LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9187

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 23 April 2015

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9189

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

9190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9191

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TANG KWOK-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

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

MS CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

9192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

BILLS

Committee Stage

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen signalled in his seat)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(3).

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

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee continues with the first debate, which is on heads with no amendments. Will Members please return to your seats.

Honourable Members, as I told you yesterday, I would like to conclude this debate at 10 am this morning, followed by voting. Since a Member just now requested a headcount and that took us 10 minutes to wait for Members to enter the Chamber, it is now 9.10 am. For those Members who have yet to speak in the first debate, if you wish to speak in this debate session but have not pressed the "Request to speak" button, please press the button now.

(A number of Members pressed the "Request to speak" button)

There are altogether seven Members who request to speak, including three Members who speak for the first time. These three Members are, according to their order of pressing the "Request to speak" button, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. The other four Members have already spoken at least once yesterday and they request to speak again. These LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9193 four Members are, according to their order of pressing the button, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Albert CHAN. If I allow all these seven Members to speak, I am afraid this debate may not conclude at 10 am.

I understand that some Members strongly request me to conduct the debate in accordance with the original time allocation plan, that is, conclude this debate at 10 am, followed by voting. However, it is still my wish to rationalize the allocation of time through the collaboration of all Members, and optimize the meeting time for debate. We also understand that we need to make some arrangements in respect of time allocation. As for those Members who have already spoken brilliantly in the first debate and intend to speak in other debates, I also look forward to their speeches.

Therefore, I shall let all those Members who have pressed the "Request to speak" button to speak in this session. If Members intend to speak more than once, I hope they will well organize the contents of their speech so that they can fully express their views within the speaking time.

In other words, this debate session may be slightly extended, but I will deduct the extended time from the second debate, which means that the second debate will be shorter. This situation will happen sooner or later, because we aim to have all the debate sessions concluded within a specific period of time. I will now invite those Members who have not spoken in the first debate to speak first. The first Member is Mr WONG Kwok-hing.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2015

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I support your arrangement on time management. At least, I will know when the filibustering can end.

Chairman, regarding the 21 heads with no amendments, though I think there are plenty of room for improvement, the matters concerned can be raised to the Government and discussed at meetings of various Panels and at special meetings of the Finance Committee. There is no need to waste the time of Council meetings. According to Mr NG Leung-sing's computation, each day of filibustering in the new Legislative Council Session would result in a wastage of 9194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

$2.96 million, an increase of 5.6% when compared to the wastage of $2.55 million per day last year. In other words, this is the second day of filibustering, and a total of $5.38 million of taxpayers' money has already been wasted. Thus, I would finish my speech in two or three minutes instead of using up the 15 minutes of my speaking time. I also urge Honourable colleagues, if you treasure the speaking time and if you want to raise a lot of views, you should not abuse your right by requesting headcounts. Since Members wish to express their opinions, they should not waste the precious meeting time by conducting headcounts. In fact, we already had seven or eight headcounts since yesterday, which means much time had unnecessarily been wasted.

Nevertheless, I am glad that the Chairman just now announced that each debate session will still be conducted in accordance with the original time allocation plan, regardless of the number of times of headcounts requested. Therefore, I hereby urge my fellow Members not to request headcount anymore, so as to avoid wasting time. Will Members please voice your views if you want to debate, and stop the practice of requesting headcounts. I will honour my pledge of speaking no more than three minutes. I will now end my speech. Thank you, Chairman.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the speech made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing a moment ago is not related to any heads of expenditure in the Draft Estimates. And he has wasted about three minutes of our time.

Chairman, this is actually a very important debate. Through extensive and exhaustive discussion, we wish to remind various departments that they should help the Government meet the basic requirements of public administration and achieve the relevant policy objectives effectively by discharging their duties diligently while ensuring that taxpayers' money would not be wasted.

Chairman, I would like to talk about the Water Supplies Department (WSD) specifically. Chapter 4 of the Director of Audit's Report No. 64 (the Audit Report) published yesterday is on "Management of water supply and demand". I would discuss this chapter of the Report in the context of the Draft Estimates, or I might be regarded as having digressed from the subject. As the Public Accounts Committee will follow up the Audit Report, I will only highlight a few issues in my speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9195

In paragraph 150 of the Budget Speech, the Financial Secretary mentioned that he had asked government departments to comprehensively review various fees and charges in accordance with the cost-recovery and user-pays principles. He added that the review was supported by the Legislative Council, and the Government's efforts had begun to bear fruits. The Government shall next review livelihood-related fees and charges. I take great exception to his remarks.

With the public coffers overflowing, the Government has no shortage of cash. The Financial Secretary even claimed that $34 billion was handed out this year. While the Government spends lavishly in giving cash handouts, it is penny-pinching with the people. As I said on various occasions including at the special meetings of the Finance Committee and during the resumption of Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2015, cremation fees have increased several folds over the years, from $90-odd at the lowest to $6,000-odd in the future. The rate of increase is phenomenal. Another fee to be reviewed is water charges. The Audit Report also pointed out specifically the need to review water charges.

While there is nothing wrong about reviewing water charges, has the government department been performing its duties properly over the years? Perhaps Members were all focusing on the news about constitutional reform yesterday, and this Audit's Report has received little attention. Many senior Members present in the Chamber now often say that they would follow up the matter. But what follow-up actions have they taken? As stated clearly in the Audit Report, the WSD has delayed in the implementation of the Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme. In other words, there are some reservoirs with overflow and some without. In 2004, that is, 11 years ago, the Government indicated that a drainage tunnel would be constructed to address the inequitable storage capacity of different reservoirs, so as to minimize waste.

The plan was made by the Government 11 years ago. What is the situation now? Notwithstanding the stated plan, no concrete action has been taken at all. What follow-up actions have been taken by our senior Members? They often speak emotionally at meetings, but what happen afterwards? Chairman, I speak not to waste time, but to remind the Government its deficiencies. The Government now intends to review water charges, but the pledge it made 11 years ago about constructing the drainage tunnel is still 9196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 outstanding. It is quite inconceivable that the Government even has the courage to tell the public that it has already duly performed its duties and made its best efforts to take all possible actions, but it still needs to review the costs and increase water charges.

Moreover, the public or Members of the Legislative Council also point out that the Government seeks to increase water charges on the one hand, but has been wasting water on the other hand. The Government has pledged to the public 11 years ago that a drainage tunnel would be built, but nothing has been done to implement the Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme. According to the Government, who should take the blame? Filibustering? The pan-democratic camp? Is that what the Government should do? If the Government has not done its job properly, it should not put the blame on others. Would Members of the pro-establishment camp defend the Government again? It is clear that the Government has twisted reality with lies.

As stated in the Audit Report, there are also delays in improving priority catchwater systems. In 2008, the Government informed the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council that the WSD would commence improvement works for four catchwater systems at Shing Mun, Beacon Hill, Golden Hill and Tai Lam Chung. However, up to December 2014, the WSD had yet to seek funding for carrying out the construction works. Is the WSD's low efficiency caused by insufficient manpower or unsound establishment? Or is it because the WSD is a disadvantaged and neglected department under the Development Bureau? Some government departments, though small, have a close tie with people's livelihood, yet their work has not been given priority. As a result, their funding submissions to the Legislative Council have often been delayed.

Who should be held responsible? Should it be the responsibility of Secretary Paul CHAN ultimately? In this regard, proper investigations should be conducted. Given that construction works with general public support, both in principle and in spirit, have not been materialized as pledged by the Government, what justifications does the Financial Secretary have to suggest that water charges are due for review in order to achieve cost recovery? Nothing has been done by the Government. It has defaulted on its undertaking and then suggested that cost recovery should be achieved. That is totally unreasonable. The crux is not about whether we are willing to pay extra fees or not.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9197

Separately, the Audit Report stated that some government facilities consumed more water after retrofitting with water-saving devices. Interestingly, the Government has already formulated a blueprint for resources on the basis of consensus forged after discussions held on the water management strategy. Given such a general direction, measures should be taken for its implementation. Government departments should have taken the lead to set an example. But it turned out that fresh water consumption of government departments retrofitted with water-saving devices had increased by more than 20%. What are the reasons for that? There is no reason why a good example cannot be set by government departments.

Likewise, some Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) venues consumed more water after implementing related best-practice guidelines. Should a review on the guidelines be conducted by the LCSD? In my constituency, Pok Fu Lam on Hong Kong Island, many buildings have yet to be connected to the seawater supply system. Why can't the Government construct these public utilities which are closely related to people's livelihood? In fact, the Government has pledged to construct some of the facilities as early as 11 years ago.

Chairman, it is important for us to consider how support can be provided with the funding being sought. What is the proper way to allocate funds? How should the improvement works as pledged be implemented in order to reduce waste of fresh water? Or has the Government decided to pay no attention at all because the public coffers are overflowing and hence, it can freely squander public resources. Do not forget that all these are public funds!

The Government has purchased large quantities of Dongjiang water to ensure a reliable and safe supply of fresh water for Hong Kong. It is another story how we squander the Dongjiang water supplied to Hong Kong. We have a situation of double squandering. The Government has purchased an excessive amount of water and entered into a contract that is unfair to Hong Kong taxpayers. Meanwhile, it has not fulfilled its pledge and help Hong Kong people cherish precious fresh water resources. Worse still, the Audit Report suggests that the Government should review water charges. In fact, water charges would be reviewed once every four years. According to tell-tale signs in the Audit Report, in order to achieve cost recovery, water charges may have to be increased substantially from the current level of $9 to $20-odd. Why does the Government always steal from the taxpayers?

9198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Meanwhile, the WSD has submitted a funding proposal for some $700 million for the reprovisioning of Harcourt Road fresh water pumping station in Hong Kong Park. Why did the department suddenly have such an idea? It is because the Government wants to sell the site. As we can see, the Government has handled these initiatives without any clear-cut priorities. Initiatives proposed by the previous term of Government are left unfinished as the current-term Government only cares about grabbling land blindly. Even the WSD is compelled to relocate the Harcourt Road fresh water pumping station. The small pumping station which supplies fresh water to Mid-level is in good working order. It has to be relocated solely because the Government intends to sell the site. Chairman, the Government's decision to relocate the pumping station is very foolish. For the reprovisioning of the pumping station in Hong Kong Park, some $700 million is incurred for the construction and paving of roads, laying of mains, levelling of slopes, felling of some 200 trees, or even the removal of an old stone wall over 150 years of age. To make its proposal sounds plausible, the Government has even commissioned a consultancy study, at a cost of $280,000, on how to reinstate the old stone wall. Has the Government ever considered what its basic duties are when contemplating these questions?

In fact, many land lots are available in Central, Wan Chai and Admiralty for office development. There is absolutely no need to compel the WSD to undertake such a project for the sake of grabbing land blindly. In this connection, a lot of efforts have been made by the Legislative Council lately, with Members from different political parties and groupings asking the WSD to take its time on this project. For the time being, we do not agree that some $700 million should be spent on the reprovisioning of Harcourt Road fresh water pumping station. Instead, the Government should fulfil its previous undertaking first, not to mention that many sites are available in Wan Chai, Admiralty and Central for development, including the government-owned Queensway Plaza. Hence, there is no need for the WSD to submit a funding proposal for some $700 million for the reprovisioning of Harcourt Road fresh water pumping station. Moreover, I believe that generally speaking, the relevant costs would become higher and higher.

While my speech is primarily focused on the WSD, many other departments have also neglected their principal duties under the present atmosphere. The WSD has not only neglected its principal duties, but it also seeks to increase water charges to achieve cost recovery. In my view, this is the most extreme case of neglecting one's principal duties. This is most unfortunate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9199 for the general public. While I have expected that the Government would make provisions under the Appropriation Bill 2015 to fulfil the undertakings made by the WSD as part of its performance pledges, nothing has been mentioned in the Draft Estimates. How can we give our support? The department has set its vision high up in the sky, yet many problems are left unresolved on the ground. It has also failed to fulfil its undertakings. How can we trust a dishonest and backpedalling government? Constitutional reform aside, I am now taking the Government to task even on water works projects.

Chairman, I am going to spend the remaining few minutes on The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission). It is one of the heads without any amendment in this debate session. Recently, we have discussed the security problems of the Legislative Council at length. This week, the Commission decided to provide additional facilities to strengthen security. Expenditure is incurred for the installation of fences, electric gates, and so on. But honestly, as I have pointed out time and again, these measures are quite "dumb" because while these additional installations may give people a sense of self-complacency or a sense of security subjectively, they do not serve any real purpose. When crowds of people gather outside the Legislative Council, the Commission will raise the alert level from amber to red. But there is really no way to prevent people from sabotaging these mobile gates.

As a matter of fact, governance problems will never be resolved by stepping up security checks. It will only achieve the opposite effect and give the public a wrong impression that the Legislative Council is hiding behind tall iron gates and walls while still pretending to be open and transparent, as in the case of LEUNG Chun-ying Government. Under a deformed political system, the legislature is not at the forefront of democracy, but hiding behind the governance crisis created by the Government. People can only pray to gods or the Buddha for good fortune. That is not the dignified, spirited and courageous legislature which we want to see. I take great exception to the fact that when discussing these problems, many Honourable colleagues would make reference to the arrangements in overseas countries, or even for the two sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference convened at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. If they are so afraid, why don't they leave the Earth and convene their meetings in another planet? If the Earth is dangerous because of terrorist attacks and independence movements, and if Members are so self-important, they might as well go back to Beijing and become an official there. Curfews have been imposed in the airspace there, and 9200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 not even a mosquito was allowed to fly over. Chairman, I am worried that should such a mode of discussion continue, the Legislative Council will be dragged down by the autocratic government to a point of no return. If the Legislative Council has the resources, they should be used to improve our services, rather than stepping up security. I hope Members will re-consider the matter seriously.

I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Dr Kenneth CHAN just now talked about the proposed relocation of the pumping station at Harcourt Road to Hong Kong Park by the Water Supplies Department (WSD). In fact, looking at it from another angle, I think the WSD is very receptive to good advice. I am the convener of a grievance group comprising Members including Dr Kenneth CHAN, and we have conveyed our views to the WSD. The WSD was very receptive to our views and was willing to consider if there was a more suitable site. This was welcomed by Members.

This apart, I heard Dr Kenneth CHAN mention the issue of Dongjiang water. Actually, have we wasted any Dongjiang water imported? Is it true that Dongjiang water is very expensive? Is it true that Dongjiang water has been poured into the sea? Should we stop importing Dongjiang water? In my view, the way he presented his arguments was misleading. But, no matter how misleading it was, it bore no comparison with the "big show" staged by Mr Albert CHAN yesterday, which was simply dumbfounding. I believe that Mr Albert CHAN was just trying to use the issue of Dongjiang water as a pretext for making nonsensical comments to stir up conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. It did not matter that he tried to do so, but why did he drag the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) into it? I must, therefore, refute the ridiculous speech delivered by Mr Albert CHAN yesterday, so as to set the record straight.

Mr Albert CHAN claimed that he had read the papers, and he even cited a question that he had asked repeatedly, alleging that the Government had poured surplus Dongjiang water into the sea. Chairman, this well proves that Mr Albert CHAN has never read the papers, or that he has only read part but not all of the contents. Let us refer to the relevant document, that is, the reply that he said the authorities gave him, with the serial number DEVB(W)257. In part 3 of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9201 reply, the authorities clearly point out the following (and I quote): "Under the 'package deal lump sum' approach … [t]here was no surplus DJ [Dongjiang] water and neither overflow nor wastage of DJ water occurred in the past year." (End of quote) In addition, the Government also gave another reply with the serial number DEVB(W)258, which clearly states (and I quote), "In the past five years, there was neither discharge nor overflow of DJ water into the sea." That is, there was no wastage of Dongjiang water. If Mr Albert CHAN really had read the papers, I believe he would not have said that the Government had poured surplus Dongjiang water into the sea. When delivering his speech yesterday, he spoke like a "human tape recorder" which played the same tape over and over again in a continuous loop. As to whether he repeated it several dozen times, I did not have time to count, but he must have repeated it 10-odd times if not several dozen times.

Mr Albert CHAN was "awe-inspiring" in saying words to the effect that Hong Kong was not almighty despite being affluent. I have no idea what he was talking about, but I know that while Mr CHAN is not a billionaire, he is by no means poor. He remarked that as China was founded on agriculture and needed water very much, the Government should leave Dongjiang water for the use by Mainlanders. That is, he was asking Hong Kong people not to drink Dongjiang water, so that the water could be used for agricultural purposes on the Mainland. Chairman, what he said sounded plausible, righteous and extremely magnanimous. Yet, Mr Albert CHAN has to realize that the Dongjiang water currently supplied to Hong Kong is for consumption by Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people need water. If one remembers the water rationing period of Hong Kong during which water was supplied four hours a day, one should know the plight of Hong Kong people in the bad old days. New generations do not know about it, but I believe that the Chairman and people of my age have all experienced the bad days. In particular, under the existing "package deal lump sum" approach, the quantities of water supplied to Hong Kong are actually imported according to the amounts of consumption, and payment is made for the quantities required. There is absolutely no question of pouring the water into the sea. Any unused Dongjiang water will simply be left on the Mainland for local consumption. I hope that next time when Mr Albert CHAN is going to attack the Government, he will do his homework before he delivers his grand speech.

Yesterday, a number of Members including Ms Claudia MO said that Dongjiang water was very expensive. But how expensive is it? It is merely priced at $5 per cu m. Even if all the costs are factored in, the price is just 9202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

$8.8 per cu m. Ms Claudia MO said that they would rather drink water from a desalination plant. I wonder if she was encouraging people in her constituency, Kowloon West, to drink only water from a desalination plant and refuse to drink Dongjiang water. However, we should know that water from a desalination plant is even more expensive with a cost of $12 per cu m, whereas the total cost of Dongjiang water currently stands at $8.8 per cu m. Therefore, the comment from some Members that Dongjiang water is supplied to Hong Kong at a high cost is absolutely incorrect.

The most repugnant part of Mr Albert CHAN's speech yesterday is his allegation that Dongjiang water has been polluted and is faecal water, but is still imported for Hong Kong people to consume. Chairman, these words literally made my hair stand on end. As far as I know, he probably has a Home Visit Permit. I hope that he can go to the Mainland to take a look at the actual situation. He has to understand that Dongjiang is 80-odd km away from Hong Kong, and a closed aqueduct is in use throughout the water transfer system with four pumping stations and two tunnels to ensure that the quality of Dongjiang water to be consumed by Hong Kong people meets the highest standard set by us for water abstracted for daily use and consumption. Given that Dongjiang is 80-odd km away from Hong Kong, the maintenance fees, operational expenses and electricity charges incurred for the closed aqueduct system each year are actually very high. While costs are lower on the Mainland than in Hong Kong, the Mainland authorities have still suffered a loss in selling Dongjiang water to Hong Kong after factoring in all the costs. I hope that when one drinks water, one will not forget where it comes from. As we drink water from the Mainland, we should be grateful to the Mainland. Please do not make cynical remarks here today.

Chairman, yesterday some Members touched on the issue of establishing more dental clinics in various districts. I believe that every Hong Kong citizen who is concerned about and has paid attention to the work of Members in the past, or the efforts made by District Council members on various fronts, should know that we in the DAB have always been very concerned about the elderly's health and dental problems. Back in November 2010, we initiated a number of actions to call for and demand government subsidies from the Community Care Fund for denture-fixing services for the elderly. In early 2012, funding was allocated from the Community Care Fund to implement this measure. This was very encouraging. Of course, I would not say that the DAB was the only party which endeavored to achieve this, as I believe that many other political parties LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9203 had also spoken out and striven for this. Yet, people should note that over the years, the DAB has been more than willing to exert itself to do whatever it can do for the elderly. We are also grateful to the new-term Commission on Poverty for approving an allocation of $800-odd million in December last year to expand such services to cover elderly persons aged 80 or above who are recipients of Old Age Living Allowance. This is indeed good news for some elderly people.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki asked yesterday why, if that was the case, the elderly still have to wait for a long time at present, and why no specific arrangements have been made in certain aspects? After raising this question, he went on to say that it was due to the shortage of doctors and dentists. We all know that the shortage of doctors and dentists is undoubtedly a problem faced by Hong Kong. Hence, in this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has clearly pointed out the need to admit talent to Hong Kong. As regards the second generation of Hong Kong permanent residents who have emigrated overseas, if they are professionals, dentists or doctors, the Chief Executive hopes that they can return to Hong Kong through a future policy, so as to provide the general public of Hong Kong with more quality healthcare services. The Chief Executive has also indicated in the Policy Address that he hopes that a consensus can be reached with the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK) on the relevant arrangements. Up to now, it is still uncertain whether we will be able to attract more doctors who are the second generation of Hong Kong people from other advanced countries to Hong Kong to serve our public. I hope that the relevant persons can spare Hong Kong people, and that Dr KWOK Ka-ki can intercede with the MCHK. Thank you!

Chairman, I would also like to offer some views on "Head 94 ― Legal Aid Department". It should be noted that in Hong Kong, legal aid applications are basically assessed according to two criteria at present. The first criterion is whether the applicant's property exceeds a certain limit, and the second criterion is based on the merits of the case. It is undeniable that legal aid was seriously abused in the past, especially by some so-called "regular court-goers" as we are aware. Who do I mean by "regular court-goers"? They are those who are apt to go to court to apply for judicial reviews and sue the Government. It is fine to sue the Government if it did something wrong, but those people did not want to use their own money to go to court despite having sufficient means to do so, and thus they might get an old lady or an old man to apply for legal aid to sue the Government. If we asked the old lady why she had to sue the Government, she would reply with her eyes wide open that she had no idea, and said that it was a 9204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 certain person who told her to sue the Government, and she just did as she was told. Did the Legal Aid Department find out who the real plaintiff was? Could the old lady give clear answers to such questions?

One of the criteria for assessing legal aid applications is the merits test. If even the plaintiff was not clear about the details of the case, what was the point of going to court? Under the circumstances, would legal aid be abused by some people? Chairman, such abuses are really outrageous. Last year, a number of organizations affected by the Occupy action were granted interim injunctions by the Court to restrain the occupiers from continuing to occupy roads and obstruct passageways. Subsequently, some occupiers were actually granted legal aid by the Legal Aid Department to apply to the Court for discharging the interim injunctions granted in respect of the occupied area in Mong Kok. Is this not outrageous? Occupation of roads is illegal, and the injunctions were granted by the Court, but those occupiers actually got an unwitting old man to apply to the Court for discharging the injunctions granted by the Court. Were they not trying to make a fool of the Court? This was a glaring abuse of legal aid.

Speaking of abuse, Chairman, we have seen a clearer picture recently. In regard to torture claims, we are compassionate in that we hope to help people who faced political oppression in their own countries. Last year, a few thousand people made torture claims. Although only 20-odd cases were successful in the end, taking advantage of Hong Kong's legal aid system to make torture claims has now become a trend. There were people who shouted out "Torture claim!" as soon as they disembarked from the plane before being arrested. Recently, some surveys have even pointed out that some lawyers have taken up 300 torture claim cases within three years. They must have made a fortune. Chairman, should we not face up to this situation? I hope that the relevant authorities will conduct a review of head 94 (The buzzer sounded) …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, your speaking time is up.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all I would like to point out that it is inappropriate for you to include the time spent on handling the point of order in Members' speaking time, including the time spent on ringing the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber due to the lack of a quorum. Besides, if I ask why Mr WONG Kwok-hing raises the sign and what it has to do LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9205 with this debate session; or if someone asks Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung how the saying "An underling gets haughty on the strength of his master's power; the constitutional reform package deceives Hong Kong people" used to describe Mrs Carrie LAM is related to this debate session, Chairman, you will have to spend time to handle the questions. Hence, it is unjustifiable to include the time spent on handling the point of order in Members' speaking time. I am not trying to debate with you, Chairman; I just wish to reiterate that I do not agree that you should limit Members' speaking time by deducting from it the time spent on handling the point of order such as doing headcounts. You may say, "If you want to have more time to speak, you should not request headcounts." But sorry, I can speak at home or on the Internet radio station but when I speak in this Council, I will only speak when a quorum is present. I now request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is my third time and also my last time to speak in the first debate on heads with no amendments. Let me first point out, Chairman, you have proposed a timetable on how the debate should be conducted, thereby controlling and limiting Members' speaking time even before the debate begins. This is a brutal act. Besides, your arrangement for this session is also unreasonable. In 2014, there were 14 heads with no amendments and the debate time was close to seven hours. This year, there are 21 heads with no amendments but the time allocated by the Chairman to this session is only six hours.

I spoke on Radio Television Hong Kong in my last two speeches. I have prepared to speak on other heads, including "Head 80 ― Judiciary", "Head 112 ― Legislative Council Commission" and "Head 94 ― Legal Aid 9206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Department". Owing to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's ravings just now, I really have to refute her misunderstanding about the fundamental spirit of legal aid, but I do not have enough time to do so. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung had proposed amendments to head 112, but were ruled out pair by pair by the Chairman. As a result, head 112 which relates to The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) becomes a head with no amendments, and we do not have insufficient time to criticize the Commission. Moreover, I also wish to talk about the Registration and Electoral Office, the Government Flying Service and the Water Supplies Department (WSD). Only a genius can talk about all these items in just 10-odd minutes in a very condensed form. I can condense a little if only a few sentences are involved; but if I need to condense a lot and speak on each item in a few sentences, the message conveyed will be very confusing, and this serves no great purpose.

I finally choose to talk about the WSD because Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has raised many questions regarding the WSD just now to refute Mr Albert CHAN. When Members' speaking time is restricted, they do not have the chance to defend themselves.

When we say the WSD is "dumping money into the sea", we are talking about an amount of over $6.8 billion of public money wasted over the years. Since 2006, Hong Kong signed a water supply agreement with the Guangdong authorities to purchase Dongjiang water by adopting the "package deal lump sum" approach. Each year, Hong Kong will purchase, on a one-off basis, Dongjiang water up to the supply ceiling quantity. The WSD will, on a monthly basis, inform the Guangdong authorities the supply quantity for the next month and the Guangdong authorities will supply water to Hong Kong accordingly. But if our consumption of water has not reached the ceiling quantity, there is no refund. That is why I say that we are "dumping money into the sea". Hong Kong has never used up the supply ceiling quantity purchased each year but the money paid for the unused water has never been refunded. Over the past eight years, the amount has accumulated to $5 billion. The Government appeals to the public to conserve water but at the same time we can only get our supply of Dongjiang water by means of a "package deal lump sum" with a fixed quantity. It is self-contradictory.

At present the annual supply ceiling quantity agreed is 820 million cu m, but the Government has earlier renewed the water supply agreement with the Guangdong authorities and the quantity has finally adjusted to 1.1 billion cu m, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9207 an increase instead of a reduction. Hong Kong has already purchased more water than it needs; why then does the Government spend more public money to purchase an even larger quantity of Dongjiang water? Is it because the Government has no intention to ask people to conserve water, telling them that there is an abundant supply of water and they can consume as much as they like, without fearing about shortage of supply, or are there other political implications and political decisions that Hong Kong people have to waste that amount of public money?

As regards the quality of Dongjiang water, earlier some media tested the quality of the Dongjiang water supplied to Hong Kong with samples taken from the Taiyuan Pumping Station at Dongguan situated at the lower section of Dongjiang, the Plover Cove Reservoir and Lam Tin Public Housing Estate in Hong Kong. It was found that the content of iron, a heavy metal, in the raw water sample was 60% higher than the Mainland standard and the turbidity of that sample and the one taken from Plover Cove Reservoir was the same, both were higher than the drinking water quality standard set by the World Health Organization. The pumping station at the lower section of Dongjiang is littered with rubbish. We have not fabricated the situation as pictures have been taken by journalists on site. It has nothing to do with whether we have the Home Visit Permit to go to the Mainland for site inspection. The rubbish found there includes Styrofoam, detergent bottles and paint containers. Moreover, engineering ships carrying sand and stones travel frequently to and from the sand depot on the coast, contaminating the source of the water supplied to Hong Kong. It was disclosed earlier that Shenzhen Reservoir, the service reservoir for storing Dongjiang water to be supplied to Hong Kong, has been contaminated by illegal pig farms. That is why people describe Dongjiang water as "Dongjiang faecal water". Over 10 illegal pig farms have been found in the vicinity of the Shenzhen Reservoir. For some larger scale farms, over 100 pigs are reared, as well as small numbers of chickens and ducks. Some farms even engage in the illegal business of extracting cooking oil from gutter oil. Every day, large quantities of water contaminated with faeces, dead animal bodies and oil residue, and so on, are discharged into the river and the lake in the vicinity. Rubbish and dead rats are found at the source of Dongjiang water. If large quantities of water containing pig dung are discharged into the Reservoir, there will be a high level of Escherichia coli, nitrogen and phosphorous in the water. In more serious cases, microcystis aeruginosa will be produced in the water which may cause neurotoxicity and death after drinking such water.

9208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

People of Hong Kong have long criticized the Government for purchasing overpriced water and now it is purchasing overpriced faecal water. Singapore signed two water supply agreements with Malaysia many years ago. One expired in 2011 and the other will expire in 2061. According to the agreements, Malaysia supplies water to Singapore at the price of 3 cents Malaysia Ringgit per 1 000 gallons. Hong Kong pays a price 266 times higher than that of Singapore for water. Even for Macao, the price it pays for procuring Xijiang water is only between one quarter and one fifth of that paid by Hong Kong for Dongjiang water. The price of Dongjiang water is already very high, and the price still keeps rising every year. No wonder people are so angry and aggrieved.

To encourage people to conserve water, the WSD launched the "Let's Save 10L Water" Campaign on the World Water Day on 22 March this year. The WSD has adopted a carrot and stick approach by providing water saving tips to members of the public to help them develop a water-saving habit, giving out flow controllers for free and promoting the use of water-saving devices. Members of the public can get flow controllers from District Council members in their local districts. My office also provides this service. But some District Council members have reflected that the free flow controllers provided by the Government cannot be used in all housing estates. People may wish to conserve water but they will not change their taps just to fit the flow controllers. In the end, for all the efforts made, only half the result is achieved.

Our neighbour Singapore has made far greater efforts than us. The Singapore Government is very vigorous in promoting the conservation of water. According to statistics in 2010, only 40% of the water consumed in Singapore was imported while 60% came from rainwater, desalinated seawater and reclaimed water.

This year the Government announced that it had commenced the planning and studies on the use of reclaimed water in the North Eastern New Territories and the project would be commissioned about eight years later. The WSD points out that after the highest level of tertiary treatment, the treated municipal wastewater from the Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works will go through additional treatment, such as chlorination, to become reclaimed water for toilet flushing, irrigation and street washing purposes. It is expected that 21 million cu m of water can be saved each year. Although Hong Kong plans to use reclaimed water, it will only amount to 2% of Hong Kong's demand for potable water, which is only a tiny fraction compared to the quantity of reclaimed water consumed in Singapore. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9209

As regards desalination of seawater, it was announced in last year's Budget that a 10-hectare site in Tseung Kwan O Area 137 was reserved for the construction of a desalination plant of medium size. The first stage output capacity of the plant would be 135 000 cu m per day. The authorities will reserve the capacity for expanding the output to 270 000 cu m per day when necessary. The cost of seawater desalination in the first stage will be relatively high, about $12 to $13 per cu m and the desalination plant will be in operation in 2020 at the earliest. As high pressure is required for seawater desalination by reverse osmosis, the cost of energy consumption amounts to one third to one half of the overall cost; hence this method is very expensive. Besides, in the desalination process, a highly concentrated salt solution will be produced after the salt and other impurities are filtered out by the ultrafiltration membrane and if it is discharged into the sea directly, it will sink to the sea bottom and upset the eco-system. Although the seawater desalination technology is highly controversial, I still think that the Government should continue with the study and at the same time explore other technologies with lower costs to free Hong Kong from the reliance on one single source of water, the Dongjiang water. Of course, no one can say that Hong Kong needs not buy Dongjiang water at the moment, because without Dongjiang water, we will not have sufficient fresh water and if Hong Kong is ravaged by the worst draught in a century, we do not know how to deal with the situation. However, even if we must rely on Dongjiang water, does it mean that we should be fleeced and exploited?

Next I wish to talk about the Water Resources Education Centre. The Government plans to relocate the present facilities of the WSD at Sai Yi Street, Mong Kok to a new seven-storey building to be constructed in Tin Shui Wai which will accommodate the New Territories West Regional Office and Water Resources Education Centre of the WSD. Both will begin operation in early 2018. The present Water Resources Education Centre in Mong Kok has already been criticized as wasting public money. With only three years left before the Centre is reprovisioned, the WSD still spent $4.77 million of public money to set up a temporary Water Resources Education Centre of about 200 sq m for the teaching of a Primary Four General Studies course concerning water resources. According to the WSD's explanation, the $4.77 million spent included the purchase of exhibits like interactive games and the renovation of the premises, and some of the exhibits would be relocated to the new Centre in Tin Shui Wai but the WSD will still be criticized for its non-prudent financial management.

9210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Apart from "dumping money into the sea" every year, the WSD was also found to be wasting other public resources. According to the annual return on departmental quarters submitted by the WSD earlier, the WSD had 491 departmental quarters units in 55 premises, which were used to accommodate operational staff at junior levels serving at the waterworks installations nearby. However, since 2000, the WSD considered that there were no longer strong operational needs for the retention of most departmental quarters and had ceased to allocate departmental quarters to staff except for a few locations still with operational needs. As a result, most of the WSD's departmental quarters became surplus to requirements as and when they were vacated by their occupants. The Audit Commission discovered that 330 surplus departmental quarters units held by the WSD were left vacant for years but the WSD had not reported them and there were delays of one to eight years in reporting 10 vacant premises. Also, WSD had declassified 378 surplus quarters in various locations as surplus accommodation but only 48 surplus accommodation units were put into other departmental uses. The Audit Commission considered that the WSD had delayed in releasing its surplus premises and advised the authorities to help it deal with its surplus accommodation as soon as possible. This is the problem about the WSD's surplus quarters.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, many people said that "Long Hair" lacks new ideas as my ideas are often about shit. After listening to the remarks made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, I believe there was a reason why Carrie LAM did not take away the shit yesterday. She knew that some Members were even worse than her and they should be the ones to remove the stuff. "An underling gets haughty on the strength of his master's power".

Let me challenge Mr WONG Kwok-hing again. He said that I wasted $2.5 billion of public funds, but just now I asked him whether he was aware that owing to the royalists' passage of the Government's motion every year, a total of $400 billion of public funds has been wasted. Has he answered my question? No. I demand an answer and he should be the first one to eat shit for most people who have bad breath eat shit.

I like Dr CHIANG Lai-wan best because her ignorance is eye-opening, and her remarks are really stunning. First, she attacked the Legal Aid Department (LAD); as I am also very dissatisfied with the LAD, I have prepared a lot of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9211 materials to criticize this department. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said earlier that the LAD provides legal aid to people in need, but she did not understand why people prosecuted by the Government or those who are parties to civil proceedings against the Government can get legal aid. I know that Members like to talk about the Basic Law, so I will now quote Article 25 of the Basic Law, "All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law". Article 35 specifies that "Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the Courts, choice of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the Courts, and to judicial remedies. Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the Courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel." Dr CHIANG Lai-wan mentioned judicial review, and as I have just read aloud, it is stated in Article 35 of the Basic Law that "Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the Courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel".

Chairman, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan considers that Article 25 and Article 35 of the Basic Law are not worth mentioning. If anyone helps a Hong Kong resident to exercise his rights under Article 25 and Article 35 of the Basic Law, he will be censured and described as abusing public funds. I really think this is ridiculous; it seems as though the LAD has casually approved judicial review applications by the public. Should the decisions be made by the Court? Are the decisions made by the LAD? I ask Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to study harder. How dare she said that the Basic Law should be promoted; what kind of people are these royalist Members? The LAD is established because some people may not be protected under Article 25 and Article 35 of the Basic Law because of the lack of money. The Basic Law has not done enough, but not it has done too much.

It seems to me that some Legislative Council Members are watching old Cantonese movies in this Chamber. The magistrate of a prefecture had all the powers. A common folk would get a good beating before he could see the magistrate. If he had any grievances, he had to give up all his fortune to show his sincerity. If he was not prepared to give up his entire fortune, he should not initiate a lawsuit. Frankly speaking, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is simply a disgrace, and we are all aware of this fact when she speaks. Yet, she is still going to challenge other Members.

Chairman, if a Member thinks that Hong Kong residents should not have the rights conferred by the Basic Law and they should not be given legal aid funded by public coffers, he should seek to amend the Basic Law, to delete 9212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Article 25 and Article 35. Chairman, I had once attempted to apply for judicial review, but my application was not approved for the reason that I should not be given legal aid. Chairman, I understand why you do not allow us to debate too much; the reason is that this is bad education.

Chairman, speaking of the LAD, although Mr Martin LIAO is not a representative of the legal profession, he should respond on behalf of other members of the profession. Some people like to talk about champerty, buddy. Hong Kong residents are allowed to choose lawyers under Article 35 of the Basic Law. Can he choose a lawyer whom he thinks is better? Should we arrest lawyers as what has been done in the Mainland? Someone picked PU Zhiqiang to represent him, but PU was arrested at an assembly held on the eve of June 4 last year. Of course, his client has already chosen another lawyer.

The choice of lawyers is one of the rights of Hong Kong residents conferred by the Basic Law. In fact, many people do not understand that legal aid funded by public coffers does not have price differences. In other words, the best or the worst barrister gets the same pay, how then would public funds be wasted? Some Members have not studied hard, thinking that more money must be paid to hire a lawyer who charges higher. This is not the case unless other lawyers are hired. If an outstanding lawyer is willing to give up a higher reward and serve as a legal aid or duty lawyer to provide better legal assistance to those in need, he is admirable indeed.

Chairman, you should really teach some Members, stop being the President of the Legislative Council, instead, you should conduct classes for the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). Some Members have very low standards and they make criticisms indiscriminately. Frankly speaking, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has an alarmingly low standard, and her comments against the Judiciary are even stronger than those raised in the white paper issued by the State Council last year. She said that legal aid applicants wasted Hong Kong people's money and judges casually approved applications for judicial review. Chairman, that is not the case; the chance for granting leave for judicial review is very low. Let me give a simple example. In 2013, only 27%, which is less than 30%, of the applications for judicial review was approved. Does Dr CHIANG Lai-wan have any data to prove that judges casually approved applications for judicial review? Only 47% of the applications for judicial review relating to civil cases were approved in 2013.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9213

The DAB frequently says that domestic violence cases should be urgently handled. If the legal aid applications of the affected parties are not approved, these people will not be given legal aid. In other words, even if two people are fighting each other or one of them is constantly beaten, they still have to live under the same roof. Even for cases as urgent as domestic violence cases, the LAD still takes 37 days to vet the applications, thus failing to meet the performance pledge. In 2014, 83% of legal aid applications relating to civil cases were approved within three months, and the LAD was sorry that the 85% target was not met.

The LAD cries for help, saying that it does not have time or sufficient resources to deal with the applications, hence Members offer help to the public. But some Members accused the LAD of being too generous. What kind of Members are they? Is the money theirs? They also blame the judges; I have never heard such a comment: "People arrested by the Police are released by the Judge". How can they say such words? Are they attending the meeting of National People's Congress? Is this the public prosecution law? Does public security come first, followed by prosecution and then the Court? Does the Court come third? Should people arrested be regarded as prosecutions successfully instituted while those prosecuted should be regarded as being sentenced? That should not be the case; even though Hong Kong is about to be occupied by the enemy, it has yet to fall completely into the enemy's hands.

When I was chatting with Mr Martin LIAO earlier, I asked him if deputies to the National People's Congress deputies could speak at meetings and he said they could not. Honestly, I am just casually asking, for we all know that they cannot speak and they can only express their views during group discussions. Nonetheless, they can speak in this Chamber, but their standards cannot be too low and they cannot make incorrect comments. May I ask Members belonging to the DAB whether they really think that Judges in Hong Kong would co-operate with law-breakers and release the defendants? If not, I ask them to withdraw the comment. If they do not withdraw the comment, they are denying the truth.

I scorned LEUNG Chun-ying and I asked him to eat shit. I will not withdraw this comment. I would like to ask Dr CHIANG Lai-wan if she meant what she said. I would like to ask Ms Starry LEE, a DAB member of insight and a Member of the Executive Council, or a DAB member with little knowledge of the law to say something. It is alright for them to harbour grudges against me but I ask them not to accuse other people. We all understand this simple truth.

9214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

I would also like to ask Mr KWOK Wai-keung if he thinks that the Government has given too much legal aid to workers. This is certainly not true. Owing to the Chairman's decision, I do not have time to talk about the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants. The Resource Centre is a pile of shit; many workers do not know what they can do on occasions when they cannot hire lawyers. They simply do not know or understand the meanings of the written texts. The problems have not been solved. Let me cite the DAB's comment that this approach produces trouble makers; how can workers initiate legal proceedings? Buddy, when the bosses owe workers wages, both parties should negotiate. I feel shameful that I have to elaborate. Where am I when I make this speech? As it turns out, some Members of this Council openly advocate reducing public funding so that some people cannot receive legal aid. I repeat that this is the most fundamental constitutional right under Chapter III of the Basic Law: Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents. How can a political party make such an advocacy, what is the point of talking about dentists?

We talked about dentists yesterday and I really found it very ridiculous! The DAB started fighting for dental services in 2010 but the fight has not been successful. Forget it then! Although the fight has yet to be successful, they said that they started fighting for such services long ago. That makes them all the more worthless. Chairman, is that right? Similarly, I started fighting for universal retirement protection in the 1980s; I might as well go to hell! A 70-year-old person back then who learnt that I would fight for the protection should now be in heaven. Chairman, I really cannot bear to think about that.

I would like to ask a very simple question: was it the DAB which supported reducing the salaries and training of healthcare personnel? Who voted for the proposal when TUNG Chee-hwa said that the School of General Nursing, Queen Elizabeth Hospital could be closed? Who voted for the proposal when the playboy, YEOH Eng-kiong, asked if money would fall from the sky and when he said that healthcare protection was not essential? When TUNG Chee-hwa was the Chief Executive, who voted for reducing wages and resources? There is a lack of healthcare personnel today; who voted for reducing resources in the old Legislative Council Building? Go to hell! We should no longer say that a lack of healthcare personnel has nothing to do with us. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is simply too ignorant! Even if the Government has money, there is still a lack of healthcare personnel; yet LEUNG Chun-ying has come up with a brilliant idea. Should we have a sense of shame?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9215

Chairman, at that time, I said in the public gallery, "The Government rescues the market but not the people. Shame on it!". The Government "spends over $100 billion to rescue the rich but not a penny to help the poor". The Government closed the nursing school due to the lack of sufficient resources, and it did not train dentists. The Prince Philip Dental Hospital, designed for training dentists, had is funding slashed. Chairman, who created the current situation? Who have constantly asked us not to oppose the Government so as to facilitate effective governance? These people "have black stools after eating pig's blood". I am delighted about this debate. You can go and check who has served three terms of the Government since 1997 and voted for all government proposals to rob the poor and help the rich!

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, before I speak, I must talk about the time limit for the debate. I announced in advance yesterday that I am going to speak five times today and I will discuss the Legislative Council Commission, the Registration and Electoral Office (REO), the Legal Aid Department and the Government Flying Service, which is also mentioned in the recently published Audit Commission report. About the REO, there is presently a saying that no upper limit to the Chief Executive's election expenses will be set. I am going to speak on the estimates for each of the above departments.

Chairman, the time limit set by you has also posed a problem to Members of the pro-establishment camp as they are also eager to speak. Is that right? Theoretically, they should also express their views. If all of us speak with substance and with justification, and we seriously scrutinize the Appropriation Bill, we should speak eloquently and make systematic analysis during the Committee Stage. Therefore, it is very inappropriate for you to set a limit on the speaking time of pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members. Chairman, you have basically resolved the filibuster issue, how can we filibuster? Even requesting headcounts and ringing the summoning bell are of no avail, because the speaking time will be correspondingly deducted. Ringing the summoning bell will only give people an impression that Members who want to filibuster or who want to speak can save their energy and stop speaking for a while, right? If the pro-establishment Members are smart enough, they can take the opportunity to speak while other Members would stop speaking for a while. What should be done?

(Mr Albert CHAN signalled in his seat)

9216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are too few Members in the Chamber; I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please continue.

(A number of Members left their seats and talked to one another)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members quickly return to their seats and keep quiet?

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now turn to "Head 112 ― Legislative Council Commission". Chairman, as you mentioned earlier that a time limit would be set, I cannot speak on certain issues. But I am going to talk about The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission), which you have a conflict of interest, and thus you cannot disallow me to speak.

The Commission is chaired by the President of the Legislative Council, Mr Jasper TSANG, and its members include Ms Emily LAU, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Dr Kenneth CHAN. Head 112, which relates to the Commission, includes six Programmes. Programme (1) Members' Offices and Remuneration, the contents of which are directly related to us; Programme (2) Council Business Services; these services take up the biggest share of the expenditure. There are more than 500 staff members inside the Complex, providing legal, complaint, library, and Council services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9217

The Commission has taken the lead to ruin the spirit of separation of powers, and it has even resorted to self-destruction and self-denigration. On 6 June last year, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council scrutinized the funding application for advance site formation works at the North East New Territories New Development Areas. While the SAR Government had not positively responded to issues such as land acquisition, the disappearance of the China-Hong Kong boundary and land allocation, it intended to force through the funding approval together with the pro-establishment Members. As a result, the affected villagers and members of the public protested at this Council and they occupied the Legislative Council Complex, holding a sit-in at the ground floor lobby. At that time, the Legislative Council Secretariat immediately called the Police. In the following two weeks, the President of this Council and the Commission decided to strengthen security measures by surrounding the Complex with iron railings and deploying security personnel to guard all entrances and exits. The numerous number of lookout posts had turned the Complex to be under military control. We were guarding against the people as if they were thieves, and the Legislative Council Complex had become a high security prison, which was laughable.

Since the Legislative Council moved into a larger new Complex in 2011, the Secretariat has recruited a large number of security personnel from the Police Force, with many security officers being retired inspectors or superintendents. They have adopted the Police's mentality in handling the security matters of this Council and have introduced into this Council the abuse of power, an approach adopted by Andy TSANG, the Commissioner of Police. After the 10th meeting of the Finance Committee back then, the Chief Security Officer instructed the security guards to "play the fool" and stop my car from leaving the Complex, while allowing other Members to leave first. Such an act was suspected of violating the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). The Chief Security Officer claimed that he mistakenly thought that I was involved in the incident on 13 June where Miss Erica YUEN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's assistant, was suspected of blocking the exit; he thus gave the relevant instruction. After reviewing all the video tapes, the parties concerned had not found any evidence that I had anything to do with the incident.

The Chief Security Officer instructed, through walkie-talkie, the security personnel not to let my car leave the Legislative Council Complex. Could he do so? All the documents in this file are the correspondence between me and the Commission. I objected to the decision they made and asked for a response, but 9218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

I have not received a reply so far. As I always say, my personal matter is trivial but the dignity of the Legislative Council is a prime concern. It has been a long time since the incident but I have not yet received an appropriate response.

On 3 July last year, I threw a glass before the commencement of the Chief Executive Question and Answer session ― everyone distanced themselves from me, especially those who hurled soft objects. On that day, without informing the President of this Council and the Secretary General, the security personnel allowed police officers to enter the Legislative Council Complex to investigate the case, and the Council meeting was still in progress. That was really outrageous and the Legislative Council had completely lost its dignity. I will surely pursue the case. The parliamentary assemblies in civilized countries and developed areas belong to independent police districts or have independent security teams. Police officers from other districts are not allowed to station in parliamentary assemblies. This prevents executive authorities from interfering in the legislature and embodies the spirit of the separation of powers.

Section 8 of the P&P Ordinance clearly states that "The right of persons other than members or officers of the Council to enter or remain within the precincts of the Chamber shall be subject to the Rules of Procedure or any resolution of the Council limiting or prohibiting the enjoyment of such right". Section 23 stipulates that "The Council, the Chairman or any officer of the Council shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the lawful exercise of any power conferred on or vested in the Council, the Chairman or such officer by or under this Ordinance or the Rules of Procedure". Section 24 stipulates that "Within the precincts of the Chamber, every officer of the Council shall, for the purposes of this Ordinance and of the application of the criminal law, have all the powers and enjoy all the privileges of a police officer".

These provisions clearly specify that, the places within the precincts of the Chamber should be managed by officers of the Council under the Rules of Procedure or the resolutions of the Legislative Council; and it also defines that the Legislative Council has a constitutional status independent of the executive authorities and judiciary.

On 6 November last year, I moved an adjournment motion to discuss the relevant arrangements of the Legislative Council. The decision of the Commission is the internal matter of this Council but Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok attended the meeting and gave a response. The executive authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9219 were interfering in the operation of the legislature. When I spoke on the motion, I opposed LAI Tung-kwok attending the meeting and giving a response, but I was immediately berated by Mr IP Kwok-him. Mr Ronny TONG from the Civic Party also spoke in defence of the security arrangements made by the Commission.

On 14 November, Mr Ronny TONG pointed out in a newspaper article, "Some Members mistakenly thought that as the Legislative Council has employed its own security personnel, law-enforcement officers could not enforce the law in the Complex for maintaining public order … the security personnel of the Legislative Council have not received special training and they do not have security devices, their duties include maintaining order but not enforcing the law". Mr Ronny TONG's argument is completely wrong; according to section 24 of the P&P Ordinance, "Within the precincts of the Chamber, every officer of the Council shall have all the powers and enjoy all the privileges of a police officer". In other words, the legal status of the security personnel of the Legislative Council is equivalent to that of police officers.

It is mentioned in Mr Ronny TONG's article that security personnel do not have special training and devices. This is a dereliction of duty of the department concerned. Take the United States Capitol Police as an example, the Police are directly subordinate to the Congress. In response to increased terrorist attacks in the 1970s of the last century, an additional anti-terrorist control and emergency team was formed in 1978, and the size of the team became larger after the September 11 terrorist attack in 2009. With a deteriorating political climate in Hong Kong in recent years, and an increase in demonstrations and protests outside this Council, the Legislative Council should explore how to maintain law and order in the Council without excessively enforcing the law. Yet, the Commission has not done anything.

It is also mentioned in Mr Ronny TONG's article that "when three persons exercise violence, causing panic to people nearby, this constitutes an act of violence." His argument is based on section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, which specifies that "When any person taking part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of section 18(1) commits a breach of the peace, the assembly is a riot and the persons assembled are riotously assembled". This is an offence of a riot. A Legislative Council Member who is also a member of the Commission described that the protest in June against the funding application for the works in North East New Territories was a riot according to the draconian 9220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Public Order Ordinance. How does this argument differ from an autocratic government? Do we still need pro-establishment Members if we already have such pro-democratic Members?

On the eve of the announcement of the constitutional reform package, the Commission announced four "harsh" measures to enhance security and prevent the Complex from being occupied and charged. These measures include the erection of 3-m high gates, fences and roller shutters at the entrance of the Legislative Council Carpark and outside the children's gallery and the cafeteria; equipping the closed-circuit television cameras in the pubic entrance area of the demonstration area (commonly known as "the drum area") with sound recording function; and setting a ceiling of 15 staff admission passes for each Member with effect from the next Legislative Session. In addition, the Commission also decided to establish amber and red warning systems. If a large number of demonstrators are gathering near the Complex and some of them have violent behaviours, the amber warning system will be activated. The Secretary General of the Legislative Council may, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission and two other ex-officio members, request the Police to stand by inside the Complex. In that case, all Members, visitors, Secretariat staff and media workers must undergo metal detector inspections, and they can only enter the Complex after identity verification. As for the red warning system, if the Secretary General considers that there are violent conflicts near the Complex, posing an immediate threat to the safety of users of the Complex, he may request the Police to take actions.

The Legislative Council has invited the Architectural Services Department to erect gates, fences and roller shutters in many places such as the entrance of the Legislative Council Carpark, emphasizing that the roller shutters will be completely rolled up in ordinary days and will not obstruct daily public access. As regards equipping the closed-circuit television cameras in the area commonly known as "the drum area" with sound recording functions, technically only sounds from speakers can be received, which does not involve the issue of privacy. Chairman, you also said that the Commission has also considered the need of the media to enter the Complex for reporting in emergency situations. When an amber warning is issued, holders of the Legislative Council press cards may go through security inspection at special points. The inspection procedures will be simplified to facilitate reporting but this arrangement does not apply to holders of temporary press cards.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9221

The Commission has been dwarfing itself again and again, and it has proactively complied with the Government's administrative autocracy. Members of the Commission support the Government's infringement of this Council, which is a gross dereliction of duty, how can they claim to plead for the people? "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish."1 When the Government, this Council and parliamentarians have forgotten their respective duties and undermined political ethics, will parliamentary politics still work in Hong Kong?

Chairman, I still have 40 seconds to speak on "Head 112 ― Legislative Council Commission." The Commission consists of Legislative Council Members but the measures recently taken are simply self-destructive, trampling heavily upon the dignity of this Council. Unfortunately, Chairman, you cannot debate with me. I request to be allowed to continue to speak.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this debate, there are 21 heads with no amendments, and these heads are related to Civil Aid Service, Department of Health, Government Laboratory, Intellectual Property Department, Judiciary, Legal Aid Department, Miscellaneous Services, Legislative Council Committee (the Commission), Office of The Ombudsman, Official Receiver's Office, pensions, Public Service Commission Secretariat, Radio Television Hong Kong, Registration and Electoral Office, Government Flying Service, Hong Kong Observatory, Secretariat, Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance, Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency, transfer to funds, Treasury and Water Supplies Department. Chairman, you have specified that we can only debate for 10 hours; I condemn this arrangement and express strong opposition because we may not have enough time to express our views on a large number of items. I have not yet calculated the total amount under these 21 heads. Some individual heads involve a few billion dollars. Though no amendments have been proposed to these heads and the funding applications are supported, it does not mean that these heads do not have problems.

1 9222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

I mentioned the Water Supplies Department (WSD) in my last speech and the response given by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, a fellow party member of the Chairman, was really classical, even though the Chairman has repeatedly advised her to think twice before speaking and be well-prepared. Yesterday, I clearly stated that the WSD wasted water in two ways including leaky water mains, to which she did not respond; and Dongjiang water. As I have repeatedly emphasized, I am talking about the actual quantity and quotas; perhaps she does not know what a "quota" is. Some Members have very low standards and they respond casually without listening clearly or getting a full picture. The royalist Members are simply supporting the Government. This is a disgrace of the Legislative Council.

Some Members commented that certain practices of the Commission will damage the dignity of the Legislative Council. In fact, the Legislative Council has been deprived of dignity for many years. As I have been criticizing throughout the years, the Legislative Council is the breeding ground for interests transfer and mutual harbouring. As some shysters in this Council are getting benefits, what dignity does the Legislative Council have? Chairman, if the Legislative Council still has dignity, we would not have to stage resistance. I formed People Power (as well as the League of Social Democrats which I had also been involved in its formation) to activate resistance inside and outside this Council, and expose the filthy side of this Council. If this Council still has dignity, it should duly discharge its sacred duties. Yet, as this Council no longer has dignity and its reputation has been ruined, members of the public should no longer address Members as Honourable Members. I no longer use the adjective "Honourable" on my name card and on a lot of documents, because I think that many Members of this Council are just earning a living.

Chairman, these 21 heads involved a lot of initiatives but many people do not understand the relevant contents. I would simply cite one or two examples to illustrate the lack of regulation of expenditures and the confusing figures. I hope more people would understand the situation after today's discussion. For example, I put forward certain proposals on dental services a few years ago but these proposals had more or less been ignored. Since more and more people have recently expressed concern about these services, the Government may eventually be forced to make changes. Chairman, I would like to cite head 106 as an example of expenditures.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung signalled in his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9223

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I ask Mr Albert CHAN to elucidate one point. Just now, he seemed to get it wrong … He said that no amendments have been proposed to various heads; in fact, I had proposed amendments but they were ruled out by the President. I would like to ask if he knows that. I ask him not to accuse me … Some Members actually proposed amendments but their amendments were ruled out by the President.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you have already elucidated your point, please sit down.

Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung for his question. Let me clarify. I know he had proposed many amendments but I have not studied how many of the 3 000-odd amendments he proposed are related to the 21 heads under discussion in this session. I believe many amendments are related to these 21 heads. I apologize to him if what I just said caused misunderstanding of his act in proposing the amendments. I hope more Members would propose amendments to arouse concern about these initiatives.

Chairman, "Head 106 ― Miscellaneous Services" involves $23.7 billion, which is very alarming. Chairman, as compared with last year, the amount has doubled. Last year, the provision under head 106 was only $11.9 billion, while the provision under subhead 251 was $837 million. While many initiatives are still under planning, funds have already been earmarked for meeting the estimate of other heads and subheads. In the past year, there were recurrent expenditures that could not be reduced, which exceeded the provisions for the relevant heads and subheads.

We do not know the purposes of many initiatives and why this year's provisions have increased or decreased when compared with that of last year's. For example, subhead 251 involves an amount of $800-odd million, but the 9224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 authorities have never explained how this amount is derived. Given that the provision under this subhead was $1.1 billion last year, we have no idea why this year's provision has been reduced by $300 million?

The provision under "Subhead 284 ― Compensation" is $545 million for settlement of claims (other than compensation connected with land, public works and mail, and for civil servants under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) and for certain ex gratia payments). There is an increase of $460 million (292%) for 2015-2016 over the revised estimate for 2014-2015. However, the reasons are not given in the document.

In addition, "Subhead 789 ― Additional commitments" involved $22.1 billion, an increase of more than twofold when compared with $9 billion last year. Chairman, the actual purposes of a number of initiatives under this Subhead have yet to be decided. There are proposed injections of further funding, and these initiatives include the establishment of the Qualifications Framework Fund and the Partnership Fund for the Disadvantaged, as well as one-off proposals announced in the Budget Speech. The additional commitments of $22.1 billion this year are mainly used for many initiatives under planning, including the measures in support of healthcare reform, setting up an independent Insurance Authority, and one-off proposals announced in the Budget Speech.

Chairman, Members have the responsibility to ensure that all expenditures are clear, explicit and subject to regulation. However, there is insufficient information on "Head 106 ― Miscellaneous Services". When this Council considered the Budget, I tried my best to ask the Government questions, but Members were more concerned about the initiatives in the Budget which had been reported in the media.

Nevertheless, despite the huge amount of provision under this head, there are few reports and follow-ups. This is a serious negligence. Given such uncertainties and the wide scope for appropriation, public money will be wasted if there is inadequate regulation. Such situation will recur again and again.

Although many subheads have similar problems, I will not repeat. I just want to talk about the Asian Development Fund. Under subheads 822 and 824, contributions to the ninth and the tenth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund amounted to $62 million. The Fund is not really related to Hong Kong and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9225 makes no contribution to improving people's livelihood. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) makes voluntary contributions to the Asian Development Fund, with replenishment made once every four to five years. The recovered repayments will become the internal funds of the ADB for future replenishment of the Fund. According to government documents, ADB members make voluntary and non-essential contributions to the Asian Development Fund but the Hong Kong Government has been extremely generous in making contributions because the amounts are astonishing.

Chairman, when compared with the Chinese Government's contribution to the ninth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund, Hong Kong made a total contribution of US$26.25 million and China made a total contribution of US$35 million. While Hong Kong's GDP is less than one tenth of China's, our contribution is nearly 90% of China's. Yet, the amount is not subject to regulation, Chairman, and the Government can do whatever it likes. Hence, in examining the future budgets, we must ask the Government to strengthen regulation.

Chairman, even though I have prepared to talk about other items including Radio Television Hong Kong, Government Flying Service (GFS) and "Head 184 ― Transfers to Funds", I believe I do not have enough time. I just want to criticize the GFS. Chairman, I have supported the GFS over the years; it is highly important to Hong Kong as it helps members of the public and those in distress. The estimated expenditure for the GFS is $580 million this year. My criticism is whether the GFS works within the specified scope and performs the specified responsibilities? Have its services been abused or misused under political pressure?

In many emergency cases such as those involving casualties or hill fires, the GFS provides its services. Recently, someone hung the banner "I want genuine universal suffrage" on the Lion Rock; although it was not an emergency situation and casualties were not involved, the GFS was summoned to remove the banner. This is absolutely an abuse of power. Chairman, the GFS might not be willing to remove the banner but senior government officials were abusing their authority. While those who hung the banner did not need the assistance of the GFS, the authorities had no reasons to abuse the GFS services to remove the banner. The GFS should not be degenerated into a political tool for such a political task.

9226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chairman, I reiterate that there are still many items (The buzzer sounded) … but there is not enough time for me to go on speaking. Finally, before the end of this session, I hope you would summon Members to return to the Chamber, especially the royalist Members, lest they should shy away from work.

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

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The first debate session ends. I now put the question to you and that is: That the sums for Heads 27, 37, 48, 78, 80, 94, 106, 112, 114, 116, 120, 136, 160, 163, 166, 168, 169, 173, 184, 188 and 194 stand part of the Schedule. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9227

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr Ronny TONG, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Dennis KWOK voted against the motion.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr James TO, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 49 Members present, 32 were in favour of the motion, eight against it and eight abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Seventeen Members have respectively given notice to move a total of 618 amendments, which seek to reduce the different sums under 62 heads.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will proceed to each of the debates in the order as set out in Appendices 1A to 1E to the Script.

9228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Upon conclusion of the aforesaid debates, Committee will vote on each of the amendments in the order of the heads as set out in the Bill. After the voting of all amendments, Committee shall put to vote one by one in the order of the heads that the sum for each of the 62 heads with amendments stand part of the Schedule.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 21, 23, 24, 30, 31, 45, 46, 72, 74, 92, 121, 122, 142, 143, 144, 151 and 174.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now proceeds to the second debate. The debate themes are "Governance, Constitutional Development and District Administration".

The respective policy areas covered in this debate are: Constitutional Affairs; District Administration; Civic Education; Administration of Justice and Legal Services; Human Rights; Security; and Public Service.

Eleven Members including Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO have respectively given notice to move a total of 258 amendments to reduce the various sums for 17 heads, including heads 21, 23, 24, 30, 31, 45, 46, 72, 74, 92, 121, 122, 142, 143, 144, 151 and 174. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this debate.

As this debate involves the greatest number of amendments, I shall allow it to continue until 6 pm on 30 April (next Thursday). In other words, the total meeting time for this debate will be about 25 hours. I hope that Members who wish to speak will get themselves ready, press the "Request to speak" button in advance, organize what they wish to say and make good use of our meeting time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will first call upon Mr Albert CHAN to speak and move Amendment No 1 as set out in Appendix 1A to the Script, to be followed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO to speak respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9229

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 1, as set out in Appendix 1A to the Script, be passed.

Chairman, as you have just explained, this debate covers a number of policy areas. I have proposed 72 amendments which concern the Chief Executive's Office (CEO), the Information Services Department, the Department of Justice, the Hong Kong Police Force, the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office, the Financial Secretary's Office, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and the Security Bureau. I will explain and comment on each of the amendments and the scope concerned.

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

Deputy Chairman, among my various amendments, I think the most important amendment which has the biggest impact and receives the greatest public support is the one to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for the CEO from $101,000,000-odd to $1,000. Deputy Chairman, the reduction will have the same effect of abolishing the entire CEO. I believe the public will give their full support. If we conduct a referendum right now, I have full confidence that the proposal will be passed with 70% of the votes, and Henry TANG will surely support us too.

Deputy Chairman, why am I so confident that many people will support this amendment of mine? First, "689" became the Chief Executive by telling lies. I believe Henry TANG's famous remark of "You are cheating" will become the most influential and remarkable comment in the political arena of Hong Kong. LEUNG Chun-ying won the election of the Chief Executive by telling lies, not only to Hong Kong people, but also to the Central Government. He kept on lying for the last two or three years and he has never stopped.

The Chief Executive governs Hong Kong with lies and the CEO helps to disseminate his lies. Therefore, we must abolish the CEO. The Chief Executive is assisted by many people, including Members of the Executive Council, staff members of the CEO, and so on. Some of these people have been selected by the Chief Executive not because of their experience or competence. In fact, it was reported in a number of newspapers that some had resigned under pressure, including Members of the Executive Council. Someone even had to apply for bankruptcy. Someone was convicted lately and might be imprisoned. 9230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Actually, they are a gang of wicked people. In terms of ugliness or disgrace, the Executive Council Members of the current-term LEUNG Chun-ying Government will definitely be the champion. The number of problems they have is unprecedented. Nothing like this would happen to the Executive Council during the rule of the British Hong Kong Government. Even if the 10-odd years after the reunification are also taken into account, the ugliness of LEUNG Chun-ying Government is surely the champion in the eyes of the public. If Hong Kong can be as "successful" in sports, Hong Kong people will be proud of it.

Let us consider the problems created by LEUNG Chun-ying. He often makes wrong assessment of the situation and makes subjective judgment without understanding the problem. For example, he thinks that opposition voices can be suppressed by violence or even by shooting the people and finally by mobilizing the People's Liberation Army. This shows that LEUNG Chun-ying completely lacks the wisdom to handle problems. Being self-opinionated, he thinks and makes decisions unilaterally. He is also surrounded by a group of bootlickers who cheer him on; as such, social antagonism and confrontations will surely intensify. In addition, LEUNG Chun-ying adopts tactics such as distorting the facts and smearing the public. For example, he told the Central Government and the whole world time and again during the Occupy period that the Umbrella Movement or the Umbrella Revolution was manipulated by foreign powers. Yet, when people, including those from the foreign media, asked him what he meant by foreign powers and what evidence he had, he refused to produce any evidence or information. He just said that was certainly true, people would probably know about it and the authorities have obtained a lot of information. But, when he was asked to produce the information, he kept his mouth shut.

Such a tactic has also been used by many bootlickers, including some Members in this Chamber. That is perhaps one of the tactics often employed by the entire Hong Kong communist regime and the Communist Party is good at it. Chairman, it is not by chance that Hong Kong has attained such a high social and international status as a metropolis commended by the world. The foundation has been established through many years of hard work by the people and the governing team of Hong Kong in upholding the core values and good practices. Unfortunately, in just more than two years of LEUNG Chun-ying's governance, he has completely shattered this solid foundation. Today, many royalist Members sitting in this Chamber cannot evade their responsibilities because they have participated in shattering the foundation of Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9231

LEUNG Chun-ying has performed very poorly and has caused serious harm and damage to Hong Kong. If we do not abolish the CEO, it will only cause further damage. Therefore, I have proposed this amendment. I believe other Members will also propose amendments concerning the expenditure for the CEO today.

Let me mention another point. Many Policy Bureaux and government departments have included a performance pledge under their respective head or programmes of expenditure, but there is no performance pledge in the head or programmes of expenditure for the CEO. I remember that some time ago, some reporters asked the Executive Council Secretariat for the attendance rate of Executive Council Members, but the Secretariat failed or refused to produce such basic information. The CEO has indeed performed poorly. In terms of exercising administrative control and providing administrative services, it has been evasive and it has refused to give explanations. These are some more reasons why we have to abolish it.

Speaking of pledges, LEUNG Chun-ying has certainly made pledges, but basically, none has been fulfilled. In some cases, he denied that he had made the pledge. For example, he said that he had successfully strived for the policy on multiple-entry endorsements, but when being pressed, he ambiguously denied what he said. If we consider the pledges he made in his election manifesto, many have not been fulfilled. Let me give a few examples. First, the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" policy has vanished into thin air. Second, LEUNG said he would adopt measures to progressively reduce the proportion of accrued benefits attributed to employer's contribution in the Mandatory Provident Fund account that can be applied by the employer to offset long-service or severance payments, but nothing has been done and consultation has not even been conducted. Third, he said he would study the issue of legislating on maximum working hours, but no timetable has been drawn up. Miss CHAN Yuen-han is most concerned about this issue. Although the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has been cheated, it still continues to support "689". Actually, after turning into a royalist party, the FTU has already lost its credibility. In particular, since the FTU became the hatchet man under the governance of "689", it has been totally discredited. On the issue of maximum working hours, "689" has toyed with the FTU, bringing disgrace on it.

Deputy Chairman, another pledge made by LEUNG Chun-ying is to "study the impact of our ageing population on public finance". The pledge also includes setting up a special Fund to meet the needs of our ageing population and a universal retirement protection system, and so on, but no specific timetable has 9232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 been set. Besides, there is still no timetable for implementing free early childhood education. Therefore, LEUNG has not fulfilled a series of pledges. To stop him from causing further damage to Hong Kong, we must propose an amendment to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for the CEO from some $100,000,000 to $1,000. In fact, I should propose an amendment next year to reduce the estimated expenditure to $689 or $7,689 because the slogan "D7689" has recently been created. Deputy Chairman, this number has a suggestive meaning.

Deputy Chairman, I will now talk about Amendment No 21 which concerns the reduction of the Chief Executive's annual salary by $5,333,520 under head 21. This amendment only seeks to reduce the salary of "689". As I explained earlier, we must stop him from ruling Hong Kong with lies or even get rid of him. Deputy Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying's salary is much higher than that of the President of the United States. The annual salary of LEUNG Chun-ying is US$540,000, but it is only US$400,000 for OBAMA, US$340,000 for MERKEL, US$210,000 for CAMERON and only as low as US$168,000 for ABE. By comparison, "689" does not deserve to receive such a high salary.

Among all the Chief Executives of Hong Kong in history, LEUNG Chun-ying obtained the lowest level of public support in public opinion polls and his lowest rating was only 40% at one point. Compared with Chris PATTEN, TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG, LEUNG Chun-ying's ratings are shockingly low and he gets very little public support. Apart from performing poorly, his low popularity has also adversely affected the administrative performance of the entire Government.

Deputy Chairman, Amendment No 10 proposed by me seeks to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for the Executive Council, that is, $21.3 million. We know very well that the Executive Council engages in "black-box operation" to an infuriating extent. Members may remember the licensing issue of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited. The authority concerned recommended granting the license, but owing to the abuse of power by "one single man", that is, the Chief Executive, the Executive Council failed to perform its proper functions and responsibilities.

The recent problem of the third runway is another extremely serious mistake. The project involves $140-odd billion, but no consultation or discussion has been held. The Government has circumvented the Legislative Council, completely ignored its due responsibility to monitor public expenditure, and approved the project in an unorthodox or perhaps even unlawful way. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9233

Besides, the announcement of the approval was ambiguous. At a meeting of the Legislative Council, I asked the Chief Executive whether the Financial Secretary has exercised his authority to exempt the Airport Authority from complying with the requirement to follow prudent commercial principles. In managing public finance, the Executive Council has passed a resolution to exempt the Airport Authority from paying the Government dividends of $5 billion each year for 10 years. On what authority has this arrangement been made? The authorities have not given any clear account or explanation. Certainly, the fact that the Government can gloss things over even on such an important decision is attributed to the qualities of one single man, "689". However, for some senior Members of the Executive Council, such as LAM Woon-kwong, they have no reason to collaborate with LEUNG Chun-ying and failed to give any explanation to the public. That is not the style of work for some Members. Since Members of the Executive Council have not performed their responsibilities, the estimated expenditure on the Executive Council should be deleted.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that head 21 be reduced by $101,507,000 in respect of subhead 000."

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I now speak on Amendment Nos 396 to 398 to reduce "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary" by $3.83 million, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure for the salary of the Financial Secretary, to the effect that not even a cent is left for this item.

Deputy Chairman, when I was smoking outside earlier, I saw John TSANG entering the Legislative Council Complex, but where is he now? Deputy Chairman, the legislature is holding a meeting here. The Financial Secretary is a principal official under the Basic Law. Article 62 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions: (1) To formulate and implement policies; (2) To conduct administrative affairs ― (3) I will not quote this paragraph because it concerns external affairs ― (4) To draw up and introduce budgets and final accounts; and (6) To designate officials to sit in on the meetings of the Legislative Council and to speak on behalf of the government.

9234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Secretary WONG Kam-sing is sitting in this Chamber, but he is responsible for environmental affairs. Today, we are deliberating on a very important Bill. According to Article 50 of the Basic Law, if a budget is not passed, the Chief Executive must dissolve the Legislative Council and a new Legislative Council will be elected. If the budget is again not passed, the Chief Executive must resign on his own accord. Why is such an important budget being treated like food prepared in advance and left overnight? The reason is that under our system, Members returned by functional constituencies, though elected by fewer voters, are more powerful than those Members returned by the majority, and they control the Council. Therefore, the Financial Secretary can openly show contempt for the Legislative Council which should supposedly monitor him or can refuse to pass the budget prepared by him. The Financial Secretary is so arrogant that he asked Secretary WONG Kam-sing to act as his replacement. I saw the Financial Secretary and his Political Assistant enter the Legislative Council Complex earlier, and now he is chatting with a few people outside this Chamber instead of listening to Members' questions criticisms.

Deputy Chairman, I now proceed to criticize the Financial Secretary. First, the Financial Secretary is responsible for maintaining the financial and economic stability of Hong Kong. Article 2 of the Basic Law authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise "a high degree of autonomy" and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.

Deputy Chairman, according to past practices, the dividend that Airport Authority should pay to the Government amounts to $5-odd billion. In the budget submitted to the Legislative Council, the Financial Secretary has exempted the payment without consulting the Legislative Council and Hong Kong people and the financial arrangements have been made accordingly. Do Members of the Legislative Council who are present know about this arrangement? I do not know if the pan-democratic Members of the Legislative Council are aware of this. They oppose the construction of the third runway, but the Financial Secretary has, without given any notice, confirmed and announced publicly that the runway will be constructed. Furthermore, this project will be implemented with the funding provided by the Budget now under discussion and to be passed later.

If we do not stop the Financial Secretary, we will be failing to perform the functions of Members of the Legislative Council stipulated by the Basic Law. What are our functions? They are provided in the following paragraphs of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9235

Article 73 of the Basic Law: (2) To examine and approve budgets introduced by the government; (6) To debate any issue concerning public interests and (5) To raise questions on the work of the government. I have been entrusted by my voters to perform these functions. That is also why I have proposed 3 000-odd amendments to the budget this time to sanction all public officials and government departments which I think have failed to perform their duties. Unfortunately, the President has rejected many of my amendments. Consequently, no amendment has been proposed to many heads of expenditure this year because my amendments have been rejected.

Deputy Chairman, let me return to my main points. The Financial Secretary has failed to perform many duties. First, he has rashly exempted the payment of public revenue receivable without adequate consultation and without getting the consent of the relevant Panel and committees of the Legislative Council. He has clearly abused his power and circumvented the Legislative Council. I believe people would apply for a judicial review of his decision later on. However, I would like to point out here that if the Budget is passed this time, it means that Members have endorsed the Financial Secretary's circumvention of the Legislative Council. I believe the pro-establishment Members will certainly pass the Budget. The pan-democratic Members will also vote quickly under the leadership of President Jasper TSANG, knowing very well that voting against the amendments is tantamount to voting for the Budget. But, the pan-democratic Members will still let it happen. This is something that makes me sad.

The pan-democratic Members adamantly oppose the construction of the third runway, but what have they done? Have they supported me in filibustering? Have they said a word regarding President Jasper TSANG's unreasonable decision to reject my amendments?

Deputy Chairman, another sin of the Financial Secretary is that he has damaged the relationship between the SAR Government and the Legislative Council. Article 64 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must "be accountable to the Legislative Council of the Region: it shall implement laws passed by the Council and already in force; it shall present regular policy addresses to the Council; it shall answer questions raised by members of the Council; and it shall obtain approval from the Council for taxation and public expenditure".

9236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Deputy Chairman, I pointed out earlier that the Financial Secretary has jumped the gun. Furthermore, he has the duty to reduce risks in our financial system and maintain its stability. Deputy Chairman, the recent surge in the Hong Kong stock market was considered a miracle by the international financial media and yet in this incident, the Financial Secretary has not performed his duties as a principal official responsible for managing our financial and economic matters.

On 10 April, the share prices surged for two consecutive days and the turnover of the stock market broke records successively from about $70 billion to a historic high of $250 billion on average per day. People from various sectors advised small investors to consider their risk-bearing capacities and invest prudently. If the Financial Secretary was asked to provide funding to help the poor or the elderly, he would say that he had to exercise "fiscal prudence". This is the pet phrase of Financial Secretary John TSANG, or "Moustache TSANG". However, in the morning of 9 April when he left Hong Kong for Shanghai, he said there was a real demand for shares and he could not see the risk of a bubble. How would he know? As an official responsible for financial matters, if he knew there would be a surge in share prices, he could increase the stamp duty on stock transfers or cease to give tax exemption to certain funds in order to increase public revenue by a huge amount. Why did he collaborate blindly with Mainlanders who fished in troubled waters to create a bubble which would burst and hit investors badly?

Frankly speaking, this is similar to the case of TUNG Chee-hwa who said back then that if his son wanted to buy property, he would advise him to do so immediately. His remarks turned out to be an international joke. TUNG wanted to promote sales for property developers, but as we all know, the property bubble burst.

Today, John TSANG was shameless enough to advertise for the Mainland consortia and the Government, so as to pull their chestnuts out of the fire and help them fish in troubled waters. That was a serious dereliction of duty on his part. On 17 April, soon after he gave his remarks, the China Securities Regulatory Commission introduced a number of measures to cool down the stock market, regulating margin trading of Mainland securities dealer. On 19 April, John TSANG's speculation went wrong again. The Financial Secretary gave his opinion in his blog. I have to remind the Deputy Chairman that it is not the Financial Secretary's personal blog, but one which is open to the world and is written in his capacity as the Financial Secretary. Guess what he said. His LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9237 remarks were similar to those of CHAN Wing-luk ― a stock market analyst whom Hong Kong people are familiar with and whose speculations are often wrong. The Financial Secretary said in his blog, "The stock market would probably open low at gap tomorrow. The risk of great turbulence in the stock market in the future should not be neglected".

Buddy, he said different things on two different days. Is he any different from the unscrupulous salesman in a small stockbrokerage who tries to persuade old ladies to gamble on shares with their funeral money? On 9 April, he said there was a real demand for shares and he could not see the risk of a bubble. After that, he said the stock market would open low at gap. What was he saying? Mr Christopher CHEUNG, you had better give him some advice. You wouldn't have done anything like that, would you? You would not be so dishonourable. What happened next was even more ridiculous. John TSANG said that many people were discussing about the "Ting Hai" effect and he frankly admitted that he believed in that effect. How brilliant! He said, "It is not surprising to see a considerable adjustment in the market after the prices have risen for some time; the adjustment will take place sooner or later". He was actually saying "my mother is a woman". He believed that the "Ting Hai" effect could remind small investors to pay attention to the risks of the stock market and do not listen blindly to the advice of stock market analysts. Therefore, he was glad that the television series of The Greed of Man was broadcast again at a time when the market was in an exuberant state. I do not know what on earth he was talking about.

Deputy Chairman, John TSANG said on 9 April that people could rest assured to invest in the stock market, that there was a real demand for shares and he did not see the risk of a bubble. On 19 April, he said that the market would open low at gap and told the people not to speculate. The People's Bank of China decided to lower the reserve requirement ratio of all Renminbi deposit-taking financial institutions by 1%, which is the most forceful and the greatest rate of reduction since the financial tsunami in 2008. The injection of capital is up to RMB1,200 billion yuan (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I will talk about "Ting Hai" effect next time.

9238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request for a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): This is my first time to speak in the second debate. This joint debate is on governance, political development and district administration. There are 17 areas covered by the heads involved, including constitutional affairs, district administration, civic education, administration of justice and legal services, human rights, security, and the public service. However, to our surprise, the government official attending this meeting now is Secretary WONG Kam-sing of the Environment Bureau.

I am not against Secretary WONG Kam-sing. I am just awed by such absurdity. In the past, as government official did not know the pace and progress of our debates, they had the excuse not to attend. But government officials should attend Members' debate on the Budget. Even though an official attendance roster had been complied, since the authorities did not know the progress of our debates, say which topics we were discussing at a particular time, and they did not know when Chairman Jasper TSANG would cut off the filibuster and which part of the debate would be stopped, they were unable to assign relevant officials to attend the meeting and listen to our debates.

This meeting is different from the previous ones, Deputy Chairman, Chairman Jasper TSANG issued the "tailored" debate schedule two days ago. Hence, even though there may be slight difference in timing, the different sessions of the debate will proceed as planned. If the Government intends to listen to Members' views and debates ― it does not matter if Members are filibustering, since Members of the pro-establishment camp and democratic camp also speak at the debate ― if the Government is sincere in listening to Members' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9239 debates, should relevant officials be assigned to attend the Budget debate? As this part of the debate is about the administration of justice, Secretary Rimsky YUEN should attend; for human rights and constitutional affairs, where is Secretary Raymond TAM? For security, where is Secretary LAI Tung-kwok? Where are all of them? Or does the Government deliberately deploy irrelevant officials to attend, so as to spare the relevant officials the embarrassment of facing Members' criticisms and dissatisfaction about the Policy Bureaux within their ambit? Secretary WONG Kam-sing, when we proceed to the part on environment in the fourth debate, I hope that you will take the initiative to attend and listen to Members' views.

Concerning this part, 258 amendments have been proposed, among which 84 have been proposed by me. This is the first time I speak and I will speak on "Head 92 ― Department of Justice". Concerning this part, there are 24 amendments proposed by various Members including Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Emily LAU and me. I have only proposed three amendments, namely Amendment Nos 239, 244 and 247 and the amounts to be deducted are relatively small. I support all the 24 amendments proposed in this session, and they are all related to the reduction of the expenditure for the Department of Justice (DoJ), including staff salaries, departmental expenses or the emoluments of the Secretary for Justice. I support all of them. Why? That is because I wish to take this chance to point out the unsatisfactory performance of the DoJ, one of the most important government departments, especially in the past year.

There are five programmes in "Head 92 ― Department of Justice" with Programme (1) Prosecutions being the most important one. The aim is to advise and decide whether or not criminal proceedings should be undertaken and to prosecute cases in the Courts. As regards the matters requiring special attention in 2015-2016, the DoJ also sets out the main points, namely, "enhancing the quality of criminal justice by promoting transparency in public prosecutions, liaising closely with justice partners and reviewing the disclosure arrangements of law enforcement agencies; enhancing the standards of advocacy and preparation in criminal cases; and enhancing the public's understanding of the criminal justice system and their role in the system."

However, over the past year, the DoJ played a very confusing role in respect of criminal prosecution. The public find the role and work of the DoJ increasingly confusing. Over the past year, the Government made use of 9240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 law-enforcement tools to suppress dissenting voices. Considerable police officers were deployed to indiscriminately arrest protesters who were exercising their civil right, with the attempt to restrict Hong Kong people's freedom of speech. Hence I will also talk about "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force" in this speech to point out the dereliction of duty and improper practices of the Police.

At the trial in court, as the Police could not produce reliable evidence and the statements they gave were self-contradicting and riddled with errors and omissions, the Court would certainly release the defendants. Why then did some Members complain that "people arrested by the Police are released by the Judge"? With insufficient evidence and erroneous statements, the prosecution process could not continue. Did the Court have options other than releasing the defendants? As an institution to carry out prosecutions in court, the DoJ has proceeded with prosecution despite insufficient evidence and erroneous statements provided by the Police and cases of making two charges on the same offence have even arisen. When the protesters were arrested, we already said that it was wrong to make two charges on the same offence. What happened in the end? The charge was voluntarily dropped because of the mistake made. Since a mistake has been identified, the prosecution should be dropped as quickly as possible. This proves that both the Police and the DoJ were seriously slipshod in handling the prosecution. They have abused their power, made indiscriminate arrests and instituted wrong prosecutions.

The Police or the DoJ has made use of the judicial proceedings to intimidate ordinary folks … Ordinary folks have limited legal knowledge and means. When the Police arrest them at their homes and the DoJ institutes charges against them, they really do not know what to do. They may end up spending all they have for the lawsuit. Those who have no money can apply for legal aid. Some Members said in the last debate session that it was justified to arrest those who engaged in the illegal Occupy movement. Of course, the Police could arrest them for their illegal occupation. But that was not exactly the case. The Police applied for an injunction and then, they said it was wrong for the protesters to apply for legal aid in a bid to appeal against the injunction. But is the injunction definitely right? This reflects the helplessness of ordinary folks in the face of judicial proceedings. Fortunately, there is still the legal aid, and a group of volunteer lawyers can offer some legal advice so that ordinary folks can still get some assistance in the face of indiscriminate arrests and arbitrary prosecutions.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9241

Apart from harassing innocent people, the act of the DoJ is like challenging the justice system openly. Worse still, it proves or makes more people believe that the Police are colluding with the DoJ to arrest the protesters without any legal basis for the sake of politics.

Earlier, when the Commissioner of Police, Andy TSANG, gave an account of the Police's work over the past year to the Legislative Council Panel on Security, he said that the Police arrested 440 protesters last year, an increase of 7.3 times when compared with 53 protesters arrested in the year before last. Among them, 397 were arrested in the wake of three major demonstrations, namely, the one opposing the Budget in March, the 4 June candlelight vigil and the march on 1 July. Only 46 of them were prosecuted. Also, over 230 people who had been arrested were not charged but they received written notice from the DoJ telling them that they had violated the law but they would not be charged. This tells us that there is no cost for the Police to arrest people. They would arrest people first, and as there is no cost to lay charges, prosecution against these people would be instituted. Finally, if the Court finds that there was insufficient evidence, the charge will be dropped.

I have personally followed up a case in which two poor young pals, one aged 18 and the other 19, were arrested by the Police in a back alley in Sheung Shui for possessing a lighter and anti-parallel trading leaflets. One of them was charged with attempted arson and the other, who did not have a lighter, was charged with conspiring to attempt arson. When in court, they were told that arson was a serious crime punishable by life imprisonment. The DoJ brought charges against them and forced the Judge not to grant bail. They were detained in the Pik Uk Prison for three or four weeks and had to spend the Lunar New Year there. Of course, some sneaky issues were involved but I do not want to go into great details here. As I have mentioned before, the Police tried to talk them into pleading guilty to certain offences in exchange for more lenient sentences. In the end, without sufficient evidence, they were acquitted. But even so, they had been locked up for three or four weeks for no reason. In this case, both the Police and the DoJ should take the blame. Their tactic is to scare people into submission and throw them in jail to intimidate them. In the end, even though they were acquitted, they had already spent a few weeks in jail. Do they have the guts to oppose the authorities again?

Do not think that young people will thus be intimidated … There is one possibility that this kind of indiscriminate arrests and arbitrary prosecution would serve as a warning for some people and coerce them into submission. Parents 9242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 would ask their children not to engage in such activities again or they would be jailed for one whole month for no reason. The father of one of the young men came to me for help in tears. But there is another possibility that these young people would think that in this community, the Police are not trustworthy, and neither is the DoJ. Hence they would escalate their struggle in order to attain the result. Does the Government want to see this kind of consequences?

A human rights organization has pointed out that over the past year, the Police had invoked the Public Order Ordinance many times to arrest protesters for reason of unlawful assembly. This indicates that the Police and the DoJ have been tightening the room for possessions and demonstrations. The organization also queries the legal basis of a written warning which claims that the accused has breached the law even before trial in court, which is a violation of the fundamental definition of the law, that is, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The DoJ should give us an explanation. The above points are raised by a human rights organization.

In response, the DoJ stated that, "In accordance with the situation of the cases, it is appropriate to issue warning letters to those engaged in unlawful assemblies rather than bringing charges against them." In other words, the DoJ alleges that a person is guilty of an offence; it warns him instead of bringing charges against him. Such action is taken in the capacity of the DoJ. Is it because of money or time that the DoJ has adopted this approach? Is it because too many people are involved and it is not possible to bring charge against everyone, and so warning letters are issued. "You have indeed violated the law but now I let you off the hook and not charge you." I wonder what kind of spirit of law is involved.

According to the DoJ, "As the assemblies concerned have caused public disturbance and destruction, it is to the best interests of the public to prosecute the leading participants while the rest would receive warning letters." This is selective prosecution. For those whose faces are well known with their names revealed to all, or those who have appeared on television and other people know them by their names, prosecution will be instituted against them; whereas for the others, they will be warned for breaching the law, but mind you, these people have not been tried but they have been accused of breaching the law.

Late last year after the occupied area in Admiralty was cleared and the Umbrella Movement was over, Andy TSANG, the Commissioner of Police, held a press conference. He made a bellicose statement in a high profile manner that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9243 all people concerned would be arrested in three months' time. According to the survey conducted by the media, since the Umbrella Movement, the Police have arrested 1 000 people but only about 10% (at least 112 people) have been charged or brought to court. During the prosecution process, the sloppiness of the DoJ and the Police in handling the cases and presenting the evidence have been fully exposed. For example, police officers' statements were self-contradictory, two charges were made on the same offence, and the prosecution had to voluntarily drop the charges. There were some low-level mistakes too. For example, a letter of prosecution addressed to a woman was sent to the defendant who is a man. Things are just in a mess. If the DoJ lacks manpower, it should apply for additional funds; otherwise, it should carry out the work at a slower pace. After making a fanfare for the work, it ends in a great mess.

On the other hand, the anti-Occupy opponents should revile the DoJ for its procedural blunders, resulting in failure to institute prosecutions. Instead of complaining that "people arrested by the Police are released by the Judge", they should blame the Police and the DoJ for their slipshod approach, indiscriminate prosecution, messy handling, insufficient evidence and faulty procedure, resulting in failure to institute prosecutions.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this is my sixth speech during the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2015. I now speak on "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office" in the second debate.

The source of the absurdities of the HKSAR Government is the Chief Executive's Office; the origin of disasters in Hong Kong is LEUNG Chun-ying. In 2012, he appeared before the Legislative Council for the first time after being elected the Chief Executive, like a monkey wearing a crown. At the Question and Answer Session, I nicknamed him "689". I said I would not call him the Chief Executive or Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, and I would call him "689" because he got only 689 votes in the coterie election. He is a despicable liar who has no integrity.

As far as LEUNG Chun-ying, this "Chief Executive", is concerned, we call his government a "puppet regime". In the near future, I am going to publish a pamphlet entitled "Veto the fake constitutional reform; Down with the puppet regime; Save our own Hong Kong". The Chief Executive's Office is the source 9244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 of the absurdities of the SAR Government and the origin of disasters in Hong Kong. I wonder if Members have read a recent press report. Politicians like us may have noted that TSAI Ing-wen, Chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, has been nominated as the party's candidate running for the presidency of the Republic of China in 2016. In one of the paragraphs of her statement of candidacy, she said words to the effect that: given what happened in the past few years, if you ask the common people what the biggest problem with our country is, they will all tell you spontaneously that it is the leader of this country. The same logic can be applied in the case of Hong Kong. Given what happened in the past two years or so, if you ask Hong Kong people what the biggest problem with Hong Kong is at present, they will reply that it is the SAR Government. The SAR Government is the bane of Hong Kong. The SAR Government is a Hong Kong communist regime led by LEUNG Chun-ying. It is the origin of disasters in Hong Kong, and a calamity for Hong Kong.

In respect of "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office", I have proposed a total of 14 amendments. Technically, we are not allowed to propose amendments to reduce the provision under a head, and therefore I have proposed the 14 amendments to reduce all the expenses under this head. Deputy Chairman, in ancient times, there were literary prosecutions; today, there is "numeric humiliation". As everyone calls LEUNG Chun-ying "689" instead of by his title, I feel sorry that whenever the number "689" appears, the Government is unhappy. "D7689" is forbidden to be used, and so is "D9689". Even in the racecourse, if the result of a horse race happens to be "6, 8, 9, 14" and the bet type is First 4 or Quartet, that is, if the Quartet order is "6, 8, 9, 14", it may be taken to mean that "'689' is doomed to die"2, leaving the Jockey Club staff terrified and wondering if they have to write a report. Even "6, 8, 9, 4" is a taboo, as it may be taken to mean that "'689' dies"3. Just ask Mr Martin LIAO, who is a Steward of the Jockey Club. Was there ever a race the result of which was "6, 8, 9, 4"? The answer is yes. I can now tell you that there was also a race with the result of "6, 8, 9, 14", at which time everyone whispered in private that they were worried that LEUNG Chun-ying would be offended. The bigwigs or officials might also be afraid that they would offend "689" if anyone heard them say openly in the Jockey Club that the result of the race was "6, 8, 9, 14".

2 The Cantonese pronunciation of "14" is somewhat similar to that of "doomed to die". 3 The Cantonese pronunciation of "4" is somewhat similar to that of "die". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9245

In ancient times, there were literary persecutions; today, there is "numeric humiliation". What kind of society are we living in? Admittedly, I was the one who started all these, as it was I who gave him this nickname. Now everyone knows what "689" means. Actually, this is not important, for a name is only a symbol. If this symbol is not defined, it has no meaning in itself, so what is the point of being bothered about it? Western communication scholars consider that politics is talk. Political language reflects the philosophy of a politician, or his ability to bring people together and persuade the public into supporting his philosophy through political discourse.

Is the official who says "2017: Make it happen" really a "good fighter"? Such rhetoric or political language is really appalling, and it was again originated by the Chief Executive's Office. The original catchphrase was "Seize the opportunity", and the present one is "Make it happen". The latter has been parodied as "Make it die out", "Make it go wrong" and "Make it fall through" on the Internet. What is the meaning of "Make it happen"? "Make it happen" is an imperative clause. Yet, for the constitutional reform package to be passed, it must be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council. So what does the Government mean by "Make it happen"? I can assure you that the Government will just "Make it fall through" and "Make it die out". Such appalling political language or political discourse is indicative of this regime's ability to govern. The reason is quite simple, but LEUNG Chun-ying thought he could get his own way. During the past two years or so, what was he best at? Deputy Chairman, he was best at stirring up ideological struggles, class struggles and ethnic struggles. Next, I will elaborate on them one by one.

I will first talk about class struggles, Deputy Chairman. What is a class struggle? Some Members are not here right now. The Chairman is a member of the Communist Party. The incumbent Chief Executive is also a member of the Communist Party. But there is a slight difference between the two of them. Members of the Communist Party certainly know what a class struggle is. The term "class struggle" has, over a very long period in the history of China, resulted in the breaking up of many families, the imprisonment of many people, and the deprivation of the dignity of living for many people. In 1927, MAO Zedong candidly and thoroughly expounded his views in the Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, which are worthy of reference by the politicians who are still listening to my speech here today. MAO Zedong said, "[A] revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing 9246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another … All the actions mentioned here which have been labelled as 'going too far' flow from the power of the peasants, which has been called forth by the mighty revolutionary upsurge in the countryside. It was highly necessary for such things to be done in the second period of the peasant movement, the period of revolutionary action. In this period it was necessary to establish the absolute authority of the peasants. It was necessary to forbid malicious criticism of the peasant associations. It was necessary to overthrow the whole authority of the gentry, to strike them to the ground and keep them there. There is revolutionary significance in all the actions which were labelled as 'going too far' in this period. To put it bluntly, it is necessary to create terror for a while in every rural area, or otherwise it would be impossible to suppress the activities of the counter-revolutionaries in the countryside or overthrow the authority of the gentry. Proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong, or else the wrong cannot be righted."4.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Chairman, I think you are also very familiar with this Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan published by MAO Zedong in 1927. The most frequently quoted part of the passage quoted by me just now is: "a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay". What I quoted is from the Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan written by Chairman MAO in 1927. At that time, the Communist Party was staging an armed insurrection to overthrow the landlord class and the Kuomintang. It was a time when they were still fighting tooth and nail, and he told his men that it was not a dinner party. It was different from the peaceful and rational approach that is free of violence and foul language as advocated by our democratic camp today. Do the democrats think that we are having a dinner party? When people are arrested, ordered to close their businesses, beaten until they bleed, exposed to tear gas and pepper spray, and even "greeted" by vehicles with water cannons in future, are we having a dinner party?

4 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9247

LEUNG Chun-ying is a member of the Communist Party. He truly knows very well how important MAO Zedong's class-struggle ideology is. Thus, over the past two years or so, he has been stirring up class struggles which are "not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery, and not so refined". When he was standing in the election, he projected himself as an advocate for the grassroots. What has he done after he was elected? His policies are also tilted in favour of plutocrats. It appears that he was once a believer in socialism, just as you and I were. How come he has, all of a sudden, become a downright, staunch rightist who has even stirred up class struggles?

Of course, what he has done is not as high-level as what MAO Zedong did. He is only capable of stirring up interpersonal struggles. He has sought to get rid of anyone who disagrees with him. Not only has he practised cronyism, but he has also removed, one after another, officials of the previous Government who refused to dance to his tune. He is trying to carry out a purge in every sector, be it the cultural sector, academia or education sector, so as to pave the way for his re-election. For this reason, members of the boards of governors and councils of universities have to be replaced, "LEUNG's fans" have to be planted in advisory bodies, and struggles have to be created in other areas. By contrast, the class struggle mounted by MAO Zedong during the revolutionary period was aimed at seizing political power under the banner of reversing the fortunes of the peasants and establishing the absolute authority of the peasants by bringing down the bourgeoisie and landlords through scathing denunciations. MAO was arguably idealistic, as he held that only if the revolution succeeded could China achieve peace and happiness.

After his election campaign began, LEUNG Chun-ying made it very clear in his manifesto that he would improve people's livelihood. A couple of days ago on an online programme, I specifically mentioned that on the 29th of this month, Miss CHAN Yuen-han would move a motion on standard working hours. This is something that still rankles with her, because LEUNG Chun-ying has not delivered what he promised. He stated clearly in his election manifesto that he would legislate for standard working hours.

Some seven pages of this set of materials prepared by me are devoted to class struggles, ideological struggles and ethnic struggles, but now I have only one minute or so left to speak. I have proposed to reduce all the expenditures of the Chief Executive's Office under "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office". I certainly have my justifications. I had my justifications for doing so last year, 9248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 and I have my justifications for doing so this year. Chairman, just now, while you were not here, I explained why I have proposed 14 amendments to reduce all the expenditures under "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office". It is because we are not allowed to propose amendments in respect of a head alone that I have proposed to reduce all the expenditures under this head. As the Chief Executive's Office is the origin of the absurdities of the Chief Executive or SAR Government, the origin of disasters in Hong Kong, and even the greatest calamity for Hong Kong, it is necessary to reduce all its expenditures.

As regards the reasons and the different parts concerned, I will talk about them later on. A case in point is the very high-profile Information Coordinator by the name of Andrew FUNG, who used to be a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party. His recent performance has brought disgrace on the SAR Government. I will not say that he has brought disgrace on Hong Kong people or the Democratic Party. He has made the already dreadful image of the SAR Government go from bad to worse. Let me recount what he has done recently, including his recent speech at Shue Yan University, and his message on Facebook that he had gone off duty at 5 something pm, while he was required to be on duty until 6 pm. Should a person like him not be sacked?

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to speak on my amendments, and one of them is to reduce head 21 by $5,333,520 in respect of subhead 000 to deduct an amount equivalent to the estimated expenditure for emoluments of the Chief Executive for the whole year, including his salary and non-accountable entertainment allowance.

Chairman, this reduction proposal goes in tandem with the proposals put forward by the Democratic Party in respect of the Policy Address and the Budget early this year. Our main theme is "Step down to break the gridlock; reactivate the 'Five-step Process'; implement genuine universal suffrage". Chairman, the debate today is on the Budget, therefore during the Second Reading debate, I have quoted the speech made by the Financial Secretary when he delivered the Budget on 25 February. He said the current situation is very bad and disputes have become even more vehement this year. The serious divisions in society have made it harder to mend conflicted relationships among people and organizations. He went further to say that prolonged bickering will only bog down our development. This is quoted from the Financial Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9249

As the Chief Executive, I think LEUNG Chun-ying has definitely done and said a lot of things to place Hong Kong in such a quagmire. This is why the Democratic Party and many members of the public have taken to the streets time and again to protest, and urged LEUNG Chun-ying to step down so as to address Hong Kong's problems. But unfortunately, LEUNG Chun-ying has not only refused to step down, he has even won the support of the Central Government. This is probably because he has identified the Central Government's … perhaps not the Achilles' heel, but issues of its grave concern. He has provoked disputes in Hong Kong by, in the absence of evidence, claiming that Hong Kong's affairs have been interfered by foreign forces. Government officials have to offer explanations for him by saying that such evidence could not be produced. The President of the Legislative Council, on the other hand, said he did not notice such forces in an interview, but was then accused of suffering from an eye problem, which made him unable to see clearly. It seems that the Central Government has fallen into the trap of LEUNG Chun-ying and believed that foreign forces do exist. Isn't this intolerable? Suppression is therefore warranted. But the fact is, there is simply no evidence. I wonder how many SAR government officials have met and dined with foreign officials, and even Members from the royalist camp who are sitting opposite to me have done so. Nonetheless, LEUNG Chun-ying's argument sounds justified to certain people. Later, when someone promoted Hong Kong's independence and self-determination, he again exaggerated the situation. This has touched the nerves of Beijing, thereby considering that LEUNG Chun-ying is the right person to suppress people who have attracted the foreign forces and promoted independence. Sometimes, we do need to think why people in Beijing are so stupid as to believe in the provocation tactic employed by LEUNG Chun-ying.

Chairman, I was told that many people flew to Beijing to raise their views, which means that Beijing does not only listen to LEUNG Chun-ying or SAR officials. The truth is, it is precisely those people who gave advice to Beijing echoed LEUNG Chun-ying's views. When they were asked if what LEUNG Chun-ying said was true, they answered in the affirmative. After the President stated that there was no sign of foreign forces, they criticized the President for not seeing things clearly. Worse still, they said they witnessed the prevalence of foreign forces in Hong Kong. How can there be such people? As they vow to suppress whoever promotes "Hong Kong independence", our society has become seriously divided. These people are so shameless.

9250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Furthermore, throughout the years, the executive authorities must be aware that in order for the proposed policies, policy agenda, bills or funding proposals to get through in the Council, they should gain the co-operation of Members of the Legislative Council. And yet, there is no reason for this Council to unconditionally vote for or support these proposals. The authorities are obliged to discuss with and consult Members from different political parties and groupings before making any amendment, and if they have done so, the bills and funding proposals tabled at this Council would naturally be supported because Members have also been involved in the formulation process. Contrarily, if the proposals tabled at this Council look strange or even scary to Members, how can they support them? This is precisely the experience of the Democratic Party, and I heard that this is no exception to Members from the pro-establishment camp. After the authorities handed the relevant documents to them, though they would not express dissatisfaction right away like us, they would still show signs of reluctance and asked if there was room for amendment. Regrettably, the answer was in the negative and they were forced to accept and cast their support votes. If they refuse to concede, the authorities would ask the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (the Liaison Office) to deal with them. This is indeed outrageous and is not hearsay. I heard it myself. What is more, the Liaison Office does frequently, though not on a daily basis, interfere with Council businesses. When the pro-establishment camp failed to achieve its purpose, it would seek help from the Liaison Office. Likewise, if the Government failed to achieve its purpose, it would also seek help from the Liaison Office, which I find terribly ridiculous.

Does Hong Kong still uphold the principles of "one country, two systems" and "high degree of autonomy"? On 10 June 2014, Beijing published a White Paper in seven languages. It has, on the one hand, expressed dislike for internationalization, but published a paper in seven languages on the other. This White Paper has aroused the serious concern of many people, thinking that the "high degree of autonomy" has now become "overall jurisdiction". Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying has remained silent. He even thought that the judges are at his disposal just like executive officers, which is so ridiculous. Has LEUNG Chun-ying said anything to defend the principles of "high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong"? It is therefore a waste to spend some $5 million a year on this person, and is even worse than throwing money into the sea. Throwing money into the sea may cause pollution, but spending money on this person many cause serious damage and deal a blow to Hong Kong. He has provoked disputes among different camps, Members, political parties, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9251 professionals and the business community, and he enjoyed seeing people fight against one another. He even said that if anyone does not listen to him, he would train him like a dog. With someone speaking such wicked thing, there is no doubt that Hong Kong is in great trouble.

But what thrilled us is the fact that fewer and fewer people dare to speak the truth. As the community tilts further, LEUNG Chun-ying has also become more vicious and made enemies everywhere by provoking disputes here and there. In saying that he is scary, one may think that he is a gangster. How can he be the Chief Executive appointed by Beijing to rule over Hong Kong?

Hong Kong is not only the 25th wealthiest city in the world, but is also a metropolitan city. How come Beijing and the conglomerates would appoint someone like him to rule over Hong Kong? He even receives some $5 million public money every year. I think members of the public are infuriated. Although someone said that my amendment would definitely not get passed, some people will probably cast their opposition votes with tears in their eyes later. I guess some people hate LEUNG Chun-ying more than I. They have remained silent simply because they have to cover their hatred. How sad Hong Kong is! In the face of unreasonable and injustice situations, no one dares to say no, and they allow him to continue to receive some $5 million a year, continue to tear Hong Kong apart and continue to mislead the Central Authorities and the international community to think that a number of foreign forces have interfered. If this is really the case, show us the evidence. Hong Kong is a place with rule of law, no one should talk nonsense without evidence. He accused people of promoting "Hong Kong independence", can he tell us how many people are there? Who is promoting "Hong Kong independence"? Does Hong Kong have the condition to do so?

It makes perfect sense for Hong Kong people to expect the SAR Government to defend their dignity and uphold the principles of "high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", so why do the SAR Government and government officials refuse to stand out and do something more? LEUNG Chun-ying has not only divided the community, but also this Council. Two years ago, he ordered government officials not to attend the 20th Anniversary party of the Liberal Party. This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the Democratic Party, he issued a more serious order to ask all ― actually not all, but some officials dared not attend under such circumstances ― Principal Officials under the Accountability System not to attend. Actually, there is no 9252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 big deal for officials to come and have a glass of wine. Chairman, I am very grateful that you have joined us for a glass of wine and even dinner, whereas government officials dared not discuss with us or explain to us the situation. If the situation continues, how can the Government formulate policies? Isn't it pretty ridiculous for him to turn a deaf ear to the views of political parties and Members, but expect them to vote in support of him? A crooked stick will have a crooked shadow.

Hong Kong has been stuck in a very terrible and difficult position, but it is now even worse under the leadership of this person. At present, he is not only backed by Beijing, but is also supported, either willingly or reluctantly, by people in Hong Kong who refused to speak words of fairness. I will never succumb. The struggle will grow more intense and confirm the Financial Secretary's words that "… only bog down our development". Is Hong Kong still an international financial centre or a cosmopolitan city in Asia? If the situation continues, even local people will be scared away, let alone foreign investors.

LEUNG Chun-ying is nonetheless wearing an even bigger smile after putting forward his "rubbish" reform package. We will certainly veto this reform package, which may be more appealing to him as he can then remain in office for another five years and plunge Hong Kong into an abyss. I believe people who love Hong Kong, and even in Beijing, not all people are so indifferent … I guess someone would castigate me for chiding the Communist Party. Although Hong Kong is not very successful as we still have not achieved democracy, we do have the rule of law and I insist reducing the emoluments of the Secretaries of Departments.

We have freedom and there are many other things that members of the public and Hong Kong people are proud of and envied by foreign people. Many people feel elated when they return to Hong Kong, especially at a time when the world is full of bloodshed, hatred and violent acts, such as people being beheaded. After all, Hong Kong is more civilized. Given that the Central Authorities and conglomerates appointed LEUNG Chun-ying, who has ruined Hong Kong, the Democratic Party will relentlessly fight against him. I also hope that Members with conscience will support my amendment and deduct the emoluments of the Chief Executive and other expenditure for the whole year. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9253

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, under the separation of powers, the Legislative Council should exercise its power to monitor the Government and examine the Budget pursuant to the Basic Law. This is the obligation of Members of this Council, and it is also our duty and responsibility. Members should have overriding power to propose and examine amendments, and no Member should be deprived of such power for the reason that the amendments are frivolous or the progress of the meeting will be affected. Chairman, it is necessary and essential for you to remain impartial during the Committee stage so as to ensure that all Members can fulfil our duties and exercise our due rights to examine the Budget.

Chairman, regarding this year's Budget, I have proposed a total of 11 amendments on behalf of the Neo Democrats. With regard to the areas to be discussed during this joint debate session, I have proposed five amendments: Amendment No 25 proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's annual emoluments; Amendment No 296 proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Commissioner of Police's annual emoluments; Amendment No 409 proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure for six months' emoluments of the Chief Secretary for Administration; Amendment No 451 proposes to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for promoting the public consultations on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and the forming of the Legislative Council in 2016 (the constitutional reform), and Amendment No 515 proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure for the six months' emoluments of the Secretary for Security. Chairman, in this joint debate session, I will elaborate on the rationale of these five amendments.

Firstly, I will explain the rationale of the Neo Democrats to propose Amendment No 409, which proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure for six months' emoluments of Chief Secretary Mrs Carrie LAM under "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat : Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary" in respect of subhead 000.

Chairman, the Neo Democrats considered that the performance of Carrie LAM in the past year is the worst ever. When Carrie LAM led the "constitutional reform trio" to conduct the public consultations on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and the forming of the Legislative Council in 2016 in the past year, she apparently had a pre-conceived position. While she chanted the slogan of "Let's talk" to indicate her willingness to receive various views, a decision had already been made. She aimed to deceive Hong Kong 9254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 people to "pocket it first" or even "pocket it forever", and forced them to accept the fake universal suffrage under the framework of the 31 August Decision, thereby making it the ultimate proposal for the Chief Executive election.

In fact, when the first round consultation on constitutional reform kicked off as early as December 2013, we can see that the Consultation Document was restrictively worded with extensive quotations of the views expressed by officials from the Central Authorities. These include the remarks of JI Pengfei and QIAO Xiaoyang and the requirement for "organizational nomination" in the nominating committee. Furthermore, the framework stipulated under the Basic Law and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) had been further narrowed down and arbitrarily interpreted. The saying that the nominating committee might be formed "with reference to" the current provisions regarding the Election Committee was interpreted as having binding effect, and the four sectors should remain unchanged. Carrie LAM had, right at the start of the consultation exercise, placed the views of Beijing officials above those of Hong Kong people, with a clear motive to stifle the possibility of civic nomination in the Chief Executive election.

The Report on the first round consultation on constitutional reform released by Carrie LAM on 15 July 2014 can be described as being selective in listening to public opinions. She used ambiguous terms such as "generally agreed", "mainstream opinion" and "more views" to present fake public opinion to the Central Authorities. For example, she mentioned that "The mainstream opinion is that the Chief Executive should be a person who loves the Country and loves Hong Kong" and "There are more views … vested in the nominating committee only, the power is a substantive one". However, when she was asked about the definitions of "more views" and "views", no concrete figures could be provided to substantiate the analysis in the Report.

Chairman, the fact is, in June 2014, nearly 800 000 people in Hong Kong had clearly indicated their support for civic nomination in the 2017 Chief Executive Election in a public referendum organized by Occupy Central with Love and Peace, and they called on the Legislative Council to veto any Chief Executive election proposal that did not comply with the international standards or did not provide Hong Kong voters with a genuine choice. Subsequently, some 510 000 people took part in the 1 July march on the theme of "Fight for civic nomination".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9255

Chairman, regarding the 800 000 people who had expressed views and the 510 000 people who took part in the march, are they mainstream or minority views in society? The Consultation Report submitted by Carrie LAM did not answer this question. Instead, Carrie LAM evaded the question by refusing to incorporate the public referendum conducted on 22 June and the 1 July march into the Consultation Report. Apparently, the consultation exercise on constitutional reform headed by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM had formed a pre-conceived position, thereby intensifying the disputes of constitutional reform in the community, but leading to a misjudgement of public sentiment by Beijing. This had subsequently led to the 31 August Decision, which "shut the door" for the elections of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council Members, and triggered a large-scale class strike and Umbrella Movement. Thus, I think this is an obvious dereliction of duty on the part of Carrie LAM in conducting the public consultation on constitutional reform, which has torn our society apart. She does not deserve to receive such high emoluments.

The failure of Carrie LAM to provide a comprehensive Consultation Report on constitutional reform and inform Beijing of Hong Kong's genuine public opinion had prompted the NPCSC to "shut the door". After the Umbrella Movement, Carrie LAM bowed to media pressure and agreed to have a conversation with the representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, during which she undertook to remedy the situation by submitting an additional Public Sentiments Report to the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office. And yet, she stood firm on the proposed civic nomination and turned a deaf ear to the requests. The conversation had not facilitated the SAR Government to respond to the aspirations of people who had taken part in the Umbrella Movement, but had even ruled out the possibility of another round of conversation. The failure of the "constitutional reform trio" led by Carrie LAM to properly respond to public opinion had not only prompted the Umbrella Movement to last for as long as 79 days, it had even connived at the Police's repeated use of violence to clear the scene. The Neo Democrats considered that Carrie LAM has unshirkable responsibility for this civil disobedience movement of an unprecedented scale.

Chairman, despite the fact that the pan-democratic camp boycotted the second stage consultation on all fronts, Carrie LAM announced specific proposals for the 2017 Chief Executive Election yesterday. Adhering to the style adopted in the first stage consultation, the SAR Government completely neglected the public opinion reflected by the public referendum held on 22 June and the Umbrella Movement, and refused to include civic nomination. It even states that if the reform package is passed, the ultimate aim to select the Chief 9256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Executive by universal suffrage, as stipulated under Article 45 of the Basic Law, can be achieved. In other words, Carrie LAM clearly called on people to "pocket it first" yesterday. She actually aimed to deceive Hong Kong people to "pocket" this rotten reform package that allows no room for amendment forever. The Neo Democrats will definitely veto the 2017 constitutional reform package proposed by Carrie LAM.

Chairman, this month, Carrie LAM met with selective pan-democratic Members in a high-profile manner to present her own thinking in the name of lobbying. She has not only treated the lobbying task as a mere formality, but has also intended to stage a public opinion war against the pan-democratic camp, so as to pave the way for putting the blame on and passing the buck to the pan-democratic camp once the reform package is vetoed. Carrie LAM was an Administrative Officer during the Hong Kong-British era, but what she did in respect of the constitutional reform consultation over the past year is no different from LEUNG Chun-ying. She has been engaging in "hypocritical rhetoric" and trying by all means to pass the buck; she has lost all sense of integrity and has let the general public down. Owing to her performance, she does not deserve such high pay.

Chairman, apart from constitutional reform consultation, Carrie LAM also actually has another very important mission, that is, to chair the Steering Committee on Population Policy in her capacity as the Chief Secretary. In fact, it is a kind of "demographic reshuffling" under the disguise of population policy. Why do I say so? In the latest strategies and key initiatives of the population policy announced in January 2015, instead of introducing effective policy to nurture young talent in Hong Kong, the Government has blindly expanded the Admission of Mainland Professionals Scheme and deprived local young people of an opportunity to move upward. In the Policy Address delivered as early as 2000, the then Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa proposed to raise the participation rate in post-secondary education from 33% to 66% in 10 years' time. By 2011, the participation rate of young people aged between 15 and 24 in post-secondary education still remained at 39.3%, which means that the target has not been achieved. Carrie LAM's population policy to nurture local talents has neglected the fact that subsidized university places for first-degree programmes have fallen short of demand in Hong Kong, which has rendered more than 10 000 eligible local students unable to pursue university education due to insufficient university places, thereby undermining the competitiveness of our younger generation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9257

Meanwhile, according to the statistics published by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), the percentage share of youths aged between 15 and 24 taking up service and sales jobs had surged from 23.6% in 2001 to 34% in 2011; whereas during the same 10 years, the percentage share of youths aged between 15 and 24 working as managers and professionals had only slightly increased by 1.5% from 21.4% in 2001 to 22.9% in 2011. In other words, more and more youths have to work as lower-wage service and sales workers. As the Chief Secretary, Carrie LAM has not actively trained up local youths but has instead relaxed the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals and the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, which is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. As local youths fail to have upward mobility, they have to engage in servicing industries relating to Mainland tourists, while high-skilled jobs were all taken up by Mainland talents. Is this not a policy of "demographic reshuffling" in Hong Kong?

Chairman, the population policy proposed by Carrie LAM has not suggested any solution to address the burden and pressure imposed by the "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) babies" on local education and healthcare. According to the latest information provided by the C&SD, a total of 823 DNR babies were born in Hong Kong in 2014, meaning an average of nearly 69 per month. In other words, there will be two DNR babies becoming Hong Kong permanent residents every day, representing an increase over 2013. This showed that the policy on zero delivery quota for DNR babies introduced by the SAR Government and LEUNG Chun-ying has failed to eliminate the problem, and the situation is worsening. Carrie LAM continued to shirk responsibility by saying "there is no way to ascertain when and how DNR children will come to Hong Kong; how long they will stay and when they will leave". She is simply turning a blind eye to the pressure imposed by DNR babies on local healthcare and education.

Carrie LAM also refused to examine Hong Kong's right to vet the entry of One-Way Permit holders in respect of the population policy under her purview. As a result, we have to passively and endlessly receive new immigrants approved by the Mainland Government, thereby opening a gap in our population policy.

Chairman, as pointed out by VOGEL, a Harvard academics studying East Asia, in a newspaper interview conducted last month, the failure of Hong Kong's immigration policy lied with its emphasis on quantity rather than quality, which has directly undermined Hong Kong's external competitiveness. The Neo 9258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Democrats opined that the failure of the population policy lies with the SAR Government not having the right to vet the entry of One-Way Permit holders, which has opened a big loophole in our population policy.

Given the limited resources in Hong Kong, the SAR Government should attract outstanding talents according to our actual needs, instead of passively receive a large number of foreigners, leading to serious social problems. The Neo Democrats considers that the population policy overseen by Carrie LAM has sought to achieve "demographic reshuffling" at the expense of Hong Kong's external competitiveness. We have therefore proposed amendments to reduce her six months' emoluments, hoping that she will reflect on her mistakes and restore the noble integrity that she once had when she was an Administrative Officer. She should make policy decisions genuinely favourable to Hong Kong people, but not to give priority consideration to Beijing and turn herself into a puppet like LEUNG Chun-ying or turn the SAR Government into a "puppet government".

Chairman, I will speak again in this joint debate session to elaborate on the Neo Democrats' rationale of proposing other amendments.

Chairman, I so submit.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to spend a moment to respond to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's criticism of me in the last session. I will respond in a restrained manner. In respect of my criticism against the work of the Water Supplies Department (WSD), Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said that the Department had followed her good advice and aborted the plan to reprovision the Pumping Station on Harcourt Road to Hong Kong Park. She was wrong. The WSD has not indicated that it would change its original plan. It is only that it has not yet been able to carry out this project due to its work schedule. Therefore, I would like to ask Dr CHIANG Lai-wan not to take the opportunity during our discussion of the Pumping Station on Harcourt Road to claim that she has "succeeded in fighting for" the abortion of the plan. The fact is that we have not attained our goal yet.

The fact is that many civil organizations and I are still carrying out a signature campaign and we have collected a few thousand signatures. We have also held forums and discussed with the Government on how to protect the old LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9259 stone wall. We have made no progress yet and we are still working hard. Therefore, I would like to ask Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to ascertain the facts when trying to show her loyalty to the authorities. Do not be a royalist for loyalty's sake; or do not defend for the sake of defend. Her accusation that I have misled the public is groundless. Perhaps Dr CHIANG has confused me with Mr Albert CHAN or she just wanted to respond to Mr Albert CHAN but dragged me down at the same time, trying to save energy by killing two birds with one stone. She has well demonstrated her debating skills, and the public can make their own judgment.

Chairman, many items are covered in this debate session which, I believe, are of great concern to many colleagues. The subjects range from the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments, as well as all accountability officials and relevant government departments. In this session, I have proposed a number of amendments targeting Mr Andrew FUNG, Information Coordinator; Mr SHIU Sin-por, Head of the Central Policy Unit, as well as the Commissioner of Police's application for the provision of $27 million for the purchase of three water cannon vehicles under the Appropriation Bill. Of course, from the public's perspective, they may be more interested in watching me berating Andrew FUNG and SHIU Sin-por, but I believe we must seriously discharge our duty as Legislative Council Members, and thus I will first deal with the funding application for the purchase of water cannon vehicles which, I believe, is a threat to human rights.

Some pro-establishment Members, especially Mr IP Kwok-him of your party who is the Chairman of the Panel on Security, said that I was mistaken, and he has not evaded the question as we are now discussing the issue now. As regards the funding, as each water cannon vehicle costs $9 million, the total amount for three vehicles is $27 million. They have made three applications for the total amount. May I ask what is the difference between this practice and the practice of Timothy TONG, former Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption, who split his bills for wine and dine in an attempt to evade accountability? This approach is immoral in itself but Members still give their endorsement. Second, is it that application for funding under $10 million needs not be approved by the Panel first and then submitted to the Finance Committee for monitoring and scrutiny? Is it that funding applications less than $10 million can be incorporated into the Appropriation Bill and we are compelled to give our approval? However, in respect of this Budget, while the funding applications of the Hong Kong Police Force for the replacement of 18 police launches and the 9260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 acquisition of barge operating platform amount to more than $10 million, they can still be incorporated into the Budget for reasons that the processing time of the Public Works Subcommittee and the Finance Committee is far too long. This shows that the Government does not want to reason with us. No matter the items are under $10 million or over $10 million, they will all be incorporated into the Budget for one simple reason, which is to bypass the monitoring of the Legislative Council and evade responding to the most important questions.

Speaking of water cannon vehicles, it seems to be a trivial matter. Regrettably, a Member of this Council has severe cognitive problem that requires medical treatment. He has actually confused water cannons with toy water guns that we played when we were kids and said that one would only get wet and it was no big deal. Are we playing a game to get wet? Of course not. What we are discussing now is water cannon vehicle, which is a lethal weapon that threatens human rights and freedom of assembly; it has a deterrent effect and can cause bodily injury. The Government calls such vehicles "specialized crowd management vehicles". What does it mean by "crowd management"? The message to the protesters is: we have three water cannon vehicles, if you dare come out to protest, you should be psychologically prepared that we will attack you.

Water cannon vehicles may seem no harm. But according to my study, many authoritarian regimes often use water cannon vehicles against the unarmed participants of peaceful assemblies. My wife is Polish. Many of her relatives and friends had faced such risks before. It is nothing like having fun by getting wet. If someone confuses water cannon vehicles with toy water guns, he is either ignorant or shameless. Recently a group of people post pictures on their Facebook account, publicizing that they prefer water cannon vehicles to food. These people are both ignorant and shameless. Sorry, I really cannot represent them for I still have a conscience. I will not be a royalist for loyalty's sake, and will not endorse this shameless Government which seeks to bypass the Legislative Council's monitoring mechanism to purchase water cannon vehicles.

The water that spurts out from water cannon vehicles is not ordinary water. I hope members of the public will understand this important point. The water contains certain chemicals. In many places of the world, the water that spurts from water cannon vehicles contains Oleoresin Capsicum which can cause burns to the skin. As revealed in this picture in my hand which is related to a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9261 demonstration in Germany, if someone is unfortunately hit in the face by a water cannon, as in the case of an engineer in the incident who was hit in the face by water containing certain chemicals, his eyes bled, resulted in near-complete blindness with only 5% of eyesight sight left. Who dares say it is not lethal? In Korea, there were incidents of water cannon causing injuries to eyesight and hearing functions. This is not about fooling around and getting wet, Mr Christopher CHUNG. For instance, in Uganda, are people in this picture playing with rainbow water cannon? No. Another purpose of the water cannon vehicle is to squirt water containing colourful dyes. Whoever have participated in demonstrations, be they law breakers or unarmed civilians, will all have these colour stains, allowing the secret police and ruffians of dictators to easily pick them out and arrest them. As a matter of fact, during the process of vetting the funding application, the Government has, in response to the questions raised by the pan-democratic Members, admitted that colour can be added to the water squirted from the water cannon. However, there are many facts that the Government has not informed us, such as Oleoresin Capsicum can be added to the water. Those vehicles are armoured vehicles. Other than being armour-plated, the vehicles can also be equipped with broadcasting and video recording devices. The water cannon vehicles in some places can also be installed with devices used for firing tear gas and tear bombs. In some countries, the water cannon vehicles are installed with bulldozing machines that can bulldoze people and obstacles away.

This Government is timid and incompetent, lacking the will and credibility to govern. All it has are weapons, which are procured with taxpayers' money ― I pay tax too ― and used against the people of Hong Kong. If they cannot manage the crowds with water cannon vehicles, will tanks be deployed then? I believe that the Government is brazen enough to do so. Water cannon vehicles are aggressive equipment. Do not be fooled by their clumsy appearance, they can kill. They can run people down. In Germany, some demonstrators have been run over and killed by moving water cannon vehicles.

Having heard me say so much, one may say that this is the purpose of the Government ― to intimidate people. If people do not wish to see the water cannon vehicles, do not want to be squirted and do not want to get hurt, fine, do not take to the streets and protest. Having gone this far, the Government obviously acts against the public opinion and suppresses different voices in society.

9262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

I have made reference to the reports of various human right groups, including the United Nations and Amnesty International, and found that water cannon vehicles are classified as an instrument of violence. Do not think that it is no big deal and it is just a game. After examining the wounds of people injured by water cannon vehicles deployed by the Turkish Government, a human rights organization in Turkey accused the government of committing offences against the people. Do not think that the Turkish Government is elected by the people and they may use water cannon vehicles but people would be fine. That is not true. It has nothing to do with whether a country practices democracy or not. Water cannon vehicles are lethal weapons.

In 2008, after water cannon vehicles were deployed by the Korean Government, all members of its human rights committee resigned in protest. In London in the United Kingdom, the mayor and some ultra-conservative members of parliament wanted to procure water cannon vehicles for crowd management. They held a great debate on this. Where did they get the water cannon vehicles? It turned out that the United Kingdom imported second hand water cannon vehicles from Germany and remodelled them to suit their needs. In that debate, they had detailed discussions on the use of public money, the effect of water cannon vehicles, the devises installed on the vehicles and the user menu. During the process, the entire British society showed great concern. It was a matter concerning changes in culture, the relationship between the people and the Government or the Police, and whether the relationship between the Police and the people had deteriorated so far that they had to engage in an arms competition. All these issues are worth discussing.

However, has our Government discussed these issues with us? No. Everything is done in secret. How is the matter related to Members or the general public? Where will the Government procure the water cannon vehicles? We do not know. What about the price of the vehicles? The Government states that each vehicle costs about $9 million. How are the vehicles equipped with? The Government will not tell us. Are there any guidelines? Certainly, there will be guidelines, meaning that no guidelines are available now. Under such circumstances, the royalists still say it does not matter. They have now left the Chamber. Formidable! They hear nothing in political discussions, they see nothing about the Government's evil doings and they do not even bother to discuss them. The person sitting across from me should be the Commissioner of Police or the Secretary for Security but unfortunately, it is Secretary WONG Kam-sing who is present here listening to my comments about water cannon vehicles and I do not believe he would relay my views to the Government. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9263

From this incident, we can see how the Government has failed. It has become an enemy of the people. Its sole intention is to incorporate such an important topic, a topic about human rights, into the Budget and sneakily get us to approve the funding for these vehicles under the cover of the Budget. The Government is vigorously promoting food truck but the concept of food truck has yet to be formulated but the idea of water cannon vehicles is now presented to us. The Government beats the drum and the gong to publicize its handing out of $38 billion. However, as long as there are opposition voices, the voices of the pan-democrats, and the voices of Members who have over the years come from the streets into this Council and will go to the streets again, the Government cannot evade our monitoring functions in this Council and it cannot bypass the Legislative Council to engage in these immoral dealings.

As the saying goes, "all deeds of human can never escape God's eyes". I call upon all Honourable colleagues to vigorously ask questions, state our stands and focus our attention on the issue concerning water cannon vehicles. We must exert our greatest pressure on the Government. I also call upon members of the public to see what the pro-establishment Members, to whom you have cast your votes, are doing. Do they side with the wicked tyrant to suppress the kind-hearted ordinary folks or do they stand on the side of the weak and join hands with people who have no power but dare to speak out to fight against tyranny?

I will continue to talk about water cannon vehicles and other related issues in the next session. Thank you, Chairman.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Labour Party will propose eight amendments in this session. We have altogether put forward 26 amendments for this Budget and eight of them will be proposed in this session.

To begin with, I will explain the reason for proposing eight amendments in this session and why a total of 26 amendments have been proposed, with one of them relating to water cannon vehicles. These 25 plus one items have bypassed the scrutiny of the Legislative Council and were forcefully incorporated into the Budget because the Government refused to be accountable to this Council. There are 25 items which should have been vetted and approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee (FC) but they have now been 9264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 incorporated into the Budget. The funding proposal of water cannon vehicles has bypassed this Council because the Government merely highlighted the $9 million unit price of those three vehicles ― no one knows if it really costs $9 million each as the Government has not explained where that $9 million came from, and it can be $10 million ― the total cost of three water cannon vehicles is $27 million … The fact is, we should not look at the unit price of the vehicles. Assuming that I have acquired a number of vehicles at $500,000 each for the Government, the mere unit price $500,000 would obviate the need for the relevant funding proposal to be vetted and approved by the Legislative Council …

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen signalled in his seat)

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please continue with your speech.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now I talked about how the Government bypassed the Legislative Council, and one example is the water cannon vehicles. If each water cannon vehicle costs $9 million, a total of $27 million will be involved. So long as the price of each vehicle is less than $10 million, the Government can buy 1 000 vehicles and bypass the Legislative Council by splitting the procurement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9265

While I criticize the Government for splitting the procurement to bypass this Council, there is nonetheless an even dirtier tactic to bypass this Council even if the value of the procurement exceeds $10 million, as mentioned by me just now. This is the case of the 25 amendments that I have previously mentioned. In this session, I will highlight eight items which should have been approved by the FC but have not in the end.

Items to be discussed in this session include the replacement of 18 police launches by the Hong Kong Police Force, the acquisition of Barge Operating Platform by the Marine Region, the replacement of three High Speed Pursuit Crafts by the Customs and Excise Department as well as the replacement of one Crash Fire Tender and Jackless Snorkel by the Fire Services Department. All these proposals should have been approved by the FC but have not in the end. Together with the abovementioned items, there are a total of 25 items.

Of course, we have asked the Government why it has to bypass the FC. Its reply was very ridiculous, and I hope members of the public could see that the Government likes to blame us every time it "plays foul". For example, it blamed Members for being unable to approve the relevant funding proposals after numerous FC meetings. Members may recall that this is mainly attributable to the Government's proposal to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau. In order to give priority to the proposed establishment of the Bureau, the Government had withdrawn four proposals (including the information platform for schools) which could have been approved right away.

We often advised the Government to discuss non-controversial items first, and in fact, many items under discussion today could have been approved by the FC. However, the Government refused and insisted to incorporate the controversial proposals by taking out the non-controversial items. Members should therefore ponder why we have come to such a situation. This is attributable to the Government's refusal to amicably negotiate the discussion priority of various proposals. If the Government is ready to discuss, we could have dealt with and approved a number of proposals that I put forward today.

What other fouls has the Government played subsequently? In the paper submitted to the Legislative Council, the Government explained that while the Budget is governed by section 5 of the Public Finance Ordinance, section 8 requires that changes to the estimates of expenditure must be approved by the FC, which has delegated to the Financial Secretary the power to approve changes 9266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 involving no more than $10 million. Although this is an established system, the Government has discarded it and incorporated the estimates of expenditure that should have been approved by the FC into the Budget according to section 5, seeking to approve all items in a bundle under the Budget.

Members of the public must be aware that this is tantamount to abolishing the FC. Honestly speaking, what can we discuss during the Budget debates? During the budget debates, there is only one hour for the discussion of each Policy Bureau, so how can we finish discussing all estimates of expenditure of a Policy Bureau/department in one hour? How should we discuss about their proposals? As I have just said, if the proposal on water cannon vehicles could be discussed during the FC meetings, we might have asked more thorough questions. What kind of deliberation can we have if there is only one hour to inquire about the proposals of all the departments concerned during the Budget debates?

Members may recall that in the papers submitted to the FC, the Government often sets out the background, argument and annual estimates of expenditure of the relevant proposals, together with their implications on the Civil Service and environment. These papers follow an established format and are very clear. Even if the Government has swept anything under the carpet ― a usual practice of the Government ― we may obtain the necessary information by asking questions at the FC meetings before granting approval. According to the explanation given by the Government, the tactic being employed is to incorporate the estimates of expenditure into the Budget. Such "foul play" is as dirty as restoring the practices adopted by the Hong Kong-British Government between 1985 and 1986.

Chairman, 1985 and 1986 were 30 years ago and the then Legislative Council had yet to be returned by direct elections. There were only indirect elections. This was precisely the tactic adopted by the Government before the introduction of elections in 1985. At that time, the so-called "Honourable Members" regarded public service as joining clubs, and proposals were endorsed without any dispute. It was only until the introduction of elections in 1985 that the then Hong Kong-British Government abolished such an approach. We have never expected that the current SAR Government would restore this pre-1985 practice (30 years ago) and bypassed the scrutiny of the Legislative Council. I find this approach completely unacceptable.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9267

Therefore, Chairman, I foresee that this problem will not only arise in the current-term Government. According to the explanation of the Government, certain items would still be submitted to the FC for consideration in the future. And yet, let us take a look at the paper submitted to this Council. There is a paragraph which reads "Though not required by the Public Finance Ordinance, the Government will seek approval of the FC for certain funding proposals in line with established practice pursuant to FC decisions." It sounds to me that it is a blessing for the Government to continue submitting funding proposals to the FC for consideration in the future. However, as we all know, once a precedent is set, the Government may go back on its words and refuse to submit proposals for consideration by the FC at any time. Therefore, as Members may be aware, the current approach is actually an attempt of the Government to bypass the monitoring of the Legislative Council.

Today, I am gravely disappointed because I thought we might be able to ask some questions on the items being taken out. If the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Security attended the FC meetings, Members could at least ask the Customs and Excise Department, the Hong Kong Police Force or the Fire Services Department about the acquisition of water cannon vehicles. I really wonder what WONG Kam-sing knows about this item. Is he going to tell us about the environmental implications of water cannon vehicles later on? This sounds good because he may give us some new insights. And yet, he has nothing to do with these items. I have no idea why he is present today as he is not in any way related to the policy area under discussion. After all, he is just randomly selected to attend the meeting.

This is totally irresponsible. Members of the royalist camp who have no intention to speak are also acting irresponsibly. During the FC meetings, Members can at least have an opportunity to raise questions. The royalist camp will certainly remain silent at the FC meetings, but Members sitting on this side can at least ask some questions. It is not our concern if the royalist camp decides to undermine their functions.

In my opinion, the Financial Secretary and the Secretaries of the relevant Policy Bureaux should attend the meeting. And yet, only WONG Kam-sing is present. From this, we can see that the Government has no intention to fulfil its constitutional obligation to be accountable to and monitored by the Legislative Council, which is infuriating. The Government seeks to push through the proposals in a high-handed manner by securing enough votes, and it cares nothing else. 9268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Lastly, I wish to spend some time to speak on water cannon vehicles. As Members may be aware, the Government's ulterior motive to acquire these vehicles is to antagonize the people. It seeks to threaten Hong Kong people with the acquisition of water cannon vehicles, hinting that these vehicles would be used to attack them at any time. Regarding the harms of these vehicles, there is no way we can find out without holding discussion at the FC meetings. Mr Christopher CHUNG was so naïve to say that the water cannon vehicles would only make people wet. I think he should better describe the use of water cannons as some kind of water-splashing activities to share joy with the people. These people always say what comes to their mind. The Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), on the other hand, said that water cannons are better than bullets, which is an astonishing argument. In other words, these people from the IPCC considered that water cannons are better than bullets; bullets are better than bombs, and bomb are better than atomic bombs. Water cannons are therefore the best. But is that true? Some people even suggested spending money to buy water cannon vehicles instead of food. I really cannot follow such logic. There are also views that water cannon vehicles must be acquired even if people do not get paid. Why would Hong Kong become like this?

In fact, water cannon vehicles reveal the timidity of the regime. Knowing of its evil doings and that political problems cannot be resolved by political means, the regime resorts to violent means. Under the delusion that the regime is being threatened, it has therefore deemed all issues as a threat to the regime, national security and local security. This is a kind of delusional disorder, and Members should know that this is a very terrible illness. There were cases in which patients suffering delusional disorder suspected that their phones were being bugged and their televisions giving off harmful substances. This is precisely the case of our Government. The protest activities broadcast on television have triggered the regime's delusional disorder, which then decided to acquire water cannon vehicles.

What harm will it do if water cannon vehicles are used to suppress the protests? There is no way we can find out. Some people likened the hit by water cannons to car hit. Can Members imagine how terrible it is to be hit by a car? Furthermore, Andy TSANG suggested that water cannon vehicles should squirt liquid dye. Does he think this is some kind of a war game? Has he deemed the entire world as his personal toy? Using liquid dye in war games is not scary at all. What we fear most is that hazardous chemical liquid will be unleashed, which will be turned into chemical weapons. This is more alarming.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9269

Notwithstanding that, Chairman, we are completely deprived of an opportunity to ask questions. The Secretary for Security is not present at the moment, and I have no idea if he will speak again later on, perhaps not. Chairman, has he told you if he will speak again? If he has decided not to give a reply after hearing my questions on, inter alia, the harms of water cannon vehicles, how can we monitor the Government, and how can the Government be accountable to and monitored by the Legislative Council?

Members may notice that the Government has adopted some dirty tricks to bypass this Council by forcing through certain proposals without discussions. Will we oppose all those 25 items that have been taken out? Of course not. We only want to ask questions on those items, just as what have been doing during FC's deliberation, for example, asking if the short-term food assistance is sufficient. This is the kind of question that we want to ask, but there is no way we can do so. Some good-intentioned proposals have been bundled together and bypassed the Legislative Council. As a result, this Council has been turned into a rubber stamp and there is no monitoring at all. Members from the royalist camp are, in particular, typical rubber stamps.

Thank you, Chairman.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed an amendment to reduce the emoluments of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying by $5.3 million. I have been forced to do so. I do not want to reduce his emoluments; I just want him to step down. All Hong Kong people want him to step down. He is really shameless; he may be willing to continue to serve Hong Kong without getting paid as he had already received $50 million, and he has more than enough money to spend. We know that he had received $50 million, but is there any other amount of money received by him that we are unaware of? Heaven knows, neither you nor I know; only LEUNG Chun-ying knows.

Instances of his poor governance are too numerous to be recorded. Chairman, you are going to limit the time for debate but I believe each Member can speak about LEUNG Chun-ying alone for at least eight to 10 times. How did this person come to power? He did so by despicable means. Do we still remember the dinner at Siu Tao Yuen in Lau Fau Shan? Hong Kong is an international city in Asia, while TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG were not that good, LEUNG Chun-ying, being the Chief Executive, should not be so despicable as to have dinner at Siu Tao Yuen with triad members? Though he 9270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 did not admit the dinner gathering afterwards, we all knew that he had contracts with triad members and gangsters. He became the Chief Executive by such means.

Moreover, we all know that he is best at attacking his opponent. Henry TANG is really pitiable. At one time, he was the most likely Chief Executive-elect, but unexpectedly, he was defeated unjustly by LEUNG Chun-ying. LEUNG Chun-ying lashed out at the unauthorized building works at Henry TANG's residence on York Road. We then kept track of the progress of the incident as if we were watching a movie. Owing to the unauthorized building works at Henry TANG's residence on York Road, as we still remember, there were continuous shooting from forklift trucks outside his residence day after day. LEUNG Chun-ying thought that Henry TANG should be in trouble. Eventually, Henry TANG lost the election and he could not become the Chief Executive.

However, as it turns out, unauthorized building works at LEUNG Chun-ying's residence have been in existence for many years, but he has been covering that up and telling lies. Though LEUNG Chun-ying also has unauthorized building works, he used dirty tricks to trample his opponent. Has Hong Kong really been degenerated to such a state that this kind of person can serve as the Chief Executive? Chairman, it would be much better if you were the Chief Executive; at least we believe that you are a person of integrity and would not act like that. Yet, some people may be good at making "secret reports", and I do not know how many "secret reports" have been made on you.

This is not the main point. The most important point is that we are now putting up with him in silence, maybe not in silence as people ask him to step down every day. Chairman, he visited the districts yesterday and I felt uncomfortable when I saw a photograph in the newspaper. This photograph is unsuitable for children as it shows someone standing in front of the window raising a finger at the Chief Executive. How come a Chief Executive, who is supposed to be dignified and imposing, is so much hated by the people? Chairman, you will not encounter such a situation; even "covetous TSANG" or TUNG Chee-hwa who suffered leg pain would not be so badly treated during their visits to the districts. We have been putting up with this person for two years and we may have to put up with him for five more years, that is, two years plus five years. Therefore, I am compelled to propose a reduction of his emoluments. Yet, it may be useless to reduce the emoluments of this kind of person.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9271

Chairman, to our greatest regret, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has not given an account of the DTZ incident so far. The ICAC stated that the relevant investigations would not be made public. The Chief Executive secretly received $50 million; even State leaders had been deceived by him. Therefore, Mr Joseph LIAN, former consultant of the Central Policy Unit, once wrote that if the case happened in the Mainland, the Chief Executive involved in corruption would have been detained and interrogated. XI Jinping monopolized all powers and one of his priorities is to fight against corruption. If he knows ― I do not know if he has been involved in the selection of the Chief Executive ― the Chief Executive is so corrupt … He received $50 million. I remember he was asked at the Question and Answer Session if there were any conflicts of interest that he had not accounted for, he lied with his eyes wide open, telling Hong Kong people, through television broadcast, that he had already accounted for all conflicts of interests. He said that some professionals had made injections into some funds on his behalf and the problem was solved. Yet, it turns out that he is still holding the shares of DTZ Japan. He has just passed money from one pocket to another, but he told us that the problem had been solved.

How can he be so shameless? He not only refused to admit his fault but also issued a lawyer's letter to sue Joseph LIAN. He has all the powers and can even command the wind and rain in Hong Kong. Assuming the power of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR and the Central Authorities, he has ridden roughshod over others. Though being rich and powerful, he could not accommodate someone who had written a newspaper article and thus he issued a lawyer's letter. He also lied in saying that he did not seek legal advice in his capacity as the Chief Executive but in his personal capacity. Nevertheless, in the lawyer's letter sent to Joseph LIAN, the lawyer said that he issued the letter on behalf of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. This proved that LEUNG Chun-ying lied again and he refused to admit what he had done. Who still believes him today? He gets involved with triad members and he is corrupt; his misdemeanours are countless.

I feel sad after reading a piece of news today. Barry CHEUNG, once a good friend and top aide of LEUNG Chun-ying, chairman of his campaign office as well as Chairman of the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange, was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. He was put behind bars because he lived in a luxurious flat for a monthly rent of $160,000, meaning that he had a lot of money 9272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 to spend, but he refused to pay wages to his employee. This mean person was once LEUNG Chun-ying's top aide, what do you think of that? Nonetheless, LEUNG Chun-ying is very smart; he would immediately distance himself from those people around him once they get into trouble. LEW Mon-hung is a good example. He made all-out effort to arrange the dinner gathering at Siu Tao Yuen for LEUNG Chun-ying, even to the extent of making contacts with triad members. Is LEUNG Chun-ying still acquainted with LEW Mon-hung now? Of course not. Chairman, I am thinking of a rather interesting scene. If one day Barry CHEUNG failed in his appeal and LEW Mon-hung was also imprisoned ― although I have no bad feeling of this person, he should be subject to legal sanctions ― what would happen?

Will LEUNG Chun-ying visit them in prison? If so, it will be a quite interesting scene for them to sing "Light of Friendship" together. If the ICAC prosecutes LEUNG Chun-ying, the three of them will be in prison together, and they can then sing "Light of Friendship" together. This may not be anything bad for Hong Kong people; at least there is still a little hope and a chance for Hong Kong to revive again.

Chairman, we now hope that we can survive these two years, and then … the fake universal suffrage proposal announced yesterday represents the two sides of the same coin. If members of the public do not accept the 1 200-member Election Committee, they can only elect LEUNG Chun-ying. If the public accepts the fake universal suffrage proposal, the 1 200 members will just be given another name, that is, the Nominating Committee. Everyone can enter the stage of "members recommendation" and "make it happen"! All the ducks ― a picture of ducks entering the gate is published in the press today. LEUNG Chun-ying will be the one who reaches the stage of "committee nomination", or "Tree Kun" will be one other candidate; if that is not enough, how about adding "YUAN Cau" as well. Would LEUNG not be elected again? Members of the public can only vote in tears and those who have more votes will win. In laying down these rules of the game, the authorities asked us not to think too much.

However, interesting things always happen. During the two sessions, there was a saying which we were overjoyed to hear. It was reported that if we were willing to accept this proposal on the Chief Executive election, we would be given a present, and that is, LEUNG Chun-ying would not stand for election. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9273 wonder if the Central Authorities finally understand the wish of Hong Kong people and they do not hesitate to sacrifice him. In any case, they want to see LEUNG off so long as we are willing to accept this "rotten orange" proposal.

On second thought, Hong Kong people find that high risks are involved. It was once said that Henry TANG would be elected in the last election but he lost in the end. Anything can happen. Who knows if this sly guy would play any tricks? In that case, we would be total losers. If LEUNG Chun-ying is still a candidate, and we have to accept the "rotten orange" proposal, that is really miserable. Hence, after much consideration, we believe this saying is fooling us around and we cannot believe it. Someone also revealed that in the eyes of dignitaries in Hong Kong and Beijing, this person does not have a good image, and not many people think highly of him.

Yet, we have "wet our hair"; it is most pathetic that the Government often teaches us how to "wash our hair". As we have "wet our hair", we have to implement some infrastructure or "white elephant" projects. Unfortunately, the Beijing authorities have also "wet their hair" for they have chosen LEUNG Chun-ying. They can only reluctantly support him and allow him to remain in his post as the Chief Executive. Nonetheless, I would like to tell Beijing, if this goes on, our society will be torn apart … he not only snubs us, but also does so to some pro-establishment Members ― James is not present today ― I believe Liberal Party Members must feel the chill. Mr James TIEN just asked LEUNG Chun-ying, "Would you consider resigning for the benefit of Hong Kong?" and he was immediately voted out of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference anymore.

We all know that the Liberal Party is in a pitiable state. Two days ago, the White House spokesman in Hong Kong visited the Lingnan University. When he was asked if he had criticized the Liberal Party in Facebook using the name "KAM Chung-yan", he replied that he made the criticism after 5 pm when he was already off work. He has a really good job for he does not need to work after 5 pm. Unfortunately, the officials from the Chief Executive's Office let him step on a banana peel, saying that under the current five-day work week system, people get off work at 6 pm.

It turns out that he is lying again. I understand why he was elected ― "Long Hair" is not present now ― a famous saying of "Long Hair" is "a group of duffers gathering together", all of them are duffers. How can we pay these 9274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 people? How can we pay the Chief Executive? Yet, he will not be afraid; even if his salary is reduced by more than $5 million, he can still make money in a lot of ways. We just do not know how he can make money, right?

Recently, there was a very outrageous scandal. The Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) should resign for this. We all know that the Chairman of URA is "LEUNG's fan", and this "LEUNG's fan" has the intention to co-operate with the Richfield Group. The Secretary for Security should know the background of the Richfield Group. Many households have their water and electricity supply disconnected, doors locked and mice inside their flats. These people do all kinds of evil deeds for developers to repossess properties, and even the Police cannot stop them. I do not know how much interests are involved, let us see how the ICAC reacts (The buzzer sounded), and let us also see how sly this guy is. I so submit.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, this year I have proposed a number of amendments for the reduction of various expenditures, two of which have been on my list for the past 20-odd years. When I first raised them, no one had yet come up with amendments to reduce the estimates of expenditures in the Budget. The two amendments are to deduct from the expenditures for the Hong Kong Police Force the annual expenditure for the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO), amounting to $75 million, and also the expenditure on Rewards and Special Services, amounting to $80 million. I have kept proposing these two amendments for over 20 years.

Besides, this year I have also proposed another amendment to deduct one month's salary of the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner). Let me briefly explain why I just deduct one month of his salary. As my target is the incumbent Commissioner, Mr Andy TSANG, who will retire in May, to reduce the annual expenditure for the salary of the Commissioner will leave no money to pay the salary of his successor. After consideration, the Democratic Party proposes to deduct one month of the Commissioner's salary instead of the salary of a year or a few months.

Another amendment is to deduct $27 million for the purchase of three water cannon vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9275

Chairman, since I need to expound my arguments in detail, I will spend the first 15 minutes of my speaking time to explain why I propose to deduct the expenditure for the CAPO by $70-odd million.

Chairman, the biggest problem of the CAPO is that the public have no confidence in it because it conducts self-conclusive investigations on its own peers, that is, police officers investigating police officers. The public's greatest concern is whether police officers would practise favouritism when investigating their peers.

However, if the investigations of police officers are not conducted by police officers, most police officers would raise objection. First, they worry that laymen may not know how to conduct the investigation or they would recklessly conclude that police officers have not duly perform their duties or have even abused their power. In other words, they consider that only police officers know how to investigate if police officers have broken the rules or violated the law. Hence, police officers will not have confidence in the investigation if it is not done by their own peers.

If police officers do not have confidence in the investigation conducted by other people than their own peers, then from the perspective of the public, they will not have confidence in the investigation conducted by police officers on their own peers. In particular, the Police's argument that only police officers know how to investigate other police officers is absurd.

A few decades ago, before the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the anti-corruption unit was a division under the Police Force. The argument held then was also that only police officers knew how to investigate the corruption practices of police officers and independent individuals outside the Police did not know how to conduct investigations. However, the ICAC has been established for decades now and its image of independence has given the public great confidence. No one would question if the ICAC knows how to investigate corruption cases, especially the crimes involving police officers. Therefore, I do not think that anyone would still believe only police officers know how to investigate police officers' abuse of power and violation of rules.

What is wrong with conducting self-conclusive investigations on one's own peers? Even if the relevant officers will conduct the investigation with professionalism and objectiveness as far as possible, the objective fact is that the 9276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 police officers in the CAPO will not always remain there. They all have the chance to be deployed to other divisions, other police districts or back to the headquarters. Under the present system, the statement of the police officer being complained against must be taken by an officer from the CAPO one rank higher than him. For example, only a Station Sergeant can take the statement of a Police Constable. But chances are they may be transferred and meet again or the investigating officer has worked in different posts before joining the CAPO and he and the officer being complained against may somehow have worked together.

Sometimes, having gone through thick and thin, fellow colleagues can form a kinship that outsiders may not easily understand. However, it is exactly because the target of investigation may be the former colleague, superior or subordinate of the investigating officer from the CAPO, or they may be deployed to the same police districts or the headquarters in future and become colleagues, or the superior or subordinate of one another and form a strong bond, how can the public trust that the relevant investigations are impartial?

Let us leave the issue of favouritism aside and only think about the following situation: because both parties are police officers and they may have worked together under very difficult circumstances, there may be certain excessive sympathy or understanding between them that may influence the investigating officer's judgment regarding whether the officer under investigation has broken any rules.

From the legal point of view, the CAPO is a division under the Police Force. If a member of the public lodge a complaint with the CAPO and has his statement taken by it, as the CAPO is one of the Police's divisions, the complainant's statement will, via an internal procedure, be automatically sent to another unit where the officer under investigation is involved, like the duty team, for follow-up investigation. In other words, there cannot be a genuinely independent investigation whatsoever.

Let us imagine the following scenario: if the police officer being complained against is also being investigated by the ICAC on account of some other cases, the ICAC will not, on account of the officer under its investigation being investigated by another Police's division, exchange statements with the Police. In other words, because the ICAC and the Police are two distinct departments, each can conduct the investigation on its own.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9277

Chairman, as regards the issue about the CAPO, I wish to quote from Senior Counsel Mr Ronny WONG, former Chairman of the Bar Association. Mr WONG was appointed by the Chief Executive as the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) responsible for monitoring the CAPO at the front line. After six years in office, he openly talked about his observation about the CAPO's system of conducting self-conclusive investigations on its own peers. He said that the spirit of the CAPO was to sweep all complaints under the carpet as far as possible, and to test whether colleagues in the IPCC could be so competent and lucky that they could, with blunders and failures, identify one case among thousands of cases that could convince the CAPO and substantiate the complaint concerned.

In other words, in the eyes of the former Chairman of the IPCC who was once responsible for monitoring the CAPO at the front line, the CAPO under the current system was in fact an "Eliminate Complaints Against Police Office" and even though the IPCC was an independent council, it had to make painstaking efforts, trying by all means and fighting with the CAPO to, perhaps, dig one case out of thousands to make the CAPO change its conclusion and substantiate a complainant's case. How can such an unjust and unfair police complaints system deserve our public money to maintain?

Chairman, the Government also knows about the problems with this system of conducting self-conclusive investigations on its own peers as it cannot convince the public of its impartiality. Hence, the authorities wish to use the independent IPCC ― its Chinese name has been changed several times but it does not make any difference for its nature has not changed and it remains a "three no's institution", having no investigative power, no power to pass a verdict and no power to take disciplinary action.

First, the IPCC has no investigative power because this power is in the hands of the CAPO. In the past 20 years, I have continuously asked whether it can introduce some self-improvement initiatives. For example, after the CAPO has conducted the first level investigation, although its investigation is partial, or at least cannot be considered impartial, and if the IPCC does not accept its conclusion, can the IPCC conduct its own investigation or set up an ad hoc group under the IPCC to conduct the second level investigation? The answer is in the negative because the Government only allows the IPCC to examine the CAPO's reports, and it will not, under any circumstances, grant the IPCC the investigative power, or the power to conduct the second level investigation. All the IPCC can do is to observe how others conduct the investigation.

9278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Second, the IPCC has no power to pass a verdict. If the CAPO concludes that a certain complaint is not substantiated after investigation but the IPCC considers otherwise, they will be locked in stalemate, throwing the case back and forth. It is possible for the IPCC to request the CAPO to investigate afresh but the CAPO may still maintain that the complaint is not substantiated, so on and so forth. In the end, the last resort of the IPCC is to write to the Chief Executive and report to him that there are problems with the case. However, the IPCC has no power to pass a verdict.

Third, the IPCC has no power to take disciplinary action. Even if the IPCC is not satisfied with the disciplinary action taken by the Commissioner of Police, it can only express its dissatisfaction. In the case that the Commissioner is hawkish, a hardliner like the incumbent Commissioner who turns a blind eye to very obvious incidents, such as a police officer had obviously blocked the camera but the Commissioner said it was not deliberate, as his colleague told him. The Commissioner is on the side of his colleagues no matter what happens. If someone asks for disciplinary actions against a certain police officer, he would turn down the request, and when a stringent disciplinary action is requested, he would say no and the perpetrator should be let off the hook. When dealing with such a Commissioner, what can the IPCC do? It cannot do anything because it has no power to take disciplinary action.

In respect of these problems, the aforesaid comments were made by Senior Counsel Ronny WONG, the former Chairman of the IPCC, during the scrutiny of the Independent Police Complaints Council Bill by the Legislative Council. This indicates no one is convinced that the system works. No wonder more and more people do not bother to lodge complaints with the CAPO. Instead, they instigate civil proceedings in the hope of seeking justice from the Court, which is fairer. Nevertheless, the Police also have a simple solution, which is paying the "hush money". If a complainant claims compensation through civil proceedings, the Police can make a settlement offer. Once a complainant receives the money, there is one less complaint; both the complaint and the compensation claim will not be substantiated because the Police has paid to settle the case. Hence, an increasing number of members of the public do not bother to lodge complaints but seek compensations through civil proceedings instead.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Party has put forward a total of eight amendments in respect of this debate, including Ms Emily LAU's amendment to deduct the estimated annual expenditure on the emoluments of the Chief Executive; the several amendments referred to by Mr James TO in his speech just now; Ms Emily LAU's amendment to deduct six months' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9279 estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Justice, as well as Mr Albert HO's amendment to deduct the estimated annual operational expenditure for the Central Policy Unit under the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary. In fact, many Members have just spoken in this regard, but I still want to say a few words. I particularly want to make remarks on the Chief Executive.

It has been more than three years since the Chief Executive was elected and he has taken office for nearly three years. But what he has done has caused the continuous degeneration of Hong Kong. I fail to see any achievement made; his greatest achievement is to win in the election. Regrettably, however, we learnt today that the chairman of his election campaign office has been sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. We have to understand why he has been put behind bars. While residing in a luxurious flat at a monthly rent of $150,000 to $160,000, Barry CHEUNG refused to pay the salary of an employee who worked for him. I fail to understand why someone would do something like that. Another "brave warrior" of the Chief Executive is LEW Mon-hung, whose case is still being tried in court. As Dr KWOK Ka-ki has also talked about him just now, I will not repeat. I wonder if this is the case of birds of a feather flock together or there are any other reasons.

However, as Members are well aware, those who have violated the law may not be given due punishment. As reported, the Chief Executive has been involved in the UGL incident, unauthorized building works, and so on, and he should be punished accordingly. While Henry TANG has been prosecuted and convicted of some of the charges after court proceedings, the incumbent Chief Executive has been shielded. Both Henry TANG and LEUNG Chun-ying were involved in unauthorized building works. While the former had been prosecuted, that was not the case with the latter. Rafael HUI had been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. If we compare the offences of Rafael HUI with the UGL incident, we will realize that the incumbent Chief Executive should at least be sentenced to three years' if not seven years' imprisonment. However, the reality is that he has been immune repetitively.

In addition, anyone who dares make any remarks that affront him will have to face serious consequences. As Members are aware, our colleague Mr James TIEN talks about what he likes. His merely said that the best solution was that LEUNG Chun-ying should consider tendering his resignation; such words incurred the wrath of Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, who subsequently requested YU Zhengsheng, Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), to remove Mr James TIEN from his post as a member of the CPPCC. 9280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

The punishment meted out to a single person serves as a warning to all the others. Following this incident, all pro-establishment persons who want to criticize LEUNG Chun-ying have to keep their mouth shut. The Central Authorities have adopted such a stern approach to support LEUNG Chun-ying.

Chairman, as far as all these events are concerned, does LEUNG Chun-ying have a clear conscience? Is there any justice? Will developments in this way do Hong Kong any good? LEUNG Chun-ying also understands that Hong Kong remains divided as long as he serves as the Chief Executive. The injustices on his part are numerous. The deduction of his annual emoluments can in no way resolve the current conflicts. We also understand that this amendment cannot get passed. That said, we have proposed this amendment with the aim of initiating a review and proving that LEUNG Chun-ying is not a pillar. We have spent some two years over a span of three years discussing the constitutional reform but to no avail, because the 31 August Decision remains unchanged, and the constitutional reform package formulated under this Decision will certainly be voted down. This is evident. We said yesterday that we would not accept a fake package; otherwise we would fail our next generation.

In fact, Hong Kong people are rational. The Central Authorities should conduct a review of their Hong Kong policies over the past several decades. Whenever the Central Authorities tightened its grip on Hong Kong, a greater outcry was triggered. Last year the Occupy Central that lasted some 70 days ended peacefully despite some confrontations. What would have happened if three water cannon vehicles were available at that time? Would there be serious casualties? Secretary for Security, some Members have just accused you of being absent, and the Secretary for the Environment is present as a substitute. Since you are now present to listen to our speeches, I would like you to give a reply later on. The Secretary for Security is the Chairperson of the Fight Crime Committee. While the lowest crime rate has been recorded since the reunification, the Budget indicates that the Department of Justice will recruit more staff, I cannot help wondering why more staff members are recruited to initiate prosecutions at a time when the crime rate is at its lowest level.

The Government is now bypassing the Finance Committee to purchase water cannon vehicles with a quoted price of $9 million each. If this logic also applies to bridge construction, a bridge column can then be treated as one single project. When one bridge column costs $9 million and another also costs $9 million, no approval will be required from the Finance Committee even in the case of the construction of 10 bridge columns. Secretary, what will happen if the relevant funding is secured through such an approach? If three water cannon LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9281 vehicles were available back then, would they be deployed on Queensway to squirt water? Secretary, would you do so? The mayor of London offered to be blasted by a water cannon before purchasing such weapons. He took the lead in being cannoned. The Secretary should travel with the Commissioner of Police to the place where they intend to purchase water cannon vehicles, be blasted by one and upload the footage of their being cannoned to YouTube. They should undergo a test to see whether water cannon vehicles are merely body-drenching or actually lethal.

If water cannon vehicles were available during the Occupy Central period, would the Government use water cannon vehicles to harm the sit-in crowds? How would the Government deploy water cannon vehicles back then? I recollect that one night when we participated in Occupy Central at Admiralty, a fire truck intended to enter the occupied zone from an overpass, but it had to stop when a large crowd rushed to its front and stood still. The vehicle changed its direction and left after a standstill for about half an hour. It is better not to possess some weapons than to possess them. If the Police possess such weapons, they would more likely use them. There are "hawks" and "doves" in the Police Force, and the Chief Executive is the most hawkish. Since the Government boasts of Hong Kong as a safe city, why do we need to purchase so many heavy weapons that may cause casualties among ordinary people?

On many occasions, the Police simply rejected the cases reported by us. Yesterday I led a group of people to report financial fraud cases to the Police. Whenever we go to the police station to report similar cases, the police officers would advise us to go to the Securities and Futures Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance or other organizations instead. They want us to leave the police station. The Police are apt in taking such actions. Is it that the Police only take on easy tasks and refuse to tackle those they are ignorant of?

Every official has a designated term of office. The Secretary is young enough to take up another five-year term following the completion of the current five-year term, but the weapons, once purchased, will one day fall into the hands of another Secretary or Commissioner of Police. Will water cannon vehicles be deployed to squirt water as and when opportunities arise? When it comes to certain issues, peaceful confrontation is better than armed conflicts. We noted that years ago the Police in the United Kingdom did not carry any guns. In fact, in safe cities, police officers are only responsible for maintaining public order, and whether guns should be carried is open to question. The Secretary is now doing exactly the opposite. Rather than reducing the level of force, the Government is purchasing weapons. I do not know whether the three water cannon vehicles purchased by the Police have any other uses apart from dispersing crowds.

9282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Will the Secretary take the lead in being blasted by a water cannon for the purpose of testing its force? If the Government had applied for funding from the Finance Committee, we would certainly raise our questions, but the Secretary does not have to give any answer now as we have no opportunity to do so. As each water cannon vehicle costs $9 million, will the Secretary estimate the frequency of their deployment? What about their maintenance costs? Where do we get such vehicles? Apart from suppressing the so-called hooligans, what other purposes will such vehicles be deployed for? What is the definition of "hooligans" in Hong Kong? Under what circumstances will the Secretary order the deployment of water cannon vehicles? Is it the Secretary or the Commissioner of Police who can order the firing of water cannon? Chairman, it will be for me to raise such questions, because the attitude of the Secretary is already very clear.

Certainly, as Mr James TO has explained just now, we have proposed the deduction of one month's emolument of the Commissioner of Police for the reason that we hope the new Commissioner will not learn from his predecessor. We hope that the new Commissioner can rectify the existing inadequacies following the retirement of his predecessor. We further hope that the Secretary for Security can make the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) independent from the Police Force. The CAPO cannot conduct independent investigations as long as it still belongs to the Police Force. There is the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), but the IPCC can merely monitor the investigations conducted by the CAPO rather than conducting investigations on its own. We will not be able to counterbalance those in power if we cannot establish an independent monitoring body.

The fact is already very clear. Over the long period of time following the conclusion of Occupy Central, many participants have been prosecuted and tried in court. Can the Secretary tell us later the progress of investigation into the seven police officers who beat up a protester in a dark corner? I fail to understand why the IPCC or the Government needs to spend so much time in conducting the investigation. The incident was captured by a television station on camera. Many protesters whom were not caught on camera have already been prosecuted, but these suspects caught on camera have yet to be prosecuted. As such, I am perplexed as to what is meant by concrete evidence. I hope that the Secretary can make specific replies respectively in response to the speeches made by my colleagues and me.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9283

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, according to the new rule made by you, after the confirmation of the overall debate time for the entire meeting, the time spent on a headcount or even an aborted meeting will have to be offset, as with the offsetting of Mandatory Provident Fund contributions against severance payments. Chairman, if we accept your decision and refrain from requesting a headcount, it is tantamount to castrating ourselves, accepting that Members can be absent from the meeting. This is what every pro-democracy campaigner must not accept or do. Each request for a headcount of ours serves to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with and protest against your decision. Hence, Chairman, I request a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

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

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, 17 of the numerous amendments proposed are related to the deletion of expenditure items and reduction of expenditure of the Security Bureau. Among these amendments, four are proposed by me, including head 151 be reduced by $123,000,000, $84,000,000, $5,712,000 and $25,233,000 respectively in respect of subhead 000. Actually, Chairman, insofar as these various expenditure reduction proposals, I have repeatedly expressed my concern about and dissatisfaction with the qualitative change in security work in Hong Kong during debates in this Council on various topics related to security. However, the Secretary has turned a deaf ear to my comments. Moreover, the Secretary has completely turned a blind eye to the attitude and value required of him as the Secretary for Security and a Hongkonger probably because he thinks that the accomplishment of political missions should override everything.

9284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Over the past 17 years, I have been saddened by the changes in Hong Kong. For many years, I have mentioned time and again in the former Legislative Council Building and here that, with the return of sovereignty, I am concerned that Hong Kong will only gradually become just one of the cities in China. However, the speed of such changes has even been faster, more comprehensive and deeper than I expected, with the Police Force, the pride of Hong Kong people, being the most prominent example.

In the early years after the reunification, Hong Kong people were still very proud of our clean government and disciplined forces which were responsible for maintaining law and order. However, not only have the disciplined forces experienced qualitative changes, but the Police Force have even been found to conspire with criminals. The news of collaboration between the Hong Kong Police Force and triads to suppress the Umbrella Movement has caused a stir in all parts of the world. Some overseas countries, including the Europe Union, have already initiated investigations, with some government departments collecting information and conducting hearings on the abuse of power by Hong Kong policemen. I have personally witnessed quite a number of such examples and cases.

When I first expressed my views to the Secretary, I also pointed out to him the unusual behaviour of a handful of police officers under pressure and the connivance by Andy TSANG. In fact, we have often seen the occurrence of such behaviour under pressure. However, despite the repeated occurrences of such unusual behaviour at different locations in many evenings, as well as the fact that no prosecution has been instituted in relation to the incident involving the assault on a member of the public by seven police officers in a dark corner, the Secretary for Security can still pretend that nothing has happened. Although the Police Force, being subordinate to the Secretary, have behaved in such an exaggerated manner in defiance of conventions, codes and the law, the Secretary can still sit here shamelessly, pretending that nothing has happened. Secretary, you are destroying not only Hong Kong, but also the rule of law of a place where our next generation will grow up, as well as the core values in which Hong Kong people take pride. As the Secretary for Security, you are destroying our homes. Secretary, it is surprising that you can pretend that nothing has happened and continue to receive your salary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9285

Regarding the number of visits to the Mainland by the Secretary, we might have to wait until the next Budget to raise questions about it. Currently, the Secretary for Education has taken the top position, with 20 to 30 overseas visits made over a period of two years. I believe the number of overseas visits made by the Secretary for Security is not small either. When Mr CHAN Chi-chuen inquired about the information on the overseas visits made by police officers, the authorities refused to reveal the relevant information. It was indeed most frustrating. In other words, the relevant information, including what Mainland departments were visited by the Secretary and what he had done during the visits, cannot be made public or revealed. Hong Kong police officers were among the people caught by Mainland officers in crackdowns on vice. In fact, there were countless examples of them enjoying special services arranged by public security or national security officers on the Mainland.

For this reason, many people are fond of saying that Hong Kong policemen have become public security officers. I have to tell the Secretary that Hong Kong policemen are even worse than the public security officers on the Mainland. It is because the latter have become more and more professional, handing over things they feel ashamed for being associated with or do not want to do to "urban management officers". What is more, they even know how to divide work and build up their image and hand over the task of "assaulting people" … now the Hong Kong policemen are taking the lead in doing what public security officers hate to do and colluding with triads. Should a police officer hit the head of an unarmed schoolgirl with a baton? The Secretary was proud of such acts committed by the disciplined forces over the years, was he not? Therefore, we should stop saying that Hong Kong policemen have become public security officers; instead, we should say that the former have become "urban management officers" because they are even worse than public security officers.

If my memory has not failed me, the chance of success of prosecutions previously instituted by the Hong Kong Police Force was 90%. However, the chance of success of a series of prosecutions instituted recently has dropped to below 50%, apparently due to the fabrication of statements by police officers. Many years ago, a man was arrested by several Criminal Investigation Department officers for possession of drugs. Fortunately, he was eventually proved innocent after the closed-circuit television footage taken in the elevator had revealed that he was framed by the officers who had placed heroin into his 9286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 pocket. In fact, cases related to "framing up" or fabrication of statements have occurred from time to time over the years. With the support of Andy TSANG, some police officers are "framing" students for assaulting them. Thanks to the video clips taken by some netizens, we can see clearly that no student or young people … people accused of assaulting police officers were seen making no movement at all. Now the police officers are even worse than "urban management officers", or even triad members, right? With the blessing of their "top boss", they can act in an arbitrary and reckless manner by framing unarmed persons for assaulting police officers and producing messy statements arbitrarily and at will. In the incident involving the assault on a member of the public by seven police officers in a dark corner, the officers could even beat up a protester in the dark corner of a public place where there were so many people. Secretary, what sort of mindset were these officers in? Do we still have to pay you salary, Secretary? Can the Secretary accept the salary paid by taxpayers shamelessly?

We can see from the performance of the Security Bureau not only the sufferings of a couple of persons but also a distorted and retrogressive system. Thanks to the results achieved by the hard work of their predecessors, the Police Force have gradually become more and more professional after the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, from being plagued by corruption in the 1960s to a respected and dignified disciplined force. However, we are saddened to note that in a matter of a couple of years, the Secretary has, for the sake of accomplishing his political missions and colluding with LEUNG Chun-ying, also called "689", connived at the imposition of extrajudicial punishment and abuse of powers by Andy TSANG in order to curry favour with the governance of the Communist Party of China. Why should the Secretary behave in such a despicable and stupid manner? He can still act in a dignified, professional and authoritative manner even though he has a mission to accomplish. What is the difference between his performance and that of a triad? Should he not feel ashamed? Is he still proud of himself and does he consider his performance professional? On the one hand, the authorities have continued to publicize the professionalism of the Hong Kong Police Force through the Government's Announcements of Public Interest; but on the other, members of the public can see from the netizens' acts of mockery and altered works that young people in general find such publicity disgusting.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9287

Hence, it is not without reason that four of the amendments proposed by me on reduction of expenditure are related to the Security Bureau. We can see from the numerous questions repeatedly raised in this Chamber that the problem is worsening. The pro-government Members, especially those against the Umbrella Movement, are very supportive of the Government's practice and the means adopted by the Security Bureau. As a believer of the existence of social justice, I think that these people will suffer sooner or later. Like the Gang of Four in the past, the top leaders of the Central Authorities are either "running away" or being listed as wanted persons or prosecuted. Police officers might soon have to face the same fate, too.

Regardless of which part of the world these police officers will go, Hong Kong people or people fighting for justice will feel ashamed to get acquainted with them on learning about their duties and deeds. I believe many people have started to "unfriend" them. We also believe social reform and changes will bring new impetus, like the collapse of the Berlin Wall within a short period of time, though we have already waited 25 years ― 26 years have already passed in a blink of an eye. Autocratic governments, political shysters and officials alike have to be tried by history as well as the people. The Secretary should not sit here feeling complacent, thinking he can act in an arbitrary and reckless manner. Ultimately, you will be tried and adjudicated by history, the people and the law.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in support of the proposals made by several Members of the Democratic Party to demand that the pay of the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretaries in the Task Force on Constitutional Development (Task Force) be deducted. As regards the reasons, Members all know that yesterday, the Chief Secretary for Administration released the document entitled "2017 Make it happen". The Task Force and the Chief Secretary for Administration have carried out consultations for such a long time but, as it turned out, what they came up with was just this "rotten proposal". Moreover, after showing us this "rotten orange", they are forcing us to accept it, saying that we must "make it happen".

Chairman, nevertheless, I can say that it surely will not happen. If it is genuine, it will surely happen but if it is bogus, it surely will not happen. What is most disappointing is that during the many so-called consultation sessions, there were many so-called moderate voices and various proposals were also put 9288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 forward. However, as this matter evolved, we found that the nominating committee (NC) was basically a replica of its predecessor, the Election Committee to elect the Chief Executive: 1 200 people, four sectors and so-called balanced participation. In fact, the existing 30 subsectors are replicated and basically, even the ways in which they are formed cannot be changed. Prior to this, many people proposed that corporate votes be converted into individual votes and queried if the Agriculture and Fisheries subsector should hold so many seats but now, nothing whatsoever was adopted and basically, this is to march on the spot.

It is not stated in the Basic Law that the composition of the NC shall copy that of its predecessor, the small-circle Election Committee (EC). The Basic Law only mentions a "Three-step Process". Have Members ever looked at Annex I and Annex II clearly? The Basic Law has been promulgated for 25 years, but where does it say that there shall be a sudden change to a "Five-step Process"? All of a sudden, the "illegal structure" of two more steps have been created. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) could make additions to it at any time and it can build an illegal structure in the Basic Law at any time. Who do you think is the party that does not respect the Basic Law? And now, Members are even celebrating the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law with great fanfare.

The pro-democracy camp supports the Basic Law the most and demand that Article 45 of the Basic Law be implemented to put in place the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, that Article 68 of the Basic Law be implemented to put in place the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage and that dual universal suffrage be introduced in accordance with Annexes I and II. When was it said that the process had to be turned into a "Five-step Process" all of a sudden, that is, regarding the activation of constitutional reform, it is necessary to insert "Step Two", that is, to give the NPCSC a role to play? This has violated the Basic Law. The Basic Law does not stipulate such a constitutional amendment and that the NPCSC has to be included in this constitutional arrangement, that is, it has such a power of intervention in the first place. Even when the NPCSC makes a decision in this regard, it only pertains to waiting for the approval of the NPCSC and its statement on whether or not changes can be made in a certain way. However, the 31 August Decision has repudiated what it said previously. Not only does it pertain to whether or not approval is given on making changes to the method of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9289 electing the Chief Executive, it also states very clearly that three gates have to be erected and it says that if changes are to be made, they must stay within these parameters and changes must be made within the confines of these three gates. As regards the nomination process, not only is it necessary to make reference to the EC, the predecessor of the NC, at present, this is to copy the former outright: 1 200 people, four major sectors, and no changes whatsoever can be made. Then, the Chief Secretary for Administration came out to say, "That is right, we can do nothing because the Central Authorities have made it clear, so we can only behave like a docile dog and follow accordingly.". Alternatively, it is said, "We must balance the interests of the pro-establishment camp, otherwise, if we accommodate the views of the pan-democratic camp too much, the pro-establishment camp would not give us their votes.". Is this called balance?

Chairman, this kind of consultation on constitutional reform is practically a waste of public funds. If the constitutional reform proposal cannot be passed, I believe Carrie LAM, the members of the Task Force and even the Chief Executive should all resign and give the public an account on why such a "rotten" proposal was put forward.

In the speech delivered by Carrie LAM yesterday, there was one remark that I agree with the most, that is, "History has entrusted a very important historical mission and role to all Members seated here.". To my understanding, this sacred role and mission is to judge whether this is genuine universal suffrage or bogus universal suffrage according to my conscience and knowledge. All Members should not act against their conscience and peddle a bogus item as a genuine one. But our officials are precisely doing this sort of thing. Is this not very despicable and disgraceful? Should their pay not be deducted and their posts deleted? If they just put on a show and it turned out that no matter how they bustled around, all that they said was the words of "Grandpa", what need is there for them to carry out consultation? So many members of the public have spoken, but have they ever listened?

Chairman, therefore, to my understanding, given my role as a Member of the Legislative Council and an academic of political science, I can only say, "Sorry, this piece of goods of yours is bogus, so I cannot put a stamp on it to say that it is genuine. Although I can sell my knowledge, I cannot sell my conscience.". Therefore, no matter what, we surely cannot make it happen. You do not have to think about my vote and you do not have to think about the 9290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 six votes of the Democratic Party either. You do not have to think about the votes of all Members of the pan-democratic camp seated here either. Why? Because such a power, that is, the power of veto, is also conferred on us by the Basic Law. We have to act as the "QC" over democracy and verify if your election is a reasonable, fair, democratic and truly competitive one but the fact is that it is not. However, our officials can still come out and brag unabashedly, saying, "We have already lowered the threshold for "members recommendation" from one eighth in the past to one tenth now.".

This comment is correct, only that you did not say what follows next: It is easy to secure "members recommendation" but difficult to secure "committee nomination". The number of people required for securing "committee nomination" is still more than one half: There are 1 200 people in the NC and it is necessary to secure the support of more than half of them, that is, to secure at least 601 nominations before one can secure "committee nomination" to run in the Chief Executive Election and become a candidate in the Chief Executive Election for the public to choose. However, separately, is the formation of this NC democratic and is it highly representative? We all have an idea. Having seen the Chief Executive Elections for so many years, we know that it is entirely "Grandpa" who pulls the strings and he is absolutely capable of controlling everything …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, you should wait for the debate on constitutional reform to voice these views.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … of course, I have to talk about this … because now, we are talking about our officials in charge of constitutional reform but they are peddling a piece of bogus goods, so should they not be penalized? Should they not be sacked? Should their pay not be deducted? These absolutely should be done. They even make it a point to spread falsehood to deceive the public, telling us that the threshold for securing "members recommendation" is low but leaving out the other part, that is, the threshold for securing "committee nomination" is actually very high and you surely will not be able to do so. Alternatively, they do it the other way round, trying to deceive you by saying, "It is easy to secure 'members recommendation' and securing 'committee nomination' is also possible, so do not have so little confidence in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9291 yourself.". Chairman, I think officials of such a standard should not be our public servants. They should not lead the entire constitutional reform in this way because they have failed to properly reflect to Beijing the view that an NC formed in this way is unfair and that this kind of screening threshold would rule out the opportunities of many people with different political views to stand in the election. This being so, should we not deduct their pay, Chairman? Should we not delete their posts? They have not done a proper job of the consultation on constitutional reform and although they have bustled a great deal, in fact, they just went back to square one, as though they had not heard any views. Nothing needs to be changed and all in all, you should just "pocket it" or "pocket it first". Where else can you find such officials? If one can do things in such a way, an analogy can be drawn with how I teach students. After receiving my wages, I do not have to give lectures and students can do whatever they like. All in all, if you attend my classes, I would end them and in this way, I consider myself to have shown up. Can I do so? In fact, the present constitutional reform is definitely unacceptable. It is unacceptable because they have let down Hong Kong people; it is unacceptable because throughout the entire process, although officials had come out, they did not listen to the views of the public seriously.

Chairman, yesterday, I saw officials visit the local communities, so I also did so because Mei Foo is part of Kowloon West, that is, my constituency. Since officials were visiting the local communities to discuss constitutional reform, I also did the same, so as to play host to them. All right, Honourable LAU Kong-wah ― or rather, Mr LAU Kong-wah was once a Member but he is now an Under Secretary ― also went along to Mei Foo and on seeing him, I followed him and requested to have rational discussions with him ― we did not use any violence or verbal abuse or take any irrational actions; we only requested a dialogue with him ― but he kept walking away, so we followed him, and can Members guess where he went to? He went into an air-conditioned management office in Mei Foo Sun Chuen and shut the door. So, I waited for him for some time and demanded to have dialogue with him but he was unwilling to come out, so that was most disappointing. Chairman, do you think we should sack these officials? If he was sincere in visiting the local communities, should he not have listened to the views of the public, debated with the public and explained why they should "pocket it first"? Yet, when he saw the crowd, he hid himself from them.

9292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

All right, when the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration and members of the Task Force reached the area under the flyover at Mei Foo, of course, we also wanted to have dialogue with them because many members of the neighbourhood also wanted to talk with them. However, they surrounded themselves with mills barriers and it was practically impossible for the public to approach them. The area in front of a platform that had been erected beforehand was fully occupied by old people amassed by District Council members of the DAB and such leftist peripheral organizations as the Kowloon Federation of Associations. A member of the neighbourhood said to me, "Dr WONG, these people do not live in Mei Foo. We have hardly ever seen them in Mei Foo before. From where were they shipped here?" After these people had been taken by transport to the area under the flyover at Mei Foo, they sang aloud some so-called patriotic and nationalistic songs. Then, those officials appeared and asked if they supported the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Well, of course, they voiced their support but to those people who do not agree with electing the Chief Executive in such a way, the officials did not give them any explanation. Therefore, they deprived many people at the periphery who wanted to have discussions with them of an opportunity to do so. Eventually, the scene turned into one of shoving and jostling and that was really very dangerous.

Chairman, why did I say I want to give them the sack and deduct their pay? If they really want to consult the public, they have to do what LEUNG Chun-ying did before he was elected the Chief Executive, that is, to actually sit on a stool to chat with people. Yesterday, I also brought along a stool, put it at exit A of the MTR Station at Mei Foo Sun Chuen to await his arrival, in the hope that everyone could sit down to have rational discussions together, but he did not show up. He only went onto a stage where there were singing and dancing celebrating peace and prosperity to receive cheers from the crowd arranged beforehand. This is not what is called visiting the local communities to get in touch with the public, rather, it is a ballyhoo rally. This is not public consultation.

Chairman, I believe that officials, in selling such a bogus item, being so unwilling to listen to different opinions and only arranging beforehand for crowds to escort them and cheer at them, so as to create the illusion of strong public support for this government proposal and calling on everyone to "pocket it first", is putting up a show and perpetrating a sham. Since they failed to do a proper job of the consultations on constitutional reform and have submitted a "rotten proposal" here, we are forced to negative it. If they can submit a desirable LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9293 proposal, so that people with different political views can have the opportunity to stand ― it would not do just to give them the universal right to vote ― if they can respect people with different political views, so that be it the pro-establishment camp, the pan-democratic camp, independent people or people without any political affiliation can all have the reasonable right to stand in election and be nominated, we can then let their proposal pass. However, the present situation is not like that. It transpires that when they want to put into practice Article 45 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive Election is only interpreted as the universalization of voting right, yet the public are deprived of the right to run in the election, so that the right of nomination is vested in that small circle of only 1 200 people, but with regard to the NC, they are unwilling to make any change whatsoever. Each month, we pay so much money to the Chief Executive and the Task Force headed by the Chief Secretary for Administration but it turns out that it only lets them collude with Beijing in doing evil and disregarding public opinion to work out a "rotten proposal", which makes constitutional reform in Hong Kong march on the spot. This being so, is it not necessary for officials to assume responsibility?

Chairman, if this constitutional reform proposal gets nowhere, the most despicable party is the officials. Yet, they still tried to shift the responsibility to the pan-democratic camp, saying that if the constitutional reform proposal is negatived, it is the pan-democratic camp that impedes the world from evolving, and that it is them who make it impossible for the constitution to take a step forward. We actually wish very dearly that the constitutional system could take a step forward and attain its goal immediately. Since the most terrible thing is that they have introduced the "rotten" proposal here, unless I betray my conscience and knowledge, it is not possible for me to give them this stamp of approval. I will tell them this is not possible. "2017, if it is bogus, it surely will not happen.".

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak on heads 121, 122 and 151. I am glad to see the Secretary for Security present, for I can locate the authority responsible for the issue. Last year, the Police arrested a total of 1 726 persons, but less than 10% of them were prosecuted. What is the reason for such figures? It is because the Police were allowed to make arbitrary arrests, threaten protesters and take actions recklessly. Ten police officers dealt with a protester, and then claimed that they were assaulted by the protester in question.

9294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

In an earlier case heard in court, a person taking part in the protest was framed by the Police for assaulting a police officer. The facts of the case were interesting. The police officer alleged the protester to have assaulted him from behind ― I forgot whether it was from the front or behind ― but it was simply impossible. After examining the evidence, the Judge also determined that it was impossible. But fortunately, a couple walking past the scene accidentally took a video at that time. As seen in the footage, the protester did not come into contact with the police officer at all, but he was alleged to have assaulted the police officer. The Police have sunk to such a low level today. Not only do they abuse their power and arrest people indiscriminately, but also make police officers a tool of stability maintenance, urban management and governance. There was a time when police officers were considered the iron men, and joining the Police Force was the dream of many youngsters. Today, I clearly remember that earlier on, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) conducted a recruitment exercise for the positions of Police Constables and Inspectors. But even police officers dared not go close as the students' union of HKUST had indicated their intention to confront them by questioning them why police officers could behave like that, and what the current position of the Police was.

Subsequent to the "July 1" rally and Umbrella Movement last year, 1 726 persons in total were arrested, of whom 955 were arrested during the Occupy period and 48 were arrested after the conclusion of the movement, totalling 1 003 persons. Prosecution was instituted against 10% of them, or about 173 persons. If we compare this with the 50% in 2013, we can see how effective these arrests were. The Member of the Legislative Council called Elizabeth QUAT alleged that "People arrested by the Police are released by the Courts". We just did not expect she would make those remarks. Fortunately, Hong Kong still has an independent judicial system, which is different from that of the Mainland under which the functions of arrest, prosecution and adjudication are vested in a single authority. Even if a case has yet to be brought before court, the term of imprisonment is already known. We are not unaware of the fact that soon after the arrest of those pro-democracy figures, there will be publicity about their terms of imprisonment, stating that someone will be sentenced to a prison term of seven years, while another will be sentenced to a prison term of nine years. This is how it works in general. Should Hong Kong allow itself to degenerate to such a state? The current Security Bureau, Police Force and Department of Justice LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9295 together form an authority controlling those disobedient members of the public. If people choose not to be ignorant citizens, such as those who forgot to do a "loyalty dance" at Mei Foo yesterday, they will be subject to suppression in the future.

Chairman, something interesting happened today. I came across a nurse who loved to give "like" to some democrats. Her mother-in-law told her that she should never do so because every "like" clicked on Facebook would be subject to examination in the future. What she saw were the gradual degeneration of Hong Kong, with police officers and the Security Bureau being reduced to "hatchet men". We often ask the Police to come up with a better reason even if they have to make an arrest. Now they will take action using the offence of access to computer with dishonest intent ― Mr Charles Peter MOK is not present now, otherwise he can give a more in-depth explanation ― which is a "universal key". This offence serves as the starting point of any prosecution which can at least scare people. After taking them to the police station where there is a great deal of hubbub, the Police will indicate that the case cannot proceed and say "sorry". Their sole purpose is to scare those lads. The Police have sunk to such a low level. How can we ask members of the public to respect the Police and rely on them to weed out the bad elements and protect the law-abiding citizens? They are the violence perpetuators, are they not?

Last October, an incident took place at Lung Wo Road where TSANG Kin-chiu was beaten by seven "black cops". To date, the Police have yet to give an account of it. When asked about the progress of the case since the arrest by the Police in November, the Police Force indicated that disclosure of the identity of these seven police officers would adversely impact on the identification procedure. Are they putting on a show? The personal particulars of the seven police officers have been disclosed by the media. Will it be possible that we have no idea who they are? Police officers attached to the Anti-triad Section of Kwun Tong and other departments are involved in it. Everything has been exposed. Do they still think that they can do whatever they please and conceal the truth after they have done certain things today in Hong Kong?

Subsequently, a senior counsel indicated that the footage captured by the media at the material time was dark, and as it was taken from afar, only several dark shadows were seen. As TVB forgot to act as "CCTVB" that day and 9296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 broadcast the footage in full, all Hong Kong people could see the seven police officers keep beating and kicking the victim. The Police and the Secretary for Security as responsible authorities should come forward and give an account of it first, rather than remaining apathetic after the occurrence of such incidents as framing and assaulting of members of the public. And we even had to keep urging the Police to make arrests and telling them that given the serious nature of the case, arrests must be made. They made the arrests unwillingly, but slacked off after that. Now it is already late April. What have they done since November? Nevertheless, they were so keen on arresting other members of the public. Those involved in the Umbrella or Occupy incident were arrested, followed by prosecution. But eventually, only 10% of them were actually prosecuted.

Chairman, we are fortunate enough to have an independent judicial system in Hong Kong today, but it is not known how long it can be maintained. People in Hong Kong still have a little conscience, knowing that they should capture how the Police act arbitrarily, call a stag a horse and put the cart before the horse, which has enabled us to know the truth. Otherwise we just cannot tell how many more people will be framed. Now the Police are so despicable that they use water cannons and then get someone to speak favourably of them, claiming that it is better to use water cannons than real bullets. This is nonetheless the truth. In their mind, the may actually intend to use real bullets. As Members still recall, the Police indicated that shots would be fired at that time. But after the incident, Andy TSANG flatly denied it. At that time, the Police displayed a banner calling on the protesters to leave, or they would fire. On that day, I saw in Central that police officers armed with service revolvers all went insane like lunatics. Their eyes did not look in the direction of the protesters. Rather, they just looked for an opportune time to take action in their mind. Can the Police behave this way? Their target is the general public. We see that the Government has gone too far, and the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has put the cart before the horse by proposing a "bogus universal suffrage" package and forcing it down our throat. According to opinion polls and estimates, more than 1 million people have taken part in the Umbrella Movement. So, should all of them be arrested? Seeing that the Police have gone too far, many intellectuals who cannot stand it have come out in resistance. Even if they are beaten by batons, they simply do not care.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9297

The Police have been used by the Government in such a way to beat their own people. Their target is the general public. But in fact, they should side with the people. The situation is better in certain districts. Some police officers were willing to take off their armbands, come forward and side with the people to condemn this callous Government. I guess some police officers might have done so, but as far as I know, a police officer revealed that he was subject to "doxing" and might even be liable to prosecution because he supported and showed sympathy to members of the public. I do not know what the eventual outcome will be, but white terror has taken shape in the Police Force. A police officer said in social media that they should mind their words lest their supervisors might hear them, and failure to wear a blue ribbon would expose them to the risk of being beaten. Police officers have been reduced to political judges. Seeing all these, he, as the Secretary for Security, not only kept silent, but also added fuel to the fire by buying water cannons lest people would not be shot to death. Does he know how much harm will be done if the body, especially eyes, is directly shot by water cannons? Secretary LAI may try standing there for a shot by water cannons. They are more powerful than bullets.

If a government acts in the interest of the public at large, there will not be thousands of people coming out and standing against it. When a government antagonizes its people, puts the cart before the horse and cannot tell black from white, the public will come out to express the lowest degree of dissatisfaction. Instead of seriously reflecting on and thinking over what it has done wrong, the Government attempts to expand police powers while reducing the power of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC).

Now the Chairman of the IPCC is about to be elected. We do not know whose fan it will be, but it is highly likely that a "LEUNG's fan" will be elected. They even expressed worries about sending an observer to the scene to carry out inspection, putting forward the reason that it would hinder the work of the Police in law enforcement. What is the logic behind the claim that the presence of an observer at the scene to carry out inspection will hinder the Police in law enforcement? If so, even police officers cannot stand there in the future as it will affect members of the public, meaning that no one will be allowed to stand there. The IPCC has got the right man to conduct an in-house examination because the whole IPCC is filled with its own people. A "LEUNG's fan" is the best choice. In the future, they can beat people in a dark corner again without 9298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 getting into trouble as someone will shield them. However, Hong Kong will be reduced to a third-rate, fourth-rate, fifth-rate or even ninth-rate city on a par with those totalitarian Asian countries that we are reluctant to speak of. They should feel happy as they can at least have something to say about the matter.

I think we are now tolerating the Police's violent acts in silence. The Police could go so far as this: Last November, two marshals in an occupied area witnessed Jimmy LAI being pelted with pig organs ― I do not know Jimmy LAI, nor do I have anything to do with him ― but both of them were surprisingly arrested by the Police. They did nothing at all, but the first thing the Police did was to arrest them both. The Police arrested the persons who assisted in apprehending the assailant. What was wrong with them? What were they doing?

Moreover, in the "Liberate Yuen Long" action, a person was alleged to be in possession of three police batons. However, the Department of Justice gave an interesting reply later on, indicating that the three police batons were conductor batons. Three conductor batons can be distorted as three police batons, and those who are threatened by the Police have become the ones who assault the Police. But to date, those police officers have not been held responsible for beating someone, and then we have been told the need to enhance protection for the Police and procure more potent weapons.

Chairman, I did ask him at a meeting of the Legislative Council what weapons were bought at a cost of hundreds of million dollars in the past decade. Later on, would he please tell us how many of them are offensive weapons of mass destruction, and how many of them are used against unarmed protesters? The tackling of rioters is a right cause, but if police officers are the ones who inflict violence, how can we protect ourselves? And if the Government is the one which administers violence, how can we protect ourselves? The Police have the absolute power to prosecute, and best armed, they proceed to inflict violence. What can those unarmed do? Holding an umbrella will be regarded as possession of an offensive weapon, and cling film is also considered a kind of offensive weapons. We should never carry an umbrella when it rains, or we will be arrested by the Police for alleged possession of an offensive weapon. Next time, the Police can go to a city hall and arrest all the conductors there because they are all holding a baton.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9299

The Police Force are supposed to maintain law and order for the public, but the "black cops" care nothing about this. They are supposed to arrest the triads, but the meal gathering at Lau Fau Shan shows that certain triads have such close ties with Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, boss of the Police, that even the Police may be a bit hesitant when dealing with them. In addition, during the Occupy action, we saw many triad elements come forward to assist the Government in settling the matter. Did Mr LAI Tung-kwok see that? The triad elements' involvement in the violent acts was tolerated by the Police, the Secretary and the Government. The Government and the Security Bureau are downright heartless and unjust.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Regarding the funding application for the purchase of three water cannon vehicles at a cost of $27 million under subhead 603 of "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force", I have already proposed an amendment to request the removal of this $27 million from the Appropriation Bill 2015. Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok, please look here. I displayed these pictures when I criticized the Government earlier in the first round of speeches for adopting such an approach to insert the funding application for three water cannon vehicles. I request him to think about this carefully. Is he really going to do that? Is he going to tackle unarmed and peaceful protesters in this way? These so-called specialized crowd management vehicles are lethal weapons.

Will Secretary LAI Tung-kwok act like those people who held a placard paper which read that they would buy water cannon vehicles even if they could not get their wages? Will Secretary LAI Tung-kwok act like those people who held a placard which read that they would buy water cannon vehicles even if they had nothing to eat? Would he please think about this carefully? What actually is the purpose of buying the water cannon vehicles? Apart from making threats, dealing with Hong Kong people by creating fears and depriving us of our freedom, is there any other better purpose? No. Such an act places police power above human rights. This is the unanimous view held by many human rights organizations, the community and me.

No details about the operation of water cannon vehicles are provided. In response to Members' written questions at the special meeting of the Finance Committee, the authorities only replied with the following sentence: "The Force 9300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 will formulate strict operating guidelines for these specialised vehicles and provide stringent training in driving and operation for the relevant officers." That was all. What actually does it mean? Of course, if we raise any further questions, he will, on the pretext of so-called confidentiality of operations, claim that it is their internal guidelines and it will not be made public.

Just now an Honourable colleague half-jokingly challenged Secretary LAI Tung-kwok to try to experience the power of water cannon vehicles. In my view, such a remark is frivolous. Someone whom I regard as a clownish public figure, Boris JOHNSON, the Mayor of London of the United Kingdom, once tried to convince Members of the London Assembly. Moreover, in response to the public opinion on the purchase of water cannon vehicles at that time, he said he would first try it himself. However, Honourable colleagues need to note that he made those remarks in June last year, but he turned out to be a politico who takes words spoken for actions taken. In the end he did not try it. Besides, he could not try it in the United Kingdom because no licence had been issued to test these water cannon vehicles. What he said was mere talk. Of course, some people want to give a challenge. They propose that each of us try it and see if anything will happen to any of us. I, however, do not think this is the discussion outcome we wish to see. Will there really be no more problem after LAI Tung-kwok and Kenneth CHAN try to face the water cannon vehicles tomorrow? I am afraid that will not be the case.

Actually how lethal are water cannon vehicles? For instance, the imported second-hand water cannon vehicles from Germany, the purchase of which has now been approved by the London Assembly in principle ― it is said that they are second-hand, but the equipment onboard is unknown at the moment ― have a capacity of carrying 9 000 litres of liquid at one go. What kind of liquid is carried inside? Is it plain water? According to the German manufacturer, it may not necessarily be so. The liquid may contain elements of pepper spray, tear gas and other chemicals as long as they can mix with and dissolve in water. Some water cannon vehicles can also eject foam and even electrified fluid which may release electric shocks to produce the purported frightening and deterrent effect, causing bodily harm. This is also possible.

In that case, what actually are we going to purchase? Will the vehicles only use water? What kind of liquid will it be? The capacity is 9 000 litres. Take the second-hand water cannon vehicle which a British Council has now LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9301 given approval to purchase from Germany as an example. It can fire 2 200 litres of liquid per minute. Chairman, it is 2 200 litres, and its longest shooting or attacking distance is 65 m. Of course, the closer the vehicle, the more lethal it is, since concentrated water pressure will produce greater force, and every second, it can eject 37 litres of liquid in one shot at the other party. So, it really depends on our luck because not only protesters but also journalists covering news may be hit. We have seen such a situation before. During the Umbrella Movement, how many journalists were wronged by them? Claiming that they had obstructed the execution of their duties or tripped their legs, the police officers just turned round, sprayed them and instantly pressed them onto the ground. We have seen too many such cases.

Did they conduct any self-examination, review, investigation and prosecution? No. The Secretary for Security seems to think that being the head of the uniformed forces, he cannot issue instructions to his subordinates because if he does that, he will be unable to command their trust, and he will be unable to gain a foothold in the forces either. Hence, regardless of what his subordinates have done, when he answers Members' questions, written or oral, he always says that there is no problem. The front-line officers will improvise, taking actions suited to the occasion and appropriate to scene circumstances, so their decision is the best and the most professional. Given the unlimited police powers, I wish you all good luck. If Members do not wish to face such a situation, they had better isolate themselves, just hide themselves at home and watch the television. They should only chat with other people over a cup of tea or after a meal. They should not participate in any mass rallies, such as assemblies, protests and public processions, where there will be various kinds of police weapons, including water cannon vehicles, pepper spray and batons, which may inflict injuries on them.

There has been a lot of news coverage in western countries on the water cannon vehicle manufactured in Germany. What impact or harm will it cause to people? It actually depends on the circumstances under which it is used. For this reason, we certainly wish to know how the relevant guidelines will be written, rather than signing him a cheque with our eyes closed, saying, "Tung-kwok, dear son, just take it to buy the toy you want. Do you want to buy this type or that type of vehicles? What design or equipment would you like in this vehicle? Just make the purchase as you wish!" That cannot be the case.

9302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Using a water cannon vehicle in open space and using it in an alley are two entirely different scenarios. The injuries caused to protesters and reporters can be extremely different. Pushing someone against a wall or pushing people in the street towards the central divider between roads can inflict enormous harm. The impact and reaction force may result in serious internal injuries. Why did he not bring it up for discussion? Why is he being so sneaky? Why did he insert the funding application stealthily to evade our monitoring instead of giving us a clear account?

Lastly, in my opinion, the Government should not apply this kind of mentality as though it is having an arms race to dealing with the governance crisis and worsening police-public relations in Hong Kong. Honourable colleagues have mentioned some situations earlier. Whether it be the case in which seven police officers carried a protester, Ken TSANG of the Civic Party, to a dark corner of Tamar Park where they punched him and hit him with their batons, or the video we have seen which shows that a police officer patted a protester on his shoulder and shot pepper spray into his eyes direct as soon as he turned round. Those are no jokes. The Secretary's smile, which only tends to hide his ignorance and shame, cannot convince the public. In this sort of arms race, those who will get hurt in the end are the general public for sure. It offers no help to the improvement of police-public relations.

If the Secretary does not consider that it is his job to improve the police-public relations in his remaining term, I think the Police Public Relations Branch (PPRB) might as well be dissolved, and there will not be any big difference because the PPRB is often used as a means to buy time. On the surface, it talked and negotiated with the protesters, but in reality, they might merely seek to collect intelligence and information. When a problem had indeed arisen and their assistance was needed to ease the tense scene between the Police and the public ― it is my personal experience ― they were nowhere to be found, since their supervisor said they need not stay on the spot. As a result, they all packed up and left. In other words, after the acquisition of three water cannon vehicles, there will be no need to care about police-public relations. The water cannon vehicles will stand by round the clock. Let me say it again. What is carried in the water cannon vehicles is not plain water. Rather, it consists of various kinds of fluids which can injure unarmed members of the public. These fluids may contain dyes and chemical elements which may even produce the effects of electric shocks, irritation or burns.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9303

Nevertheless, do the authorities really think this will deter members of the public from coming out to stage protests, processions and petitions? No, it will not. Otherwise, many dictatorial states would not have perished. So this is a kind of self-deception. As a result, to object to this particular approach of the authorities, here we need to voice out loud our request for the withdrawal of this funding application for $27 million. The Secretary is doing a disservice to Hong Kong people and the taxpayers who pay him salaries. What he is doing is acting as the people's enemy and colluding with the despicable LEUNG Chun-ying. Such an act will not add strength to the Administration. Rather, it only shows their cowardice. It shows that they are unreasonable and incompetent, and that they have neither the will nor the intention to improve the relationship between the Government and the people, as well as that between the Police and the public.

I do not know whether the Secretary will reply in this session or whether he will have the opportunity to reply again, but let me strongly request the Secretary here to act decisively. Even though under the protection of the pro-government camp, a small commitment of $27 million under his department will be approved for the acquisition of three water cannon vehicles, he should not use it because there will be retribution for such an act. This is something that hurts morals and justice. It is not something Hong Kong society should do.

Secretary, please stop. Do not hurt Hong Kong people anymore. We will not retreat, and we will neither flinch nor feel frightened. The use of public coffers and taxpayers' money to acquire such equipment for the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration, which is poorly broken and commands no recognition, simply hurts morals and justice. Coveting our money and endangering our lives are the ridiculous and evil deeds which this Government is doing right now.

Chairman, in the next session, I will talk about Information Coordinator Andrew FUNG. I so submit.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this speech, I will elaborate on the justifications for proposing my Amendment No 451 to cut the estimated annual expenditure of $5 million of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for the publicity work relating to the public consultation on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2016.

9304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chairman, since the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government launched the first round of consultation on constitutional reform in December 2013, it has lavished public coffers on a publicity campaign in an overwhelming manner. According to the information provided by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs, from 4 December 2013 to 7 March 2015, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau produced a total of eight television Announcements of Public Interest (APIs) and eight radio APIs related to constitutional development, which were respectively broadcast on five television stations and five radio stations in Hong Kong. The Government's publicity expenditure for the constitutional reform consultation alone cost as much as $6.1 million in 2013-2014. In 2014-2015, it further reached $9.4 million.

Despite the exorbitant expenses, the publicity expenditure exceeding $15 million did not really enable Hong Kong people to freely express their views on the constitutional reform consultation. On the contrary, the strong stand in favour of the "pocket-it-first" proposal expressed by the Government in the advertisements arouses queries about the SAR Government having departed from the provision under the Broadcasting Ordinance which prohibits political advertisements. It has also violated the exemption provisions relating to APIs in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising Standards. For this reason, the Neo Democrats considers that no more funds should be granted to the SAR Government for conducting publicity on the constitutional reform package in this financial year. As a result, I request to cut this expenditure estimate which amounts to $5 million.

Chairman, at present, all licence holders of radio and television stations must provide the Government with free air time to broadcast advertisements relating to public interest. The Government may use the broadcasting channels in this way free of charge, but the advertisements of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau on constitutional reform consultation are obviously against public interest. During the second round of consultation on constitutional reform, the Government produced APIs with slogans such as "Your vote. Don't cast it away" and "2017: Seize the opportunity", which were broadcast on television and radio. The message of these advertisements actually does not aim at consultation. Neither does it convey the objective fact that consultation has already commenced. Rather, it advocates the idea that members of the public should "pocket it first" and accept the bogus universal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9305 suffrage which does not provide any real choice, depriving 5 million electors of their right to real choice. The contents of the APIs are biased, distorting the facts and ruling out other positions taken by people in society on constitutional reform, such as their support for civil nomination. They just selectively propagate the position to which the Government is inclined.

Not only is this publicity campaign against public interest. These advertisements also carry a political purpose. With the use of the massive propaganda machine, they seek to lead the public discussions over constitutional reform, distort public opinions and even attempt to influence the public impression, misleading the public into thinking that the bogus universal suffrage proposed under the framework of the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will bring genuinely universal and equal suffrage to Hong Kong people, thus creating an illusion. In the API on "2017: Seize the opportunity", the Government has inserted a voice-over which says, "5 million people can take part through 'one person, one vote'". Apparently, it has a predetermined position, misleading the public into thinking that the bogus universal suffrage can be regarded as a choice. It is a political advertisement prohibited under section 12 in schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Ordinance.

Chairman, under the regulation of the Broadcasting Ordinance, no one, including political parties, may put up any political advertisement on radio or television to publicize any political ideology. As the name implies, political advertisements are political propaganda of a guiding and politically inclined nature. Back in early 2013, in order to promote the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) and the development project in the North East New Territories, the Government advertised them extensively with television APIs singing praises of the North East New Territories New Development Areas being "new towns for Hong Kong people", as well as APIs in which some elderly people read out lines like "I just hope the allowance can be introduced soon" in front of the camera to publicize the OALA. At that time, these advertisements induced wide comments from members of the public who considered that by broadcasting the APIs on television when the policy was yet to be passed, the Government was trying to brainwash the public, confounding right with wrong and calling a stag a horse, in an attempt to coerce the Legislative Council into approving the funding application for the policy. It made the public query whether those were in fact political advertisements.

9306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

During the first round of consultation on constitutional reform, the public also questioned that the SAR Government had a predetermined position in its promotional clips with the slogan "Let's talk and achieve universal suffrage". While claiming that it encouraged the public to voice their views, it actually only listened to those views which could fulfil the wish of the Beijing Government and stifles civil nomination. Some netizens even mocked that the Government's advertisements violated the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. The constitutional reform consultation does not tally with its description. The Government continuously adopts such a tactic which allows itself to steal the horse while others may not look over the hedge, using the valuable broadcasting channels to lead the public opinion against those who hold different views. It is an abuse of air time for APIs. It is also an abuse of public coffers to put up advertisements to distort the facts. Hence, the Neo Democrats considers that there is no reason for the Legislative Council to further approve the $5 million funding to allow the Government to continue to use unlawful political advertisements to mislead the public and even suppress opposition voices.

In 2010, in order to promote the "rotten" package for constitutional reform in 2012, the then Chief Executive Donald TSANG spared neither labour nor money to take forward a publicity campaign under the slogan "Act now". At that time, the amount of public coffers spent on television and radio APIs by the Government was $3.3 million. The amount spent on advertisements in newspapers and on the Internet was $2.5 million, and on advertising on public transport and putting up publicity posters at MTR stations, $1.5 million. Together with lamp post buntings and promotional leaflets, the total amount of public coffers expended was almost $9 million. However, the public still questioned the Government for having exercised its public power to abuse public space to carry out political propaganda. The proposal on the 2017 Chief Executive Election was just released yesterday, and the Government is again preparing a series of publicity activities under the slogan "Make it happen". The Neo Democrats considers that the Legislative Council must discharge its function of monitoring government expenditures and refuse to approve any expenditure for the Government to publicize the constitutional reform.

Chairman, most importantly, if this expenditure estimate of $5 million relating to the publicity of constitutional reform is approved in the Budget of this financial year, that means over the past three years, the SAR Government has sought a total of $20 million from the Legislative Council to publicize the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9307 constitutional reform, yet this sum of public coffers has never facilitated Hong Kong people in reaching a consensus and realizing the objective of having universal suffrage. There is still no concession in the constitutional reform package submitted by the SAR Government after the conclusion of the second round of consultation. That includes its refusal to accept the civil nomination approach supported by 800 000 people in the referendum on 22 June. It also admits that once this constitutional reform package is passed, the ultimate aim of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage under the provisions in Article 45 of the Basic Law will be achieved. In other words, the 2017 constitutional reform package proposed by the Government is the final proposal for the Chief Executive election which can hardly be revised in future.

The Government is well aware that it is impossible for this constitutional reform package to pass the Legislative Council. Since the Government has already adopted an attitude of giving up and only wishes to shift the blame for the failure of constitutional reform onto the pan-democrats who strive for civil nomination, even if it continues to spend money lavishly on publicity, it will still be unable to change the original nature of its proposal for bogus universal suffrage in 2017, one refusing to heed public opinions or talk with the people. The publicity expenditure of $20 million is like money dumped into the sea, since the constitutional reform package is actually a proposal which confounds right with wrong and calls a stag a horse.

Chairman, how can we choose between a rotten egg and a rotten orange? The constitutional reform package is a proposal which induces us to pretend to be the boss, but in fact, we have no choice. For this reason, the Neo Democrats has proposed this amendment to cut the $5 million funding relating to the publicity for constitutional reform. I hope the SAR Government will stop fantasizing that if it deploys the propaganda machine to wage a public opinion war, it will be able to deceive Hong Kong people into "pocketing" and accepting this package of bogus universal suffrage permanently.

The Government says that having 3 million electors cast their votes is definitely better than having only 1 200 people, but I hold that civil nomination is definitely better than screening by 1 200 people. The Government says that with a vote in their hands, members of the public may exert pressure on the Chief Executive, but I hold that casting the vote will turn one into an accomplice who gives the small circle the mandate to manipulate Hong Kong.

9308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chairman, the Neo Democrats requests the Government to save this expenditure of $5 million of public coffers and focus the resources on making preparations to reactivate the "Five-step Process" and conduct afresh a constitutional reform consultation exercise in which it will genuinely talk with the people without any pre-set condition or predetermined position. It should not continue to turn a blind eye to civil nomination which is greatly supported by public opinion, or even waste public coffers on conducting any large-scale publicity campaign, turning a deaf ear to the people and calling a stag a horse. The Government needs to formulate anew a proposal on universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election which gives Hong Kong people a real choice.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now speak on Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office for the second time. This is also the seventh time I am speaking counting all the speeches I made in the first and second debates. In my last speech, I said that the problem of Hong Kong lies in the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the problem of the SAR Government lies in LEUNG Chun-ying, whereas LEUNG Chu-ying's perverse acts are the biggest disaster to Hong Kong, and the catastrophe originates from his office, namely, the Chief Executive's Office, Head 21.

Over the past two years or so, he has continually incited conflicts as the central task for his office as the Chief Executive, including class conflicts, group conflicts and ideological conflicts. This morning I already talked about something relating to class conflicts, and I also cited from MAO Zedong's Report on an Investigation on the Peasant Movement in Hunan published in 1927. To describe what LEUNG Chun-ying has done to incite class conflicts by re-creation, we can say that he is hell-bent on trampling on people who disagree with his views, be they from the pro-establishment camp, the pan-democratic camp or the fledging localism camp, so that these people would be forever doomed. He targeted all the people who do not belong to the pro-establishment camp and some members of the pro-establishment camp. At first, he was still peaceful and rational, like the pan-democrats; but from even the peaceful and rational pan-democrats to the valiant localists, no one could be spared. So, we can adapt MAO Zedong's classical remarks in the Report on an Investigation on the Peasant Movement in Hunan and apply them to LEUNG Chun-ying: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9309 embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one ideology overthrows another … it is necessary to overthrow all ideological enemies, knock them to the ground and even trample on them."

We have always criticized people, calling them "cultural revolution-styled" Members or we have been criticized and called "cultural revolution-styled" Members. Chairman, do you know what "cultural revolution-styled" Members mean? In a previous speech I made today, I said that in the ancient times, there was literary persecution and nowadays, there is "numeric humiliation", which is another scenario of white terror created by LEUNG Chun-ying over the past two years. Chairman, do not buy a car with the licence plate number D7689, but had there really been this licence plate number, I am sure you would not choose it. How terrible this D7689 is! Do not take D9689 either. In the ancient times, there was literary persecution and nowadays, there is "numeric humiliation". It can be persecution or humiliation, and I am talking about humiliation.

With regard to the so-called "cultural revolution-styled Members", what is their biggest problem? Their biggest problem is that they always pose to be the kindest and most superior, thinking that all opponents are bad guys. So, having suffered a lot from this, DENG Xiaoping put forward the "three noes" principles and Chairman, I think you should recall them, right? ― (in Putonghua) "No seizing on shortcomings; no unsparing criticism; no labelling of others". How about now? LEUNG Chun-ying is running a "labelling workshop" where he pins labels on people every day. Do you remember what he said in the Policy Address? He purposely dedicated a paragraph to naming and criticizing Undergrad, the magazine of The Hong Kong University Students' Union, alleging that it seeks to promote Hong Kong independence, and he even named the young students who are the assistant editor-in-chief or editors of the magazine. What is it if it is not inciting ideological conflicts? Frankly speaking, "Hong Kong independence" is a false proposition. Not reading Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao would be too bad. Somebody has even drawn up an "organization chart of the local empire" in which I have become the "godfather of Hong Kong independence". On one side of this organization chart is MyRadio and the Proletariat Political Institute and on the other there are the Passion Times and Civic Passion. Our on-line radio, MyRadio, has a programme called "A course on studying the founding of a state", which they said is a course provided in preparation for the founding of a state. Buddy, that is a programme in which we 9310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 explained how the United States was founded or how the federal system of other countries was developed. It is an academic programme with significance in liberal studies but it is said to be a course provided for the founding of a state.

The mentality of LEUNG Chun-ying is exactly the same as that of the leftist newspapers. This is most unfortunate. Chairman, your brother used to be the editor-in-chief of Ta Kung Pao which was then already a most biased newspaper and a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Now we all know that this newspaper is managed by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and officially funded by public coffers. With its operation funded by Renminbi, it is a mouthpiece of the CPC. Certainly it must serve the CPC and it must promote ideological conflicts; it speaks the language of the Cultural Revolution and acts as a "labelling factory". If it is said that LEUNG Chun-ying is not a member of the CPC, I think not even Mr Jasper TSANG would believe it, as you both are members of the CPC. You are so open-minded but he is not. He abuses whatever power at his disposal.

Chairman, you have also fallen into this bad habit recently. Conflicts have been incited unceasingly, and not even the students have been spared. Honestly, and to put it bluntly, the students are definitely going to outlive you, and the future masters of our own house will definitely be people like Ming CHAN and Jack LI. When I read their articles, I found them strikingly fresh and I was amazed at why there are now in Hong Kong these kids in their 20s whose minds are … Whether you agree with their views is another matter, but their ability to give expositions is so powerful.

Chairman, I wonder if you have read Hong Kong Nationalism or the last two issues of Undergrad. But I was indeed amazingly impressed by their articles and so, I invited them to have a meal with me. I felt even happier while having a meal with them, for every one of these scholarly young men is so gentle and refined, who are so pleasing to the eye. Frankly speaking, I have been teaching for so many years and for the best part of my life, I have been in touch with young people. Even now, if I have the time, I will act as a guide every week, and I particularly like to show the kids around the Legislative Council …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you have strayed from the question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9311

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I am really very happy seeing these young people. But LEUNG Chun-ying is openly pitched against these young people. Let me ask him this: What good will it do to Hong Kong?

He also had his wild, untamed years when he was young and he had convictions, too. But in his greetings for the Chinese New Year, LEUNG Chun-ying outrageously expressed the wish to see in everyone the characters of sheep, calling on the people to pull together in an accommodating manner. In fact, he wished that Hong Kong people would become sheep to be slaughtered, fools, and docile people. Is that right, buddy? He intended to stir up class conflicts and group conflicts. Let me cite a simple example, which I think the Chairman still recalls vividly. On 20 October 2014 when the Umbrella Revolution was in progress, LEUNG Chun-ying met with a group of foreign journalists. He said during the interview that with regard to a "broadly representative" nominating committee as provided for in Article 45 of the Basic Law, it does not mean numeric representation, or else over half of the targets of election engineering would be Hong Kong people earning less than US$1,800 or HK$14,000 a month. This is how he openly declared war on people in the low to middle class who account for a majority of the population in Hong Kong. How dare he vowed to lend a helping hand to the grassroots when he contested the election, when he was writing an article in Ming Pao Daily News every day. I even thought back then that he was really concerned about the people's livelihood and a champion for socialism, and I had discussed with him the question of minimum wage. But now he has changed once he rose to power, declaring war on the low to middle class. Does K C CHAN know this? This is his boss. I am speaking right now and please tell him not to doze off. He suggested that the targets of election engineering would be Hong Kong people earning less than US$1,800 or around HK$14,000 a month. Does he want to promote elitism in politics, or is he saying that the candidacy for the election of the Chief Executive must be confined to the plutocrats? Is this what he meant?

Moreover, on 25 March 2015 he attended a financial forum where he criticized some Members of the Legislative Council for filibustering with the aim of thwarting funding for government infrastructure projects and made an appeal to the registered voters attending the forum to "vote them out next year" in the election of the Legislative Council. Members of the business sector among the audience gave him a big round of applause on hearing that. What kind of a picture was this? What was he doing if he was not stirring up group conflicts? 9312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

What was he doing if he was not stirring up class conflicts? How could it be possible that a Chief Executive ― the first Chief Executive was a businessman and his successor a civil servant ― Now that when a CPC member has taken up the office of the Chief Executive, which is not easy at all, is he not supposed to work in the interest of the grassroots and for the greatest well-being for the majority of Hong Kong people? But this is not quite the case. It turns out that apart from being an out-and-out nationalist championing for the unification of China, he is also a fascist. Frankly speaking, he cannot be a Bolshevik. So, in describing today's CPC, some people no longer call it the Communist Party of China, but feudal-fascist Bolsheviks. I would say that insofar as LEUNG Chun-ying is concerned, the last description does not fit him. It is incorrect to call him a Bolshevik. He is downright a feudal fascist.

In the Policy Address LEUNG Chun-ying named and criticized Undergrad, the magazine of The Hong Kong University Students' Union, that is, the issue with the cover story entitled "Hong Kong people deciding their own fate" published in February 2014. When the students expressed their views, we do not see any problem with it, for this expression of view has only remained at the stage of freedom of speech and what is more, after carefully reading the articles in question, we do not find radical propositions for Hong Kong independence as they only aim to explore more possibilities for contemplating the future and the way out for Hong Kong.

Therefore, former assistant editor-in-chief of Undergrad, Ming CHAN, said that the biggest creator of Hong Kong independence is, in fact, LEUNG Chun-ying. It was because he particularly mentioned this in a paragraph of his Policy Address that more copies of Hong Kong Nationalism had been published and subsequently sold out. Then, Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po have been providing support in claiming every day that there are instances of Hong Kong independence being advocated in Hong Kong. Next comes Members of the Legislative Council who have done the same. When I proposed a simple motion on devising the constitution by all people, at least five or six pro-establishment Members in this Chamber criticized me for promoting Hong Kong independence. How could this happen? Buddy, we are in the 21st century now, right? Are we back to the times of the Cultural Revolution in 1967? Are we back to the times of white terror under an authoritarian rule in Taiwan when a person could be implicated for the slightest reason and could not even utter a word?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9313

Back in those years people in the Mainland were not even allowed to think and in Taiwan, the people were not allowed to express their views. A few decades have passed, and we cannot even express our views nowadays in Hong Kong. In fact, this is no more than mere expression of views. Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po are writing pages after pages of articles every day which think too highly of Wan CHIN and me. To me, I think this is fine and no big deal, but they are stupid. TSANG Tak-sing used to be the editor-in-chief of Ta Kung Pao and he must know that Mr ZHANG Jiluan, founder of Ta Kung Pao, had put forward the "four noes" and made Ta Kung Pao the best and most credible newspaper in the history of China. During the War of Resistance, Ta Kung Pao performed the role of pooling public opinions and uniting the whole nation to fight against the enemy. Nowadays, people studying the history of newspaper in China all talk about ZHANG Jiluan's Ta Kung Pao. The "four noes" were meant to say no to "relying on political parties", "blindly following the masses", "selling anything to tycoons and businesses" and "serving as a personal instrument". However, today's Ta Kung Pao has degenerated into a tabloid carrying sleazy reports. Tell me how laughable this is.

LEUNG Chun-ying has stirred up class conflicts, group conflicts and ideological conflicts, and his administration is riddled with problems. I will give an account of these problems one by one here, and let me first read out their headings: "Individual Visit Scheme", "Innovation and Technology Bureau", "His remarks during the Umbrella Revolution", "His views on democracy", "His views on the constitutional system in Hong Kong", and "Nonsense and rascality of his team of officials". I will further make a detailed report to the Chairman when Head 21 is discussed again in the next session.

To conclude, there should be a total reduction of the expenditure under Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office and only in this way can justice be done to Hong Kong people. The problem of Hong Kong lies in the SAR Government. The origin of the catastrophe caused by the SAR Government is the Chief Executive, and the Chief Executive's Office is where the origin of the catastrophe works. The entire catastrophe originates from this Office, especially from that Information Coordinator who brings disgrace to the SAR Government in his work outside the Government every day.

Chairman, I so submit. So much for now, till then.

9314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to speak on "Head 92 ― Department of Justice".

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

Just now, a Member pointed out that the prosecution power, time limit and options of the Department of Justice (DoJ) are getting more and more problematic. Although the DoJ has the power of instituting criminal proceedings under the Basic Law, such power is not subject to external interference, especially political interference. However, over the past couple of years, we have seen the handling of criminal cases, which are a concern to many Hong Kong people, with double standards. From the investigation of cases, gathering of evidence, and even the speed of instituting proceedings, we could obviously see the application of double standards. Several months ago, I made enquiries with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the DoJ about when a decision would be made by the Secretary for Justice in relation to the case involving Donald TSANG, former Chief Executive. When the DPP replied that a decision would be made shortly, I told him that his predecessor also said a couple of years ago that a decision would be made within a very short period of time. During a special meeting of the Finance Committee last month, I asked the Secretary for Justice the same question again, but he was still unable to say when a decision could be made.

The pace of handling the case involving Donald TSANG, former Chief Executive, is really bafflingly slow. On the contrary, someone decided that proceedings must be initiated in relation to Occupy Central cases within six months. In fact, whether proceedings should be instituted should be decided by the DoJ with an objective and rational attitude in accordance with the law. It is wrong for officers of other administrative organs to dictate the institution of proceedings within a certain period of time.

There have been increasing media reports of Occupy Central cases and questions about why charges in nearly 20 out of the 40-odd such cases have been automatically dropped by the DoJ, or the defendants acquitted by the Court. One of the characteristics of Hong Kong's judicial system is the relatively high success rate of criminal prosecutions. However, we can see from a series of Occupy Central cases a sudden surge in the ratio of acquittals or decisions of not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9315 pressing for prosecutions, and that the situation is most unusual. Why? Are there some people who wish to institute prosecutions in relation to Occupy Central cases quickly without taking into account the adequacy of the evidence and justifications, and the soundness of the legal basis? According to normal prosecution procedures, the authorities must examine the case in question carefully before deciding whether or not proceedings should be instituted. Quite a number of Occupy Central cases are simply not supported by adequate evidence, and the legal basis of some cases is unclear either. However, these cases have often been referred to the Court quickly.

In hearing cases, some Judges have even queried why the DoJ should still insist on instituting proceedings when it should be aware that the evidence of cases involving certain Occupy Central participants is inadequate. Given that the authorities still insist on instituting proceedings even though they are clearly aware of the inadequate evidence and weak legal basis, some judges have queried the rationale behind the decisions made by the DoJ. Does it reflect a poor standard on the part of the DoJ in making decisions on instituting prosecutions? I firmly believe that in instituting proceedings, the DoJ has either political considerations or been subject to political interference in contravention of the provisions of the Basic Law ― according to its responsibilities and principles, the DoJ should not allow factors outside its scope to influence its decision on instituting proceedings. Should proceedings instituted in future involve political considerations or elements, Hong Kong's existing rule of law and core values will be seriously injured.

While prosecution has yet to be instituted in relation to the case involving Donald TSANG despite the lapse of more than three years, proceedings have to be instituted in relation to Occupy Central cases within six months. Although the whole process of a protestor being dragged to a dark corner and then assaulted by seven police officers was filmed by a news television channel, what action has been taken? Why have there been no arrests or prosecutions so far? Have difficulties been encountered in gathering evidence? Is there a need to seek legal advice from Queen's Counsel from abroad, as with the case involving Donald TSANG? The authorities have not given any explanation, and the entire case has never been seen or heard of again. The pro-establishment Members are most fond of criticizing others for abusing the judicial procedures and seeking judicial reviews. In fact, the DoJ is also suspected of abusing the judicial procedures with its indiscriminate institution of proceedings and pressing of 9316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 charges when there are inadequate legal basis and evidence. I hope the pro-establishment Members can refrain from adopting double standards in commenting on these issues. If some people are considered to have abused the judicial procedures, the most serious abuse and consequence, as well as the most severe damage caused to an individual, is the indiscriminate institution of criminal proceedings because doing so will put the individual and his or her family members under heavy pressure.

Deputy Chairman, the last point I would like to make in relation to Head 92 is the proposal put forward in the Budget for providing additional resources to the Judiciary. I have once been told by its official that the Judiciary has already got adequate resources and support. Nevertheless, quite a number of people, including Members of this Council, have recently queried why there were cases of "the Court releasing people arrested by the Police". What are the rationales for these criticisms? As regards the query about "its release of people", what wrong has the Court done in deciding that the accused should be acquitted in accordance with the law after hearing all the evidence related to the case? How will the rule of law in Hong Kong be thus undermined? Or is it because some people consider it unacceptable to acquit the accused, and an imprisonment sentence of five, 10 or even 15 years should be imposed instead? Can this sort of spirit be considered as the rule of law?

If mumbo-jumbo is regarded as common sense, I wonder why the DoJ, which should be well versed in the rule of law, did not make a fair comment earlier and waited until some civic groups, such as the Progressive Lawyers Group, had issued a statement condemning such acts of criticizing and condemning Judges, saying the rule of law in Hong Kong and the prestige of the Court would thus be undermined and calling on the DoJ to take action, to issue a statement under pressure to condemn such acts. Why did the DoJ not take any action until it was told by the Progressive Lawyers Group, a civic group, that the rule of law and the prestige of the Court would be undermined by such words and deeds and hence called upon to do something? So, should this civic group receive salary from us instead? What is the DoJ supposed to do? Why is it so insensitive, slow and unresponsive to the rule of law? Things like this point to the politicization of the DoJ.

I recall that the Attorney General was held in high esteem before and after the reunification because everybody knew that despite being a government official, he was actually a very important guardian of the rule of law. This LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9317 explains why the Attorney General also participated in the work of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. Nevertheless, many people are now worried that the Secretary for Justice, who has now been reduced to a politically appointed official, like other politically appointed officials, will only perform the political tasks assigned by his boss, and hence cause severe damage. Why has the popularity rating of the Secretary for Justice, especially the incumbent, dropped so sharply? Let us take a look at former Secretaries for Justice. Regardless of how low and poor the popularity of the Government was, or how its popularity had plummeted because Donald TSANG compared his popularity rating to "passing clouds", the popularity of former Secretaries for Justice remained high. It was because they could really act in a fair, just and impartial manner to make Hong Kong people believe, despite their diverse political views, the rule of law would remain unchanged and they would still act in a fair, just and impartial manner.

This also explains why the popularity ratings and credibility of some of them ― not all of them ― were extremely high, whereas the incumbent Secretary for Justice is often considered to be standing on the side of the Government. From the points of law expressed by him in relation to the constitutional reform to his comments made in discussions on the Basic Law from the perspective of constitutional reform, he has given people the impression that he stands on the side of the Government. Has he really explained clearly to Hong Kong people their constitutional rights? What are the real significance and definition of universal suffrage? What is the definition of "screening" according to the Hong Kong Bar Association? Why must the nominating committee not stifle the genuine right to choose of Hong Kong people? All these are legal issues. The Secretary for Justice is obliged to explain in a fair and impartial manner to Hong Kong people how their constitutional rights will be affected. Let us take a look at the constitutional reform efforts made in the past. The Secretary for Justice was merely reduced to a political official who, like other political officials, would do nothing but perform the publicity task assigned by his boss. Hong Kong people need a fairer and more impartial Secretary for Justice rather than one who will do nothing but engage in tricky manipulation of political powers and listen to the dictates of his master. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

9318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

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

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert HO, please speak.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, my speech is related to Amendment No 377 and head 142, resolving that head 142 be reduced by $116 million … $16,000,099 … sorry, it should be $116,992,000 … in respect of subhead 000, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated annual operating expenses of the Central Policy Unit (CPU) under the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary.

Deputy Chairman, the work of the CPU includes undertaking policy researches on areas such as society, politics and economy, commissioning experts on contract terms to carry out thematic consultancy studies where necessary, as well as conducting public opinion polls from time to time to gauge public opinion and find out how different sectors in society responded to various policies implemented by the Government. However, some of the surveys and studies published on the CPU's website only provide executive summaries, which are very brief, of the reports. Hence, members of the public do not have access to the findings of research projects funded by the CPU. This practice not only deprives the public of the right to know, but also affects the desire of scholars and researchers of community think tanks to participate in the relevant work.

Among the 17 research reports published from April 2014 to March 2015, four of them only provided executive summaries of the reports. What are the names of these reports? The first one is a study on "Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media" (《傳媒時事輿情研究》 in Chinese) and the character "輿 " refers to the word "輿 論" (meaning public opinion); the other one is social and political issues in the mass media … the second one is also a study on "Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media" which was conducted in 2014 while the first one was conducted in 2013; the third one is a study on "The Mainland's Development"; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9319 and the fourth one is "A Study on Cross-Boundary Marriages in Hong Kong: Causes and Consequences". In fact, as the CPU selectively published information of the aforementioned studies on current affairs, political issues or even Mainland-Hong Kong Relations, it begs suspicions about the CPU sometimes withholding unpleasant information. We are even worried about whether its attitude of conducting researches has adhered to an impartial, scientific and objective principle.

Worse still, the CPU has a highly politicized role which is obvious from its stance as the CPU smeared the social action of Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP). For instance, as an adviser to the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration, Prof WONG Chack-kie, a full-time member of the CPU, smeared the people who took part in the OCLP as colluding with foreign forces in a radio interview on 11 October last year and said that they therefore advocated … he personally advocated on that excuse that the Hong Kong Government should enact legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law and establish a state apparatus similar to the Ministry of Home Affairs in Singapore to arrest, and I quote, those who "stir up trouble in the country". It is commonly known that the human rights and freedom condition in Singapore are widely criticized by the international community. Yet, WONG Chack-kie from the CPU suggested that the Government should learn from the notorious Singaporean Government. It is aiding and abetting the evildoer as well as burying our conscience.

I would also like to point out that in terms of policy research, sorry, many people, including the President of the Legislative Council, Mr Jasper TSANG Yok-sing, considered that the relevant researches were poor in quality. Mr Jasper TSANG criticized, and I quote to this effect, that the CPU degenerated into an apparatus … an organization for conducting public opinion polls, that is, the Central Polling Unit instead of the Central Policy Unit. He stated that in order to support policy implementation, the Government followed the previous opinion-based approach of selectively citing evidence and selectively adopting many unproven views which were suggested by some opinion leaders and organizations. There are actually an innumerable number of such examples. For instance, when the Government wanted to implement a policy, it stated that there are similar cases in foreign countries and the CPU even commissioned some university professors to prepare research reports or summaries. Although the professors are highly regarded, their reports only summarized the present situation, such as summing up the housing policies implemented since the 9320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 reunification and describing the problems in Tin Shui Wai, and the reports only contained descriptions that were written at a most superficial level which, I am really sorry to say, completely fell short of the required standard in academic dispositions. There was even a great difference from the required standard and many methodologies expected to be used by academics. Unfortunately, scholars often become an instrument of the Government's CPU for endorsing and implementing policies, and even lose their independent status and deserved status.

Another reason why we consider the CPU should be severely criticized is that the Government reclaimed the right to approve funding for conducting studies because of the CPU. Without conducting any prior consultation with the academia, Mr SHIU Sin-por, Head of the CPU, informed the Chairman of the Research Grants Council, Mr Roland CHIN, in November 2012 that the CPU would reclaim the right to approve funding for 2013-2014 as well as expanding the eligibility criteria to community think tanks. The CPU is a government organ and we all know that it lacks academic neutrality. Moreover, Mr SHIU Sin-por has even freely stated time and again that the CPU is neither independent nor neutral.

This apparent change violated the Lima Declaration on academic freedom, which we advocate, and the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (RSHTP) adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). I would like to remind Members that Article 6 of the Lima Declaration provides that all members of the academic community with research functions have the right to carry out research without any interference, subject to the universal principles and methods of scientific enquiry. They also have the right to communicate the conclusions of their research freely to others and to publish them without censorship. In addition, Article 29 of the RSHTP adopted by the UNESCO also provides similar protection.

Deputy Chairman, unfortunately, the quality of the CPU's work performance is worsening. In fact, the complete and substantive change of the CPU is evident to all. People are shocked and upset in noting the pace and extent of its deterioration in quality. When the CPU was first established, many of the responsible personnel were academics with outstanding performance or administrative officers or senior officials whose work performance in the Government were impressive. Even Prof LAU Siu-kai, who took up office LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9321 subsequently, had an established reputation in the academia. He came up with some innovative and unique ideas on the study of society and politics which were regarded as quite outstanding then. For instance, he conducted studies on the impact of Hong Kong's social structure and family relationships on the authorities. We all know that his research findings have gained a certain degree of recognition.

Nevertheless, I am sorry to say that the CPU, which was led by LAU Siu-kai for a long period of time, has now become a tool for inciting populism. Some even said that SHIU Sin-por, Head of the CPU, who is also known as the "extreme leftist", has let the cat out of the bag and admitted outright that the CPU is not only a political tool of the Government but also a weapon for manipulating public opinion, and the CPU will even strengthen the monitoring of public opinion on the Internet in future and spare no effort to crack down on anti-government opinions by any legal means. He also affirmed that the CPU is definitely a tool of the Government ― he did admit that so boldly ― and it is not only a tool of the Government, but also a tool for government planning or that sort of purposes. I repeated such remarks in his wording in Chinese.

Such a mindset of SHIU Sin-por has certainly provoked negative reactions from some part-time CPU members who still have conscience. They pointed out that the previous role of the CPU was analysing public opinion and it was not required to incite public sentiments or even become a unit for executing political propaganda. Some CPU members even sharply criticized the CPU for violating the original purpose of its establishment. In fact, I think SHIU Sin-por not only violated the original purpose and principles of setting up the CPU, he even misjudged the circumstances. Inciting public sentiments will actually induce more serious splits and dissensions in society.

Deputy Chairman, the Democratic Party proposes removing the funding for the estimated expenditure of the CPU because it should not be ignoring its proper duties. Instead, it should perform its basic functions of carrying out studies and analyses of the Government's major policies in a scientific, impartial and objective manner to gauge public opinion and keep tabs on public sentiments so as to tender impartial advice to the Government. Once the CPU gets involved in politics, it is certain that its neutral analyses will gradually be biased and the CPU will become a political tool. We have to emphasize once again that it is very important for the CPU, a neutral statutory body without specific political 9322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 orientation, to remain independent and neutral. If the CPU fails to do so, people will no longer believe that its studies are conducted in an independent, scientific and objective manner, especially when the CPU is tasked with political missions. In order to achieve political objectives, I believe the CPU will often resort to covering up the truth and lying.

After the reunification, the administration by the SAR Government has repeatedly provoked public outrage. Is it really possible that the CPU, which is the behind-the-scene think tank of the Government with so many advisers and researchers, does not have to bear any responsibility for the policy blunders, especially when it has provided many research findings which are biased, incomplete and inaccurate? It is evident in the facts that the CPU has not duly performed its role and is seriously out of touch with society. As a result, the measures implemented by the Government often go against public opinion. The CPU is the most important adviser to the Government on strategies of governance. Since it failed to properly perform its duties, especially when its work performance is worsening under the leadership of the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration now and that it has even done many things detrimental to the interests of society and against public opinion, the best solution is removing all the funding for the CPU's expenditure so as to eliminate an evil.

I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, as regards "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau", Carrie LAM unveiled the constitutional reform package as a representative yesterday. From her speech, there is a piece of detail regarded as minor or even unnoticed by many. That is, when she said everyone has to "make it happen", she likened it to "the earnest aspiration of Hong Kong people" (廣大香港同胞的殷切期望). When I came across it the very first time, the term "同 胞" (people)5 sounded like that both you and me were the same people, and the character "胞" was about race or ethnicity. Both you and me are Chinese, and Chinese is further categorized into Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui and Tibetan, and that is another story.

5 The term "同 胞" is more often translated as "compatriot", and usually associated with the Mainland in Hong Kong discourse. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9323

Are Hong Kong people all Chinese? Hong Kong lays claim to being Asia's World City. We have Pakistanis and Indians, and to many Nepaleses, their three generations have resided in Hong Kong, particularly those who have been doing so since the time of Gurkha garrisons. Indians also came to Hong Kong along with the British.

Strange as it sounds, I checked up the English version, which was carefully rendered as "the earnest aspiration of Hong Kong people". Whether ones are white, black, yellow, or dark-skinned people coming from South Asia, the term "Hong Kong people" applies to all Hong Kong people alike. However, the term " 同 胞 " (people) in the Chinese version carries the element of racial discrimination, and it involves the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), which comes under the expenditure estimate for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.

I of course have not proposed any amendment regarding the EOC, as amendments may only call for a reduction in the estimated provision but not the other way round. I am most dissatisfied with some of the matters of the EOC, but given their impressive performance in work against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation indeed, there is no particular need to punish or criticize them in monetary terms. However, equal opportunities and racial discrimination are very big topics. Let me repeat, Hong Kong lays claim to being Asia's World City. Apart from Chinese, we also have a lot of white and South Asian people. Like you and me, they all have lived in Hong Kong for seven years, contributed to Hong Kong and paid taxes. You, me and him are Hong Kong people.

Do Members recall the white paper released by Beijing last year? Members may be scared when they take a closer look at the terms used in the white paper. We can easily derive with the help of the computer the number of times the term "祖 國" (motherland) (including "偉大的祖國" (the great mother country)) is used therein, that is, 12 times. The document, which is applicable to Hong Kong, keeps using "motherland", but British and American people can also be Hong Kong people. To a Nepalese, what motherland is it? His motherland is Nepal, only that he is also a Hongkonger.

Let me recount it once again for Members. The term "香港同胞" is used 18 times, and yet its English version is carefully rendered with no doublespeak as "Hong Kong compatriots", which means that those not being of the same 9324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 nationality are excluded; the term "祖 國" is directly translated as "motherland". If three generations of a Nepalese have resided in Hong Kong, and he is presented with the terms "motherland" and "愛 國" (loving the country) ― buddy, the term "愛 國" has also been used seven times ― one may worry if the authorities intend to place Hong Kong into the mould of the Communist Party of China to unify all the races in Hong Kong into purely Chinese. Even though they are permanent residents holding the "three-star" identity cards and even have the right to vote, they are just not included. They neither belong to our Chinese nation nor have the right face features and skin colour.

The term "中華兒女"6 is used twice in the white paper, and "血濃於水" (the strong ties of blood and affection) is used once. The term "血濃於水" in the Chinese version sounds strange. It originates from the English expression "blood thicker than water", but its English rendition does not take the original form in order to avoid hurting the people's feelings. What does the translated version "the strong ties of blood and affection" mean? The original form is "blood thicker than water". The term "中國夢" is translated as "the Chinese dream", how are Hong Kong people not of the same nationality as ours going to accept it? The last sentence of one of the paragraphs sounds even more scary, and it reads, "As members of the big Chinese family, the people of Hong Kong and the people of the mainland share the pride and glory of the great mother country, and bear the common responsibility and mission of rejuvenation of the Chinese nation." Those not being Chinese are just excluded.

Hence, I wrote a complaint letter to the EOC asking if such content of the white paper has contravened the Race Discrimination Ordinance. The EOC's reply to me is as brief as "there is no contravention at all" with no further explanation. The EOC undertakes the great mission of fostering racial harmony in Hong Kong to promote inclusion. That is a matter of race, but its reply is as brief as can be. They may tell me the document comes from Beijing and so it goes beyond their jurisdiction. Yet, they do not even take the trouble to say so. They just tell me in a single sentence that the said content of the white paper does not contravene any of the legislation in Hong Kong, period. Is it what an EOC should do? What is the use of the Ordinance?

6 The two English renditions of the term in the white paper are "all Chinese people" and "all the Chinese people". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9325

It is stated in section 7 of the Ordinance that the provisions are about racial harassment, and the word "harassment" is included. It stipulates that "a person harasses another person if, on the ground of the race of that other person …, the first-mentioned person engages in unwelcome conduct (which may include an oral or a written statement), where a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by that conduct". This amounts to a contravention of section 7, namely "racial harassment".

I have taken the bilingual white paper to many of those who are not of our nationality but are Hong Kong people like you, me and him, and asked them …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I need to remind you that we are having a debate on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I know, and what I am saying is …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since you mentioned at the beginning that you would speak on head 144, you should focus your speech on the amendments which are to reduce relevant expenditure estimates, rather than the specific policies of individual bureaus or the white paper on "one country, two systems". Please speak on the theme of the debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I will not mention the white paper anymore. I am talking about the EOC, which comes under "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau".

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In the current debate, you should not discuss the EOC's legal aspect and policies. You should speak on the amendments which are to reduce relevant expenditure estimates.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I do not suggest reducing its expenditure estimate.

9326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You stray from the question if you do not speak on the amendments which are to reduce the relevant expenditure estimates.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I am explaining to you why I do not particularly call for reducing its expenditure estimate.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The current debate is on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill rather than the EOC's relevant policies.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I am not in a debate with you. I am just expressing my views.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your speech has to be relevant to the theme of the current debate, namely the amendments being made to the expenditure estimates under relevant heads.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Please note that 25% of the EOC's expenditure on public education is dedicated to publicity and education efforts in relation to race discrimination. This is about public money.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your speech has to be related to the amendments of the expenditure estimates. You have spoken for nine minutes but have yet to talk about that.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I shall talk about the expenditure estimate right now.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Let me remind you, we are now in a debate on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill. Please go on.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9327

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My apologies. I have raised a query and got the reply the EOC or the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has given to me. Of the EOC's expenditure on publicity and public education, a quarter is dedicated to efforts against racial discrimination; the amount is not big, but it is still public money included in the Budget. In 2014-2015, the Government allocates an additional $2 million to the EOC for promoting the Ordinance.

However, we in Hong Kong all know that a member of the Executive Council has described Filipino maids with words like "entice" in the newspaper, drawing flak from the Consulate-General of the Philippines. Members from foreign domestic workers groups have just gone to the headquarters of the New People's Party to turn the image of Mrs Regina IP into Adolf HITLER's. What has the EOC done then? Given the millions of dollars we spend on publicity and education, why does this happen among us? This may even affect Hong Kong's international image. This is a major event that is internationally relevant, rather than just a slip of the tongue.

In our discussion on the Budget, the department which promotes education on anti-racial discrimination should bear the biggest share of responsibility in Hong Kong. Our publicity on anti-racial discrimination is neither adequate nor good enough. More strangely, there is obviously a conflict between races, yet York CHOW of the EOC says that some Hong Kong people discriminate against Mainlanders and asks if it constitutes racial discrimination. They really have all the say. They use "compatriot" to signify the same nationality when they feel like to, so how does it constitute racial discrimination? This is discrimination based on one's occupation or family status at best. Nevertheless, when the time is not right, the two are not the same, and this will constitute racial discrimination. This is like the admission of Mainland students by our universities, which call them Mainland students when they feel like to, but overseas students when they do not feel like it; they regard them as part of the family in a tolerating manner when necessary, and overseas students when unnecessary. How can students from Mainland China be regarded as overseas? Hong Kong and the Mainland are not separated by the sea. How are they called? They are called international students.

The EOC under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau really needs to clarify this. Does the EOC not notice it? They do. Among the "matters requiring special attention in 2015-16" under the Bureau is "(building) 9328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 relationships with stakeholder bodies in the Mainland and overseas through proactive networking and co-operation". It is very clear that the Mainland refers to Mainland China, whereas overseas refers to foreign countries. To make it sound better, they have defined their work duties in a clear-cut manner, but the promotion materials and rhetoric from official sources, including the Education Bureau, are masqueraded as if they were ignorant of that.

Another "matter requiring special attention in 2015-16" under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau is "(promoting) equal opportunities in education and employment for ethnic minorities". This is also empty talk. Of course, they are willing to make it known, and so people can keep an eye on it.

The Deputy Chairman ruled that no debate is allowed at the moment, and I am not in a debate as well. We strive for the good of Hong Kong and its next generation. We really make a community where different ethnic groups live in harmony. Even though we cannot make a melting pot, as foreigners put it, we at least need to be a salad bowl. We exist and live in harmony together, so one should not keep saying "Chinese nation", as if foreigners were non-existent (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please sit down.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I continue to speak on head 92 in relation to the Department of Justice (DoJ). This is the second time I speak in the second debate.

I have proposed a total of three amendments to this head, and Amendment No 239 is the most important one which proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure at an amount equivalent to the annual salary of the Secretary for Justice. I also take this opportunity to tell Members that the annual salary of the Secretary for Justice, Rimsky YUEN, is $3.7 million.

On the question of criminal prosecution that I mentioned last time, Mr Dennis KWOK pointed out in his speech earlier that he found irregularities in the DoJ's criteria of criminal prosecution especially over the last year or two, and I have figures that support his observation. The Umbrella Movement is the best example. Of the 52 people involved in cases arising from the Occupy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9329 movement and heard in court, seven saw the charges against them dropped, accounting for 13%, and there are more and more occupiers whose charges were dropped and their number has increased to 18, showing a slight increase to 35% compared to the number early this month. This means that 48% of the people concerned have had their charges dropped or have been acquitted, whereas the percentage of those who pleaded guilty or were convicted remains at 30% (or 16 people). However, Members should note that of the people convicted as a result of their participation in the Umbrella Movement, seven are members of the blue ribbon camp, who are opponents of the Occupy movement, and the rest of nearly 20% of the cases were closed as a result of the prosecution not adducing evidence against the accused.

I remember that in the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session held some time ago, Dr Elizabeth QUAT said that the public felt concerned that the situation of the Police arresting people whereas the Court releasing them after Occupy Central will indulge radical and violent acts. But judging from the fact that most of those cases heard in court ended as a result of withdrawal of charges, acquittals or the prosecution adducing no evidence against the accused, we can see that the DoJ, though knowing that the evidence was insufficient, still braced itself to insist on laying charges in the hope of using the judicial system to suppress the dissidents and to serve political purposes, while making the protesters remain silent for fear of the cumbersome legal proceedings or victimizing the innocent citizens. What happened over the past few months has seriously tarnished the professional image of the DoJ. Many of these cases of prosecution are proof that the DoJ's system of prosecution is loose and slipshod. Even though the statements provided by the Police were contradictory or the Police changed the statements after watching the video tapes, and despite cases of double jeopardy and countless loopholes, the DoJ still insisted on instituting prosecution. In the end, even the Court did not accept the statements and had to acquit the accused.

The DoJ was, in fact, carrying out political prosecution. This is a fact that speaks for itself. Therefore, the allegation that the Police arresting people whereas the Court releasing them is far from true. Some time ago, a reporter named YAU Hon-pong was alleged to have thrown a helmet at a policeman during the Police's clearance actions at Tamar Park in Admiralty after the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism escalated their actions to besiege the Central Government Offices and was charged for assaulting a police officer. 9330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

The reporter pleaded not guilty and at the end of March, the Magistrate, after hearing the case, found that no prima facie case could be established and released the reporter. The Magistrate further said that the statements given by the three policemen involved were entirely inconsistent and showed great discrepancies. Two of them said that they were driving the accused away at the time but the third policeman said that they were chasing after the accused. With regard to the characteristics of the person who threw the helmet, the policeman concerned could only point out that the person was in red clothes without being able to identify the criminal. Therefore, the Judge found that no prima facie case could be established. In fact, these examples abounded. In the course of the hearing, the policemen were even suspected to have conspired with each other in ensuring consistency in the statements because two of the policemen involved coincidentally wrote the wrong character "農" as in "農 夫" (farmer) instead of " 龍 " as in "龍和道" (Lung Wo Road) in the statements, thus causing the defence to question whether the policemen had agreed on the contents of the statements beforehand.

A large number of people swarmed to Mong Kok for shopping (or "gouwu" in Putonghua) after clearance actions were taken against Occupy Mong Kok last year. During this period of time, SI Kwok-hung, an unemployed worker, was charged for not following the instruction of police constable, LEE Chi-hung, and refusing to return to the pavement while shouting slogans for genuine universal suffrage in the small hours on 1 December last year. He was ultimately subdued by the policeman. But during cross examination the defence pointed out that the two statements given by LEE Chi-hung after the incident were contradictory to the evidence given by him in court. For example, he said in his statements that he was trying to block the way of the accused with both hands but he said in court that he was firmly grasping the accused with one of his hands, and he did not mention in the statements that the accused had shouted slogans for genuine universal suffrage. He was, therefore, questioned by the defence that he was making up the process of how he arrested the accused in court. SI Kwok-hung further revealed in court that when he was taken onto the police vehicle, someone asked who the policeman responsible for his arrest was but nobody answered. Later, a police officer in white uniform told LEE Chi-hung to take charge of this case. While the accused was giving a statement, he even heard a female police officer discussing with this policeman surnamed LEE and stressing that the time details must be made clear. As the Magistrate had doubts about the evidence given by the policeman, he acquitted the accused at the end of the hearing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9331

I have seen a lot of evidence of this sort but I do not wish to spend time talking about them one by one. I think the typical examples that I have just cited are sufficient proof of my arguments. Certainly, the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) have problems concerning the Police, whereas the DoJ has the problem of abusing judicial proceedings and is suspected to have collaborated with the Police in suppressing the protesters, thus arousing questions from the Judges.

We believe these cases of prosecution may only be the tip of the iceberg and they are proof that no matter how insufficient and ridiculous the evidence provided by the Police was, and despite cases of serving police officers agreeing with each other beforehand to ensure consistency of the statements or giving false evidence, the DoJ still turned a blind eye to all this, for it only wanted to institute prosecution to achieve the following effects: First, to produce a deterrent effect; and second, to put across a warning message to society. But in order to achieve these two effects, the DoJ has to sacrifice neutrality and impartiality. The DoJ should be responsible for playing a gate-keeping role. It should weigh the evidence provided by the Police with an absolutely objective attitude and make decisions on whether to institute prosecution stringently with professionalism. The DoJ has now neglected the source of evidence; nor has it fulfilled its gate-keeping duty, knowing only to please the ruling regime by producing to court such sloppy, bizarre evidence and instituting prosecution despite insufficient evidence. This has ultimately aroused questions by the Judges who had to release the accused and close the cases. If this situation continues, the public would only place greater trust in the Court while the credibility of the Police and the DoJ would only teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, causing suspicions about co-operation of powers. On the other hand, this is also proof of co-operation between the DoJ and the Police to suppress dissidents, to suppress civil rights, to suppress freedom of speech, and to abuse the judicial system in order to please the Government politically and this has eventually turned them into the tools of the ruling regime in using violence.

Next, I wish to talk about Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force. Amendment No 305, which is related to police vehicles equipped with water cannons, proposed that head 122 be reduced by $27,000,000 in respect of subhead 603. This amount is roughly equivalent to the expenditure estimate for the acquisition of specialized crowd management vehicles CMV1, CMV2 and CMV3 by the HKPF.

9332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Apart from myself, four other Members coincidentally have put forward the same reduction proposals to this item, including Dr Kenneth CHAN who proposed Amendment No 303, Mr WONG Yuk-man who proposed Amendment No 304, Mr James TO who proposed Amendment No 306 and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan who proposed Amendment No 307.

Deputy Chairman, as I said in my speech in the previous debate session, I hope that the Government can send the relevant Director of Bureau to attend the Committee stage debate of the Budget. Just now I saw that Secretary LAI Tung-kwok was in the Chamber briefly and I thought he was really ready to heed sound advice by listening to our speeches here. I did not intend to speak at the time and I was then prepared to give a speech, but when I pressed the button to queue up for my turn to speak, Secretary LAI Tung-kwok was replaced by Secretary Prof K C CHAN. Therefore, I hope that you, Deputy Chairman, can convey this wish to the President or the Government. I am not asking the Directors of Bureaux to make way for us, but I hope that the relevant Directors of Bureaux can give us their timetable and let us know their roster, so that we will not be casting pearls before swine, and we prefer to make way for them instead. When the relevant Director of Bureau can attend the meeting, we can extract the relevant part under a certain subhead for conducting exchanges. We do not care about whether or not the Director of Bureau is truly listening to us, but at least we can see the relevant Director of Bureau face to face and express to him views that are related to him.

The HKPF have in this bundling up with the Budget proposed to purchase three water cannon vehicles at $27 million for crowd management operations, or in other words, to deal with protests, rallies, and so on. They also seek to incorporate this funding application into the Budget to bypass the Finance Committee, and in so doing, they can indeed succeed in bypassing the Legislative Council. However, we have exchanged a lot of views with Secretary Prof K C CHAN in the Finance Committee, pointing out to him that it is unreasonable to incorporate these items into the Budget.

I will not talk about the voluminous amendments proposed by the Labour Party and I will focus only on the water cannon vehicles. I really wish to have a debate with K C, the Secretary ― I should not address him in first name terms ― Secretary Prof K C CHAN. Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Panel on Security, said in an interview that as the procurement cost of each water cannon vehicle does not exceed $10 million, it is unnecessary for their funding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9333 application to be scrutinized by the Finance Committee. I wish to ask this: If the Government is going to purchase 10 or 20 water cannon vehicles and the procurement cost of each vehicle does not exceed $10 million, when we, being Members of the Legislative Council, are faced with such a controversial public issue ― Members can see that many people are opposing the procurement of water cannon vehicles by way of petitions or protests outside this Chamber ― and yet, it is unnecessary for the issue to be discussed by the Legislative Council and government officials do not need to give us explanations, and the proposal is passed because the Government says so, and if that is the case, does the Legislative Council have the ability to exercise monitoring at all? Furthermore, this trick of "splitting the bill" ― Secretary Prof K C CHAN, you should know it as you have been an official for so long ― for such a low-level trick of "splitting the bill", it does not need to be exposed by Members, does it?

Let me cite a simple example. As politically appointed officials can only accept gifts below $400 in value, is it possible to split a $1,000-worth gift into three portions, so that a $333-worth gift is received each day? This may be feasible theoretically. If there is really such a guideline, the Independent Commission Against Corruption may cite the Government's water cannon vehicles as an example in the future. We have heard before that a former Chief Executive, when given a bottle of wine as a gift, said that Lafite was worth some $300 only, and as long as he estimated the value of that bottle to be some $300 or not exceeding $400, he could accept that bottle of wine.

As we all know when we go shopping in a market, even if the price of a piece of goods is $100, both sides may still bargain and make a deal at $90 each for three pieces of the goods, and it is really possible for the goods to have staggeringly high marked prices. The asking price of water cannon vehicles may be $11 million each but a discount may be offered for buying three such vehicles with each vehicle being given a discount of $900,000 and the deal being spilt into three bills. As each bill involves less than $10 million, it would be unnecessary to go through the original procedures. May I ask the Secretary if he, finding such a case, should amend the procedures? When he found that his subordinate has "split the bill" and accepted a gift in the morning, in the afternoon and at night respectively totalling $1,000 only after adding up the value of each gift, which does not have any problem at all, should he make amendments when he found this loophole, rather than making a V-sign with his two fingers because this is not unlawful?

9334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

In 2012, the HKPF procured four numbers of Long Range Acoustic Device, commonly known as "sound cannons". These "sound cannons" have a transmission range of 300 m and can produce high frequency sound waves at a decibel level of 140dB, similar to the noise level of an aircraft engine or a helicopter, which can cause discomfort, unease, dizziness, tinnitus or nausea to the people affected. In fact, considering the power of this device, it is more than what the Police would need for handling demonstrations and assemblies in Hong Kong. Now that they have even proposed to procure water cannon vehicles, and this is indeed entirely unjustified.

The Police will proceed to invite tenders from around the world after obtaining the funding. Water cannon vehicles currently available in the market can be extremely powerful and in foreign countries, there are water cannon vehicles capable of firing pepper spray and boiling water. The Police have yet given an account of the power of the water cannon vehicles to be procured; nor have they explained the code of practice on using these water cannon vehicles. The Police have continued to adopt the attitude of procuring the equipment first and giving an explanation or handling other matters only later. They simply could not care less about the Legislative Council knowing nothing about the details.

Lastly, if Members will vote for the Budget at the Third Reading, it would mean giving support to the whole package of proposals for the procurement of water cannon vehicles. I have heard that some pro-democracy Members plan to ultimately vote for this Budget and if they would really vote for it, I would consider that these Members are supportive of the procurement of these three water cannon vehicles. Therefore, I hope Members will take this into prudent consideration.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Amendment No 32 proposed by me is about subhead 000 under "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office": "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $2,760,000 in respect of subhead 000", which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the salaries and allowances of the Information Coordinator paid by the Chief Executive's Office.

Deputy Chairman, you are a businessman. Businessmen have brains. They will consider who should be employed to work for them, or who should not be employed as they will make matters worse. Here I sincerely recommend the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9335 incumbent Information Coordinator, Mr Andrew FUNG, for your consideration. See whether you will employ him and whether your company can stand such an employee. If my amendment is passed, he will not receive his salaries and allowances this year. I guess he will have to find another job. Perhaps he will approach you or Secretary Prof K C CHAN to enquire whether there is any opening for Research Assistant. Will you employ him? This is a very important question. Why did I ask such a question? I am not kidding. As you and I are taxpayers, having paid taxes to the Government, what kind of people do you think it should employ? Can that person work for Hong Kong people? Can he assist the governing team of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government in its work? Or are we of the view that everyone has his own position? Those who belong to the circus should go back to the circus. Those who belong to the Civil Service should act as Civil Servants, and those who are academics should return to the academia. We might think in this way.

Sometimes when I observe the behaviour, mentality and writing skill of Mr Andrew FUNG, the Information Coordinator, they remind me of the European monarchy in the feudal age. Since those nobles were bored, they found some professional clowns, known as "jesters" and later renamed "jokers" in English, to entertain them by doing funny things or being made fun of. However, while providing entertainment, they would also make a fool of themselves and fool around because this was their job. After all, does the SAR Government need to pay $2.76 million a year in salaries and allowances to hire a clown to fool around?

When he was appointed on 3 December 2013, the Government's spokesperson remarked that Andrew FUNG, with experience in public relations and political work, was well qualified to take up the post of Information Coordinator. Let us see how he has surprised us with his performance over the past period. Is he a competent public officer? Is it worthwhile to spend our taxpayers' money to employ him to do this job? Or do we consider that his wages are too high that we should reduce the amount or even cut his post, and there is absolutely no need to have him mess around here?

Before he assumed office, he was a person-in-charge of a so-called consultancy or public relations company. Just before his assumption of office, something happened, which caused the media to raise an eyebrow. Being the Deputy Chairman of the Panel on Home Affairs at the time, I was quite concerned with such areas as the cultural policy and the arts in Hong Kong. I 9336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 came to notice that the company under his charge had won the tender for the electoral work of the Arts Development Council (ADC) and was responsible for the relevant election. What problem arose in the election? Since there were many different sectors and candidates, the way of handling and arranging the ballots required hard thinking and considerable skill, but then it was found out that some electors had one more ballot while others had one less, thus arousing a controversy which resulted in a mess. He spoke glibly and dramatically on television and in front of the camera, but he could not deal with the problem. In the end, it was necessary for government officials to interfere to solve the problem. What is surprising is that he had done the relevant work many times before, but still such a problem arose. It was said that he had experience in political work and public relations skill, yet he made such a mess, inviting doubts about his personal ability. In October 2013, the same month in which the ADC election was held, there were a lot of rumours that he would be appointed. I do not know who spread the news, but it was certainly not me. Did he himself do that? Never mind. Some journalists interviewed him and asked if he had been appointed. He replied (I quote) to this effect, "I can only reply with three Chinese characters" ― do Members remember that? Which three Chinese characters were they? He said in Chinese, "不予置評" (meaning no comment). Can Members count that there are three characters? I cannot do so. I do not have such great wisdom like him. Actually I meant the opposite. I do not have such poor wisdom and ability like him to utter those words. How come the Government could appoint this dude? Does his ability deserve some $2 million from us every year? It is $2.76 million, buddy. It is really no joke.

When he started to do the job in early 2014, it turned out that he was not familiar with the journalists. He would only hum and haw, "… that expatriate", or "this person wearing a … whatever". He loves to hear people address him as the White House Spokesperson, which is indeed ridiculous. I guess in this world, only LEUNG Chun-ying can hire someone of such quality to be his Information Coordinator. He lives in his own world, on his own planet and on his own Earth. He is all alone, so he finds himself the greatest person in the whole world, since he is the only person in the world he lives, but this is rather dangerous, especially when he is the Information Coordinator. Hence, in my view, his personal ability is not enough to command the trust of the public and the trust of this Council. We cannot retain such a mediocre official and incompetent person to make matters worse.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9337

Apart from incompetence, I think sometimes he is not clear about his role as the Information Coordinator and the public expectations on him. He can concurrently play several roles, sometimes on the Internet and sometimes on earth. Sometimes he will post comments on Facebook. He will show up and hit out here and there, arguing with the press and journalists on Facebook. May I ask, where the rules of the effective civil service system have gone? Is there a new rule called "take a chicken feather as a warrant to issue orders"? With this new rule, is that acceptable then? After he was placed in this position, he was given a free hand to do whatever he likes, hitting out at people here and there, stirring up troubles and making enemies with overweening conceit. People have asked him how come he could post comments in other people's Facebook accounts during office hours. Does he have no other particular work to do? Is this what he does at work? If this is his official duty, there is another job which I could introduce to him. In 2010, when Donald TSANG was the Chief Executive, he recruited someone to especially manage his Facebook account, and the monthly salary was $23,000 then. However, at that time there were a lot of comments and feedback in the community, that the monthly salary of $20,000-odd was really too high for employing someone to exclusively attend to computer matters and manage the Chief Executive's Facebook account. He said, no, the job was very complicated. The candidate needed to have very good skills, great wisdom, thorough knowledge in both Chinese and Western cultures and extensive social networks. He needed to know everything and could talk about everything. He bragged about the post as though the post holder could only be found in Heaven. Even so, the monthly salary for this post was only $23,000. Does the present Information Coordinator post need such a high salary? His annual salary is some $2 million. He is someone who does not even bother to look into his own role, his position and all the rules. He just wants to create his own style.

I am concerned about another role of his. In my view, sometimes he needs to think more clearly in this regard, that is, whether he is the person whose pseudonym is "金鐘仁" in Chinese (pronounced as "gam1 zung1 jan4" in Cantonese). "金鐘仁" once had a small column in the newspaper where he would hit out at people on all fronts, writing articles in the Government's defence. In particular, he would put in good words for LEUNG Chun-ying, protect his Administration and launch attacks hither and thither. The targets of his attacks include Legislative Council Member James TIEN, the leader of the Liberal Party, who exposed that "金鐘仁" was Andrew FUNG. So we asked him if he was " 金鐘仁". This week, when he attended an activity in a university, the students asked him if he was "金鐘仁", but still he did not respond. Why is it so 9338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 difficult? Has he done anything shameful? Has he done anything which cannot come to light? Is he too embarrassed to tell other people whether he is the writer or author under the pseudonym of "金鐘仁"? What does it matter? He is shameless anyway, so he might as well admit this. If he is not that person, just say he is not. Hence, his role is vague.

A more interesting point is that he often sings out of the Government's tune. At first you thought he was defending the Government, but sometimes he is indeed very ridiculous. So his role is quite confusing. Every time a mass rally has taken place, the Government will certainly issue a press release in an official and appropriate manner, stating that it is aware of the mass rally of the day, and the Government will listen to voices from all sides ― this is not my pet phrase. It is what LEUNG Chun-ying says from time to time ― This sounds most modest and appropriate. At least the wording displays the magnanimity, broadmindedness and forbearance which the Hong Kong Government needs to show in its speech. Although it seems it has said nothing in those utterances, it has sort of responded and listened. At least it shows the most basic respect. Participating in the procession in a sweat, did members of the public have too much time to spare that they came out to express their aspirations to the Government?

However, he questioned the number of participants in the procession in his Facebook account and queried whether there were really so many people. If there were so many people, the procession of the march would not be so short, and the people could march for a longer time. He would do calculations for participants in processions. Excuse me. He is not an average Joe who talks freely while strolling in the street, holding a birdcage and puffing off a cigarette in his leisure time. That is all right for the common people. I often see the local residents and neighbours do that, and I like them very much. However, Members, he is the Information Coordinator. On the one side, the Government says it will listen to people's views, but on the other, he slams the protesters. Again, he does not have a clear idea what he is actually doing. In my opinion, in view of his behaviour and conduct, it is really a shame that Hong Kong taxpayers are forced to pay him salaries because of the Budget. He has also attracted the Time magazine to put in a news report with the following headline: "Hong Kong's Top Media Official Shared a Fake Photo of a Beaten Cop". He posted on Facebook a snapshot from a television drama series of Hong Kong Television Network Limited downloaded somewhere from the Internet. With special make-up effects, it looks like a policeman with a beaten, swollen, bleeding face. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9339

So he said, rioters have assaulted a police officer, see how miserable he is. Buddy, that is a stage photo. How could he comment on it as though it was a fact and then try to smear the Umbrella Movement? I think such stupidity is indeed second to none. Can he be more stupid? Even my students would not do that. Yet unbelievably, he did it. When other people questioned him, he said that people tend to repeat their mistakes. How awesome. No wonder his rating has dropped to the bottom.

Hence, it is not easy for Secretary Prof K C CHAN. Both of us came from the academia and have taught at a university. Seeing such a situation, how can he tolerate it? I am actually speaking for the Secretary. I know the Secretary finds it intolerable, too. It is hardly bearable to face such a creature which does not do any decent work every day. This Information Coordinator shows up everywhere and hits out at people here and there, considering himself always in the right and playing up to those in power. Should we use taxpayers' money to continue to provide for him? For this reason, we should reduce the salaries for this man and this position expeditiously, and ask him to rejoin the labour market and receive retraining as early as possible. Perhaps the Deputy Chairman's company or other companies can also consider afresh whether this man can receive retraining.

I so submit.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will continue to speak on head 21 in relation to the Chief Executive's Office. The Chief Executive's Office includes the Chief Executive, the Executive Council and the Information Coordinator. As I have said many times before, "The lowly aides under his command are no different from a pile of dog droppings and rubbish", and all scums are pooled together. In these two years or so, we have seen what the SAR Government is like, especially the Chief Executive's Office.

Earlier on, Prof Kenneth CHAN ― I respectfully address him as professor ― mentioned Andrew FUNG. He only depicted less than 10% of the whole picture. I do not wish to discuss Andrew FUNG further because after the gentle-mannered professor has expressed his opinion, it seems not good for me to present my views in vulgarity. In short, I think this man is a scum, and such kind of a man is paid some $2 million a year.

9340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Now, when I look back at the old days, I recall that I was a current affairs commentator at the time Stephen LAM acted as the Information Coordinator. I asked if he knew the duties of the position of Information Coordinator established by the Government. I gave him a book entitled The Information Establishment: Our Government and the Media, which was one of the series of publications authored by Prof LI Zhan of the National Chengchi University of Taiwan back then. I also used it as teaching material when I was teaching at that time. When talking about news stories of politics, I would explain what parliamentary news and the Spokesman for the White House (白宮發言人) of the United States were about. A Press Secretary is a high-ranking person. Andrew FUNG calls himself the spokesman "who castrated himself", that is, by adding a stroke to the Chinese character "白" (white), it becomes "自 宮" (self-castration). He is most likely to be the Spokesman "who castrated himself". He calls himself the Spokesman "who castrated himself", that is, the Spokesman for the White House. Does he know the job nature of the United States Government's public relations, that is, Press Secretary? And how does he get along with the press? I was really considerate to Stephen LAM by giving him a book, but I did not know whether he had read it. Later on, when I had become a legislator, he was blasted by me day in and day out in his capacity as the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. That is another story. Now I am just like a granny recalling the old days.

I think a person who holds this office should be one who has at least received relevant training, leaving aside the fact that he basically had no idea what book it was when I showed it to him. And suppose I conduct classes in the future, one topic will be on public relations in politics. What does it mean by public relations in politics? What is it about? Is it like the way they spend money now, contracting out the task and asking external parties to create a slogan that reads "Make it happen", but turns out to be "Make it doomed"? Is it like that? What we need is talents. Be it the Chief Executive's comments, transcripts of media sessions, some important declarations or even policy addresses, there must be a group of people who give him ideas and put them in writing. Things should be done this way. Just like the speeches made by us at a meeting of the Legislative Council, I will at least ask my personal assistant to write up a draft for me, and then revise it for seven times. We will also discuss how to go about writing it beforehand.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9341

Recently, a friend has given me a book entitled An Interpretation of XI Jinping's Classic Quotes (《習近平經典引句解讀》). In fact, in terms of literary standard, none of the Chinese leaders is better than MAO Zedong. That is to say, we should put aside political opinion and try to understand the style in which a political figure handles things as reflected by his capacity in the use of political language and the particular way he speaks. He used a wide variety of vocabulary. In addition to a wide variety of vocabulary, his words also impressed people as they were full of power. Also, he spoke in a provocative and subversive manner, just as how we act in the Council.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

This book entitled An Interpretation of XI Jinping's Classic Quotes (《習近 平經典引句解讀》) is only mediocre. Leaders like WEN Jiabao have a penchant for quoting the classics which certainly come from traditional Chinese literature. For example, when he talked about anti-corruption, he quoted LIU Yuxi's Flowers in the Backyard (《後庭花》), and then lectured others. These scripts were written by someone for him, but above all, he himself must have a certain standard of knowledge and understand what they mean.

Buddy, when we see the Chief Executive's inadequacy of language, it is really hard to imagine why the whole Chief Executive's Office has to spend that much money. What has the scum Andrew FUNG done? He always comes forward and wears a plastic smile. He is also ugly and a frequent troublemaker. LEUNG Chun-ying is also like that, so who is going to write scripts for him? Who can assist him? When he comes forward, there is no need to speak much. Only two or three sound bites will do, just like Tai-fai's speeches. I often pay attention to Tai-fai's speeches. He "presents his ideas in a seemingly opposing manner with cynical remarks, who only chides corrupt officials without condemning the emperor". These words can sum up the overall style of his speeches. This is what makes him impressive.

Buddy, if LEUNG Chun-ying has one tenth of Tai-fai's ability, it will already be enough for him to avoid acting like a fool so often. He is always in a fighting mode every time we see him. He should be as gentle and honest as Tai-fai, who is not as fierce and harsh as us, nor will he talk loudly. Rather, he will only make cynical remarks and present his ideas in a seemingly opposing manner, and he only chides corrupt officials without condemning the emperor.

9342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chairman, let me come back to the issue about the Chief Executive's Office. What kind of people is it keeping? LEUNG Chun-ying alone certainly cannot get the job done. Surely, he has to be assisted by a group of people in composing his so-called political statements or publicity materials, or even government declarations. The annual salary of Andrew FUNG amounts to some $2 million. What is he up to? Moreover, the Chief Executive's Office is keeping such a large number of people. What have they done? Why do they make the originally unpleasant LEUNG Chun-ying even more disgusting now? Hence, it is meaningless to talk about establishing a style in which a political figure handles things through the particular way he speaks, and when the public approve of his style, they will embrace his Government and support his administration. How can he possibly achieve this? He is doing exactly the opposite. For this reason, buddy, how can this Office continue to receive funding? This Office with its highest decision-making team is in such a mess, and in these two or three years, there have been numerous examples of LEUNG Chun-ying's ridiculous conduct. Is there really no one to remind him?

LEUNG Chun-ying himself considers the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) his greatest contribution to Hong Kong, but now it has become such a great nuisance. Previously, the IVS issue has disturbed Hong Kong people for a long time. As we know, such problems as rising rents, traffic congestion, uniformity of the consumer market and parallel trading have deprived Hong Kong people of the development opportunities and public space to which they are entitled, thus resulting in repeated demands for abolishing the multiple-entry endorsement and recovering the vetting and approval authority.

At the beginning of this year, a series of actions aiming to liberate the communities took place. Some people consider such acts of this group of youngsters as kicking luggage unacceptable, but they are just magnifying one or two issues infinitely because in fact, the luggage was only kicked once. Then, this group of youngsters were alleged to have driven a little girl to tears. Assume that it did happen, but in fact, it was the mother who drove her little girl to tears. This does not matter, and I will just assume that they are right in saying so. But may I ask what sorts of violent acts it involved? The Police have arrested many, but sorry, none of their prosecutions has been successful so far. The Police have arrested many people during the several liberation actions, and injured many in the head, but still, none of their prosecutions has been successful.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9343

Let me come back to the "multiple-entry endorsement" issue. LEUNG Chun-ying, who boasts that he is the "Father of the IVS", indicated last year that there was no need to reduce the number of visitors, and that Hong Kong people should not become conceited before getting rich. Such political language was another intemperate outburst. This February, he said he could not accept the acts of those who had stormed the shops possibly out of political motives by making use of the discontent among local residents. Such acts must be condemned and issues arising from the policy should be tackled at the policy level. Subsequently in mid-March, when the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference were held in the Mainland, people started to hear that there were indeed some problems with the IVS. But in fact, it did not have much implication, other than indicating that "Grandpa" or members of the leadership had expressed such views. Consequently, LEUNG Chun-ying made an about-turn, stating that the Central Authorities were actively resolving the problems and hoping that the public could exercise patience for the time being. Not long ago, he still acted aggressively, but now he calls on the public to exercise patience for the time being. Following the announcement of the "one trip per week" arrangement last week, LEUNG Chun-ying wasted no time in claiming credit, saying that he had put forward the proposal to the Central Authorities in June last year. However, anti-parallel trader protests had made the discussions with the Mainland difficult. What is the logic behind this statement? Did he mean that he already reflected the issue in June last year, suggesting the "multiple-entry endorsement" be replaced by the "one trip per week" arrangement, but anti-parallel trader protests had made the Government's discussions with the Mainland difficult? That is to say, relevant authorities in the Mainland have alleged that a group of youngsters are now confronting parallel traders and required him to arrest all parties involved, or they will not abolish the "multiple-entry endorsement". Is this his logic? We are just all at sea. As the highest leader, would he please tell us if he should be held responsible for his own words?

Next, as we know, the likes and dislikes of the Communist Party of China always outweigh all other considerations in LEUNG Chun-ying's administration, while the interests of Hong Kong people are ignored. He shows no mercy in suppressing opposition among Hong Kong people. And this man has an inborn tendency to claim credit. The IVS issue has thoroughly reflected the capricious character of LEUNG Chun-ying. In many cases, I agree that character determines fate. "Hair" is one example. I am another example, so is LEUNG Chun-ying. Character has determined fate, and this man is destined for a tragic end. 9344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Apart from the IVS, Hong Kong also has a number of bilateral policies with China, such as a third runway at the airport, the Express Rail Link, vetting and approval of the One-Way Permit, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Dongjiang water and food supplied to Hong Kong. If these policies are detrimental to Hong Kong people's interests in the future, on which side will LEUNG Chun-ying stand? This does not concern the issue of "one country, two systems" or "one country coming first". Rather, it involves people's livelihood. On which side will he stand? There should not be any hesitation in these issues. As the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he is obliged to stand firm on the Hong Kong side. If we talk about Shenzhen and Hong Kong, that is, when there is a conflict of interests between Hong Kong and other places, will he stand on the Shenzhen side? In fact, this is just common sense. Our discussion on these issues will be considered as advocacy for "Hong Kong independence". Has he gone mad? As the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is he going to protect the interests of Shenzhen or Hunan? When a conflict of interest arises in the bilateral policies between Hong Kong and China, he must still protect the interests of Hong Kong people. This is what he must do. But he has adopted a high-handed approach in dealing with Hong Kong people, especially the dissenting voices. Andy TSANG is thus after his own heart. Andy TSANG will retire in May. He looks extremely unwilling to go, to the extent that he almost decides to make an exception to stay, thinking that if LEUNG Chun-ying is able to secure another term as the Chief Executive, he will be appointed as the Secretary for Security. If so, we can wait and see if Hong Kong will be thrown into a state of extreme disorder by then. This is very simple. As everyone knows, he is now working on his re-election, but only God knows whether he will succeed. Politics is realistic. Such people as the pro-establishment camp sitting in this room now will surely claim that they support the Government. But when he fails to secure a second term, they will not hesitate to add to his misery. Nevertheless, Tai-fai may not act in that way. Do Members think that the IVS policy is a mess?

Speaking of the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, it is even more amusing. Chairman, why is it amusing? It is about my own experience. When LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive in 2012, he proposed a stunning initiative of reorganization of the Government comprising five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux. He created an additional post of Deputy Financial Secretary in addition to the Financial Secretary, and got Paul CHAN to take up this position to keep the "bearded guy" under surveillance; in order to impose checks and balances on the "good fighter" LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9345

Carrie LAM, Chief Secretary for Administration, he got Patrick HO to keep her under surveillance. Moreover, he also attempted to set up two Bureaux. One of them was a Cultural Bureau responsible for controlling ideology. He departed from the usual practice and promoted Under Secretary for Home Affairs Florence HUI as the Secretary for Culture. And for the post of Secretary for Innovation and Technology, he fixed his mind on his buddy YEUNG Wai-hung. He had a comprehensive plan in mind, thinking that nothing would go wrong. As a newly elected Chief Executive, he thought that the former Government was not functioning well. He thus put forward a reorganization proposal comprising five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux once he assumed office. But he was really unlucky to have met us, and it so happened that we attempted to thwart the Legislative Council Election Ordinance by filibustering. As a result, our filibuster was cut off by the astute President Jasper TSANG. However, it so happened that 2012 is the last year of its term, that is, the last session of the fourth Legislative Council with only two months left, meaning that time was quickly running out. The name of my then operation was "Burning of Chained Barges". At that time, all bills flooded in. Documents relating to the Companies Ordinance alone already amounted to some 500 pages, and some 90 amendments were submitted in respect of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, which were exactly what we hoped for. And it was so stupid of him to get Fanny LAW to help him, thinking that he had made a smart move. But in fact, he was foolish and slow-witted. He said to me, "Yuk-man, you had better quit now. You people will not win." I said, "You are so wrong and know nothing about the Rules of Procedure." Consequently, he suffered a crushing defeat. The proposal of five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux was thwarted by us, and the filibuster on that occasion was the only successful one.

Later on, he revisited the proposal of establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau again, but it also ended in futility. After mentioning this, I have just used up my speaking time.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Chairman is indeed astute. After you have "tailored the filibuster" (restricting the debate time and thus handicapping the filibuster), now, everyone wants to speak. I remember that last year, I said here that if everyone were to speak, that would be great and the filibuster would surely be a success. It turned out that Members dare to speak only after you have "tailored the filibuster". Now, let me continue with my deliberations, all right?

9346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

This is very simple, Chairman. Do you remember this photo? Soon after LEUNG Chun-ying had been elected, this was published: "Can Hong Kong trust this man?" He is really formidable. As soon as he had been elected, or before he had been elected, his trustworthiness was already called into question. Frankly speaking, having come to this present state, there is no need to discuss this question anymore, rather, what needs to be discussed is when he is going to leave. I am seeking to deduct all of his remuneration but this is actually useless and it would work only if the remunerations for the entire Chief Executive's Office (CEO) are deducted. Otherwise, if he is so brazen as to say that he is willing to work without pay, there is nothing we can do about him.

Chairman, why do I want to deduct all of his remuneration? This is actually very simple. I will comment on him by way of "the four sprouts". What do "the four sprouts" mean? "The sense of compassion is the sprout of benevolence. The sense of shame and disdain is the sprout of righteousness. The sense of modesty and complaisance is the sprout of propriety. The sense of approval and disapproval is the sprout of wisdom.". I will use people involved in politics as illustrations for each of the senses. Regarding the sense of compassion, Chairman, he really had great compassion ― before he was elected, he would talk about deep-rooted conflicts all the time and he would not visit places where there were no elderly people and he would head straight to the homes of the poorest people. If you ask the CEO about his whereabouts now, how many times has he visited the places he visited during his election campaign, buddy? In these three years, has he ever visited the places he formerly visited? Since he has so much feeling for people in the rural areas and local neighbourhoods, has he ever visited them again after three years? On checking, I found that he had not.

Yesterday, it was even more laughable. Why do I want to deduct his remuneration? Because all the civil and military officials in his court went to Mei Foo and he said he wanted to deliver something to the local neighbourhood there for someone to drink. Was he talking nonsense, buddy? He is the Chief Executive and of course, in going to the scene, he should be the one doing the job, right? However, on arriving at the scene, he only said, "Carrie LAM, let me give you a bottle of cough syrup to drink.". Surely this could not be? After watching this, I wonder how anyone could put up with this. Carrie LAM was shoved and lambasted by protestors at the front line ― I had no time to go there yesterday as I was stuck here ― while LEUNG Chun-ying was cowering at the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9347 back and one could only see a little bit of his face, just a tiny little bit. Frankly speaking, I could not make out who that was despite looking for a long time and finally realized that it was him. Chairman, such a Chief Executive … in battle, should one not lead one's men in a charge? Buddy, of course, in the Legislative Council, he is protected by so many of our colleagues and he even takes along several G4 officers when attending meetings. When something was thrown towards him, he said he was scared. Mr WONG Yuk-man only threw a glass towards him and it did not even hit him in any way but again, he said he was very scared. Chairman, if he is like that, how could he do anything? All people are exerting their utmost and have assumed the responsibility of selling the very hard-to-sell "pocket-it-first" proposal, but buddy, he spent more time on making visits to the Mainland than staying in Hong Kong. As it is said, "the sense of shame and disdain is the sprout of righteousness", yet he does not even have any sense of compassion anymore.

Chairman, this is very simple. In what ways does he lack it? First, before he was elected, he was well-known for caring about the elderly people. His Manifesto states explicitly that a sum of money has to be set aside as a retirement fund, a retirement fund for all Hong Kong people in the future. In doing so, the connotation is that in the future, he wants to solve the problems related to poverty among the elderly in Hong Kong. However, buddy, after he came to power, even receiving the Old Age Living Allowance and a double amount of "fruit grant" is subject to means tests. His Manifesto is just all talk but no action.

Members, at the peak of the Umbrella Movement, he queried if, with so many people earning less than $14,000 monthly, and if universal suffrage was really implemented, would this not result in bias in favour of a certain social group? He could go so far as to say such things. Does he actually understand that it is already very unkind and unjust to trample on people earning less than $14,000 monthly and if he continues to do trampling in this way, the connotation is that for people whose monthly salary do not even reach $14,000, for example, if their monthly salary amounts to only $2,200 or $1,005, they simply should not vote because it is feared that there will be bias in favour of a certain social group. Chairman, frankly speaking, if I were to run for the Chief Executive office and I were to tell elderly people that it is necessary to do so, frankly, if we were to debate at the same forum or if I were to just happen to pass by, he would run out of luck and it would not even be possible to find any trace of his body. I 9348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 advocate the introduction of universal retirement protection but he advocates that all members of the public shall enjoy no retirement protection. Without any sense of compassion, how can he be a leader? Not only does he lack any sense of compassion, he does not care about the elderly either and obviously, this is the reason for my filibuster this time around. In fact, Members do not understand this. Now that LEUNG Chun-ying has reneged on his promises, should people in the legislature who agreed with LEUNG Chun-ying's coming to power not shoulder the responsibility? I am trying to recover the debts he owes you. But I did not support his coming to power.

There is another point that is most undesirable and what is it? One of the points about the sense of compassion is: Even if you see elderly people dying but you do not save them, let us forget about it but as Mencius said, if a child is about to fall into a well, you would try to save him. However, in the Umbrella Movement, he and that ignorant and incompetent good-for-nothing called ZHANG Xiaoming made false reports on the situation, telling the Communist Party of China to make the 31 August Decision, then said that nothing was the matter, so this resulted in young people taking to the streets in the Umbrella Movement and in the end, the situation got out of hand. He also allegedly received $50 million but in the policy address that came after the Umbrella Movement, he made no mention of this, yet in paragraph 10, he accused the University of Hong Kong (HKU) of being naughty in discussing independence of Hong Kong in Undergrad. This is really being sick beyond cure ― I do not mean the students of HKU but him. Although he saw that a child was about to fall into a well, he did not try to save him, rather, he kicked him into it. Moreover, he even named names.

In serving as the Chief Executive, what he likes the most is to have tea with other people, chat over a cup of drink and pat others on the hands, does he not? It was also because he had "ascended to the throne" that WANG Yang met him and went to his residence for a private banquet. So it was on account of this that the cellar in his home was caught on camera. Since he has so much spare time that he can have meals with high-level officials and important people whom Hong Kong people do not know, why does he not make an appointment with the several students publishing Undergrad? LEUNG Chun-ying thinks that he is so eloquent, so why can he not get in touch with them for a chat and educate them a little? After he had received those names, he only said, "Fine, leave them here.". The secretary of the CEO thought the Chief Executive would educate this group LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9349 of kids somewhat and maybe both parties would meet for a discussion but as it turned out, that was not the case. As it turned out, the approach adopted by him was like that during the Cultural Revolution on the Mainland, that is, one was turned around, two red crosses were put on oneself, then one was taken out and paraded, and it was said, "Look, this is how it is like. There are really people advocating independence of Hong Kong.". Hey, where is his sense of compassion? He gave them a drubbing with the intent to kill.

Chairman, he could not deal with the elderly issue properly and he even wanted to harm people of a tender age, so does this man actually have any sense of compassion and the desire to practise benevolent administration? There is another point that really arose for no apparent reason, that is, he also lacks the skill to put his own family in order. Frankly speaking, he has even made his own family a shambles ― of course, this may have nothing to do with him but in talking about this now, I hope Members would not misunderstand me, as I do not mean to rub salt into his wounds ― I only wish to point out that he wanted to lie even in such matters and that he has reached such an extent that he needs treatment as he is suffering from an illness called "compulsive liar", that is, no matter when, he always behaves as though he were receiving training as a secret agent. Chairman, do you know this is how the training of secret agents is like? If someone asks, "Tai-fai, are you a secret agent?" He would immediately deny it. If I ask Mr LEUNG Che-cheung if he knows certain secrets, he would immediately deny it; if I ask him if he had got in touch with a certain person yesterday, he would deny it. That is to say, he behaves as though he had received training as a secret agent. Whenever people ask him questions, he would never tell the truth but would only tell lies. This is how it is like in a novel that I have read and I do not know if LEUNG Chun-ying has also received that kind of training.

Chairman, a sense of compassion is the most important quality for people involved in politics. Without a sense of compassion, they will not succeed in whatever they do. Moreover, nowadays, when Hong Kong people already consider the constitutional reform proposal unacceptable and they are standing firm, yet the Communist Party of China (CPC) ― some people call it the Central Authorities, so let us say the Central Authorities of the CPC and I just would not bother to argue over this ― yet the Central Authorities of the CPC have said it is not possible to change the 31 August Decision, so what is LEUNG Chun-ying's position? Does he have any sense of compassion and has he told Hong Kong 9350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 people that he would reflect the true picture to the Central Authorities of the CPC, saying that Hong Kong people want to have universal suffrage, in particular, that young people in Hong Kong want to have universal suffrage? Buddy, he has not and he is still lying, saying that the general public in Hong Kong support the framework under the 31 August Decision, so this is practically a waste of time. Chairman, yesterday, I said to his face that it was one of the symptoms of having no sense of approval and disapproval and that it also meant having no sense of compassion. I told him, "Chief Executive, there is a solution. Article 50 of the Basic Law is the way out.".

This morning, I heard Ms Starry LEE being interviewed on the radio. Someone asked her if she would follow public opinion but she said that public opinion only served as a reference. However, for us in the pan-democratic camp, public opinion must be followed. Buddy, this is double standard. Therefore, we would not argue about public opinion but would argue about voting. The upcoming de facto referendum to be triggered by resignation will not be recognized by them. They will not recognize it, instead, they have organized a large-scale rolling public opinion survey. Buddy, do they want to deceive people? If they have to do so, why do we still need elections? Chairman, we might as well save the expenditure for the elections and it would do just to make use of public opinion surveys, would it not? If we were to merely conduct public opinion surveys, Mr LAU Kong-wah would probably still be a Member and Ms Starry LEE would probably be knocked out, would they not, buddy? That was what happened to you people, so would Ms Starry LEE agree with this? What I mean is that the results of the public opinion survey conducted in 2012 be used as the results of elections but of course, this would not happen. They would not agree even to making use of exit polls, would they?

I do not have much time now, but this problem can therefore be solved by means of the mechanism put in place by Article 50 of the Basic Law. LEUNG Chun-ying only has to say, "The Central Authorities, or the Central Authorities of the CPC, I will really win. Let me treat this as an important piece of legislation and you just say nothing. In this way, after that group of people in the pan-democratic camp have negatived it, I will dissolve the Legislative Council, then tell people to vote them out!" However, he would not do so, so does he have any sense of approval and disapproval? He even went so far as to say here that he represented public opinion. If he has the guts, just bring it on and I will run against him at any time. If not, LEUNG Chun-ying can also come and run against me in the elections.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9351

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I earlier talked about LEUNG Chun-ying's achievements, among them is the Individual Visit Scheme. The conclusion is as simple as shit, if we put it in a bit more vulgar way, right?

Since the proposal on five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux for the reorganization of the Government Secretariat in relation to the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) was vetoed by this Council in July 2012, he revisited it; on 29 October last year, the SAR Government resubmitted the resolution on establishing the ITB, and it was approved by this Council. Yet, it has now been withdrawn and the exercise has to start all over again. In January, to ensure the passage of the ITB in the Finance Committee of this Council, the SAR Government withdrew several agenda items, and the funding needed remained not approved before the end of that financial year. With a strong sense of reluctance, the authorities resorted to appointing Nicholas YANG, former Vice President of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, as the Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology, a non-official Member of the Executive Council as well as Chairman of a restructured body named the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology, in stark confrontation with this Council. Not being on the public payroll does not mean exemption from public monitoring. The positions held by Nicholas YANG are all public offices bestowed with public power, and non-official Members of the Executive Council are part of the highest body which assists the Chief Executive in the Government's policymaking.

LEUNG Chun-ying bypasses the normal procedures in appointing Nicholas YANG to public offices without being subject to this Council's monitoring, and this fully reflects how LEUNG Chun-ying disdains the legislature and its Members. News reports stated that Nicholas YANG has the right of abode in Taiwan, which is non-compliant with the requirement in the Basic Law with regard to appointment to the Executive Council. As an academic and Vice President, he responded in a way no one could have thought of, "We work for the good of Hong Kong in a concerted manner, so you should stop making trouble. It is essential to be sensible, reasonable and lawful, OK?" This is how he responded as a Vice President, buddy, and it really makes me mad. They really form a gang of shit who identify and mess up with each other well, right? Such a response will only make one speechless. This is the Advisor on Innovation and Technology and a non-official Member of the Executive Council.

9352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

When it comes to those non-official Members, I think the Chairman will shake his head and sigh too. You were once a non-official Member there. You are different, and you carry some weight. Among the incumbents, like CHEUNG Chi-kong, who threatened that the constitutional reform package has to be "pocketed" forever, otherwise there will be nothing left. Wow, what kind of person is he? Those remarks were made in relation to our head 21, which includes the Executive Council. What kind of a person is he? He really treated all Hong Kong people as idiots when he talked like that. Franklin LAM knowingly withdrew from the Executive Council. Poor is Barry CHEUNG, who was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with bail granted, but his charge was merely default on payment of wages. What a good treat is it? His company is still under investigation by the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Police, and no charge has yet been laid.

Those who make calls for democracy on the streets are arrested over and over again. As Dr Elizabeth QUAT prophesized, the Police have released some people today. Why? They cannot press any charge with no evidence. The judicial system remains the last guard in Hong Kong, and the Judges are not crazy. Wrong evidence coupled with the evidence provided by police officers … buddy, whether one is wrongly charged with the offence of assault or anything else, all of those arrested have to be released.

Therefore, should the Secretary for Justice be shot to death? Look at the face of Rimsky YUEN. It does not carry any trait of righteousness. As the Secretary for Justice, he should uphold righteousness and manifest the justice of rule of law through the well-trusted judicial system. He follows a guy like LEUNG Chun-ying, so you tell me, which part of him makes him look like a righteous person? One's face reflects his heart. Carrie LAM once looked very nice, but one can see how she looks now. The other day, a lady queried why Carrie looked so awful now, and I said one's face reflects one's heart. How can one doing evil all the time look pretty? Such remarks obviously amount to personal attack.

The incumbent Government is one made up of lowly people, the most fitting description for them. They include Franklin LAM, CHEUNG Chi-kong and Barry CHEUNG, and Barry CHEUNG is now … he was once a marvellous guy heading a Chief Executive election office. As Tai-fai put it, he looks more like a man of stature than himself, and bears the resemblance of leaders in every part of his face. He is now sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment for wage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9353 default. What about me? I was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with suspension for taking part in an unlawful assembly, but it was dismissed upon appeal, and I was eventually meted a $4,800 fine.

Furthermore, the Chief Executive really cannot absolve himself from the guilt of having received $50 million from an Australian firm. We once bet if he would charge Donald TSANG or not. Let me tell Members, he really wants to charge Donald TSANG, but on second thought, considering that he may end up like this one day, so he now does not do so out of cronyism and the matter is held up. How can an incumbent Chief Executive receive such money? I really cannot figure out the logic there. Even TUNG Chee-hwa had to speak in his defence, and I would not go into this further for fear of being blamed for filibustering. TUNG Chee-hwa opines that he has no problem at all morally. Under what circumstances should it be regarded as a problem? We really have no idea.

In the Report of the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interest, Andrew LI, former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, points out that … Where does the report come from? It originates from the case of "Greedy TSANG". It points out that politically appointed officials and members of the Executive Council "are our political leaders. Indeed, the Chief Executive is the head of the HKSAR. The community has highest expectations that these public officials would observe the highest standards of conduct. Mere compliance with the law is plainly insufficient". The report has made it clear.

If one not being guilty of any offence was considered morally fine, we would not have seen many political leaders in Western countries having to step down for a trivial matter. In some cases, the matter is not directly related to the person in question either. Two years ago, a newly enlisted solider in Taiwan died of excessive training, and the Minister of National Defence had to step down. Anyway, did it have anything to do with the Minster of National Defence? That is the way a democratic country works. A newly enlisted solider died of excessive training and the Minister of National Defence had to step down, because many people had neglected their duties over the whole incident, and he had to bear the responsibility for it.

Members are aware of the Umbrella Revolution. Since the firing of teargas on 28 September, the ensuing 79-day Occupy Movement was really magnificent, but it wound up as a failure. Some suggest that LEUNG 9354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chun-ying has done a great job in ending the chaos and won the favour of "Grandpa". "Strong winds test the strength of the grass, and it takes some turbulence to identify who are loyal". This is what he said on his own, and no one knows who spoke it to him.

As for "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds", how strong the winds are? They are as peaceful as can be. People just sat on the streets, Chairman. Did any insurrection or riot occur? Who bled? It was the Police who beat people and drew blood, right? Given his feat of ending the chaos, sources said, "'Yuk-man', those of you in the pro-democracy camp" ― he treats me as part of the pro-democracy camp, not realizing that I am both radical and crazy ― "you are all wrong, the Occupy movement has benefitted LEUNG Chun-ying, who is set to be re-elected. 'Grandpa' recognizes his feat of ending the chaos." Then, an idea was floated that the constitutional reform had to be "pocketed first", otherwise he would be re-elected. Such bizarre talk is really amazing.

What comes to my mind is that if I were a Beijing leader or one overseeing affairs in Hong Kong and Macao, and I were to review the situation and examine where Hong Kong should go as well as its current problems, I would never allow LEUNG Chun-ying to be the next Chief Executive should I be a bit more rational. Two years or so into the office, he had already aroused among people anger and grievances that gave rise to the 79-day occupation on the streets, and he is always engaged in conflict among classes, ethnic groups and ideologies, and even against those from the pro-establishment camp should they not act to his liking. Allowing this kind of guy to be re-elected is like casting a death spell on Hong Kong. I am speaking with common sense. Therefore, one should not accept their sugar-coated suggestion that "pocketing it first" will block the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying, and that if he can enter the race and win the support of half of the nominating committee, he will become candidate 1, and Mrs Regina IP candidate 2, and Dr LAM Tai-fai candidate 3, and under "one person, one vote", even those who are blind will vote for Tai-fai; if the constitutional reform package is "pocketed first", he will not be re-elected as Chief Executive.

This is common sense as well. Hence, I wonder if Members like Mr James TIEN and Dr LAM Tai-fai are not regarded as loving the country and Hong Kong. If they join the Chief Executive election, what luck will LEUNG Chun-ying have? Unless "Grandpa" is evil-minded and embraces LEUNG Chun-ying so much as to screen out Dr LAM Tai-fai and Mr James TIEN when drawing up the list of candidates, which turns out to include Mrs Regina IP and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9355

LEUNG Chun-ying only. LEUNG Chun-ying will then stand a chance of being re-elected. Do Members reckon it will be as ridiculous as that? Nowadays, I would like to make such interesting guesses. What kind of election is it if Tai-fai and Mr James TIEN are screened out?

Therefore, I have to praise the Chairman, who has said that it is impossible to screen out persons deemed highly popular in opinion polls. If that is the case, is such an election not bogus? It is 100% bogus. Hence, I am now making a pamphlet which reads "Say no to bogus constitutional reform, down the pseudo-regime". A regime arising from a bogus constitutional reform is of course pseudo, right? Therefore, I do not believe in remarks that ending the 79-day chaos constitutes a feat, that there is no need to enlist the help of the People's Liberation Army, and that LEUNG Chun-ying is good, then there will be some gossiping.

Chairman, what does it reflect actually? The pro-establishment camp is in a state of gross disunity and full of deceit and dishonesty. Many of them want him dead, and there are surely reasons for that. Like many of those from the pro-democracy camp who also want me dead, there are reasons for that, too. If I am like the Chairman and declare that I will not run in the next election, the pro-establishment camp as well as those over there will clap their hands hard. There are reasons for being loathed. He is also loathed by the pro-establishment camp. I dare not say Tai-fai hates him. Instead, Tai-fai does care about him and always speaks with irony and mockery, and that is all he does. He is unlike us who will chide him right in his face for telling lies and being a base person with no integrity at all. He will not swear at him in this way, but I will.

As Members may see in the Occupy movement, has the chaos really been stopped after all? How are these young people going to perceive Hong Kong? He settles down and gets on with his pursuit. But what do those teenagers think, having seen this political scene and looked at the faces of those in power? In the Government, be it the Chief Executive or those in his office who are well educated and earn $2 million to $3 million a year, why do they not think about the future of Hong Kong and where these teenagers should go? For a university graduate earning $15,000 a month, not to mention the need to repay the loan borrowed for his studies, he needs $5,000 to rent a subdivided unit, and $10,000 is left. Chairman, transport expenses for work take up at least $2,000. As for the remaining $8,000, he may go to the movie with his girlfriend once a week, so two tickets cost $200, and two popcorn sets at $50 or so each make it $300, not to 9356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 mention transportation and a meal. Doing this once a week costs $2,000 to $3,000 a month. How can he get married and buy a home? Even a Home Ownership Scheme unit costs $10,000 or so a square foot, and that is the problem.

He has never demonstrated the determination to solve these problems. As for young people not favoured by him, he will single them out and say they will not fare well in their endeavour for self-determination over Hong Kong's independence. What is he saying? In contrary to him, let me tell Members how much I enjoy the company of these young people. Has he ever thought of what they are thinking? No, he is only good at blaming people, like what I do, but he does it like he is unlearned and takes the same line over and over again. Will Members please look at how awful he looks during his visits to the community. As regards the community visits made by officials of all ranks to promote the constitutional reform, why do they do it stealthily without making their schedule known? What does he fear? I have asked informants to take note and tell us where he will next visit. We will put on clothings not bearing any sign and flock to entertain him.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this afternoon, I have listened to the criticisms made by a number of pro-democracy Members and radical Members of LEUNG Chun-ying, suggesting a reduction of the budget for the Chief Executive's Office. I very much hope that the pro-government Members will speak too. Dr LAM Tai-fai said that he is a member of the pro-establishment camp, not the pro-government camp. But I still hope that he will speak, for he has not spoken yet. Just press the button and he can rise to speak right away.

First of all, Chairman, I continue to speak on the provision for the acquisition of water cannon vehicles under Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force. In fact, concerning our opposition to the acquisition of three water cannon vehicles by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), apart from our consideration that their acquisition is unnecessary in nature, a more serious problem is that as each water cannon vehicle costs only $9 million, which is below $10 million, their funding application can completely bypass the Legislative Council Finance Committee, so that it can be directly scrutinized on a one-off basis as part of the Budget. Therefore, as I reminded all Members, especially the pro-democracy Members, when I made the last point in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9357 previous part of the discussion, if they would show mercy to this Budget, saying that they would ultimately support this Budget, they are, in fact, supportive of the acquisition of these three water cannon vehicles and they are supportive of the SAR Government in employing such a despicable trick of "splitting the bill" to bypass scrutiny by the Finance Committee in order to procure these water cannon vehicles, not allowing us to debate this issue or ask questions about it.

Some time ago, an engineer of the Department of Mechanical Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, LO Kwok-keung, pointed out that the most important function of water cannon vehicles is to block the onslaught of crowds. Take an Austrian-made model of water cannon vehicles as an example. It can release 20 litres of water per second, which is equivalent to about 44 pounds of force, whereas a turbojet anti-riot vehicle manufactured by the Mainland can fire 40 litres of water per second, which is equivalent to 88 pounds of force. A person hit by a jet of water within a distance of 5 m is equivalent to being hit by a car and knocked against a wall, and if the water jet hits objects on the ground which then bounced around and hit a human body, each cubic inch of the object still carries 10 pounds of force, which can be fatal. A person hit by a water cannon in the face at a close distance may have his eyes injured and even become blind in serious cases. Moreover, water cannon vehicles can cause even more unpredictable dangers. For example, a person standing high up above the ground may be toppled when hit by a water jet, and chaos may ensue when people flee from the scene, and so on. Every year, the Songkran water festival in Thailand has a lot of accidents, resulting in a lot of deaths because the splashing of water can lead to stampedes, causing motorcycles running on roads to turn over and pedestrians being splashed to fall down on the road and run over by cars.

In 2004, a sub-committee of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council of the United Kingdom submitted a paper to the British Parliament. The paper pointed out that while water cannons are not lethal weapons, a water jet fired by a water cannon vehicle may cause rotational injuries to the head and neck when impacting the human body direct, or a person hit by a jet of water may trip or fall down and may hence collide with other hard objects, resulting in injuries. Water jets may also cause severe injuries to the eyes, and Members can find on the Internet a horrible picture of a retired engineer in Germany who participated in a demonstration for environmental causes having been unfortunately hit by a water cannon. As a result, he suffered bone fractures around his eyes and became blind, and caught in a state of depression, he had once thought of killing himself. 9358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Moreover, as it is impossible for water cannons to accurately aim at an individual person in launching attacks, which means that the force released may indiscriminately cause injuries to other people at the scene, including participants of peaceful assemblies. Both water cannon vehicles and sound cannons require wide, straight roads to function effectively. Roads in Hong Kong are narrow, with a large number and a great variety of fences or railings, and this would only make the situation worse and so, our situaiton cannot be compared with that in other countries. Think about this: If water cannons are used in places like Mong Kok where alleys and narrow streets are found everywhere and a large number of shops are operating, it could be very dangerous. This is also one of the points made in opposition to the acquisition of water cannon vehicles in London.

Besides, water cannons can fire dyes for identifying participants of an activity, as Members have mentioned, but this is only meant to enable the Police to make arrests and institute prosecutions subsequently. In Hong Kong, demonstrations usually take place in downtown areas. The dyes sprayed out by the vehicles may affect the passer-bys, nearby residents and reporters, and it is easy for innocent people to be injured or worse still, people sprayed with the dyes will provide the Police with evidence, giving them an excuse for making indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions.

However, I really find it incomprehensible as to why people from the Independent Police Complaints Council could go so far as to say that "firing a water cannon at you is better than firing a gun at you". Applying this logic, I can say that when I punch you ― for example, Dr LAM Tai-fai, if I gave you a punch and you asked me why I had punched you, I said that punching you is better than stabbing at you, and stabbing at you is better than firing a shot at you. Is this the logic being applied? How can a water cannon vehicle and a gun be mentioned in the same breath? If the Police do not have any water cannon vehicles, will they, when facing crowds of people, fire shots at the people indiscriminately? I believe they absolutely would not do such a thing.

During the Umbrella Movement the Police fired 87 tear gas canisters and hoisted banners warning the public that they would "open fire" ― though the Police said afterwards that the reverse side of the banner was displayed ― but the crowds were not dispersed and on the contrary, even more people swarmed to places like Admiralty, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok, and so on, and the Occupy movement had since persisted for weeks. The Police had wielded their batons and frantically deployed pepper spray on the people, but such campaigns as the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9359 so-called "gouwu" (which means shopping) movement or anti-parallel trading protests have not been reduced as a result. Is it the best way to maintain social order by stepping up the force in the Police's equipment for crowd dispersion? We all along have misgivings about this. Therefore, I hope Members will support Amendements Nos 303 to 307. These amendments, though proposed by five Members respectively, have made the same proposal of deducting the total annual expenditure for the acquisition of three specialized crowd management vehicles by the HKPF.

Next, Chairman, I wish to speak on Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. I support Amendment No 450 concerning Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, which seeks to deduct $5 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau on publicity work relating to the public consultation on the constitutional reform. Yesterday, after the "2017: Make it happen!" campaign was launched, the constitutional reform trio was busy visiting the districts to mount a publicty blitz. Why do I have to speak on this amendment first? Because it has to do with some latest developments. There is a piece of news about the performanc of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs today. Let me brief Members on Secretary Raymond TAM's schedule today. He has to attend three occasions in one day. In the morning he attended a radio programme; then he had a regular meeting with the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the 18 District Councils in Wan Chai; and in the afternoon he attended a programme on a live broadcast van. All these so-called publicity activities actually do not cost a single cent, and so long as the three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux work conscientiously, the radio stations will invite them to appear in their programmes and better still, there will be people making preparations for the venues. Did Members see those scenes yesterday? Some community organizations had prepared a stage for the Chief Secretary for Administration to put on a show and before her show started, singing and dance performances had been arranged for free. This is all very good, for these expenses are not counted as the Government's expenditure on publicity. Therefore, even if this sum of $5 million is deducted as I proposed, the Government needs not worry about it. There will be people sending in donations of $50 million tomorrow for the Government to continuously promote this proposal on the election of the Chief Executive known as "2017: Make it happen!". Let me tell members of the public here that what the Government has done is but weird and does not make sense at all. As Mr WONG Yuk-man said 9360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 earlier on, when they conduct publicity, they certainly wish that more people will know what they are doing and more reporters will cover their activities, but the itinerary of the officials is kept secret, which is indeed laughable. Reporters were informed of the details only one or two hours before the activity started. What is the reason? A guilty conscience, Chairman. I do not mean that you, Chairman, have a guilty conscience. I mean these Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, and Chief Executive "689" have a guilty conscience.

They did not make known their itinerary for fear of being confronted by the people. Why do I think that the public have the obligation to confront them in these so-called publicity activities for the constitutional reform? The reason is simple. If Members see a case of fraud taking place on the street or if they see the "deceptive trio" trying to cheat an elderly woman out of her pension money or a middle-age woman her hard-earned money or an elderly man his Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payment, are we not duty-bound to immediately shout at them and tell them to stop? "Hey, you three guys, stop swindling people! Shame on you!". This is an analogy to what is happening now. Let me tell members of the public that if they consider that the 2017 constitutional reform proposal is an out-and-out scam, then, when they see these swindlers on the street, they are duty-bound to ― although they said that they carried out publicity in the districts, we would say that they went there to hoax the people ― they have to point out and openly reprimand them for their wrong deeds. It is precisely because they were doing wrong deeds that they acted surreptitiously, not daring to make public their itinerary over and above board. In fact, I think LEUNG Chun-ying does not have to be afraid. Yeseterday, the audience of the show at Mei Foo Sun Chuen was brought there by himself. When the reporters asked them which blocks they live in, a middle-age woman said in reply that she lived in block 13 but Mei Foo Sun Chuen has only eight blocks and she said that she lived in block 13. She is certainly one of his own people. The Government can bring along chairs and the audience by itself, and that does not need any funding from us.

Strangely enough, Chairman, yesterday we saw that these promotional pamphlets were mysteriously wrapped in sealed envelopes on which there were several red stamps with signatures on them that resembled the marks caused by cupping therapy. It was only at 11 o'clock that we knew what were inside the envelopes when they were unsealed. But some community organizations already got the design of "2017: Make it happen!" and even made easy-mount frames on their own initiatives. Could it be that no sooner had they seen it on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9361 television than they ordered these frames at a banner shop? Of course not. They must have got such information well ahead of others. Therefore, the Government does not need any funding from us at all. Chairman, it was all initiated by the community. The Government thinks that its proposal is in line with public opinions, that over 50% of the people support the constitutional reform, and that there is no problem at all. So, the $5 million funding for publicity is not necessary. That is downright a waste of public coffers, for the public will pay from their own pockets.

I have not finished telling the story of Raymond TAM. Although his itinerary was kept secret, there was still a chance for information to be leaked and somehow the reporters managed to find out about it. The colleagues involved in WONG Wing's programme which the Secretary was invited to attend learned of this and information on his whereabouts was then leaked, Chairman. Knowing that the swindler would be hoaxing people on the street and that he would get on a vehicle to hoax people, some members of the public went to Causeway Bay on their own initiative to chase the broadcast truck, in order to confront him after he finished his interview in the programme. It was originally planned that Raymond TAM would get off the vehicle and take questions and he had actually made arrangements for meeting with the reporters there. Then he was confronted by the people and so, he immediately boarded his car, trying to get away without answering questions from the reporters. Fortunately, it so happened that the traffic light turned red and his car could not get away. So the people went over to confront him. They blocked the way of his car and hurled abuses at him which were rather unpleasing to the ear. They called him "rubbish secretary", saying that he was earning a high salary but selling out Hong Kong, that he is but a liar, and "let Heaven punish you, bald head", and so on. What happened in the end? The Government is "supreme" as they jumped the lights and drove away. This is a farce of the promotion of "2017: Make it happen!" by government officials in the districts. Such work requires no expenses and is most economical. Yet, the Government is asking for $5 million to be allocated from the Budget for it to carry out this scam. How is it going to spend this $5 million? I will explain it in detail to Members later on.

(Mr TANG Ka-piu stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TANG Ka-piu, what is your point?

9362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Yesterday it was reported that a female resident said that she lived in block 13 but there were actually only eight blocks. As far as I understand it, Mei Foo Sun Chuen should have eight phases and a total of 99 blocks. Please do not make any unfounded allegation about provision of a false address.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are way too many blunders that they are innumerable. Now I am going to explain why I have to pinpoint the Chief Executive and propose to cut his salary and that of his subordinates. Chairman, he has not only deluded his subordinates, but also deceived his superiors. When Hong Kong was weathering a storm, he gave false reports on social sentiments, saying that Hong Kong people would absolutely not resist the framework under the 31 August Decision. Subsequently, under the pressure of the Umbrella Movement, he indicated that he had met with President XI Jinping, and the latter even said some encouraging words to him. Frankly speaking, this is only a publicity gimmick because scripts of speeches are subject to stringent requirements. As we all know, according to a person who is in the know, the remark was "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds". This was what he said, okay? Members have heard of the saying "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds", but do you all know the story behind it? Would President XI Jinping use the saying that "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds" to describe him for no reason? Or did he read out the whole poem to him? We will never know.

In fact, it seems that he is telling the whole world that there are movements advocating Taiwan Independence and colour revolutions in Hong Kong. All of them are just empty words with no consequences. Also, we do not know if the words of President XI Jinping have been deliberately distorted by him. Every time I see him, he is reluctant to chat with me, or else I will ask him about it. In fact, why would President XI Jinping commend him with this poem? Now, according to the person in the know, he was really commended. LEUNG Chun-ying did not deny this, nor did his Chief Executive Office including Stephen FUNG hired by him.

This poem is actually about a disloyal follower named XIAO Yu. Just imagine, buddy, would President XI Jinping be so uneducated in Chinese culture as to commend him with a poem about a disloyal follower? In addition, did it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9363 insinuate that XI Jinping had gone through the "Xuanwumen Coup" during which he was denigrated by his father or superior, and he was grateful to LEUNG Chun-ying, the modern XIAO Yu, for speaking good of him? The original version of the poem actually goes like this: "Only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds, and the true and faithful can only be identified in times of trouble; a brave man may not understand morality and justice, while a man with wisdom must be seasoned with charity". XIAO Yu was the righteous follower who betrayed the Sui Dynasty after he had been captured by LI Yuan, father of LI Shimin. Buddy, under such circumstances, how dare he said that XI Jinping had commended him with this poem. What kind of a man is he? There are numerous men of insight. Why would they choose such a poem? Is it a cooked-up story?

Now it has led to widespread speculations. Where exactly did President XI Jinping commend him? What was actually said? Did he just read out one of the lines or all four lines of the poem? Or did he actually say "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds, but regrettably you are not"? LEUNG Chun-ying is a typical compulsive liar mentioned by me just now. That is to say, he keeps telling lies. I think this issue must be handled seriously. President XI Jinping is occupied with a myriad of state affairs, and needs to meet with many different parties. Every word he says counts. Mr Gary FAN, now there is a Chief Executive who claims that he has met with President XI, and President XI has commended him with the saying that "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds". But he does not realize the poem actually carries a negative connotation. The one who commended others had been involved in a fratricidal strife and power struggle, and he bestowed a poem on the man who had assisted him. Buddy, did he refer to the Umbrella Movement, or the struggle between XI and ZHOU? Is he qualified to speak good of others in the struggle between XI and ZHOU, or did he just lick the wrong boot?

Hence, Chairman, there is really nothing that Hong Kong people can do. This lie has gone way too far. Now I can only say one thing. Either it is the case that LEUNG Chun-ying was manipulated and ordered by forces from the United Kingdom or United States to sow discord between President XI Jinping and others, or that President XI Jinping has never made that remark. Maybe he actually said "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds, but regrettably you are not". Otherwise how can there be any other explanation? In addition, Chairman, this issue actually has a second part. He has met with a number of leaders, but there has never been any record of the conversation in 9364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 detail then. He is the one who spreads all the news, saying that he has been commended by the leader off the record. Chairman, this is really a waste of time. You have also met with the leaders. Have they ever commended you off the record? I think it rarely happens because it is subject to specifications, isn't it? And they also do not know you well.

In fact, he has already committed a cardinal sin by comparing himself to a disloyal follower, right? Now let me put aside the commendation, Chairman, and talk about the so-called authority movement launched by him, during which he got a Party Secretary from Hubei Province. This has actually happened. He got a Party Secretary from Hubei Province to play a bit role, saying things like "Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is really awesome". Buddy, does he not think that he has brought disgrace on Hong Kong people? Chairman, those persons-in-charge above him include not only President XI Jinping, the former head of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Coordination Group of the Communist Party of China, who has now been promoted to "XI Daquan" with all powers vested in him, but also WANG Guangya and ZHANG Xiaoming, who favoured him much. But he asked for trouble and headed for Hubei Province on public money. What was said remains unknown. Then, arrangements could suddenly be made for a crew to capture how he mingled with others. Soon after that, someone commended him. Is it not a low-class publicity spin? No matter what, he is the Chief Executive of a special administrative region. I do not know what his rank is in the party, but both of them are party members. In terms of establishment, the Governor of a province is lower in terms of rank than the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. We just cannot believe he got someone junior to him to commend him. What is wrong with him?

From this, we can see that he has exhausted every means to build up his image, turning a blind eye to the political system of the country. His fabrication that his superior President XI Jinping commended him makes me feel that WONG Yuk-man made a good point earlier on, who criticized him for continuously creating chaos and attacking others in Hong Kong.

Furthermore, he is unable to administer control over his cabinet. Simply put, Chairman, you have also acted as a member of the cabinet. It refers to the governing team of the Chief Executive, which is the ruling Chief Executive in Council. But he asked for trouble and triggered off a diplomatic crisis. Honestly, I think this crisis attributed to Mrs Regina IP is a most serious one. Buddy, how can he administer Hong Kong? If he has a bit of the innate sense of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9365 right and wrong mentioned by me earlier on, he should come forward to correct her. Chairman, this is about empathy. Assume that a youngster not known to you had written a book that did not sell well. But in a sudden move, you devoted paragraph 10 of the Policy Address to discuss the matter. And as you considered it not enough to just publish it, you deliberately picked paragraph 10 for discussion here.

Mrs Regina IP, who has meetings with him every day, has made a statement about Filipinas. Does he need to correct her? If he cannot keep her under control, then how can he administer Hong Kong? Others are saying that this is a diplomatic crisis. Hence, I think there are problems with his entire team. Actually I do not like Confucianism, but if we have to predict the characters of a person, one of the ideas advocated by Confucianism applies here, that is treating others as you would like them to treat you. A man has to cultivate his moral character and put his family matters in order before he can run the country well and ultimately achieve universal peace. If a man cannot even sort out his own matters, what can he do? Hence, judging from this, I can assert that LEUNG Chun-ying is a dishonest person. Previous comments on his dishonesty just amount to something like "the Pope is Catholic". But now, we can tell his personality by these two observations and the way he treats youngsters.

Chairman, on this issue, does he have a sense of modesty and complaisance? The sense of modesty and complaisance is the sprout of propriety. What does it mean by modesty and complaisance? It means that a man who knows his own limitations will not force himself to put on a front. Chairman, earlier on, I challenged him to battle it out under Article 50 of the Basic Law, and urged him not to keep asking people to kick me out by votes. He will also reap what he sows because according to Article 50 of the Basic Law, if the constitutional reform package is supported by the majority but not passed because we as the minority go against public opinion, thereby leading to the dissolution of the Legislative Council, I will have to leave. Since I am only part of the minority and represent only a handful of votes, my departure will prove that the Government is right. I am just part of the minority indeed. The Government will then have enough votes to pass its package.

However, he has to reap what he sows. Once we are re-elected, or instead of me, a person who is smarter and has a more determined stance than "Long Hair" is elected, and the original package is again not passed, Chairman, 9366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 according to Article 50 of the Basic Law, he must resign immediately. In fact, under the impeachment mechanism of the Basic Law, he is not required to resign immediately. Even if he is suspected of corruption or corrupt conduct, a report should be submitted to the Legislative Council after an investigation carried out by a Judge, so that we can proceed with impeachment. Hence, this proves that Article 50 of the Basic Law is an invention by the Central Authorities. When the Chief Executive has actually lost his popularity or the Legislative Council has gone too far, either one will be eliminated. They need not say anything and boast that they are the king of fighters. All they need to do is to fight on stage until either one dies. Buddy, this is not the case now. In this regard, I have never met such a petty man. He often mentions to the pan-democratic camp referendum triggered by resignation, and questions whether we will resign if we do not achieve a good result, so that the package can be passed.

Now I have thought up a method compliant with the Basic Law which will give LEUNG Chun-ying a chance to showcase his resolve as described in the saying that "only the toughest grass can stand the test of strong winds". I request that he come forward to bear his responsibility and challenge all pan-democratic Members with his position. Judging from this, he has no sense of modesty and complaisance at all. Every time he speaks, he wants others to get the short end of the stick. Just like the plot of Cantonese movies, be it heads or tails, I will be the winner. If so, buddy, why bother tossing coins? In this regard, I think the Chief Executive should be whipped hard because in terms of the four sprouts, he has no sense of benevolence or righteousness, with no propriety nor integrity. And I have yet to talk about integrity.

Chairman, come to think about this. This Chief Executive cannot smooth out his family matters, nor can he administer control over his team, namely the Executive Council. Leaving aside the outgoing Barry CHEUNG, what should be done to the recent incident involving Regina IP? Now it has resulted in a diplomatic crisis. The Philippines considered it a humiliation, thus making it a diplomatic crisis. "Small Keung" may not be able to handle it as he is very cunning. He claimed that he was unable to resolve the Philippine hostage issue, advancing the reason that he was not in a position to deal with AQUINO III. Hence, in this regard, leaving aside the truth of that allegation, I think he should actually be killed as he framed his master for having a domestic row by quoting a poem about a disloyal follower for the sake of glorifying himself. For this reason, I find it really hard to say enough about this grave error.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9367

Having spoken for such a long time, I just wish to highlight one point. LEUNG Chun-ying, I am really scared. I beg you not to ask the rich to vote me out anymore. I believe in public opinion, so please act according to Article 50 of the Basic Law. I do not know if President XI Jinping will watch our meeting, but I now ask President XI Jinping to allow or order LEUNG Chun-ying to compete with us in a totally level playing field. In doing so, Chairman, my curse on him today may come true. I, rather than he, may be the one who is leaving. (The buzzer sounded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, speaking time is up.

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

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

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

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to speak on the reduction in respect of "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau".

The amendment proposing the reduction is No 450. It seeks to reduce the funding for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to be spent on publicity for constitutional reform public consultation by an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the work for the year, that is, $5 million. In fact, it is wrong and ridiculous to spend this sum of money. The money spent is public money belonging to Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people are paying a sum to allow the Government to publicize this constitutional reform fraud. In other words, we are paying the Government to put up a show of fraud to deceive ourselves. How much money has been spent on this bogus 9368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 constitutional reform or constitutional reform fraud as I called it? We did ask the Government about this at the special meeting of the Finance Committee. In the previous year, that is, 2014-2015, a total of $12.1 million was spent. In the year 2015-2016, the spending is $5 million ― this is planned expenditure, for the spending is still going on. In what ways is this sum spent? In the case of last year, $2 million was spent on printing, $9.4 million was spent on publicity, and $700,000 on other expenditures, including postage, delivery, website development and maintenance, and so on. This time around, that is, 2015-2016, the amount provided for printing is $1.2 million, $3.5 million for publicity and $300,000 for other expenditures, which add up to a total of $5 million.

How will the $3.5 million for publicity be spent, or how the $9.4 million was spent last year? The Government has not provided a detailed reply. Some people say that the so-called filibuster will hinder the voting on the constitutional reform, but we have explained it. In fact, the voting on the constitutional reform will only be held in the middle of June the earliest, or may be even by the end of June, so the debate on the Budget will not hinder the voting on the constitutional reform. It is particularly so when the Chairman has already set down the different scenes in the script. At that time, a reporter asked whether we would have a long filibuster or a short filibuster in the light of the voting on the constitutional reform. If we consider this from a financial perspective, it will be better that the proposal be put to the vote earlier than later, provided that the 27 Members from the democratic camp have vowed to vote against the proposal. If the voting is done earlier, the constitutional reform will end earlier, and if it ends earlier, lesser will be spent on it. Am I right? Certainly, even if the proposal is put to vote today, a lot of money has already been spent. The printing cost is a case in point. I think they have already spent a lot on publicity leaflets and posters, and so on.

Chairman, some time ago, I asked the Government a written question to enquire about the number of copies of printed publicity materials made for the consultation on constitutional reform. It was found that a great number was involved, which is extremely wasteful. The Government Logistics Department has printed over 1.17 million copies of publicity materials for the two rounds of constitutional reform consultation, incurring an expenditure of nearly $3.9 million. May I ask the Government of the reasons for printing so many copies of publicity materials? The Government should be promoting the concept of environmental protection, should it not? Are there any internal guidelines within the Government stating spending and printing should be made LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9369 as required? I recall that we criticized the Government for the ball pens they printed in the previous year ― I have not brought that ball pen with me today ― and those three-colour ball pens printed with wording about the constitutional reform consultation were packed in individual plastic bags. I surely understand why the authorities do so. It feared that the print "Let's talk" on those ball pens would be scrubbed off if they were put together without individual plastic packing. If the print on the ball pens were scrubbed off because of fiction between ball pens, it would lose the meaning of distributing those ball pens. In other words, even pens need to be packaged. I think this is kind of wasteful.

Certainly, despite the reduction proposed by us now, the money has already been spent. This so-called bogus ballot paper, with the wording "This flyer is for promotional purpose", has been mocked broadly. The authorities have made some efforts in thinking up the names of the three candidates. One is called "李 雯 生" (LI Man-sang), another is called "施正通" (SI Ching-tong), and the last one is called "惠京濟" (HUI Ging-zai)7. Some people propose that the names be replaced with another three names. The first candidate should use the surname "假" and be called "假普選" (meaning bogus universal suffrage). The second candidate should use the surname "曾", sharing the same surname with the Chairman, and be called "曾獨才" 8. The third candidate should use the surname "魏" and be called "魏民主"9. This is evidence proving that the Government is using public money to continue to deceive the public. The money spent on all these items is taxpayers' money.

In this so-called consultation on constitutional reform ― I think it is not a consultation exercise but a grand show ― how much manpower, resource and money have been spent on advertising? The figures I cited according to my calculation earlier do not include staff cost, as staff cost is already included under the expenditure on internal administration, which means the cost has been incurred anyway. In other words, the figures only include advertisements placed on the external walls of buildings, on buses and in the MTR. Have Members

7 The three names pun with other Chinese characters carrying the following meanings: "李雯生" (care about people's livelihood), "施正通" (smooth governance) and "惠京濟" (benefit the economy).

8 The surname "曾" puns with the Chinese character "真" (meaning genuine), so the name "曾獨才" carries the meaning of genuine dictatorship.

9 The surname "魏" puns with the Chinese character "偽" (meaning fake), so the name "魏民主" carries the meaning of bogus democracy. 9370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 seen the scene in MTR stations? Both sides of the escalators are covered with publicity advertisements on this constitutional reform fraud. Of course, the most controversial part is the advertisement placed with the electronic media. We say that the Government has resorted to foul play this time. This is evident in two aspects. First, it spends our money on political publicity. These publicity campaigns are different from those encouraging blood donation and hand-washing during SARS, for the latter is really related to public interest. If the constitutional reform is passed, will the public benefit or suffer? This is still a controversial question. This so-called policy of the Government has not been agreed by the legislature, yet it has spent a large amount of public money to promote this policy. Some time ago, we criticized the Development Bureau for spending a large amount of public money on placing advertisements with newspapers to promote the North East New Territories Development Plan, trying to kick off the battle for public opinion, yet the advertisements carry all sorts of lies. This Government is prone to step on the line. Members often mentioned APIs, but do they know what API means? These are Announcements in the Public Interest (API) for promoting and announcing certain issues of public interest. If the public are asked whether the promotion of constitutional reform is for public interest, I think at least half of them do not think so. It is a matter of money.

The second concern is not about money. Mr Gary FAN pointed out earlier that the advertisements broadcast on television by the Government are political advertisements. Television stations have undertaken to let the Government broadcast a certain number of APIs, but this time the Government has arranged for a "top-up" out of its own pocket. It has requested a "top-up" for these advertisements on radio stations and television stations. We have no way to place these advertisements even if we have the money. First, television stations may not have the guts to take our advertisements which are regarded as opposing the constitutional reform. I know that the Labour Party has filmed an advertisement. Am I right? It is said in the advertisement that we would rather end up in a "common hand" scenario than "giving the others a chance to win". Try to ask ATV to broadcast this advertisement. Even though ATV is in financial trouble, do you think it will be willing to broadcast this advertisement? I think television stations would rather give up the opportunity to make more money than agreeing to broadcast these advertisements. Besides, television stations have to bear another risk, for it is stipulated in the Broadcasting Ordinance that they cannot take political advertisements. However, if LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9371 advertisements promoting support for the constitutional reform are not regarded as political advertisements, will advertisements promoting opposition to the constitutional reform be regarded as political advertisements? In this connection, I think the best option is to take the advertisement to ATV and ask whether IP Ka-po will agree to broadcast the advertisement and whether the advertisement is a political advertisement as ATV will soon close down.

Chairman, the so-called consultation documents published in these two rounds of consultation are stuffed with a large number of equivocal terms ― as I pointed out earlier, the authorities have spent over $3 million and close to $4 million on printing the million copies of consultation documents. In the first round of consultation, they talked about loving the country, loving Hong Kong, organizational nomination, democratic procedures and collective will. In the second round, they talked about giving regard to the overall situation and the need to forge consensus, and castles in the air. Which overall situation should we give regard to? With whom should we forge the consensus? I have sent a couplet to Carrie LAM. In the entire course of the constitutional reform, I have only met with her once. The couplet I sent her reads, "假作真時真亦假，無 為有處有還無" (meaning "When the untrue is taken for true, the true becomes untrue; when the unreal becomes real, the real becomes unreal"). When the National People's Congress (NPC) shut the door, genuine universal suffrage is nowhere in sight. It has been learnt that some government officials, as well as Members of the Executive Council, also considered the framework of constitutional reform too strict at an earlier time, but they could not but support the proposal. Some people say that one should be faithful to the one who pays you your salary. Some say that one cannot but make compromises in this world. Since they have no choice, all Members of the Executive Council have to bow to it. They cannot express their views even if they do not agree with the framework, and they have to come together to promote the constitutional reform every Saturday now. LEUNG Chun-ying says that they all visit the districts and take part in this grand show of "Make it happen" voluntarily. However, they have to admit the wrong to be right, to betray their conscience and to call a stag a horse ― Mr Gary FAN has removed the dummy horse ― I think it is unnecessary to show understanding to these senior government officials and influential people. They do have choices. They can at least choose to resign and refuse to take part in this constitutional reform that leads to bogus universal suffrage which is hazardous to Hong Kong people.

9372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Yesterday, Carrie LAM came to the Legislative Council to announce the proposal on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. She reiterated that universal suffrage should be implemented in compliance with the framework set out in the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on August 31, 2014 (31 August Decision), which includes the composition of the Nomination Committee by the four major sectors, the proportion of the number of members of each subsector remaining unchanged and the requirement to obtain endorsement of more than half of the Nomination Committee members to be eligible to stand for election, and restricting the number of candidates standing for election to two to three. We have pointed out a number of times in the past that this election method is called the Iran-style election, and once we pocket it, it will be the end. People may think that there is only advancement but no backslide in the fight for democracy. However, the experience of Iran tells us that the fight for democracy can retrogress, and in the Iranian case, it returned to 1979 once it retrogressed. We should not allow Hong Kong people to take this path.

What did CHEUNG Chi-kong, Member of the Executive Council, say today? I will discuss this in detail when we talk about the reduction of the expenditure on Members of the Executive Council. He made a bold and daring remark today. He said, to this effect, "If people do not pocket the proposal because they do not want to 'pocket it for life', what will be the result? They will not have it for life, and there will be no universal suffrage for life." Therefore, he said, "So from a compromising perspective, even if people have to 'pocket it for life', it is still better than not getting it for life." He has revealed what the fraud is all about. We use the term "pocket it first", but the Government says that it does not like this remark of "pocket it first". Then the Government hints that it is not a matter of "pocket it first". However, it is evident in the document yesterday that once we pocket the proposal, Beijing's undertaking under Article 45 of the Basic Law will be regarded as honoured.

Some time ago, LEUNG Chun-ying pointed out that Hong Kong people could only choose between following the decision of the Standing Committee of the NPC in pursuing constitutional reform and marking time, and there was utterly no room for concession. The Chief Secretary for Administration, Carrie LAM, has pointed out that she will not make any deal with the democratic camp to win the several votes they held. Indeed, I do not know whether or not this group ― I mean the "constitutional reform trio" and Chief Executive "689", LEUNG Chun-ying ― want the constitutional reform proposal passed. In fact, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9373 what they have done and spoken give people the impression that they are not eager to see the constitutional reform proposal passed. This brings us back to the problem I mentioned at the beginning, that is, the $5 million spent on the publicity and production of this "constitutional reform fraud" will turn out to be money spent in vain. The Government is using our money to build this stage to deceive Hong Kong people. Therefore, I urge Members to support this amendment on reducing the expenditure. This is indeed a smart deal at a small cost. With the reduction of this $5 million, I am sure that many district organizations and members of the public will render the Government support. They may as well call for support for the publicity of the constitutional reform through a "one man, one dollar" fund-raising campaign. This campaign may serve the purpose of a referendum, and the authorities will know how many people are supporting the constitutional reform proposal and its passage.

Talking about public opinion, I am angry indeed. The democratic camp has to bear the pressure of public opinion but the pro-establishment camp does not have to do so. According to what the Deputy Chairman said on the television the other day, what if the findings of the opinion polls show that people opposing the constitutional reform proposal are in majority, will they then vote against the proposal then? Chairman, will you then come and sit on our side to vote against the proposal? Will you help us?

I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in support of the amendment proposed by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan on subhead 603 seeking to reduce it by $27 million, which equals to the estimated expenditure for plant, vehicles and specialised crowd management vehicles under the Hong Kong Police Force. This long description can be summarized in three words: water cannon vehicles.

The Budget this year has adopted an outdated practice by bundling up certain items, a total of 25, with the Budget. In fact, each of these water cannon vehicles costs $9 million, so the acquisition of three vehicles will cost $27 million. Yet I do not know what justifications the authorities use to bundle up those items with the Budget, which makes the approval of the funding applications of the Finance Committee unnecessary.

9374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Chairman, the merit of civil servants ruling Hong Kong is that they are well versed in the procedures. Yet, the demerit is that they are so familiar with the procedures that they may find loopholes to circumvent monitoring by the Legislative Council. Under this bundling practice, funding applications are included in the Budget. Since those applications are bundled up together, the funding applications do not have to be scrutinized and approved by the Finance Committee, which means the authorities can avoid answering questions posed by the democratic camp. The Government will eventually secure enough votes, and it will not fail to get enough votes, will it? But since the Government avoids taking questions from Members, we cannot know the many details by asking questions in the legislature. I think such a practice is entirely ridiculous and unreasonable. Whose idea is it? I do not know who thought of this bad idea. It may be the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury or it may be the Chief Executive. No matter whose idea it is, the Financial Secretary has an unshirkable responsibility. Since the Budget is announced under his name, it is rational to suppose that he should monitor whether there is any violation of rules and circumvention of procedures on the part of the Government as a whole and whether the practice is in compliance with procedural justice. No matter whose idea is it, it is the Financial Secretary who announces the Budget. In fact, I also support the amendment proposed by Members to reduce the operating expenditure of the Office of the Financial Secretary.

Chairman, regarding the reduction of the expenditure for these 25 items, the Labour Party does not propose the reduction because of its opposition to the relevant items. We do agree with some of those items. For instance, we definitely support the fund injection for food banks. We surely support the Child Development Fund. It is particularly so for expenditure items for the welfare sector, and the Labour Party will not oppose those items. This year we have proposed the reduction of expenditure of 25 items, amounting to $463,233,000 in total. Actually, for some of the projects, such as the renovation works of the several museums under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the commitment is found in the Budget only this year. We therefore told the Financial Secretary in advance that we would not only propose the reduction of the 25 items this year. If these items are not one-off expenditure items, and if the authorities apply for provision for the same commitment for a number of years, the Labour Party will fulfil its responsibility by identifying those items and reducing the relevant expenditure in the Budget in the next few years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9375

Chairman, the practice of circumventing the scrutiny of the Finance Committee this time around includes certain extremely controversial items, and the Secretary must respond to this. The intention of the Labour Party in proposing the reduction is surely to give Members the opportunity to speak on those items, 15 minutes for each Member, for they have not been given the opportunity to scrutinize, pose questions and express their views in the Finance Committee, and their remarks can thus be put on record. This is exactly what Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said this morning. However, this is no substitute for scrutiny by the Finance Committee. For in the Finance Committee, Members can ask questions, there are question and answer sessions, and there are follow-ups, and if the authorities cannot provide the follow-up at the meeting, Members can request supplementary documents, hoping the authorities will disclose more information. However, at the Council meeting, Members can only express their views, for there is no question and answer or follow-up sessions, thus Members will be doing all the talking by themselves, which means it will be a one-way expression of views.

In fact, Chairman, I have proposed to the permanent secretaries of some Policy Bureaux, including the civil servants of the Home Affairs Bureau and asked them to pass on the suggestion to the Directors of Bureaux. I suggest that the Directors of Bureaux should pay special attention to Members' speeches in the relevant sessions, and they should ask the Chairman to grant them leave to respond to Members' questions. Hence, I think it is good that the Secretary for Security is listening to Members' discussion on the water cannon vehicles in this Chamber this afternoon. However, I urge him to respond to the many queries raised by Members. For at the special meeting of the Finance Committee, only a session of one to two hours was assigned for the Security Bureau, so there was not enough time for the Bureau to answer all the questions of Members.

Next Chairman, I will talk about an item other than those 25 items. It is about the water cannon vehicles. It is the 26th item, under subhead 603. I am now back on this item. In the half year or so in the past, the Police Force had used extreme force to suppress assemblies and protests conducted in a peaceful manner. It was recorded by camera that a man with his hands fastened was moved to a dark corner and beaten by seven policemen. There is an increasing number of cases indicating that the Police have made arrests and initiated prosecutions even when the cases are weak in evidence, and in some cases, the persons concerned were denied bail and placed under detention for several weeks. An increasing number of cases reveal that there is power abuse on the part of the 9376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Police. Against this background, we will definitely, granting the opportunity, to turn down the funding application of $27 million from the Police Force for the acquisition of water cannon vehicles to deal with participants of assemblies.

In fact, Mr James TO will propose two amendments on reduction to the Budget every year. One is on informers' fees and the other is on the equipment of the Police Force. For no matter how he asks questions, the Police Force have refused to give answers. As such, he will propose a reduction of the expenditure of these items every year. This year, Members have been more precise by proposing the reduction of estimated expenditure for water cannon vehicles, and other items on fast pursuit crafts and barge facilities. Actually, in each of the years when Mr James TO proposed such reductions, we mainly asked one question, that is, how many weapons did the authorities have and how much money had been spent on those weapons. But the authorities had never given us a reply.

Members asked similar questions when they submitted the several thousands of questions on the Estimates of Expenditure. Members have asked: how many pepper spray canisters have been procured by the Police Force, what is the stock of such canisters, how many canisters were used last year, how many are small canisters for carrying about by police officers, and how many are large canisters? The authorities have answered none of these questions.

Apart from pepper spray, we certainly have asked about the sound cannons, which have already been procured. Since water cannon vehicles have not yet been procured, we definitely have to grab this opportunity to delete the expenditure item and ask questions about it. In fact, I would like to ask the Secretary for Security or the Commissioner of Police how much money has been spent on these weapons which the Police may use to disperse the crowd during assemblies? What is the lethality of these weapons? When large canisters of pepper spray were introduced, the Panel on Security discussed the issue at a meeting. Even though the authorities did not need to apply for funding from the Finance Committee, the Panel could propose an agenda item on the issue and asked questions about it. At that time, an officer of senior ranking in the Police Force, Ms CHIU Wai-yin, applied the same logic used by Mr Christopher CHUNG, saying that the large canisters and small canisters were the same, for they were both pepper spray, and the lethality would not be increased. Mr Christopher CHUNG made similar remarks when he talked about the water cannon vehicles, saying that it was just water.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015 9377

Yet, the water dripping out from a damaged tap is definitely different from the water fired from a water cannon vehicle when a high pressure water jet of up to 280 lb is shot at a body. In terms of chemical elements, both substances are

H2O, but regarding the way the substance is released and the force involved in physics terms, the authorities simply omit it. They just tell us that the power is the same and there is no difference. Do Members know when did the officer admit that there was a difference between the large canister and the small canister during our enquiry about the pepper spray last time? It was not until when we asked about the pressure of pepper spray fired from a large canister on 1 sq in at a distance of 1 m that Ms CHIU admitted reluctantly there would be a difference of increased pressure. As she admitted that there would be a difference in force when the spray is shot, it means the impact will be different. For this reason, the authorities should answer our questions about the water cannon vehicle. They cannot just say that the vehicle will only carry clear water which has no lethality, and the authorities will at most add some dyes to the water as a means to identify people who have been shot by the water cannon to facilitate the authorities in making arrests. Besides, the dyes contain chemicals and substances. Just like we eat with those colourful porcelain utensils, we will absorb the heavy metals contained in the colouring when we use the utensils repeatedly. Therefore, regarding the remarks that the dyes added to the water will have no lethality, it depends on what kinds of dye is added. Can the authorities tell Members about this? Regrettably, in the absence of time to scrutinize and ask questions in the relevant session of the Finance Committee, we cannot but seize the present moment to raise all the questions we want to ask, so that we can press for answers from the Government together with the media and the civil society.

I know that some Honourable colleagues have followed up the issue with the authorities and requested them to make public the relevant code of practice and guidelines, but the authorities definitely will not respond. Let me cite an example. A lot of rules and guidelines on the use of force and weapons are set out in the Police General Orders. Before the reunification, Peter LAI had done a good deed prior to his resignation. He arranged for the Police General Orders to be placed in the lobby of all police stations, so that the public might read the Orders by merely pressing a button on the computer keyboard. In this way, the public would know the scope of authority of policemen and the rights of the general public if they came to the lobby of a police station and checked it out on the computer. Fortunately, a copy of the Orders was placed in the library of the Legislative Council at that time, and we can still go to the library to find that copy now. What happened when Mrs Regina IP assumed office as the Secretary for 9378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 April 2015

Secretary ― she was not a Member at that time? She ordered that all those Orders be put away. The public used to have access to those Orders in the lobby of police stations to check the guidelines and procedures on the use of force by the Police, but now we cannot see that. Therefore, the guidelines we can read today is the one provided 10-odd years ago, and we are not provided with any update.

The same applies to the guidelines on use of the sound cannons … Mr IP Kwok-him is the Chairman of the Panel on Security, and he adopts the same approach. He allows the Panel to follow up the issue and even visit the Police College to view demonstration on the use of the sound cannons. Although we have no authority to stop the authorities from using the equipment and the authorities have not come to the Legislative Council to seek approval, we at least have the opportunity to understand the case. Will the authorities similarly arrange for Members to view the demonstration on the use of the water cannon vehicles? I am not only making this request to government officials, I also hope that Mr IP Kwok-him will continue to make arrangements for such a visit in his capacity as Chairman of the Panel on Security, so that Members from different political parties and groupings can see the effect and usage of these weapons with great lethality, for these weapons will be used not only to deal with assemblies of the democratic camp. The streets are narrow, so it will cause injuries when the "yellow ribbons" are in confrontation with the "blue ribbons", and not necessarily to the "yellow ribbons" or the "blue ribbons", but to innocent members of the public and reporters. Therefore, I urge Mr IP Kwok-him to faithfully fulfil his responsibility as Chairman of the Panel by arranging for a site visit despite the difference among different political parties. Thank you, Chairman.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7.45 pm.