetail with the deadline set by the Chief Executive and the SAR Government. Deputy President, the President of the Legislative Council has continued to tie in with the Government by reducing a total of 75 amendments proposed by elected Members to 24 amendments and unprecedentedly setting a time limit for the debate. Even the Second Reading debate is to be completed within eight hours. Deputy President, this is an extremely controversial Bill that deals the severest blow to "one country, two systems" and infringes the Basic Law since 1997. But the President of the Legislative Council surprisingly only allows some 30 Members to speak at the resumption of the Second Reading debate. Is this reasonable? How can procedural justice be upheld?

Deputy President, when we do not have sufficient time to discuss or debate the replies of the Government or alternative proposals, and the President of the Legislative Council abuses his power and sets bad precedents, we certainly find the arrangement unacceptable. Since the co-location arrangement is allegedly unconstitutional, why should we, elected Members of the Legislative Council, be the accomplices of the Government? As we have taken our oaths to serve as 11748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 representatives of public opinion in the legislature, and to speak for the people is our bounded duty, why must we support the Government to pass the Bill that is unconstitutional, infringes the Basic Law and undermines "one country, two systems"? For this reason, Deputy President, the remark made by us in the community and the media on "cession-based co-location arrangement" is no exaggeration, but a factual statement.

Deputy President, the Government has all along made its replies on the basis of the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"). By treating the decision of NPCSC as the ultimate authority and a shield, the Government has been urging Members to pass the Bill that is based on the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement, thus virtually stripping the Legislative Council of its power to scrutinize legislation. While the Government claims that the "Three-step Process" provides a legal basis for the co-location arrangement, Deputy President, why do I support the adjournment motion? The Government has constantly stressed the importance of this legal basis, urging Members to hand down their professional judgment prudently and rationally, but, through public hearings, we have realized that even legal professionals and the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association") query whether the Bill has contravened Article 18 of the Basic Law.

Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that national laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. However, the Government has arbitrarily made a new interpretation of Article 18 of the Basic Law. The legislature and Hong Kong people have never heard of such a new interpretation, that is, Article 18 of the Basic Law will not be contravened as long as Mainland laws are not applicable in the entire territory of Hong Kong and not imposed on all people in Hong Kong. The second reason why I support the adjournment motion is that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional and infringes the Basic Law. The Government has yet to provide a reasonable explanation or adopt an alternative proposal.

Deputy President, the Bar Association also queries whether allowing Mainland officers to enforce Mainland laws in the Mainland Port Area will contravene Article 19 of the Basic Law, which provides that the Hong Kong SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11749 shall be vested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, and Article 22, which provides that: "All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region." Deputy President, this is the second reason why I support the adjournment motion.

Apart from the problem of unconstitutionality, the third reason has also long been my concern. Since I joined the Select Committee to Inquire into the Background of and Reasons for the Delay of the Construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link of the Legislative Council in the previous term of the Legislative Council, I have paid attention to cost effectiveness, Deputy President. At the Bills Committee, Secretary Frank CHAN has on various occasions avoided giving a reply to, and used various reasons trying to explain, why discrepancies have arisen between the economic benefits predicted by the Government to be achieved following the commissioning of XRL and the present circumstances. Time and again the Government has been self-contradictory; time and again it has moved the goalposts; time and again it has evaded providing representatives of public opinion in the Council with concrete figures and explaining clearly the adverse impacts on economic benefits should the co-location arrangement concerning XRL fail to be implemented. The Government said earlier that even if the co-location arrangement was put in place, the MTR Corporation Limited might still need to subsidize the operational expenses of XRL within the first 10 years following its commissioning. With less than three months to go before the commissioning in September 2018, the Government has yet to announce the specifics of train schedules and journey times.

Deputy President, on economic benefits and time efficiency, the Government has remained ambiguous, refusing to give a truthful account. In addition, according to Mainland media reports, the saying of the Government has turned out to be untrue, as during the trial runs of XRL trains, the journey time between Guangzhou South Railway Station and the West Kowloon Station was one hour and 18 minutes. Over the past seven or eight years, three Secretaries for Transport and Housing had all indicated that one could travel from Guangzhou to the West Kowloon Station in Hong Kong within 48 minutes, and the Government had used this pledge to lobby the Legislative Council to build a high-speed railway link at an astronomical price. Where is that pledge now?

11750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Deputy President, economic benefits, time efficiency and an avalanche of scandals are the third, fourth and fifth reason why I support the motion. Hong Kong people have derided XRL as a "plastic railway" or a "turtle railway", with a speed only slightly faster than or even not as fast as an intercity through train. An avalanche of scandals refer to such absurdities as charging handling fees for buying train tickets, forbidding train passengers to carry bulky luggage, not allowing passengers to buy tickets in Hong Kong for destinations other than cities that can be reached by direct trains, meaning that such tickets can only be bought in Guangzhou South Railway Station. How come some Hong Kong people have not voiced objection as expected? Deputy President, the reason is that half of the Hong Kong population will simply not take XRL trains. Residents of the New Territories West and New Territories East will not travel to the West Kowloon Station to take an XRL train travelling northward. The Secretary seems to have mentioned the "silent majority", assuming that people who remain silent are in support of XRL.

Deputy President, I support the adjournment motion, so that the Bills Committee can scrutinize the Bill again to plug these loopholes. The Government is absolutely duty-bound to explain to Hong Kong people why they should suffer a double loss, spending as much as $90 billion, excluding the amounts to be claimed by contractors from the SAR Government, at the expense of undermining the Basic Law and "one country, two systems". XRL has far-reaching implications and low economic benefits, and we wonder whether its costs can be recovered in the next 50 years.

Deputy President, when applying for funding approval for the works concerning XRL in 2009, the SAR Government submitted to the Legislative Council a paper on the patronage forecast, economic benefits and operational viability of XRL, as well as the estimated total economic benefits of XRL over 50 years of operation if the co-location arrangement was implemented. XRL is yet to be commissioned, but the estimated economic benefits are already far lower than the project costs, and the Government has failed to provide any information on train schedules and intermediate stops. For this reason, pro-democracy Members of the Legislative Council and dozens of community groups such as the "Co-location" Concern Group have urged the Government to consider implementing the co-location arrangement at Futian Station, Shenzhen, with the hope of turning the tide and enabling XRL, on which Hong Kong people have spent an astronomical sum, to run at a high speed, but the Government has refused to do so.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11751

The President of the Legislative Council has even ruled inadmissible various amendments proposed by pro-democracy Members, including my amendment on only implementing Mainland laws relating to customs, immigration and quarantine procedures, rather than a whole set of Mainland laws, at the West Kowloon Station. We proposed an alternative plan of implementing the co-location arrangement at Futian, but the Government did not accept our proposal. We proposed that we follow the example of foreign countries and only implement Mainland laws relating to customs, immigration and quarantine procedures at the West Kowloon Station, with the hope of minimizing the adverse impacts, but the President ruled our amendments inadmissible.

Deputy President, for the said reasons I do not endorse (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. A quorum is present in the Chamber now, the meeting now continues.

11752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Ms Tanya CHAN's motion that the debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be now adjourned. First of all, I hope that the public and Honourable colleagues will understand that adjourning the Bill and opposing the Second Reading of the Bill are two different things. Today, the President or the Deputy President has reminded Members of the difference between the adjournment motion and the Second Reading. It is precisely for this reason that I wish the Deputy President or the President would understand why I raised a point of order at the beginning of the debate after Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, had spoken. I asked if each Member might speak once at the Second Reading. I would like to speak at the Second Reading but under the eight-hour framework set by the President, I do not know if I have a chance to speak.

I hope that Honourable colleagues would not say that "Slow Beat" has already spoken during the debate on the adjournment motion, as the President and Deputy President have said, speaking on the adjournment motion is different from speaking at the Second Reading; otherwise, it will not be necessary to have the provision on an adjournment motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. I also hope that Honourable colleagues will not say that, if I support the adjournment motion, I just have to raise opposition later when we vote on the Second Reading and need not filibuster. Some consider that the two is somewhat overlapping; if I oppose the Bill and anticipate that it will be read the Second time, when a Member proposes an adjournment motion, I will certainly give support so that we can buy as much time as possible. I may have such kind of mindset. However, I would like to highlight the message of the adjournment motion in this debate. We all know that the two have different requirements. If we want to negative the Bill, at least half of the Members present should vote against the motion; if we want to negative the adjournment motion, under the separate voting system, a majority of Members returned by functional constituencies and Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections should vote against the motion.

Deputy President, why do I support the adjournment motion? In fact, Members supporting the motion would like to have more time to deal with the Bill; if possible, they would strive for more time to bargain with the Government and ask the Government for clear explanations on unanswered questions at meetings or on other occasions. Of course, some people may say that officials were reading out scripts like "human recorders" at meetings of the Bills LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11753

Committee and they were procrastinating. Will the Government really have the patience to answer Members' questions when the debate on the Bill is adjourned? That is not our concern. If the debate on the Bill is adjourned, the pressure on the Government will become relatively greater. In addition, I support the adjournment motion so as to reflect the deficiency with regard to the earlier handling of the Bill, and I hope that measures will be implemented to remedy the situation after the adjournment. These are certainly my subjective and good intentions.

Next, I would like to talk about the reasons for supporting the adjournment of the debate on the Bill. To avoid being criticized by the President that my remarks to be made at the Second Reading debate is the same as those made at present, I will limit the scope of this speech. I would only make three points in the adjournment debate. First, the deliberation process of the co-location arrangement has violated procedural justice; second, the co-location arrangement requires more detailed deliberations; and third, is the Bill really so urgent as claimed by the Government or the President that the deliberation must be completed within 36 hours? In fact, the President sent a letter to all pro-democracy Members this morning, stating that the President has the responsibility to ensure that the Legislative Council must complete the deliberation on the Bill within reasonable time. What is meant by "reasonable time"? I will explain this point again later if I have time.

The first reason why I support the adjournment motion is that the deliberation process of the Bills Committee has violated procedural justice. The Bill on the co-location arrangement has set an important precedent. For the first time, Mainland laws will be implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"), Mainland personnel will be allowed to enforce the law within HKSAR and Hong Kong personnel will be directly under Mainland law enforcement personnel. Despite the importance of the Bill, the Chairman of the Bills Committee unreasonably set a time limit for the scrutiny of the Bills Committee. Before this Bill, there is no provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council or the Handbook for Chairmen of Bills Committees that empowers the Chairman to set a deadline for the scrutiny of the Bills Committee. Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, said that according to the Handbook for Chairmen of Bills Committees, it would be best for the deliberations on the Bill to be completed within two months … within three months, thank you for correcting me. In fact, the provision is not absolute.

11754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

For instance, even when the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012 on the by-election mechanism ought to be passed before the Legislative Council Election in 2012, the Chairman of the Bills Committee concerned had not set a time limit for the deliberation. However, the Chairman of this Bills Committee set that the deliberations should be completed in early May. As a result, even if government officials gave poor replies during the deliberation process, did not give direct answer to the questions raised or even evaded the questions, Members could not ask follow-up questions. Although the Bills Committee had completed its deliberation on the Bill, more doubts and questions have resulted, and we are forced to resume the Second Reading debate on the Bill before such doubts have been dispelled. I understand that Mrs Regina IP, as Chairman of the Bills Committee, has her responsibilities. The situation is evident when we compare this Bills Committee with the Bills Committee on Travel Industry Bill. Members of the latter Bills Committee were allowed to express their views freely. We could spend an hour discussing the Government's reply to a letter from the Legislative Council. Even when we scrutinized the clauses one by one, we could ask as many questions as we wanted for clarification. Of course, the urgency of the two bills may be different but pro-democracy Members really think that the deliberation process of the Bills Committee is problematic.

The deliberation process of the Bill has also violated procedural justice in another area. The Government has abused its power and unreasonably restricted Members' power to scrutinize legislation. As a result, we could not fully understand the contents of the Bill. The Plans in Schedule 2 are an important part of the Bill. Whether the boundaries in these plans can accurately and fully reflect the actual situation and whether the Mainland and Hong Kong port areas have been clearly delineated will directly affect the effectiveness of the Bill. To fully understand the boundary of the Mainland Port Area, members of the Bills Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to allow us to walk along the boundary and inspect all passages connecting the Mainland Port Area and non-Mainland Port Area, i.e. the so-called "swing door". However, our requests had been flatly declined. The Government's decline well illustrated its disregard for Legislative Council Members' responsibility for scrutinizing legislation. A comparison of the Plans in Schedule 2 and the actual situation will clearly demonstrate the violation of procedural justice. Therefore, I support the adjournment motion which will allow the Government to reconsider or even rearrange a visit for us to carefully inspect the boundary of the Mainland Port Area, so that we can fully perform our duties as Members. The Secretary often used the excuse that works were in progress in the construction site of the station, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11755 thus postponing the visit. With the completion of more works, the place should become safer for inspection and more areas should be ready for inspection. We can conduct on-site inspection after the passage of the adjournment motion. I really want to inspect the site today. I wonder if Honourable colleagues have read a report about a scene from the performance "House of Dancing Water" being staged at the West Kowloon Station i.e. water flowing from one floor to another. I really want to take a look.

Another area which I think has violated procedural justice the most is certainly the timing arrangement. We will set a very bad precedent if we allow the continuation of the Second Reading debate which violates procedural justice. The President decided on Monday that the Second Reading debate should be completed in eight hours including the adjournment of meeting for lack of a quorum and the time for headcounts. I am not sure if the time for debating the adjournment motion is also included; if so, a very ridiculous situation may arise, i.e. we may have to vote right after the adjournment debate as there is no time for the Second Reading debate. I do not know if the Secretary has a chance to respond because once the time is up, he needs not respond and the Second Reading procedure will then be completed. Will such a ridiculous situation arise? Deputy President, according to the Rules of Procedure, a Member may speak only once in the Second Reading debate and he shall not make a speech lasting more than 15 minutes. Some Members have just made a calculation that 32 Members may speak within eight hours, but actually not so many Members may speak as the Secretary will also speak, and I think he will also speak for no more than 15 minutes and then we have to vote afterwards. Hence, only 30 members may speak. Therefore, I rose at the outset and asked the President about the relevant arrangement. In my view, this arrangement has violated the Rules of Procedure which stipulates that a Member may speak once in the Second Reading debate. Although the President's decision is final and I cannot overturn his decision or debate with him, if the adjournment motion is passed, it will symbolize and indicate that Members are dissatisfied with the arrangement made by the President.

In fact, I do not want to talk about the future debates on the enactment of legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law and the National Anthem Law, and I do not hope that other Members will be subjected to such arrangements made by the President in the future. We are not discussing whether we will support the Bill but whether the arrangement of setting a time limit for the Second Reading debate is unreasonable. Members of the Liberal Party are not present right now, 11756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 but let me give an example. If the authorities later propose the implementation of standard working hours or the abolition of the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism, and if the Second Reading debate is once again limited to eight hours, 30 Members who support the Government may press the "Request to speak" button and hence deprive other Members with different positions of the chance to speak, is this reasonable? We are not talking about filibustering but whether the debate arrangement of this Bill has made it impossible for Members with opposing views to state their positions.

On the contrary, although pro-democracy Members will not become the President of the Legislative Council and they have no idea how the President will deal with controversial motions, should political motions really be a confrontation between the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps? Sometimes, the problems are only related to groups with different interests. As I said earlier, if there are future debates on the abolition of the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism or the implementation of standard working hours and 30 pro-government Members have monopolized the speaking time, can the President disallow those Members who are bosses or with a business background to speak? Therefore, I hope that setting a time limit for debates will not become a precedent. I have also told the President on other occasions that this is no longer a matter of dealing with a certain bill. This is the second reason why I support the adjournment motion. If the Second Reading debate is adjourned, I hope the President will make a more reasonable debate arrangement.

Another reason why I support the adjournment motion is that we need to consider the Bill in greater detail. As I said earlier, the Government has still not clearly answered many of our important questions and we have actually identified more problems when drafting the amendments. Moreover, we have not carefully inspected the boundary of the Mainland Port Area. I even hope that the Bills Committee can be reactivated so that we can have more time to obtain more information from the Government and arrange for inspections.

Pro-establishment Members may query why we want the debate to be adjourned as we may put questions to the Government in the Second Reading debate or at the Committee stage. Let us be realistic. As the President has set the framework that we will have 22 hours to debate 24 amendments at the Committee stage, the Secretary may speak for hours if he wants to refute every amendment. We will propose 24 amendments, and unless the Secretary is too lazy to show concern or refute us given that our amendments will eventually be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11757 negatived, he has to clearly explain why the Government opposes the amendments if he wants to discharge his responsibilities―the Government opposes all the 75 amendments but the President ruled that 24 amendments were admissible. He also needs time for explanation, right?

The President has now indicated that a joint debate will be more flexible. Deputy President, if the contents of the amendments are divided into groups so that we will first discuss the effective and expiry dates and then discuss the reserved matters and other issues, the advantage is that the Secretary can respond at the end of each debate session. However, the disadvantage of a joint debate is that the Secretary can decline to respond if he does not like to. In addition, why should the scrutiny be completed within 36 hours? Last but not least, I would like to tell the President that he has the responsibility to ensure that the Legislative Council must complete the scrutiny of the Bill within reasonable time. Why have we not considered having a meeting on Friday? Why have we not considered having additional meetings? Why not adopt such practices as we once did? All of us should think about these issues.

Lastly, I would like to ask another question. I have consulted many learned persons about what will happen if the adjournment motion is really passed but none of them can answer my question. Will the Secretary have a sufficient notice period so that he can reintroduce the Bill into the Legislative Council next week for resumption of Second Reading? Will we have to start all over again? Can Members submit amendments again? I cannot answer these questions either. (The buzzer sounded)

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

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be now adjourned. I do not wish to repeat the reasons for adjourning the debate, but the adjournment will give Members a few more months to consider some baffling issues arising from the Bill and obtain information from the Government. These are the objective effects. 11758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Why do I support the adjournment motion? In fact, there are only four reasons, two of which have been explained by my fellow pan-democratic Members. I will simply put forward the other two reasons.

First, the arrangement of this debate is baffling. Why is it that only eight hours are allocated for the resumption of the Second Reading debate and 22 hours for Members to discuss the proposed amendments? There is absolutely no reason for such an arrangement and it is baffling. We should duly perform our responsibilities as Members, particularly considering that the Bill concerns a special arrangement under "one country, two systems" which will be unprecedented, and that no other countries have implemented "one country, two systems". In recent months, Secretary Frank CHAN repeatedly explained to us that other countries have also adopted the co-location arrangement. Nevertheless, Deputy President, this argument can be refuted because the co-location arrangement in other countries is totally different from ours in terms of concept and operation.

Thus, we really need more time to deliberate on the Bill. First, as mentioned earlier, we definitely oppose and detest the current arrangement for debate. Why can't Members continue to attend meetings in July, August and September? By meetings, I am referring to meetings of the Legislative Council. Many may consider my suggestion ludicrous. If the Bill is so urgent and it will have significant effects on people's livelihood and our economy, why can't Members continue to attend Council meetings in July, August and September? Deputy President, why can't this be done? I can attend Council meetings and have no problem with the arrangement.

Second, many Members have raised questions about the laws and the Basic Law and I will not repeat them here. However, I would like to talk about the economic benefits of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") at two levels. In fact, the sooner XRL is commissioned, the less economic benefits it will bring. Why is that so? Members may find this proposition weird, but there is actually no urgency in commissioning XRL for public use in September. Why do I say so? We have been asking the Government to provide information over the past one or two years, but no information has ever been provided. Thus, if we adjourn the debate on the Bill, the Government can consider whether it can provide us with the information.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11759

I have asked for information relating to economic benefits. Certainly, I must reiterate that the Government has initially provided us with some information indicating that after the commissioning of XRL, several ten thousand people will take XRL to and from the Mainland every day and as each member of the public will, on average, save some time per trip, the economic benefits of XRL can thus be calculated by multiplying the monetary value concerned by the time saved. Nonetheless, that is actually a very abstract argument. Instead of adopting this method in calculating economic benefits, why does the Government not calculate the depreciation rate of XRL at a cost of over $100 billion? At present, the rate of depreciation is over $10 billion per year. If the Government claims that XRL will bring economic benefits, I would like to calculate the economic benefits on the basis of the depreciation rate or even the social costs. If we use this kind of formula to calculate the economic benefits, the benefits may be minimal or there is simply no benefit. Thus, the sooner XRL is commissioned, the more likely that its economic benefits may become a negative figure. I think XRL needs not be commissioned expeditiously.

Leaving this kind of academic discussion aside, if we want to discuss economic benefits by the time saved, we need all the assumptions of the calculation method. Although the Secretary has provided the above mentioned calculation method, he has not listed all the assumptions. I certainly need to look at such assumptions which the Secretary has not provided. Thus, if we can give the Government some time, the Secretary can provide me with the assumptions. Even if we do not use the academic concept of the time saved to calculate economic benefits, I would like to calculate the costs, expenditures and incomes. Deputy President, just now many Members have mentioned that it is actually difficult for the Government to guarantee the future performance of XRL, such as whether it will break even in 10 years. I am only calculating the incomes and expenditures per year, without taken into account the construction cast at over $100 billion as well as the depreciation rate.

Deputy President, as a chartered accountant, you will certainly understand that only a simple formula is needed to calculate incomes and expenditures. Regarding expenditures, I will exclude some items. I only hope that the Government can provide the projected incomes and expenditures of XRL for the next 10 years starting from its commissioning in the third or fourth quarter this year. I can exclude interests, tax payments and amortization in my calculations, i.e. I am calculating EBITA, earnings before interests, tax and amortization minus expenditures. Will there be any profits; and if so, how much? Nevertheless, 11760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 the Government cannot even provide such information. In fact, even in the simple case of constructing a building, the developer has to provide information on EBITA to the board of directors. However, we had made enquiries with the Government for two years during which it had made funding applications to the Finance Committee because of cost overruns, but it had not provided the information. I do not know what the reasons are; and I only want to obtain information on EBITA.

According to the Secretary, earnings have to be calculated on the basis of the number of XRL trips and fares, etc. However, as it is now very close to the commissioning date, all such information should be available. If I give the Secretary a few weeks or a few months more, I can conduct EBITA assessment. Can he provide the Legislative Council with the information for the next 10 years? That is a very basic and reasonable request. If the Government can provide us with the information in the next few weeks, we will at least be more convinced about the justification of economic benefits put forward by the Government. That is how we will make use of the interim period and that is why I support the adjournment motion.

I have raised questions on the convenience of XRL on various occasions. Instead of talking about economic benefits, I will now discuss the convenience to be enjoyed by the public. I have asked the Government questions in this regard many times, but have not obtained the relevant information. The information sought by me is very simple. I have asked the Government to provide me with a graph showing how much time will be saved by Hong Kong people travelling by XRL instead of by plane for short-haul trips to, say Guangzhou city centre; medium-haul trips to Hangzhou or Shanghai; and long-haul trips to Beijing or Shenyang. I cannot believe that the Government cannot accede to this request. In fact, the analysis is very objective. Information including the travelling times by plane and by XRL for short-, medium- and long-haul trips, interchange locations and fare arrangements, etc. should be available by now. Deputy President, the parameters should be available and I cannot believe that the Government cannot tell me how many minutes or hours are required for the trips.

If such information can be provided to us, we will be more convinced about the Government's justification. Then, we will understand that XRL is really a convenient mode of transport, although I doubt whether that is the case for short-, medium- and long-haul trips. I wonder whether long-haul trips by XRL can really save time. Deputy President, I will not discuss this point in detail, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11761 otherwise you will make a ruling regarding my speech. I will speak on other issues now. What will we do in the interim period after the debate on the Bill is adjourned? First, we are really very worried about the constitutionality of the Bill, although the reason cited by many Members is that I am considering the Basic Law or the Constitution of China from a common law perspective. I will not discuss this highly complicated problem here because if the Second Reading debate is to be resumed, we will put forward our views in this respect. The question is, even if we consider the matter from a civil law perspective, I cannot see any logical, ethical and legal basis in the explanation on the current framework of the Basic Law and the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and Hong Kong given by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC").

What can we do to alleviate the effect resulted from the harmful arrangement and the unconvincing justification? I hope to strive for more time to prevent as far as possible any harm caused by the co-location arrangement to "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" under the Basic Law. The harm inflicted will be profound and far-reaching. Secretary, many Members have asked you a question which you may not be able to answer right now, that is, can the Chief Executive or even the Administration pledge that the approach of implementing the co-location arrangement will not be repeated again? The Secretary can spend some time considering whether he will make the pledge to me; or whether he will ask NPCSC to provide a more detailed and precise legal analysis. Although we have been provided with a written explanation, I can't make heads or tails of it.

People say that the civil law and the common law are different legal systems, but do not be misguided that lawyers who have received common law training do not understand the difference between common law and civil law. In fact, people have received training in civil law too. When I was studying abroad, I received some training in civil law. Thus, do not say that the systems are very different, unless we are actually considering a third kind of legal system, namely, a legal system which is unique to China with Chinese characteristics. That is a legal system which we fail to understand and only NPCSC has the authority to explain. Certainly, it will be futile for us to discuss any legal basis now; for it is like playing the lute to a cow. If people have adopted different kinds of logic, there is really nothing I can say.

11762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Deputy President, I hope that the Government can make use of the time gained from the adjournment motion to consider whether it will accept some of the amendments proposed by Members. There are some amendments which have very strong enforcement and legal justifications. I will not explain them one by one because if I do, the President will rule that I should not raise these points in this debate session. Deputy President, I do not want to drag on and I have said what I want to say. I hope that the Government can make use of this period of time to consider accepting some of the amendments proposed by Members.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support Ms Tanya CHAN's motion.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

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

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will speak on the motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") that the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be now adjourned.

As suggested by the wording of the motion, we request to adjourn the Second Reading debate of the Bill now in progress and pick some other time to continue with the scrutiny of the Bill. I agree to this approach. Why? There are several reasons and the first reason is related to you, the Honourable President. I hope that you, the Honourable President, will reconsider your decision as it has a far-reaching impact on this Council and has dealt a heavy blow to the Council elected by the people. Why do I say so? That is because LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11763 you just give us eight hours for the Second Reading of the Bill. In general, if a Member speaks for 15 minutes, only 30-odd Members can speak in eight hours, meaning that half of the Members do not have the chance to speak. I wonder why you set such a time limit.

Some Member has just said that the President's decision is final and cannot be challenged. I have served this Council for many years and I certainly understand that the President's decision is final. The question is, however, why did the President set such a time limit, allowing only half of the Members to speak while the other half of the Members do not have a chance to speak? As a matter of fact, Members returned either by geographical constituencies or functional constituencies all claim to be elected by the people and they have the duty to debate motions in this Chamber, through which they can monitor or advise the Government. The President's decision will undoubtedly deprive them of this right or duty. Is this practice reasonable and appropriate? In respect of this, I very much hope that the President will reconsider his decision. Besides, we were informed of this decision just a few days ago. I find it inappropriate for the President to make this decision in such a short time. Considering the far-reaching impact of this decision and the fact that the decision was made at the eleventh hour without prior consultation of Members, I find this approach unconvincing and unacceptable.

Many colleagues have pointed out that the practice has violated procedural justice. I think that you, the Honourable President, should ponder upon these views and reconsider in what position you have placed the function and role of this Council. In so doing, you alone have deprived Members elected by the general public to this Council of their chance to monitor the Government and express their views. Is it fair? I think you should think twice on this point. You should reconsider whether another arrangement can be made that is more effective and shows more respect to this Council.

At the same time, in accordance with RoP, we have to strictly adhere to three principles, i.e. Members may not introduce bills that have an impact on public expenditure, the political structure or the operation of the Government. Members were allowed to propose many amendments this time, but for some unknown reasons, the President have disapproved some of the amendments …

11764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, I have allowed you to speak on my decision for some time. Under RoP, the President's decision is final and no debate is allowed. As regards whether the amendments proposed by Members comply with RoP, I have already made a written ruling explaining my reasons in detail. Hence, please stop criticizing my ruling. If you continue to do so, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I did not criticize your ruling, I was just suggesting that reconsideration should be made. As I consider many issues important, I hope that you will spend more time considering the importance of the aforementioned issues. I was not criticizing your ruling as you said just now. Lastly, I hope that you, the Honourable President, will reconsider this point, especially whether the time limit of our debate can be reset.

Apart from that, why do I support the adjournment motion? Many colleagues have said that the co-location arrangement is highly controversial. Many members of the public and the legal profession have pointed out that the co-location arrangement has breached the Basic Law. Whether the co-location arrangement has truly breached the Basic Law is a matter of opinion and each person can have his own views. However, when facing the arguments raised by the legal profession and the public, the Government is unable to give clear and reasonable responses. On this point, has the Government acted too rashly on implementing the co-location arrangement without duly considering the public views that such an arrangement has breached the Basic Law and without providing more clarifications?

As a matter of fact, when government officials tried to answer these questions at meetings of the Bills Committee, they acted like "human recorders", repeating certain viewpoints over and over again, but those viewpoints were not completely justified or based on the reality. Should the Government take more time to consider the issues from the legal perspective or actual operation, and provide more opinions, information and directions to be reconsidered by the public, instead of being autocratic, disregarding all others' views, suppressing all justice and pushing the Bill through? I think it will give people the impression that the HKSAR Government only goes for the strong power without caring about justice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11765

Article 18 of the Basic Law provides that: "National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region." Article 22 also provides that: "All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region." President, since the Basic Law already provides that all persons, including the personnel of the Central Government's offices, must abide by the laws of the HKSAR, the biggest controversy now is that after the ordinance on the co-location arrangement takes effect, the personnel of the Central Government's offices need not comply with the laws of Hong Kong when they are within the Hong Kong territory and they only have to comply with the laws of China. Is it constitutional? That is the issue that needs to be addressed.

There is a proposal that the National People's Congress Standing Committee should interpret the Basic Law, but is it necessary to do so? That is another topic for discussion. However, since the HKSAR Government cannot give clear and reasonable answers to these questions, should it spend more time discussing and explaining those questions more thoroughly? It cannot just say that the co-location arrangement is lawful and is in conformity with the Basic Law and then there will be no problem. If one had paid attention to the HKSAR Government officials' responses at the Bills Committee meetings, they would have repeatedly heard such arguments as "the arrangement is lawful" and "it is in conformity with the Basic Law". Are there any points other than these simple explanations? Is it appropriate to give such simple answers? Is it desirable for government officials or representatives of the HKSAR Government to make such over simplified interpretations on these important legal points?

Besides, many legal heavyweights have kept challenging the co-location arrangement, saying that the practice is improper. Many colleagues have also quoted from Philip DYKES, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, who said at the public hearing on the co-location arrangement held by the Legislative Council that we could not allow the Bill to contravene the Basic Law on account of the possible economic benefits brought by the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). He further explained, "If the co-location arrangement is endorsed, it will affect Hong Kong people's freedom of movement within the territory of Hong Kong which is protected by the Basic Law. Once a 11766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 person enters the West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area, he will have to comply with the laws of the Mainland, which in effect is to enforce Mainland laws within the territory of Hong Kong."

Moreover, some cited the example of diplomatic immunity to show that there was limitation on Hong Kong's jurisdiction, serving as a prove that there was a precedent for Mainland law enforcement personnel to enforce laws at the West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area. Concerning the above argument, Philip DYKES disagreed, stating that the Bill deprived Hong Kong courts of their jurisdiction which was unprecedented, whereas diplomatic immunity was an international practice. Owing to the difference in nature of the two, it was inappropriate to make such a comparison. There is also a suggestion that the Legislative Council should suspend the discussion on whether the Bill is unconstitutional and let the court decide should a judicial review is filed after the passage of the Bill. Philip DYKES said that when the Bill was not in order, Legislative Council Members were duty-bound not to pass it; otherwise that was a dereliction of duty on their part. His remarks made me realize that many issues involving the Bill were being challenged, but the HKSAR government officials failed to provide a good explanation and a clear account at the Bills Committee. Consequently, members of the public are not convinced and a host of problems have arisen. I support the adjournment motion. If the HKSAR Government is serious and responsible, should it make a greater effort instead of pass the Bill in haste?

The third problem is also a great concern of the public. I hope that the Government will not push the Bill through for the time being because once the Bill is enacted, the Hong Kong Section of XRL will be commissioned soon afterwards. Yet I am afraid that the commissioning of XRL will bring about very serious consequences. A number of incidents have happened during the trial runs of XRL trains, such as derailment, etc. Worse still, Yuen Long residents have incessantly complained about the earthquake-like noises and vibrations while the trains were running and cracks also appeared in their houses.

If the HKSAR Government genuinely cares about the people's livelihood and public sentiments, should it first resolve the above problems before passing the Bill to effect the commissioning of XRL? Otherwise, once the Bill is passed, XRL is bound to commission. What will happen should accidents occur? As the safety and daily lives of the public will be affected, should the HKSAR Government first resolve all the problems? A responsible HKSAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11767

Government should not make its people feel alarmed all the time. As such, I think the HKSAR Government should not force the Legislative Council to pass the Bill right now. It should instead implement safety measures properly to ensure that the future operation of XRL will not bring nuisance or even fear to the public. That is of vital importance.

In addition, we are very worried about the management of XRL. Recently, Frederick MA, Chairman of MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), has time and again asked the public not to worry. According to him, even if he gave an account of the incidents, the public might not understand and even if he made public all the information, it would not make any difference. Such kind of management makes us very worried. Why? That is because we do not know what kind of information MTRCL has concealed and dared not disclose. Frederick MA said that ordinary people did not have the professional knowledge to understand the problems, yet, there must be someone in Hong Kong who can understand the problems, right? How dare he make such a comment that it would be useless to disclose more information? (The buzzer sounded) … That is unfair.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please stop speaking.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") to oppose the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN in respect of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). They move adjournment motions again. From whatever perspective, this is filibustering. What effects can be achieved by the adjournment motion? It is a waste of time. The opposition Members are unrepentant. They would rather continue to ring the summoning bell in the Chamber than use the time to speak.

President, as a Legislative Council Member representing the Kowloon West geographical constituency, I must make it very clear that the residents of Kowloon West have been plagued by traffic congestion, noise and other environmental pollutions for years and they are anxious that the Bill would be passed expeditiously so that the efficiency of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong 11768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") can be optimized by the co-location arrangement. We oppose any motion that stalls the implementation of the co-location arrangement, including today's adjournment motion.

I do not wish to repeat. I have been listening to Members' speeches but I fail to find any new viewpoints. As a matter of fact, the co-location arrangement is not a novel idea and it can be found in overseas countries as well as in China. The opposition Members only keep repeating that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional and it breaches the Basic Law. They also keep quoting the views of the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association"). Seeing the words "cession-based co-location arrangement" on the placard they displayed, I think it is a waste of energy to spend more time on the discussion. The issue is very clear. It is not about whether more time should be spent on the discussion but a matter of stance and attitude. Are they willing to accept that the original intent of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law is to enable better development of Hong Kong? Hong Kong has always been a part of China. Where does the idea of "cession-based co-location arrangement" come from? I had debated with many members of the legal profession who opposed the co-location arrangement. I had also debated with representatives of the Bar Association on television. When I mentioned that "one country, two systems" and the co-location arrangement were about the relationship between the Central Authorities and the local government, and hence China's constitutional order had to be taken into account, the discussion could not proceed. Their answer was very clear, i.e. it was not necessary to consider the Constitution of China and it was not necessary to take China's constitutional order into account when considering the Basic Law.

I must say that the Basic Law is enacted for the implementation of "one country, two systems". The overwhelming majority of cases tried in Hong Kong courts are within the limits of the autonomy of Hong Kong as stipulated in Article 158(2) of the Basic Law and Hong Kong courts naturally conduct trials in accordance with the common law tradition. I believe that in the past two decades, at least 95% of the cases were tried in accordance with the common law tradition. However, when the relationship between the Central and local authorities under the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" is concerned, we cannot claim that we only have to act in accordance with the common law principle. We must accept that the Basic Law, adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), is inherently a national law. Some of the concepts of the Basic Law do not tally with the common law principles. For example, the national laws mentioned in Article 18 of the Basic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11769

Law is not a common law concept in Hong Kong. Moreover, NPCSC is mentioned in Articles 17, 18, 158 and 159; and Article 159 stipulates that bills for amendment to the Basic Law may be proposed by the State Council, NPCSC and Hong Kong. In mentioning that bills for amendment may be proposed by the State Council, it definitely involves the legal system and constitutional order of China. You can close your eyes and refuse to pay heed, but you cannot change these constitutional and legal facts, as well as the origin of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong can become a Special Administrative Region precisely because Article 31 of the Constitution of China allows the State to establish special administrative regions. If exception is not made or if everything is done by the book, the special administrative regions might not even be established.

In this respect, may I say to the opposition Members, with due respect, I admit and accept that there are varied views among members of the legal sector in Hong Kong. Some members of the Bar Association think that the relationship between the Central and local authorities involved in the co-location arrangement cannot be treated according to China's constitutional order. Since they neither accept nor agree to consider this fact, nothing will change no matter how many times I discuss with them.

However, I still wish to spend some time to raise a point briefly. A number of people pointed out (out of good intention I believe) that NPCSC's decision might not be authoritative enough and seeking NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law might be the solution to the problem. I must point out that according to China's constitutional order and legal framework, if the NPCSC's decision has undergone the so-called "Three-step Process", namely, first, the signing of the Co-operation Arrangement by the governments of both sides; second, NPCSC's decision to approve and endorse the Co-operation Arrangement; and third, enactment of local legislation, which we are doing now, the decision made by NPCSC should be regarded as the interpretation of the Basic Law. Many people are more familiar with NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law because controversies were aroused each time. Let me just cite a few familiar examples: after the enactment of the Basic Law, NPCSC decided on 28 June 1990 that if there were discrepancies between the English and Chinese versions of the Basic Law, the Chinese version should prevail; on 26 April 2004, NPCSC's decision on the constitutional reform was adopted; on 29 December 2007, the NPCSC's decision about the constitutional reform was adopted again; and then the latest decision of NPCSC on the constitutional reform was once again adopted on 31 August 2014, and we …

11770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please return to the subject of the debate, which is whether or not to support the adjournment motion.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): … I was about to speak on the motion. President, you must not interrupt my speech because you did not do so to other Members but you interrupted the most important part of my speech. I think you cannot disallow us to raise this point in today's debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If a Member digresses, the President has the duty to remind the Member.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I believe I do not need your reminder. I am about to conclude my speech. The latest decision of NPCSC has absolutely the same constitutional status. Hence, if opposition Members insist that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional, they will just be repeating the same argument even if the discussion is to be extended. President, you should not interrupt my speech and should allow me to finish it in a systematic manner. What you are doing will just waste more time. I should have finished speaking in seven minutes but now I need to speak for one more minute.

I think the claims that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional and unlawful do not tally with the principle of "one country, two systems" and the legal facts. As regards the adjournment motion, I very much hope that the opposition camp will pull back before it is too late and return to the right track. They should stop requesting headcounts or proposing motions to disrupt the meeting. No matter what tactic is used, members of the public will think that they are filibustering.

On behalf of BPA, I formally oppose the adjournment motion and support the Second Reading of the Bill.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Ms Tanya CHAN's adjournment motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11771

The reasons for me to give my support are simple. Firstly, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") is unconstitutional, meaning that it contravenes the Basic Law, and the legislature should not pass a bill that contravenes the Basic Law. Article 11 of the Basic Law clearly provides that no law passed by the legislature shall contravene the Basic Law. The stipulations in Article 18 of the Basic Law are also clear―I hope the people of Hong Kong will listen clearly and be aware that there is nothing ambiguous in this Article―"The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region. National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law." Article 18 of the Basic Law has not specified whether the law will impact some or all members of the public; the fact that a person will not be affected by the law as long as he does not travel by the Express Rail Link ("XRL") is not a factor for consideration. Moreover, in Article 18 of the Basic Law, there is no clue suggesting that the application of the Mainland laws in Hong Kong (i.e. a situation in contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law) will be acceptable provided that the law enforcement officers are Mainland officers instead of Hong Kong officers. On the contrary, Article 18 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that the laws applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are Hong Kong laws and national laws shall not be applied here. This Article is as simple as that.

This Bill on the co-location arrangement seeks to provide that an area known as the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") in the West Kowloon Station will be regarded as lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland. Upon the enactment of the Bill, national laws, rather than the Basic Law, will be applied in MPA. As all Mainland laws will then be applicable in MPA, Hong Kong laws basically will not be applied there, with the exception of the six reserved matters. Therefore, the Bill is obviously in contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law. Of course, the Bill does not only contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law. As pointed out by former Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN in his earlier remarks, the Bill would likely cause concerns and might be regarded as contravening a number of articles of the Basic Law, including Articles 8, 18 and 22. Rimsky YUEN was well aware of this point. The Government is now urging the legislature of Hong Kong to pass the Bill which obviously contravenes the Basic Law, and the justification presented to us today is that the soon-to-be-completed XRL must commission in the third quarter of this year. If we do not expeditiously pass the Bill, we are throwing a spanner in the works, which is treacherous.

11772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

However, we must not forget that the controversies over the co-location arrangement have arisen for more than a decade. XRL issues were first discussed in the Hong Kong community as early as the late 1990s. In 2000, the community began to explore the quarantine and clearance arrangements, as well as the idea of co-location, in order to introduce XRL to Hong Kong. Later in 2010, the XRL project was formally approved by the Executive Council. The controversies over the co-location arrangement were not something that came up yesterday. It is just that the Government has taken years to put forth a co-location proposal but requested the legislature to finish the law-making procedure within one year. Worse still, the Government holds that the legislature should be held responsible if the Bill cannot be passed. I simply cannot see why the legislature should become a rubber stamp at any time. Even if the SAR Government or the pro-establishment Members do not consider this Bill as contravening the Basic Law today, the Basic Law is clear and unequivocal in stating that Hong Kong shall not apply the Mainland laws. We cannot call a stag a horse when the Bill seeks to designate an area in Hong Kong for the application of the Mainland laws.

Just now, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, the first pro-establishment Member to speak, tried to argue by saying that the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement") had already been approved by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and that we were currently at Step 3 of the so-called "Three-step Process". As the supreme NPCSC has the power to interpret the Basic Law, its approval of the Co-operation Arrangement is tantamount to making an interpretation. That is what I heard from Dr Priscilla LEUNG loud and clear.

It is true that Articles 158 and 159 in Chapter VIII of the Basic Law have provided that NPCSC and the National People's Congress are vested with the powers of interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law. Yet, certain procedures have to go through before the Basic Law can be interpreted or amended. Will a decision made by NPCSC at a meeting tantamount to an interpretation of the Basic Law? Of course not. Therefore, what the legislature is doing now is to endorse the Bill which has not been introduced properly according to the normal procedures. Let me make it crystal clear: The Bill is completely in contravention of the Basic Law in terms of wording, concept and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11773 operation, and during the enactment of the Bill, the Government has also failed to comply with the established procedures. Isn't this the gangster logic? Under this logic, the Government calls the shot and it will never be bound by procedure unless it feels like to do so. Hence, the opponents should just shut up and stop fighting. It does not matter when the bill will be submitted; it does not matter that the project has been delayed for three years or there is a cost overrun of $20 billion; it does not matter if the project is making a serious loss and is not cost-effective at all. People must submit to the Government and support the construction work. In fact, the Government is acting not only like a gangster but also against the fundamental social order.

President, the enactment of laws or even the constitution is to tell members of the public that there are social orders and they must act in accordance with the law. Hong Kong is governed by the rule of law and everyone is bound by the rules. Should someone break the rules, we may punish him according to the law. This is the principle we adhere to in order to maintain social order and harmony, thereby creating a good living environment.

Unfortunately, this established principle has been broken by NPCSC, as well as the SAR Government; it is now the turn of this legislature to break it. In order to push through the Bill, to call a stag a horse and to bow to the wish of NPCSC, we begin to draw lines. There are lines for everything. For example, in the discussions of the Bills Committee, the speaking time was limited to one minute; the discussion of the annexes was not allowed; the discussions of matters of principle and the issue of unconstitutionality were also not allowed …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you have digressed. Please come back to the subject of this debate.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, you have also drawn a line. You have set a time limit of 36 hours for this debate. You simply ignore whatever we say and regard that we are talking rubbish. In any case, the Bill will certainly be passed in the end. The Bill will be put to vote 36 hours later and be passed. The whole process will be very smooth.

However, this smoothness comes at the expense of the most basic principle and promise. The promise is made by the ruler to his people, pledging that he will maintain the fundamental social order according to the law. Yet, our ruler 11774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 takes the lead to break this principle, followed by the SAR Government and our legislature. When this principle is gone, what is left for maintaining our social order? All we have is only the gangster logic. It seems that we have fallen back into the jungle where people with force, power and weapons can have the final say; those with money, status and prestige can have the final say too. Do we want to see our society reducing to this state? Are we willing, for convenience sake and for saving a few minutes of commuting time, to give up our basic protection and live in a society not even bound by the fundamental principle?

When the Government presses Members to pass the Bill despite its unconstitutionality and presses the legislature to act in contravention of the Basic Law, what can we do? Today, all we can do is to rise and speak in this Chamber for 36 hours at most. Sadly, the people in Hong Kong cannot even voice their concerns but can just quietly accept the Bill. That is how Hong Kong loses its social order and the rule of law. During the process of Hong Kong's return to the Mainland, we had painstakingly enacted the Basic Law according to the Joint Declaration under the supervision of the international community; yet, the Basic Law is ruined by us today.

Should Hong Kong people sacrifice all the principles for the sake of saving 15 minutes? Should the SAR Government sacrifice all the principles to bow to the wish of NPCSC? Should our legislature sacrifice all the principles simply because NPCSC has made a decision? Should we give up all our values and let the gangsters with power call the shots?

If society has come to this pass, what can we still cling to? If the legislature allows the Bill to be passed today, what values can Hong Kong hold on to? What values and principles can we hold on to in order to show to the public that the legislature is independent and is able to represent the public, adhere to its principles and act in accordance with the Basic Law?

President, you have drawn a line; Mrs Regina IP also drew a line. Our society keeps drawing lines, giving us more red lines and boundaries. However, we fail to comply with the fundamental principles and allow the bigwigs to draw lines at will, restricting our space. Hong Kong does not have much space left. We do not have a space for living and work, and even for life. What do we get in return? Convenience. What is it for? For doing business? There are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11775 only two things left in Hong Kong: Business and convenience. Don't we need civilization? Don't we need order? You guys have the force, the say and the power! We will fight to the end.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I support the motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") be now adjourned. The reason is very simple. The problems concerning the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") have unnoticeably persisted for years. After I had assumed office as a Yuen Long District Council member many years ago, I started to pay attention to the clearance of Choi Yuen Tsuen ("CYT"). We can still remember vividly today the controversy over the approval of the funding for XRL back then. Ever since homes had been destroyed at CYT a few years ago, I considered it my historical responsibility to leave a record in the Chamber. After the dust has settled with the passage of the Bill today, the Hong Kong public will definitely regret many years from now.

I have received a newspaper from a kind-hearted member of the public. He said: "Honourable KWONG, the problems have surfaced. Why are people still unaware of them, or have they simply turned a blind eye to them?" In the headline story of Oriental Daily News today, words and photos have been published to accuse XRL of producing noise and vibrations during its trial runs, rendering it impossible for Yuen Long residents to have a good night's sleep. That member of the public told me that XRL apparently had a grudge against Yuen Long residents. The CYT incident I just mentioned happened around November 2008, which appeared to be a distant memory. Back then, staff of the Lands Department descended on CYT and went from door to door to post a notice informing residents of their plan to recover their residences. Those residents had settled in CYT for a long time. The elderly people did not understand the government notice; after young CYT residents returned home and saw the notice, they told the elderly people that the Government had to recover their residences … 

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, you have digressed from the question. Please come back to the question under debate and explain whether you support the adjournment motion or not.

11776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, please give me some time and I am now returning to the question. So far XRL has still been beset with numerous problems. Both the CYT incident and the headline story of Oriental Daily News I mentioned just now show that many issues of XRL have to be followed up. Frankly speaking, the Bill is the last hurdle in the legislative process for the co-location arrangement of XRL. After the Bill is passed, it will no longer be necessary to follow up on the numerous issues.

It is necessary for the Secretary to respond to the newspaper report mentioned just now. Despite the low frequency of trips, XRL has created a lot of noise and impact during its trial runs. Earlier on, Ngau Tam Mei Village has been most affected by XRL construction. What has actually happened back then? How could these problems be tackled had they not been brought up in the legislature? I am now telling the Secretary the truth. Last week, I visited Ngau Tam Mei Village. I asked the local residents: "As the construction site had been removed, XRL should no longer have any impact on you, right? Their reply was in the negative, and they showed me the cracks in their homes. XRL has not only depleted the underground water in the area around Ngau Tam Mei Village, it has even led to cracks of draining pipes in the homes of villagers, a problem which has remained unresolved. I was astonished because I thought that it was impossible for the Government to turn a blind eye to this problem. Some villagers told me that the Government had entrusted the matter to contractors but the latter had refused to take responsibility. The contractors indicated that for the sake of harmony … 

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, the argument you are making is not related to the reason why you support the adjournment motion. Please come back to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I only want to bring up one issue. Given the time limit set for the debate, we can only mention in passing during the discussion on XRL-related issues that the Government has, for a protracted period of time, failed to deal with the problems. Of course, if the President asks me to only speak on the co-location arrangement, it is not difficult at all. However, I just want to take this opportunity to tell people, the Government in particular, the reasons why we strongly oppose the XRL project. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11777

As Dr Priscilla LEUNG said just now, due to the different stances of Members, it will be useless even if we discuss for dozens of hours more. I do not want to comment on her views any further. All I want to talk about now is livelihood issues. How much sacrifices have Hong Kong people made for XRL? Even before XRL's commissioning, how many Hong Kong residents have already been victimized by its construction? In my view, after XRL's commissioning and the implementation of the co-location arrangement, it will take Hong Kong people a very long time to pay off the debt in the future.

Back to the subject of the co-location arrangement. Earlier on, at the meetings of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee"), a number of members have raised a huge volume of questions. My situation was relatively special because I had exchanged views with the Secretary at that time. I pointed out that the Bill covered many items which could hardly be explained clearly. If such issues are not clarified now, they will be even more difficult to tackle after the Bill is passed. I support the adjournment motion. The Bill should preferably be withdrawn for reconsideration so that Members can examine the problems which can be resolved. I have already put aside the question of whether the Bill is unlawful and unconstitutional. I am only talking about practical operations.

I have raised the issues that I am particularly concerned about at meetings of the Bills Committee. With the forcible commissioning of XRL on the underground level of the West Kowloon Station ("WKS"), XRL will enter the Hong Kong's jurisdiction. Surprisingly, one of the most important elements linking the two jurisdictions is escalators. I put a question to the Government in the light of an escalator accident which had taken place in Hong Kong back then. I asked the authorities what they would do should the escalator accident at Langham Place happen within the area of the XRL station. As expected, the Government provided the simplest answer, saying that it could naturally deal with all matters―including the reserved matters as set out in the Bill―should they arise. In fact, however, that is not the case. We still remember the Langham Place incident vividly. We raised the question because we had received quite a number of calls for assistance from the public back then. Should an accident occur on the escalators leading up to the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") in Hong Kong's jurisdiction, the problems that have arisen …

11778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, I am reminding you for the last time. The views you are expressing are not related to the adjournment motion. If you continue to stray from the question, I will ask you to stop speaking. Please come back to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the remarks I made just now seek to explain the reasons for my support of the adjournment motion and set out the issues which are worth discussing. President, I hope that you will show a little more patience and allow me to finish with my elaboration. No members had opposed to the issues I raised just now at the Bills Committee, and they had all agreed that the issues had to be dealt with. However, given the different stances of members, some members were of the view that these issues could be dealt with slowly in future. Nevertheless, I do not think that these issues can be tackled slowly after the commissioning of XRL. We are now confronted with the question of whether the debate on the Bill should be adjourned at the eleventh hour. This will enable us to tackle various livelihood issues first, thereby giving the public a better sense of security. Who would say that the Bill has no bearing on livelihood issues? As I said just now, some members of the public are now being affected by XRL.

The Bill represents the last step of the "Three-step Process". How can the public express their views? I certainly have to intercept the Government at the last hurdle and seek a response from the Government at this stage. Members have not expressed any opposition at the Bills Committee, and they have all agreed that these problems had remained resolved. Some Members might accuse us of opposing everything related to XRL. I understand that their accusation is a result of our different stances. However, I hope that all Members will give this some thought. For the sake of XRL, we have already sacrificed the Basic Law. A number of Honourable colleagues indicated just now that they had a different perspective from us. In their view, XRL had not sacrificed the Basic Law. It is impossible for us to convince all Members in the Chamber. As pointed out by those Members, we have different perspectives. However, members of the public who are watching the live broadcast of the meeting, or members of the public who will watch the video recording of the meeting some 10 years from now, will be able to see that some Member moved an adjournment motion and enumerated the problems of XRL at the final stage of the scrutiny of the Bill. The adjournment motion aims to ask Members to think twice and show that we have already tried our best.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11779

As I mentioned just now, a large number of livelihood issues have not yet been tackled. The Bill has resulted in both losses and sacrifices. On the one hand, the livelihood issues have remained unresolved. On the other hand, the Basic Law has been sacrificed. MPA is indeed situated on the underground level of WKS, which actually lies within Hong Kong's jurisdiction. Within an area where Hong Kong people have been conferred power under the Basic Law, Mainland officers will be permitted to enforce the law, and Mainland laws will be applicable in Hong Kong. The issues involved are two-fold. I hope to take the opportunity of the debate on the adjournment motion to discuss ideological issues as well as to bring up … 

(Mr James TO stood up)

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present in the Chamber. I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned just now, the motion to adjourn the Second Reading debate on the Bill is literally the last hurdle before the commissioning of XRL. Therefore, we must grasp and cherish this opportunity to put forward our strong arguments to the Government.

I spent most of the time just now to speak on behalf of members of the public victimized by the construction of XRL, voicing their demands on livelihood issues. Why do I support the adjournment motion? If the adjournment motion is passed, the Bill will be forwarded to the Bills Committee for discussion. Members may study the need to introduce additional clauses and enhance the current clauses. In simple terms, the Bills Committee may discuss 11780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 ways to step up support with regard to compensation. In fact, livelihood-related problems have been brought to our attention. I must mention the point that XRL has created so many problems even before its commissioning. When following up on the Bill, the Secretary has not considered those who had been affected by XRL's trial runs. The authorities have neither met their demands nor tried to understand their situation. I therefore support the adjournment motion to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider the relevant clauses and study the feasibility of optimizing different projects in order to deal with emergency problems in the future. Upon the commissioning of XRL, more regions and more residents may be affected. I am really deeply worried about this.

Speaking on the Bill, a Member indicated just now that no clear consensus would be reached however long the debate would be conducted given the different perspectives of Members. To some extent, this argument is correct. At least Members from the Democratic Party have considered that the Bill was not clear enough. Despite members' heated debate during the discussion at the Bills Committee, members from different political parties and factions have all agreed that certain provisions and problems of the Bill have to be resolved and clarified, such as delineation of powers and responsibilities, land boundaries, and the question of whether certain existing legislations would be violated upon implementation of the relevant ordinance. All these are precisely related to the scope of the reserved matters, over which debates have been most heated at the Bills Committee. The greatest significance of the current debate on the adjournment motion is to allow Members to re-examine the Bill. I doubt if the Bill deserves a score of 100. Even the Secretary may not consider the Bill to deserve full marks.

Many unforeseen problems may arise from the Bill. Based on current knowledge of the situation, I have asked whether the Government would provide support to tackle these problems in the future. Since there are too many problems, I have not listed them all. The recent spate of incidents, such as water leakage at the train station and the detachment of wheels, are all worth discussing. In simple terms, I have personally noticed that many provisions are worthy of further review after the Second Reading debate on the Bill is adjourned. Recently, there has been extensive media coverage on the assault on Hong Kong journalists covering news in the Mainland. Even their Beijing press passes had been confiscated. I believe that these incidents still remain fresh in our memory.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11781

Just picture this scenario: If the debate on the Bill is not adjourned now, it will be impossible for us to re-examine the relevant provisions. Mainland officers may thus interpret the definition of discharging duties at will in the future. During the scrutiny of the Bill, we must conduct in-depth studies, handle matters in a perfect manner, and make considerations from a macro perspective. Otherwise, should any unforeseen situation happen, it will be difficult to give a clear explanation. MPA has already been ceded and will no longer be within Hong Kong's jurisdiction. Members should therefore carefully consider if the Bill is really impeccable. Is the frequent occurrence of accidents before XRL's commissioning a kind of omen?

Based on our observation, many provisions of the Bill are actually worth discussing in order for us to identify the defects therein. If the Bill is hastily passed now, Members who have voted will have to take responsibility for the decision. It is only due to this reason that a Member moved an adjournment motion. I have stressed from time to time that ideological issues of different political parties should be put aside in the discussion for the time being. I am only considering the matter from the perspective of the most affected residents. This group of residents is increasing in number. When we were examining the provisions of the Bill back then, we had not considered various unknown or unforeseeable scenarios. Similarly, during the discussion at the Bills Committee, we have been unable to foresee that Hong Kong residents could not buy tickets of some routes. We must consider the various problems arising from the Bill in advance, rather than expressing our astonishment or lamenting our previous lack of careful consideration after problems have arisen.

The motion to adjourn the debate on the Bill is actually our last-ditch attempt. We must point out at this stage that we hope that the Government will carefully consider the problems with the Bill. Members should also consider if it is necessary for us to pass the Bill hastily. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, many villagers were previously apathetic about politics. Take the friend of mine as an example. He used to be apathetic about politics. However, holding a newspaper in his hand, he asked me today questions such as whether the Bill had been passed and whether XRL had been commissioned. He even asked me what the Legislative Council was currently dealing with. In response, I told him that the Legislative Council was currently holding a debate and a Member moved an adjournment motion. I asked him for his opinions about these issues. We should take a pause now and see how many residents and regions are now being affected by XRL. We should re-examine the 11782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 provisions of the Bill to see if the rights and interests of the affected residents have been safeguarded. It is of paramount importance to uphold this principle. By adjourning the debate on the Bill, Members will be able to re-examine each provision, which is also an important task of the Bills Committee.

Lastly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the CYT incident took place when I assumed office as a District Council member back then. Since then, XRL has become inextricably related to the Hong Kong people, always working against local residents. So far I have not heard any positive comments about XRL; and only bad things have happened. Some affected residents have relayed their problems to us. How should we handle and deal with these problems? Prior to XRL's commissioning, problems have already emerged. We do not even know what will happen upon its commissioning. Adjourning the debate on the co-location Bill is our last-ditch effort. By supporting the adjournment motion, Members will have the last opportunity to re-examine the co-location arrangement.

I so submit.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") has, after experiencing great difficulties, finally reached a critical moment. In fact, we all know that after years of hard work, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project is about to be completed and its commissioning is expected to be in September this year. Everything is ready except one thing. Whether Hong Kong people can enjoy the benefits of XRL as scheduled will depend on whether the Legislative Council can pass the Bill before the recess in July. Therefore, I speak against this adjournment motion.

The Bill only has eight clauses and it is not as complicated as the other bills handled by the Legislative Council in the past. However, in this Legislative Session, the Legislative Council had already spent a lot of time discussing the co-location issue before the resumption of the Second Reading debate. At the Bills Committee stage, we have held 17 meetings, i.e. 45 hours of duration in total, and two whole-day public hearings, i.e. 19 hours in total. Furthermore, from 25 October to 15 November last year, a non-binding motion on the co-location arrangement proposed by the Government was discussed at the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11783

Legislative Council meetings for a total of 26 hours. In sum, before today, this Council has spent 90 hours in this Legislative Session on discussing the co-location arrangement. In addition to the 36 hours set aside by the President at this meeting, this Council has actually spent 126 hours handling this Bill with only eight clauses.

After spending 90 hours on the deliberations, debates and public hearings, Legislative Council Members and various sectors of the community have clearly stated their views and positions on the co-location arrangement. Of the 90 hours spent on the deliberations, debates and public hearings, opposition Members have frequently "demonized" the President and the Chairman of the Bills Committee, criticizing them for not giving Members sufficient time to scrutinize the Bill; yet the reality is another story.

What actually happened is that of the 26 hours spent on debating the non-binding motion, opposition Members spent about five hours on headcounts and another 10.5 hours on debating a motion for adjournment. They even went so far as to move a motion on withdrawal of members of the press and of the public. Lies cannot stand the test of analysis! Only 40% of the time had been spent on the substantive debate on this motion while the rest of the time had been wasted.

Moreover, at meetings of the Bills Committee, all opposition Members had time and again seized the chance to withdraw together from the meeting room and then requested a headcount, hoping to abort the meeting for lack of a quorum. On one occasion when three meetings were concurrently held in the Legislative Council Complex, all opposition Members took concerted action to leave the meeting room and then requested a headcount, the purpose of which was to abort the meeting as other Members who were serious in deliberation could not attend all meetings at the same time. Facts speak louder than words. Although opposition Members often criticize the President for not giving them sufficient time for deliberation and debate, they have not made good use of the Council meeting time or well performed their duties as Members.

After all, opposition Members oppose the Bill not because of the details of the provisions but because they simply do not want the Bill to be passed. Even if Secretary Frank CHAN has accepted some of their advices to amend certain provisions, or the President has agreed to increase the debating time by dozens of hours, the result will still be the same. All opposition Members will still vote 11784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 against the Bill or create chaos so that the voting process cannot be completed. They will then attend stand-up interviews outside the Chamber, complaining tearfully to the media and their supporters how unfair the process is and how aggrieved they are.

I also notice that at today's meeting, Mr Alvin YEUNG arbitrarily criticized the opinion poll results released by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") yesterday and indiscriminately labelling DAB, claiming that the poll results were very misleading. If we consider Mr YEUNG's arguments carefully, we will find that they are actually quite misleading. First, the submission of the Hong Kong Bar Association ("the Bar Association") serves to provide views for analysis. I do not know since when the Bar Association's opinions have become the judgments of the Court of Final Appeal. Second, in the opinion poll, we asked the public whether the Bill complied with the Basic Law. We wanted to understand the judgments of Hong Kong people after they had heard different views and analyses of the community and the media in the past few months, including the opinions of the Bar Association and the Department of Justice as opposition Members have often mentioned. Therefore, our opinion poll has not replaced professional opinions as Mr Alvin YEUNG has suggested. Mr YEUNG regarded the Bar Association's opinions as imperial instructions which should be heeded by all Legislative Council Members and members of the public. If so, bills need not be introduced into the Legislative Council in future as they should directly be sent to the Bar Association for examination and approval. Why should bills be introduced into the Legislative Council?

The opinion poll revealed that 66% of the respondents supported the co-location arrangement for XRL, but Mr YEUNG said earlier that the support rate was not enough and it should reach 90%. For some time in the past, all opposition Members have attempted to reject the co-location proposal by all means. Under such circumstances, it is not easy for the co-location proposal to have the support of an absolute majority of members of the public. I would like to ask Mr YEUNG how they will interpret the result if the current opinion poll is not conducted by DAB but by the opposition camp and the results showed that 66% of the respondents opposed the implementation of the co-location arrangement. Will Mr YEUNG say that it is not enough for only 66% of the respondents to oppose the co-location arrangement, the opposition rate should reach 90%?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11785

Opposition Members moved an adjournment motion today and requested headcounts time and again to delay the passage of the Bill by means of filibustering. After wasting the eight-hour debate time set aside by the President for the Second Reading debate, they criticized the President for not giving them enough time for the Second Reading debate. Hence, we think that the adjournment motion is harmful to Hong Kong, DAB and I thus raise strong objection.

I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") to adjourn the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill").

President, when the Government sought the Legislative Council's funding approval for the express rail link ("XRL") in 2009, members of the public already knew clearly that this would be a great deception. Today more and more evidence concerning this deception has been laid bare. For example, the then Secretary for Transport and Housing, Eva CHENG, told Hong Kong people that XRL could be built without the co-location arrangement. While her words are still ringing in our ears, the current position of the Government is that the co-location arrangement is a must for the operation of XRL. She told us at that time that cost overruns were unlikely, but cost overruns have now amounted to nearly $20 billion. At that time, she told us that …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the Council is now debating the adjournment motion, rather than matters relating to XRL.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am explaining why I support this adjournment motion. Please listen to me first …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the topic of this debate.

11786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): At meetings of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee"), government officials acted like "human recorders", repeating bogus justifications that were not based on facts, and we were unable to get proper answers to many questions. President, you were in the dark as you did not join the Bills Committee. For example, when we are now discussing how to cooperate with the Mainland in implementing the co-location arrangement, Secretary Frank CHAN still needs to go to Guangdong province this week to hold discussions with Mainland officials. This means that conditions are not ripe for implementing the co-location arrangement or commissioning XRL, nor is there any urgency involved. Whether the Legislative Council scrutinizes the Bill or not has no impact on the commissioning of XRL. Given the recent cases of XRL derailment, if XRL is commissioned and the co-location arrangement is implemented, accidents may arise any time, and no one can estimate the casualties. This, coupled with an avalanche of scandals surrounding the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), the unit operating XRL, we can hardly be convinced about the safe operation of XRL.

We are even more concerned that the implementation of the co-location arrangement will put an end to "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" that have been effective in Hong Kong. The Bills Committee should have allowed Members sufficient time to scrutinize the Bill and should be a platform where officials could seriously reply to Members' questions. Yet, Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, had, in her unique way, naively set a deadline for scrutinizing this important bill that has a bearing on whether "one country, two systems" can be maintained in Hong Kong in the future, thus the scrutiny process was hastily completed and her political mission accomplished. In fact, we should have more opportunities to enable members of the Bills Committee and even members of the public to understand what is happening. Regrettably, the Chairman of the Bills Committee had not performed her duties to facilitate mature and serious discussions over the Bill, nor had she demanded officials to seriously give their replies.

President, the present situation is in a mess. We support the motion moved under RoP 41, for the Government has failed to clearly explain how "one country, two systems" can still be implemented under the co-location arrangement. Most importantly, if the co-location arrangement is implemented in the future, many laws that the public are concerned about and that have been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11787 effectively enforced in Hong Kong cannot be enforced at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). President, this contradicts Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law. Regrettably, Secretary Frank CHAN, Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG or other officials of the Department of Justice have all failed to answer this most crucial question. For this reason, we have no alternative but to move a motion under RoP 41, with the hope of righting the wrong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I would like to remind you that the provision concerned is RoP 40(1) but not RoP 41.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I know that the provision concerned is RoP 40(1). President, I believe that you also know about this fact.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I know, but I am afraid you do not. And I also want to ensure the accurate reference to the provision concerned in the Official Record of Proceedings.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I now realize that the President is really good-hearted. The provision concerned is RoP 40(1). We must ascertain what the mess is all about. President, to me, some of your actions are disgusting and have undermined the Legislative Council, which include setting a time limit for the debate and forcibly stripping the Legislative Council of its power to scrutinize bills. In fact, you should not have taken such disgusting actions. You should instead allow Members to seriously engage in comprehensive discussions at the Bills Committee and Council meetings. Under the political system of today, most Members of the Legislative Council, namely pro-establishment or royalist Members, are very willing to be rubber stamps. Most of them are willing to press the "Yes" button regardless of how this may undermine "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. They will press the button as instructed by "Grandpa". That said, they need not take such disgusting actions, and they need not toady to the "Northern Overlord" in such a conspicuous manner. They can show some respect to the Legislative Council by allowing discussions at the Bills Committee and Council meetings. It is evident to all that the pro-establishment camp has adopted a hasty and heavy-handed approach to handling the Bill.

11788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

The so-called high-speed rail link is "low-speed" in essence, as trains entering Hong Kong will run at a reduced speed, and trains that run in Hong Kong are not high-speed trains, but rather D-series trains, the speed of which cannot match that of high-speed trains. All are lies. XRL is basically a political project, the most important objective is to tell Hong Kong people that the boundary between the Mainland and Hong Kong has become blurred. Hong Kong laws will gradually not be enforced in more areas of HKSAR, even if this means violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration, "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. Mainland laws will be enforced in the territory of Hong Kong in the future. This is the most important objective while all other sayings are pretexts.

Some say that XRL, which is so important, should be commissioned so that people can save a lot of time. We all know that this is a lie. In fact, as most passengers of XRL trains will interchange at Panyu, why should the co-location arrangement be forcibly implemented? The separate-location model is applicable to most passengers as they need to interchange at Futian or Panyu, and "on-board clearance" is feasible for a limited number of long-haul trains. However, the Government will not do so, for this is not the ultimate end. The ultimate political end is to slaughter "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law of Hong Kong by using XRL as a Trojan horse. For this reason, the Government has long been shielding its lies with lies and taking so many unfair actions, including working against the clock, making quite a number of immature decisions on project works, and adopting an indifferent attitude towards the impacts caused by project works on the buildings in nearby places such as the old districts of West Kowloon. All these actions are taken because there is a political mission to be accomplished. This is very sad indeed.

It has been 21 years since the reunification. When State leader DENG Xiaoping said years back that "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" must be safeguarded and remain unchanged for 50 years, "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" have now been continuously eroded. XRL serves as the best excuse. Not only have Hong Kong people spent some $90 billion on such a "white-elephant" linkage project, but we also will be stripped of our rights and interests that we have taken great pains to safeguard, including, as stipulated under Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong being vested with independent judicial power, national laws being not applied in HKSAR, and Mainland enforcement agencies being forbidden to enforce Mainland laws in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11789

To put it mildly, even if the remark of the Government is not a lie on matters such as the fast speed of XRL trains and better connectivity between Hong Kong and the Mainland, they have nothing to do with the co-location arrangement. XRL trains can go directly to various Mainland cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, but how many Hong Kong people will spend over nine hours to travel by XRL to Beijing? XRL has already cost Hong Kong people $90 billion, and now we do not know how to finish off. The Government has imposed a cap on the construction cost of XRL, but no one knows whether MTRCL needs to pay extra money in the future. As the largest shareholder of MTRCL is the SAR Government, those who subsidize the expenses of MTRCL will likewise be Hong Kong people.

In a legislature that practices bogus democracy, the Government is seeking to forcibly pass the Bill that will put an end to "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". The situation in the legislature nowadays is repulsive. Given the domination of royalist or pro-establishment Members, the Legislative Council is stripped of its intrinsic powers, Members are evicted arbitrarily and thus unable to engage in discussions, and Members considered to be eyesores have been stripped of their seats. I think no one will be stupid enough to believe that equity and impartiality are upheld in the Legislative Council nowadays, or that the President is performing his due responsibilities. The situation in the legislature is so repulsive that public opinion cannot be properly reflected. The pro-establishment camp has conducted hilarious opinion polls and shamelessly announced the results of such polls. Their poor performance is simply disgusting. Under such circumstances, how can Hong Kong people accept the Bill on the co-location arrangement that amounts to self-castration? The co-location arrangement is an appetizer, and blurring "one country, two systems" or the proper boundary of Hong Kong will certainly be the main dish. Today not only are we going to approve an arrangement concerning the co-location of immigration facilities at a boundary checkpoint, but we are also putting an end to "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong".

I so submit and support the motion moved under RoP 40(1).

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, I wonder if you have ever been mistaken for a government official in the street. A member of the public in the street once mistook me for a government official, and I immediately clarified and 11790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 told him about the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary in Hong Kong. That said, a point made by Mr Alvin YEUNG today has made me think of another response that I can give in such a situation.

Mr Alvin YEUNG said that a Member was like a remonstrance official. I thought about it. Right, it is not a bad idea to liken a Member to a remonstrance official. The duties of a remonstrance official, or an imperial admonisher, were to bluntly admonish the emperor for his faults, make him right his wrongs and advise him on the merits and demerits of state policies, while the original function of the legislature is to admonish and monitor the Government on behalf of the people, thereby preventing the Government from abusing its power and acting rashly. However, in Hong Kong, as there is no genuine universal suffrage but a Legislative Council that safeguards the interests of the privileged and ensures a majority vote for the Government's proposals, the Government is able to have its policies passed smoothly without having to adduce evidence carefully or disclose comprehensive information to the public.

President, I support Ms Tanya CHAN's adjournment motion, because if we continue with the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") … Throughout the whole process of the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government obviously did not attach any importance to serious consultation, and did not even consult the public seriously. The Government was unable or unwilling to provide some important information, such as a feasibility report on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") West Kowloon project, nor was it able to answer questions about certain issues that would affect XRL's capacity to be a real high-speed direct link with other cities on the Mainland.

Today, many Members have raised many important questions, but the Government has yet to respond to them. Even if the duration of our debate were increased by dozens of hours to 90 or even 160 hours, the Government might still not respond to them, because it knows that even if it does not respond to them, the Bill is certain to be passed when put to the vote. Is this a manifestation of true respect for rational discussion?

Although the Government's consultation was not serious, the information provided by it is incomprehensive, and it has yet to resolve important issues, pro-establishment Members had firmly decided long ago that they would support the Bill. Not only have they rarely, if not never, put questions about the Bill to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11791 the Government, but they have also refrained from proposing motions to improve or enhance XRL, and have even voted down all relevant proposals worth serious consideration by this Council. I am afraid that such voting in accordance with the interests of functional constituencies and partisan stances in this Council is …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, I remind you that you have digressed. Please return to the subject and state why you support or oppose the adjournment motion moved under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): 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 SHIU Ka-chun, please continue with your speech.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): I am afraid that such voting in accordance with the interests of functional constituencies and partisan stances in this Council is a far cry from both rationality, which requires evidence and discussion, and democracy, which entails being accountable to voters and public money. Is such misconduct in this Council in line with the ethics of parliamentary democracy? If it is said that today's demonstrators and petitioners are becoming increasingly violent or radical, may I ask if such institutional violence is radical?

11792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, I remind you again that you have digressed. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, thank you for your reminder. Today many Members have asked you not to interrupt them when they speak, but I still thank you for your reminder. What I want to say is that my purpose in supporting the adjournment motion is to oppose the continuation of such an evil practice that harms the ethics of parliamentary democracy.

Let me turn to objectives. Those who oppose the Bill are mainly saying that they do not want the Basic Law of Hong Kong to be ruined and do not want the function of the Legislative Council to be debased. Of course, among them are also people who strive to protect their existing homes, decrease the speed of development, change the patterns of development, and reduce the spending of public money. In contrast, those who demand the immediate implementation of the XRL project seek to expeditiously promote infrastructure development and accelerate the pace of social change, so that Hong Kong will not fall behind the entire country or even become an isolated city. By comparison, is it not true that those who support the desire for rapid social development and convergence, and those who are concerned that "slowing down" amounts to "being marginalized", deserve more to be called "radicals" seeking rapid changes? On the contrary, is it not true that those who ask the Government to withdraw the Bill for the time being and conduct consultations and studies afresh, and those who are willing to spend more time on more detailed debates in this Council and to more cautiously reflect on the pace of social development and preserve the existing way of life and the power of natural ecology, are actually genuine "conservatives"?

It is strange that in cynical Hong Kong society, rational discussion, which has to be serious and cautious and is thus bound to be relatively time-consuming, is often mistakenly regarded as radical; whereas voting with the aim of hurriedly passing bills which have far-reaching implications for society without any open, transparent and serious consultation or debate under the dominance of functional constituencies and party politics is wrongly construed as pragmatic, peaceful and rational.

President, in the film , Stephen CHOW is hit on the head after singing a song, and so he tries to explain to the men assaulting him that the real "Iron Head" is his eldest Shaolin brother while he himself is "Mighty Steel LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11793

Leg", but the men who are vigorously beating him reply, "We do not care if you are 'Iron Head' or 'Mighty Steel Leg'!" In the end, Stephen CHOW can only complain helplessly, "Do you guys know Chinese? I have already said that the real 'Iron Head' is my eldest Shaolin brother and I am 'Mighty Steel Leg'! Why are you guys so stubborn?"

When the powers that be jump on people like "Mighty Steel Leg" who are in a disadvantageous position in society, the powers that be should naturally be able to hear those people shout, but they always pretend they do not understand what those people say. I am afraid they are really somewhat stubborn. They are stubborn because they are prejudiced by preconceptions. In situations where everyone may kneel at a word from "Grandpa", some people will really become stubborn. Existing speculations, beliefs, emotions, comments and concepts may stop them from listening to others' opinions. Some Members who seriously ask questions perhaps do not seek to procrastinate, but people who are used to binary oppositional thinking always pretend they do not understand dissenting voices, and therefore conclude that all the questions asked and motions moved by those Members in this Council are "obstructing the rotation of the Earth". Is the Earth really rotating? Of course, and it is rotating around an axis made of absurdities.

President, it is precisely because I am opposed to absurdities that I support Ms Tanya CHAN's adjournment motion.

The first absurdity originated from the President of the Legislative Council. President, as many Members said today, of the 75 amendments proposed by 13 pro-democracy Members, you only ruled 24 of them admissible. In addition, you set time limits for the debates on the Bill in respect of its Second Reading, consideration by committee of the whole Council and Third Reading, but no time limit had ever been set for the Second Reading and Third Reading debates on a bill in this Council before. You really set a very bad precedent this time.

The second absurdity is called the absurdity of Regina IP. The number of members of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee") was the largest among all Bills Committees established over the years. The fact that it took Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, a good 16 minutes to finish her reporting speech is indicative of the controversy surrounding the Bill. Nonetheless, when acting as the Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mrs Regina IP actually allowed only 10 seconds for voting on each of the amendments proposed by Members. 11794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

Voting with such lightning speed was completely contrary to the parliamentary norm in this Council, calling into question whether it was reasonable and legal to resume the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

The third absurdity is called the absurdity of Carrie LAM. In response to a question from a reporter, Chief Executive Carrie LAM actually said, "As what arose at the meeting was a 'fundamental difference of opinion', it was impossible to convince the other party no matter how much time was allowed." So does it mean that should a "fundamental difference of opinion" arise with respect to the executive-legislature relationship in the future, it will not be necessary to discuss and debate it? One of the duties of the Chief Executive should be to convince Members. The Chief Executive is also obliged to introduce bills that are both constitutional and lawful. I understand that the Chief Executive has her orders, but when the public suspects that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional and unlawful, the Chief Executive should explain to the public why the Bill is not unconstitutional, as well as the impact of the passage of an unconstitutional bill on Hong Kong.

The fourth absurdity is called the absurdity of the Finance Committee. In order for the Bills Committee to submit its report to the House Committee, so that the Bill could be tabled in time to have its Second Reading debate resumed at today's Council meeting, the four-hour Finance Committee meeting scheduled to be held immediately after the House Committee meeting on the 25th of last month was cancelled. Previously, the Government and the pro-establishment camp had often criticized pro-democracy Members' questions and debates for filibustering, wasting time, throwing a spanner in the works, and obstructing funding proposals for motions related to people's livelihood. However, in order for the co-location arrangement to be approved, the Government actually went so far as to cause the Finance Committee meeting to be cancelled. The fourth absurdity is the result of the reckless moves by the Government, this Council and the Bills Committee.

The fifth absurdity is called the absurdity of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). On 5 June, DAB unveiled the findings of its opinion survey on the implementation of the co-location arrangement for XRL, claiming that over 60% of the public supported allowing Mainland law enforcement officers to enforce Mainland criminal laws in the designated area of West Kowloon Station. Accordingly, Mr CHAN Han-pan of DAB pressurized pro-democracy Members and demanded that they should debate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018 11795 rationally and pragmatically during the Second Reading debate on the Bill and refrain from filibustering, so that XRL could be commissioned on schedule. Let me now respond to the survey by DAB through a rational and pragmatic debate. When it comes to the co-location arrangement, what we should discuss is whether it has a legal basis rather than people's perceptions of it. This has nothing to do with whether "perception is reality". Therefore, when pondering the question "Do you think the co-location arrangement proposed by the Government is in contravention of the Basic Law?" in the survey questionnaire, one should not just pay attention to public opinion but needs to consider whether it has a legal basis. The Hong Kong Bar Association is not supreme, but the professional opinions expressed by it as a professional body is definitely worth listening to. The Hong Kong Bar Association has issued a statement to the effect that the co-location arrangement is in contravention of the Basic Law. How come the Member, who only desires convenient and fast transport, does not attach any importance to this view? I think we should listen to professional bodies' opinions on professional issues―even the Chief Executive has put forward the "Led by Professionals" principle. The law is the law. It is not a question to be decided by the majority of the public.

President, given so many different absurdities, it is perhaps impossible for the adjournment motion moved by Ms Tanya CHAN today to be passed. Still, I hope that through this motion, and my support for this motion, I can express my views on such absurdities in this world.

On 15 November last year, the non-binding motion on the co-location arrangement for XRL was passed by 38 votes to 22 in this Council. That was a fake popular mandate. The Government has time and again used this abnormal Council to get its own way by refusing to launch any consultation or conducting fake consultations. The said voting result was only secured by forcing through the motion after the pro-democracy camp had lost six votes. Why do we always say that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional and unlawful? This is because the co-location arrangement is damaging the "one country, two systems" decision …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, I warn you for the last time that you have digressed.

11796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 6 June 2018

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, I am about to finish my speech.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you have digressed, you have digressed.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Thank you. Digressions are digressions; absurdities are absurdities.

President, I so submit.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 8:22 pm.