LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6181

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 7 May 2020

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

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

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

THE HONOURABLE

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIU-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6183

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

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

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

6184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

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

THE HONOURABLE

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

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6185

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

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

THE HONOURABLE TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

THE HONOURABLE YING-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE CHING-YU SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

6186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

GOVERNMENT BILL

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in ): This Council will continue to consider the Appropriation Bill 2020.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung, please speak.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2020

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Good morning, Chairman and colleagues. I am going to speak on the 42 heads with no amendment but I would like to respond to the remarks of Dr CHENG Chung-tai, the last colleague who spoke yesterday.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai said that the Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") distributed face masks because they have a mask factory, and hence they won applause. I would like to tell Members that it is really not easy for FTU to set up a mask factory because we have no experience in running business. We can only set up a mask factory with the assistance of people from different sectors and there are also volunteers toiling day after day to produce masks.

I waited till last week to visit the factory for the first time when the work is well on track as I did not want to disrupt the operation before then. The factory still needs the help of a lot of volunteers. FTU also needs the assistance of many people in sending drugs to the Mainland. Although we are under great pressure, we are working hard.

Chairman, the epidemic has receded slightly these days and various places of the world hope that the economic will recover as soon as possible. It is a pity that black-clad rioters in Hong Kong are getting ready for actions again. They have illegally assembled many times, violating the group gathering restrictions. Last night, some people engaged in vigilante attacks, humiliating people with differing opinions. Yet, the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp" have not said a word. This is because they are blind and have not read the news.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6187

Chairman, among the 52 amendments, Amendment Nos. 26 to 32 target the Police Force. Amendment No. 26 proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG seeks to reduce the annual expenditure of the Police Force by $25 billion. Amendment No. 30 seeks to reduce the provisions for alterations, additions and improvements to in-service Marine Police craft by $1.5 million and Amendment No. 32 seeks to reduce the provisions for repair and maintenance of police specialised vehicles by $100 million.

Chairman, the reduction of the expenditure of the Police Force by $25 billion in one go is really exaggerating. Evidently, the "mutual destruction camp" picks on the Police. They talked wildly against the Police but in reality, can we really do away with the Police in Hong Kong? The "mutual destruction camp" seeks to reduce all the expenditure on the salaries of the Police Force; in other words, they want to dismiss all policemen. If all policemen are dismissed, will Hong Kong become a police-free place where black-clad rioters will arbitrarily damage, assault and rob? This is the aspiration of the "mutual destruction camp", they want to drive all policemen away so that they can run amok.

Chairman, if there is no policeman in Hong Kong, who will do justice to Mr LUO who died after being hit by a brick? Who will seek justice for Mr LEE who was set on fire and suffered from burns? Black-clad rioters will definitely not do so because those acts are committed by them. Who will safeguard the lives and property of the public? The Police have recently cracked down on a number of cases related to bombs, firearms and illegal assemblies. Of course, this sounds disagreeable to the "mutual destruction camp" because they will stand up for their "brothers".

Chairman, the Police have to deal with incidents concerning noise nuisance, traffic congestion and traffic accidents. When members of the public have lost their wallets, they will report to the Police; the Police will also issue tickets for violation of the group gathering restrictions. When members of the public are deceived in online shopping or phone scams, these cases will also be handled by the Police. Can Hong Kong do away with the Police? What justifications do they have to reduce the salaries of all policemen? They are not in a position to do so and it is unreasonable for them to do so.

Chairman, you are also an employer; employees may have their wages deducted if they take up fewer work, but their wages cannot be deducted when they take up more work. The "mutual destruction camp" thinks that they are 6188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 affected because the Police have done too much; thus, the Police's salaries should be deducted. When the "mutual destruction camp" caused the abortion of a meeting, they could finish work early but their salaries will not be deducted. On the contrary, when the Police are bustling around with increasing workload, there is a request to deduct their salaries. Chairman, what kind of world is this?

Furthermore, owing to filibustering by the "mutual destruction camp" in the past, the expenditures on various public works projects have increased. The House Committee still failed to elect a chairman after holding more than 10 meetings. At least $8 million have been wasted. As the House Committee has come to a standstill, many bills that are closely related to people's livelihood have to be suspended. For example, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2020 that deals with the tax concessions of the previous year is still pending for approval. The scrutiny of the bill on the eMPF Platform, which aims to save management fees, will also be delayed. I must talk about the development of Northeast New Territories. In the past 20 years, the relevant work has been shelved because of the opposition camp. In addition, the progress of constructing 4 000 units in Phase 1 of the public housing development at Wang Chau has been delayed for at least one year. The sooner people living in subdivided units can move into public housing, the sooner they can pay lower rents. Owing to the delay in moving into public housing, residents have to pay extra rents for at least $70,000 or $80,000 for each unit. The 260 000 people waiting for public housing should settle accounts with these 24 Members, but their total salaries will not be enough to cover the extra payments.

Chairman, the Government should listen to public opinion. In the United Kingdom, the issue of Brexit had been discussed for a long time and a few referendums had been held. A movie called Brexit: The Uncivil War told us how public relation companies use data to incite emotions and affects people's decisions. In fact, the final voting result on Brexit is only 49:51, i.e. 2% of people dominated the entire result. Which are more important: short-term emotions or long-term decisions?

We all know that Northeast New Territories and Wang Chau are crucial to providing housing, curbing property prices and reducing rents, but the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp" have all along impeded the relevant development.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6189

Turning back to the Police, Commissioner Chris TANG attended the Panel on Security meeting this Tuesday. When he talked about the crime figures last year, he expressed sincere sympathy for those young people who have been instigated and incited to commit crimes. The "mutual destruction camp" announced on the Internet that they will pay fines for young people who are fined $2,000 for violating the group gathering restrictions. The question is: If young people are imprisoned for breaking the law, who will go to jail in place of these young people?

From Howard LAM's stapler incident, we understand that no one can replace the person who is convicted of a criminal offence. If it were not for the "Four Great Kings" of the Democratic Party, would Howard LAM be imprisoned for five months? If someone had told Howard LAM that his story did not make sense, he would not have been sentenced to five months' imprisonment. Chairman, this is criminal incitement. "Urge others to charge forward but flinch from doing so themselves" is the smartest approach. I hope that no more young people will be like Howard LAM, being discarded after use.

Chairman, Mr Andrew WAN of the Democratic Party was grumbling yesterday; after making a mess, he wants to keep a distance now. Recently, they often emphasize that the Government is executive-led and that the pro-establishment camp makes up the majority of the Council. Hence, the pro-establishment camp, but not the "mutual destruction camp", is responsible for the unsatisfactory performance of the Government. I would like to ask the audience and all those present, for more than 20 years since the reunification, has the "mutual destruction camp" often created havoc, engaged in filibustering and caused the abortion of meetings? They have constantly ruined Hong Kong but Mr Andrew WAN surprisingly said that these things had nothing to do with him, and it seems that they are justified to cause damages. What kind of world is this?

Chairman, in the past, the "mutual destruction camp" said that they wanted to have veto power and get one third of the seats, but now they want to dominate Hong Kong and win all the seats. Will it benefit Hong Kong if they get all the seats? Should everyone be subjected to "mutual destruction"? Are the economy and livelihood not important? How many people have lost their jobs after the black violence? They are disrupting Hong Kong; will Hong Kong be in luck?

6190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Chairman, what will be the results if the "mutual destruction camp" dominates the Council? At present, the "mutual destruction camp" dominates 17 of the 18 District Councils, but what have they done? They want to give new names to some parks. These parks already have their numbers, but the "mutual destruction camp" wants to name these parks after some persons in order to alleviate pressure. In addition, when police officers were enforcing the law, some District Council members stood in front of them, saying that they had greater power, they could stop the Police and investigate the Police. It seems that the whole world has been turned upside down.

Chairman, if an amendment seeks to reduce the salaries of individual departments, it is definitely unacceptable because there is no salary deduction mechanism under the civil service system. Therefore, if an amendment seeks to reduce the expenditures of individual departments or civil servants, it is unrealistic. Members who propose such amendments are simply talking big to impress people. The amendments are nothing but empty talk which cannot be passed.

As regards reducing the salaries of accountability officials whose status are slightly different from that of civil servants, if the "mutual destruction camp" is not satisfied with certain officials, they will seek to reduce their salaries for the whole year. They will say that the officials concerned have performed badly in certain aspects, but do the officials perform badly in all aspects? The "mutual destruction camp" is too lazy to make an assessment; so long as they do not like an official, they will seek to reduce his salary for the whole year. Chairman, you are also an employer, can an employer deduct his employees' salaries arbitrarily and then ask them to continue to work? That is simply not possible.

Chairman, the opposition camp is not impartial. As the Secretaries of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the and the Home Affairs Bureau have recently been replaced, if they are dissatisfied with the former Secretaries, why have they not withdrawn these amendments after the appointment of new Secretaries?

Chairman, lastly, regarding the Education Bureau, Mr HUI Chi-fung has only proposed one amendment to reduce the $115 million funding for primary and secondary students to participate in Hong Kong-Mainland Sister School Scheme. Mr HUI does not want primary and secondary students to know more about the Motherland; but what is wrong with allowing them to broaden their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6191 horizons? Hong Kong is a tiny place; what good will it bring to students if they only learn from the Internet distorted remarks or distorted historical facts? Therefore, they should visit the Mainland to have a look. When I was a child, I went to Wenchuan for disaster relief and visited the Guizhou Hope Primary School; and I also visited Shanghai and Beijing. By comparison, I know the difficult times experienced by the country and how successful it is now.

I oppose this amendment because I think students should travel more and see more. Should the Education Bureau be criticized? The Education Bureau should be criticized. Since it has contracted out a lot of work, it fails to exercise control over students, teaching materials, dissemination of vicious remarks and distortion of historical facts. The Bureau only offered an apology and has done nothing. Why shouldn't some people be held responsible for polluting students' brains and brainwashing them? I am most concerned about what the Education Bureau has done, how it will remedy the situation and how it will instil correct information to students who have been brainwashed. This is the first priority of the Education Bureau.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I really find it a bit ridiculous to hear Mr KWOK Wai-keung of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") just now criticizing the pro-democracy camp time and again of damaging Hong Kong and performing badly. If our performance is that bad, why were we able to win so many seats in the District Council ("DC") Election? How many FTU Members still retain their seats in various DCs? Is election not the best platform for gauging public views? Mr KWOK has already left the Chamber and dared not speak. Does he not feel shameful? Today, after going through the baptism of DC election, they still brag about their righteousness and their commitment to Hong Kong. Which faction or group is truly destroying Hong Kong?

Furthermore, Mr KWOK also mentioned "mutual destruction" and he always described the pro-democracy camp as the "mutual destruction camp". I am not going to discuss if this description is correct, I just want to talk about public sentiment. While I was walking in the streets, many members of the public told me that Hong Kong people would rather live on bread than allow the tyranny to continue to rule, suppress the people, beat up young people and deprive us of our freedom. These are views of the public. On the other hand, I 6192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 also found it very ridiculous to hear Mr KWOK Wai-keung say that he would not allow the pro-democracy camp to win all the seats of this Council. As representatives of political parties and of the people, why can't we strive to obtain the majority seats in the Council with the support of members of the public? Are they going to say that, in the words of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), we are usurping power? Election in Hong Kong is certainly not democratic, but it at least contains the elements of democracy and direct election. We must therefore fight every inch of the way. Can this be regarded as usurpation of power? If something goes wrong, they should exert greater effort; if the performance is unsatisfactory, they should work harder to win the support of the general public. It is indeed ridiculous for them to criticize other people's attempt to win all the seats.

I would like to ask Mr KWOK Wai-keung of FTU, what are the consequences of "mutual destruction"? I do not think there is any problem as I fail to see the economy of Hong Kong being undermined or subject to any structural impact. Members of the public felt very comfortable during the Labour Day Golden Week, and those who patronized the "yellow shops" of the yellow economic circle had to wait for a long time before they were seated. Many people considered that only such an economy can promote Hong Kong brands, manifest local sentiment and support local small shops with characteristics. The only problem is that the derived economic benefits have not gone into their pockets, or the pockets of organizations that collude with the Government and betray the interests of workers, and thus they are unhappy. This is what they called "mutual destruction".

Mr KWOK also mentioned DCs. I originally do not intend to say too much, but there is a genuine need for me to make a consolidated response. Yesterday, a group of members from Central and Western DC exercised the functions conferred by DC and called for a meeting of the Constitutional and Security Affairs Committee. Twelve hours before the meeting, we received a notice from the Central and Western District Office, informing us that no meeting venue would be provided for the said meeting. District Officers have, for more than once, led all government officials to withdraw from DC meetings. This situation has happened in various DCs, and members of the public have witnessed the negligence of duty on the part of the Government. This time, the relevant DC was informed, 12 hours before the meeting, that the meeting venue would be locked and no meeting could be held. What kind of attitude is this? Is this the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6193 way to treat elected Members? This act has actually antagonized the people. More ridiculous still, instead of showing up to explain properly why the door of the meeting venue was locked, the District Officer (Central and Western) had hidden in his room for six hours without eating or drinking or answering the call of nature, and refused, come what may, to meet the media and DC members. This is how the tyranny of today faces the elected DCs and suppresses freedom.

The meeting of Central and Western DC that had been barred from convening intended to discuss the following issues: constitutional reform, impartiality of elections, security matters, police brutality, the indiscriminate arrest of and prosecution against people under the group gathering restrictions, as well as the Police's of force to harm and injure members of the public in the previous confrontations in Admiralty and in the "12 June" incident. All these were issues intended to be discussed at the relevant meeting. I would like to tell all Hong Kong people in this Chamber how the present tyranny suppresses the pro-democracy camp. When Mr KWOK criticized the pro-democracy camp of causing damages and "mutual destruction", he might as well take a look at what the royalist camp had done.

The amendment mentioned by Mr LUK Chung-hung just now is not the only amendment proposed by me, but only this amendment is approved under the unreasonable ruling of Mr LEUNG. Nonetheless, I am not going to argue with him. This amendment seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of $115 million proposed by the Education Bureau to subsidize the organization of exchange tours to the Mainland for primary and secondary school students. Earlier on, I have discussed the question of whether the estimated expenditure on exchange activities in the Mainland should be approved. In fact, from the perspectives of education and parents, there is no problem with the exchanges, only that a lot of mainstream views have also doubted if the provision of some $100 million should only be used to subsidize exchange activities in the Mainland. Do we expect Hong Kong students and young people to embrace merely the vision of the Mainland without having to pay heed of other places of the world? This is the first point.

Secondly, as a matter of fact, the number of people participating in the exchange tours to the Mainland has declined last year and the year before last. Take last year as an example, the number of students participating in the exchange tours to the Mainland was only slightly more than 20 000, representing a drop of 72% from approximately 75 000 students in the year before last. 6194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Despite the drop in the number of participants, the relevant authorities continued to increase the number of places. I really cannot follow the logic of the authorities to increase the number of places to 100 000 and continue to request the same amount of estimated expenditure. The reply given by the Education Bureau to Members' written questions is very remarkable, which states that "the adverse impacts on … disturbance arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments … and the outbreak of COVID-19". I certainly understand that none of us want to go to the Mainland, which is the origin of Wuhan pneumonia, and we also try to avoid going to boundary control points and crowded places, but it is very interesting for the authorities to highlight the adverse impact of the disturbance arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments.

Given that the incidents of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments happened in Hong Kong, the turmoil so caused was restricted to the local community, so why would schools decide not to go to the Mainland? Following the logic of the royalist party, if Hong Kong is so unstable whereas the Motherland is so good, we should certainly visit the Mainland and learn from it. There is downright no reason to cancel the exchange tours. When the Secretary speaks later on, I hope he will explain why the incidents of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments have prompted the cancellation of exchange tours to the Mainland.

I want to tell him that, as observed from public opinion, first of all, no secondary school students are willing to participate in this kind of exchange tours and the reason is precisely because of the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. Can Members still recall how many secondary school students have been arrested throughout the "anti-extradition to China" movement? Is there any secondary school which has not plotted class boycott? Is there any secondary school that has not been pressurized, suppressed or punished through administrative means by the Education Bureau after the class boycott? How have student associations been advised to keep silent? Furthermore, rallies during recess have been prohibited, and students singing Glory to Hong Kong in the corridor facing the playground will be penalized. Let us not forget the scenes of secondary school students in school uniforms being asked by police officers to stand aside in MTR stations, and then brutally abused, questioned and intimidated. When students held hands to form "human chains" outside their secondary school campus to show their support of the "anti-extradition to China" movement, some people reported to the Police and accused the students of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6195 causing nuisances. I think Members still remember vividly the scene of police officers chasing after secondary school students and pressing them to the ground. These secondary school students were merely holding their hands to sing, but were so maliciously treated by the Police. The Police did not merely abuse the students, but also institute criminal prosecution with the intent of sending the students to prison, ruining their future. We can still remember these scenes, so how would secondary school students be willing to participate in these exchange tours to the Mainland and embrace the Motherland?

How come even primary school students are also reluctant to participate in the exchange tours to the Mainland? Undoubtedly, nowadays primary school students are pretty mature. It is true that some Primary Five and Primary Six students will gather together to sing Glory to Hong Kong during recess time, but they are after all still young. Members may have learnt from news reports that people visiting the Mainland are asked to hand over their mobile phone for checking. The purpose is to find out what they had said, what they had done with their friends and whether they had saved pictures relating to the "anti-extradition to China" movement; and if they had, they may possibly be questioned at the scene, arrested, "being disappeared" or put under administrative detention for a period of time before returning to Hong Kong. All these are true concerns of parents conveyed to me. Why would they send their children, who are still primary school students, to the Mainland? How can they feel at ease to allow checking of their children's mobile phone? Since their children's mobile phones contain privacy information of the entire family, regardless of whether they belong to the "blue" or "yellow" camp, they will have to undergo integrity checks and background checks. How can parents agree to send their children to the Mainland? This is precisely why under the "anti-extradition to China" movement, primary and secondary school students are reluctant to participate in the exchange tours to the Mainland.

Do taxpayers consider it worthwhile to spend money to organize these exchange tours to the Mainland? I have reviewed a lot of information about exchange tours to the Mainland, and found that the majority of the tours will travel by high speed rail. The information will contain the compliments on how great and convenient the high speed rail is, and how it facilitates the development of Belt and Road. There is also information on how prosperous the Greater Bay Area and the Motherland are. Is this not brainwashing? Is this not singing the praises of Mainland and the communists? Arrangements may be made to invite Olympic gold medalists or retired deputies of the National People's Congress and 6196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference to meet with the students, urging the students to be patriotic and painting a rosy picture of the nation. But will they mention how Hong Kong people have been deprived of their freedom during the "anti-extradition to China" movement? Will they allow local students to talk to Mainland students, telling the latter how we have been suppressed?

Even if no one touches on these sensitive topics, I suspect that the mere mentioning of the term "Wuhan pneumonia" may lead to the cancellation of the exchange tours. If anyone in the exchange tour mentions the spread of Wuhan pneumonia to Hong Kong, I think the Education Bureau will be scared to death and subsequently replace all references to this term in the exchange tour report with "novel coronavirus" to illustrate that the epidemic is not originated from Wuhan. To organize Mainland exchange tours, it is necessary to obtain accurate information of the situation in China and conduct an analysis of the good and bad performances of the country. Will the Mainland exchange tours allow the mentioning of LIU Xiaobo? Will they allow any mentioning of what happened in the Tiananmen Square in 1989? If we cannot mention any of these people or incidents, but are only allowed to sing praises of the Motherland, the money is thus not worth spending. As parents, our request is indeed very simple. We would rather send our children to different parts of the world to explore and exchange than subject them to brainwashing. To inspire people to be patriotic, the authorities should not only tell them how great the country is. They all have independent thinking, and even primary and secondary school students have critical thinking and independent judgment. If the exchange tours only seek to unilaterally "brainwash" the students and provide them with lopsided information, I think the public money will be wasted and thus the relevant estimated expenditure should not be approved.

Of course, nowadays, it is important for civil servants, teachers and students to integrate and exchange with the Mainland. And yet, please take a look at the policies introduced by the Government. The way how the Mainland has, via LOCPG, influenced and controlled Hong Kong and deprived us of our freedom has aroused Hong Kong people's resentment and hatred towards "the Mainland" or "China", whatever the reference is, as well as its regime. As a result, they are reluctant to participate in these brainwashing exchange tours to the Mainland.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6197

I have proposed a number of amendments, but only this one is approved as a result of Mr LEUNG's abuse of power. I will thus speak on this amendment only. I would like to tell Hong Kong people that in the Budget, many estimated expenditures are related to political brainwashing, including my original amendment on the teaching materials of the Basic Law which sing praises to the Mainland and the communists, and the amendment on the Education Bureau's suppression of schools and teachers participating in the "anti-extradition to China" movement. I do not want to say any more. Due to time constraint, I will stop here for the time being. Thank you, Mr LEUNG.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session, I wish to speak on the amendments relating to "Head 21―Chief Executive's Office" and "Head 135―Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Bureau". Chairman, I think you were quite miserable yesterday and you were not fairly treated. Since your brother bears the same name as a government staff writing web pages, and the name is quite common, some people thought that your family company Sun Hing Knitting Factory Limited had received the face mask purchase order from the Government costing over $300 million. Yesterday, your reply to the reporters was brilliant. You said, "Do you believe just because others say so?" However, for Hong Kong people and Members, the question is: "Do you believe just because others do not say so?" The Government does not say anything, so nobody believes in the Government. We also do not know what we should believe; we only believe that the Government thinks that it can pretend that nothing has happened by not saying anything. Of course, the royalists have also adopted this attitude in dealing with the many problems that we are facing.

Coming back to face masks, yesterday, many Members and reporters started to receive the reusable face masks produced by the Government. Actually, this incident has also reflected the reasons why so many Members wish to reduce the Government's expenditure under some heads―including the two mentioned by me. The Government earmarked $800 million in the first round of the Anti-Epidemic Fund for producing the reusable face masks. At the Finance Committee meeting on 21 February, I enquired the Innovation and Technology Bureau about this item. At that time, I pointed out that the Government only used one page which seemingly contained only 100-odd words to introduce the reusable face masks, but the funding applied was $800 million. If we divide the amount of money by the number of words, each word costs nearly $5 million, 6198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 which is really lucrative. Even if the information was fictitious, the Government should write more words or write more nonsense, but the Government was too lazy and did not even bother to do so. The then Secretary asked us not to be worried because they had plans and had commenced the relevant work, and announcement would be made in due course. How is the situation now? The then Secretary had departed, and the Bureau is still not willing to give a clear account. At that time, owing to the severe epidemic situation, a great majority of the colleagues in the Legislative Council reluctantly supported the first round of the Anti-Epidemic Fund though the above situation was unsatisfactory. What is the result now? We, as Members, always get into trouble. The Government asks Members to trust it first by casting a positive vote; I admit that I had been victimized as I trusted the Government first by casting a positive vote and then got into trouble later. Of course, casting a negative vote is likewise dangerous now, as the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") will not allow Members to do so. We do not know the consequences of casting a negative vote, will we be asked to "foot the bill"? I do not know what we should do. Should we blindly cast a positive vote and blindly support the Government, like what Members from the pro-establishment camp have been doing, and then considered that we have fulfilled our responsibility to Hong Kong people? In fact, the public have clearly seen how ridiculous the current governance of Hong Kong is. When we put questions to the Government, it will not reply; even if it replies, the reply is incoherent and incomplete. If we intend to go along with the wishes of the Government and believe in its words first, we will get into trouble. Trusting the Government is just that ridiculous and really dangerous.

The Legislative Council has approved the $800 million funding. The Government now informs us that it will first use $360 million of the funding for meeting the expenses on face mask production. Nobody understands why the information on the manufacturer and the place of manufacturing has to be so mysterious. The fact that Government did not invite tenders is a problem that needs to be accounted for. Although there may not necessarily be problems with this practice, the public can only be convinced after the Government has provided an explanation. If the Government has a reason for this practice, why not spill it out? If the Government does not give an explanation, more problems will arise. The Government cannot always uses "urgent" and "expeditious" as the excuses and refuses to disclose further information. May I ask which issue is not urgent and which issue needs not be done expeditiously. If this is the case, nothing should be said.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6199

The incumbent Secretary said yesterday that disclosing further information might result in prices of the manufacturing materials being pushed up, and some exporting countries and places imposing export restrictions, etc. When the Government distributes several million face masks to Hong Kong people, does it think that we will not find out the materials of the masks, or the industry players will not know at a glance the materials of the masks? This is not related to prices being pushing up or down; I really do not understand. The Government should make an explanation first until I understand and believe in it, but the Government does not make such explanation. If there are export restrictions, will the local government be kept in the dark when several million face masks are being exported? Does the Government intend to cheat the local government or what? I believe that the SAR Government will not cheat the government of another country. Normal people will know that these reasons do not hold water. If the Government has a reason for not tendering―there were some similar items in the past without undergoing tendering―it should let others know the reasons in an open and transparent manner.

The press release issued by the Government yesterday was really interesting. It said that the face masks were not produced by Sun Hing Knitting Factory Limited nor Nan Fung Group. After seeing this press release, I compare the press release to the scenario of a teacher asking which student has done something wrong. "Siu Ming, did you do it?" No. "Siu Keung, did you do it?" No. How many students are there in the class? The teacher will keep asking students one by one until one student dare not answer and the teacher will know that he is the one who has done something wrong. The Government may as well keep publishing such press releases! How many manufacturers are there in Hong Kong? The Chairman may know very well. People can keep asking the manufacturers one by one until one manufacturer does not deny. Then, the manufacturer in question is identified. Therefore, it is very ridiculous for the Government to respond by issuing press releases in this incident. To our surprise, the cat is quickly out of the bag, thanks to the Chief Executive's Office. Yesterday evening, the Chief Executive's Office posted on its Facebook a photo of the Chief Executive's visit to the face mask production line. The Office was trying to piggyback on the incident. Some reporters told me last night that without the Chief Executive, they would not be able to find out the manufacturer that quickly. When they saw the environment in the photo and then showed the photo to people in the sector, the place was immediately identified. It was The Mills, Tsuen Wan. When some reporters visited the place, they saw the carton boxes of a subsidiary company of Crystal International Group Limited. The riddle has started to unravel. There is a co-working space named "Fabrica Lab" 6200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 owned by the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel ("HKRITA") for handling some sewing work of the latter stage. The major parts of the face masks such as materials or multi-layer face mask cloth may come from the factory of Crystal International Group Limited in Vietnam …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, I understand that you may want to speak in favour of me. Yet, please come back to the question of this debate and do not keep narrating the incident in detail.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): OK. In fact, I have not discussed it in detail. However, I think this incident is very urgent, and it is absolutely related to the poor performance of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the Chief Executive's Office that I am discussing now. Therefore, I hope the Chairman can be more patient and allow me to continue with my speech.

Yesterday, the reporters speedily found that the same persons act as directors of Crystal International Group Limited, the company which assists in face mask production, and HKRITA, wholly owned and set up by the Government. This situation will definitely arouse suspicions. Chairman, I believe you will also think that this is absolutely and directly related to the requests made by some Members to reduce the expenditure of these departments, because these departments are using public money. In fact, it is beyond comprehension when the Innovation and Technology Bureau said that there was no problem. More ridiculous still, if the Bureau decided to keep this matter a secret for some unknown reasons, the Chief Executive's Office has done a disservice by posting a photo on Facebook. The intention is to piggyback on this issue, but the photo has helped in unveiling the truth. Chairman, I really have to talk about this incident as members of the public need to know about it.

From the photo posted by the Chief Executive, it can be seen that the place is not a clean room, and workers did not wear clean clothing, hats, and so on. I do not know if a hair will be attached to the face masks during the production process. I do not know if Members, government officials and reporters who got the face masks yesterday have worn them immediately. In fact, I feel scared by just thinking of it. Chairman, is it right? Or as what my mother has taught me, newly purchased underpants should be washed before use. As the face masks may be very unhygienic, should the officials teach the public that they should, after receiving the face mask, wash it before use? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6201

In fact, the whole incident is of course not that simple. The reason for not inviting tenders is not speeding up the process, but possibly transferring benefits. Therefore, Chairman, owing to this incident, many Members and even civilians think that these two departments may be incompetent, hence not only should improvement be made, but the salary expenditure should also be reduced. In fact, I think the Innovation and Technology Bureau has been unfairly treated because it has been betrayed by the Chief Executive. Under such circumstances, I think that the Audit Commission should absolutely look into this incident from the perspective of value for money, and The Ombudsman should also investigate to see whether maladministration is involved.

In fact, if we conduct a search on the Internet, we will find that The Mills has started to recruit sewing workers since mid-February. The funding proposal was approved by the Finance Committee on 21 February, but The Mills had started to recruit manpower before that date. Were there any prior agreements and what was the decision-making process? At present, we do not even have the information on the place of manufacturing and the materials of the product. In fact, the Trade Descriptions Ordinance ("the Ordinance") may be―I dare not say for sure―contravened. I do not remember whether the Government or gifts are exempted from the Ordinance. However, morally, it is already a big problem if such important information is not disclosed because a large amount of public money is involved. In addition, the Ordinance provides that it is an offence to conceal information that can make people change their minds. So, here comes another question: Will the Customs and Excise Department conduct an investigation? I hope the Innovation and Technology Bureau will expeditiously inform the public the details of the incident in an open and transparent manner. I will end my speech on this part.

Therefore, as evident to all, apart from the issues that many Members have been discussing, the Chief Executive has caused grievances since the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments last year. As she cannot effectively handle either big things or small things, why should her salary not be deducted? Besides, many royalist Members say that it is not rational to reduce the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office or the ―I would like to talk about the Police later if I have the time and opportunity. They question if we can do without the Police. However, it is known to all that the Basic Law has not conferred us the power to propose amendments to increase the salary expenditure. If I had this power, I wanted to 6202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 increase the salary expenditure for some departments with good performance. As we are not allowed to increase the estimation salary expenditure, we can only reduce the amount. Does reducing the salary expenditure imply that the departments concerned will disappear? This will not be the case. Even if Members propose amendments to reduce expenditure under the Budget, or even if the Budget cannot be passed ultimately, the Basic Law and the laws of Hong Kong have provided ways to handle the situation. In many countries, people manipulate the non-passage of the budget to put pressure on the governments to make policy improvement and changes. This is just that simple. We often hear the term fiscal cliff. The United States or other countries have faced a fiscal cliff for numerous times and the whole government has even come to a standstill. So what? There are indeed some impacts, but such acts can force the government to compromise and make improvements to society. However, the royalists say that they even do not allow us to have such opportunities, and say that we have misled the public. It is actually difficult to mislead the public, do they think that the public are nuts?

Chairman, I will end my speech here. If later I have the opportunity and time, I shall speak on the Police.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, today, we are discussing a total of 52 amendments proposed by 16 Members on the Appropriation Bill 2020. Among them, the amendments about cutting the estimated expenditures of the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") and the Chief Executive's Office are most discussed by Members.

I am particularly concerned about the amendment proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for HKPF and the amendment proposed by Mr James TO to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual provision for HKPF's emolument expenditure and special service payment for 2020-2021. I am also concerned about the amendments regarding the estimated expenditures of various offices serving principal officials. For example, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has proposed to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of emolument for the Financial Secretary in 2020-2021.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6203

Chairman, why am I particularly concerned about these expenditure items? As Members may recall, not many people were actually happy with the Budget after it was announced by the Financial Secretary early this year. Instead, many people were enraged because of the $10,000 cash rebate scheme. The Financial Secretary could have applied for a separate funding but he did not do so and bundled the cash handout scheme with the 25% increase in the Police's expenditure, an act to force the Legislative Council to approve the Budget. At first, it was thought that the $10,000 slipping through the fingers of the Government could slightly ease the hardship of the people, but regrettably, the Government bundled the cash handout with the budget for police weapons. Many people therefore criticized the Government, questioning whether it was trying to coerce and bribe the people. They also wondered whether this petty favour would end up bringing the people a great harm. What is the intention of the SAR Government?

Moreover, the disbursing of $10,000 to the people will incur substantial administration costs. Although the Financial Secretary expressed the hope people will receive $10,000 in July or August, he is still not sure whether this can be done. The performance of the Government is really disappointing.

Chairman, the Government can hardly cover its hidden agenda as our society is highly transparent nowadays. According to the Budget, the estimated expenditure of HKPF for next year is $25.7 billion, representing a rise of 25% over the previous year. Among this sum, $5.6 billion are budgeted for public event management, crowd management and operations for coping with civil disturbances, and $76 million for the purchase of six armoured personnel carriers. HKPF will also create 2 543 posts. All these indicate that the Government is actively expanding the Police Force. However, owing to police brutality over the year, members of the public are greatly afraid of seeing police officers. They are worried that they may be arrested by the Police when shopping with friends or they and their friends may be prosecuted or even assaulted after dining out together. Members may learn from yesterday's news that a young man has, after paying his restaurant bill, received a ticket from the Police for group gathering. While the restaurant bill was a clear proof of him dining in, the Police simply ignored and insisted on issuing him a ticket. Did the Police abuse their power to make an arbitrary arrest?

Chairman, many people have voiced to me that if police brutality persists, they would rather not receive $10,000 because if the Budget is passed for the sake of $10,000, this will allow the Police to have huge funding for weapons to 6204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 suppress the people. How can this be done? They urge us to vote against the Budget when it is put to vote. However, as we all know, the Council is a rubber stamp manipulated by the royalists. How can the Budget not be passed?

Just now, Mr Charles Peter MOK made an excellent point by saying that the amendments that we proposed were meant to put pressure on the Government, urging it to discuss with us how it could improve its policies to better meet people's needs. That is exactly what we want from the Government. Unfortunately, this Council is dominated by the pro-establishment camp such that the Government cannot feel the pressure and remains indifferent even if we have done our best to amend the Budget.

Even so, I think we should voice our views in the Council as far as possible today when we are still allowed to do so. We have to tell the public and make government officials understand―though they may not want to listen to us―that the policies formulated by the Government have actually gone against the people's will. Under the Budget, the Police are the big winner granted with huge funding whereas members of the public, especially the grass roots, are all losers. Is that right for the Government to do so? Can healthy development of our society be promoted? Many people hold that the SAR Government should give top priority to the interests of Hong Kong people. In particular, it should uphold the rule of law and justice in maintaining social order so that people can live in peace. But what happened to the people last year? Day after day, they were hit by tear gas, and were indiscriminately assaulted and arrested by the Police in the streets. That was indeed a violation of justice which should not have happened in a society upholding the rule of law. However, insisted on acting against the people's will and bulldozing through unpopular policies.

As we all know, it was highly unpopular for her to introduce amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance last year. Yet, some of her recent remarks have again led to worries that the Government may soon enact local legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law. She has also said that the National Anthem Bill is just a step away from passage. Her words and deeds give people an impression that the SAR Government has not truly defended the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", as well as the core values that we have all along upheld, including democracy, freedom, human rights, rule of law and social justice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6205

Among these principles and values, we care most about maintaining "a high degree of autonomy". However, recently, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") have actively intervened in Hong Kong affairs and blatantly violated Article 22 of the Basic Law. Has the SAR Government ever stood up to defend Hong Kong's "high degree of autonomy" and the spirit of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong"? Has it ever come forward to say a fair word for Hong Kong people? No, not for once. It has instead added insult to injury.

In order to please the Beijing government, the SAR Government does not hesitate to distort and erroneously interpret the Basic Law. Soon after it had issued a press release to clarify that LOCPG was established under Article 22 of the Basic Law like other "offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government", it kowtowed to Beijing in the same night, overturning its original view in the last of its three relevant press releases. When the SAR Government behaved like this, can we trust that it is fit for leading and administering Hong Kong? Has it walked its talk of "acting in accordance with the law"?

If the SAR Government allows LOCPG to assume this role and status today, how will Hong Kong be administered in future? Is the undertaking that all officers of LOCPG shall abide by the Basic Law and the laws of the Hong Kong SAR still valid? Will the officers of LOCPG still abide by the laws of Hong Kong? They have made frequent speeches recently to intervene in Hong Kong affairs. Hong Kong people are most concerned about "a high degree of autonomy" after the reunification. What does it mean by "a high degree of autonomy"? It means that the SAR Government shall, on its own, conduct all Hong Kong's affairs, except those concerning national defence and foreign affairs. But how come LOCPG and HKMAO keep interfering in Hong Kong affairs?

In fact, it is more than clear that the Basic Law has been distorted and eroded for years. Where does Hong Kong go from here? Chairman, the SAR Government and the Chief Executive are the ones to lead Hong Kong, but are they competent enough? We keep calling for a democratic election because we want the Chief Executive to be held accountable under the election system. As long as a Chief Executive acts against the people, he or she will step down voluntarily. During the election, Carrie LAM once claimed that she would step 6206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 down if the people no longer supported her. But has she lived up to her promise? She is still in power and shamelessly asks us for funding.

When Wuhan pneumonia first broke out, health care staff implored the Government to close the border to save Hong Kong. They also urged the Government to increase health care resources to avoid repeating the same mistake in 2003 SARS outbreak. Carrie LAM, however, ignored their demands. As a result, when members of the public were not given the face masks they needed while health care staff were forced to reuse their protective gear in a high-risk work environment. As the epidemic in Hong Kong gradually stabilized, Carrie LAM claimed at a recent press conference that most of the face masks had been reserved for the use of health care staff earlier. Health care staff then came forward to clarify that they had never received any CSI masks from the Government. In other words, Carrie LAM lied again. Should we approve the funding application from such a government and Chief Executive?

Besides, the epidemic has hard hit different trades and sectors, leading to layoffs of grass-roots workers. Yet, the Government has not provided any support to the unemployed in its two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund. If so, why should we approve funding for the Police? Why doesn't the Government spend its resources on social welfare and provide assistance (The buzzer sounded) … to help the unemployed?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please stop speaking.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, when I spoke on "Head 21―Chief Executive's Office" yesterday, I proposed to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office. I have mentioned two major sins of the Chief Executive in my speech. First, she has fancied herself as being smart …

(There was noise interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, is your mobile phone placed near you?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6207

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not have a mobile phone with me.

First, Carrie LAM has fancied herself as being smart. Her attempt to bulldoze the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance through the Council has undermined Hong Kong's rule of law and opened the "back gate" separating Hong Kong's and China's systems, thereby facilitating Mainlanders' access into Hong Kong. Even after 1 million and 2 million people had taken to the streets, she adamantly refused to admit her fault, resulting in the current confrontations and dissensions in society.

Secondly, as the Chief Executive, she should have the responsibility to ensure the implementation of "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong. Under the Basic Law, all matters except those relating to defence and foreign affairs are Hong Kong's internal affairs. However, Carrie LAM has surprisingly indicated that it was acceptable for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") to oversee and show concern over Hong Kong's day-to-day affairs. Consequently, HKMAO has issued statements commenting on various matters, big and small. Isn't this an example of "mutual destruction"? As Hong Kong has lost its concrete protective screen, HKMAO and LOCPG have become the second governing team which is the de facto ruler of Hong Kong. While they stayed behind the scenes in the past, they have now moved to the front stage. No Hong Kong SAR government official would dare say a word. The Carrie LAM Administration has also publicly admitted its previous mistake and lack of understanding of the Basic Law, and has even revised its press releases three times in a day. Given the indisputable fact that she has sold Hong Kong down the river, she cannot even defend herself and does not deserve to get paid.

The worst thing about Carrie LAM is that she used to be a very capable and experienced official. She used to be very outstanding under the British rule of Hong Kong. Oddly enough, some previously outstanding officials who could put forward many excellent views during the British colonial era have been making mistakes repeatedly and pandering to the Central Authorities on all matters nowadays. The reason is very simple. SAR officials are used to following orders. As long as they can complete 100% of their tasks and even go above and beyond the call of duty, they will get promoted to higher positions and receive more titles. In contrast, under the British rule, officials were comparatively more sensible and reasonable. They paid more attention to social conditions, understood the need of developing our society into a modern civilized 6208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 society and promoted the core social values essential for social development in order to safeguard human rights and freedom, thereby achieving equality before the law for everyone under the legal system and rule of law back then.

Today, even the legal system is gradually becoming subservient to the political regime. Carrie LAM has done even more damage to Hong Kong than LEUNG Chun-ying. The narrow-minded LEUNG Chun-ying is a grudge-holder. In order to achieve his political aim, he has invented the scarecrow of "Hong Kong independence" and has therefore become "the father of Hong Kong independence". However, since LEUNG Chun-ying is not familiar with the ins and outs of the civil service system, I would just describe him as having great ambition but little talent. Given that he is not familiar with the Hong Kong system, even after he has opened the door to damage, no serious harm has been done. However, Carrie LAM is far more harmful. Since she is even more selfish than LEUNG Chun-ying, she will advance her political career at all costs.

I have been paying attention to Carrie LAM's stance. She had been insufferably arrogant before June last year. Even after the "anti-extradition to China" demonstration was staged on 12 June, she remained complacent and fully confident that the legislative amendment would definitely get passed. Therefore, she had completely turned a blind eye to the peaceful protests and petitions staged by Hong Kong people until the Central Government indicated that the issue had to be resolved. However, with a lack of political awareness, she has failed to take the opportunity to resolve Hong Kong's political deadlock by immediately withdrawing the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Instead, she has used hypocritical rhetoric, such as the Bill would be "suspended" and the Bill was "dead", in a way similar to squeezing toothpaste. As the Chinese saying goes, "The trust of the people can only be established with credibility." Without the trust of the people, the SAR Government will absolutely fail to convince the public even if it has issued press releases to explain its previous misinterpretations. From this, we can see that Carrie LAM had made a fundamental mistake.

Between June and September, I noticed that Carrie LAM appeared to have the mindset of "not knowing what to do". However, after XI Jinping had given her a pat on the shoulder and encouraged her to do a better job, she started to become complacent again. Subsequently, she reverted to her previous job and continued to "work as a good official". By surrendering the right to govern Hong Kong, she has simply been following the order of the Central Authorities and redoubling her efforts to complete all political tasks. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6209

The SAR government officials, who were mostly born and bred in Hong Kong, have witnessed Hong Kong's development and growth. They should know full well that Hong Kong's value lies in the protection of "one country, two systems". They understand that the intervention of the Central Authorities must be minimized to make Hong Kong people feel at ease.

Before 2003, Hong Kong people had more confidence in the Central Government than the Hong Kong SAR Government because the Central Government was restrained in exercising its power to intervene in Hong Kong affairs back then. During the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Hong Kong people's sense of national identity reached a record high. Twelve years on, officials may just ask the young, middle-aged and elderly people on the streets. They should carefully ponder why Hong Kong people's sense of national identity has been falling, and why they do not trust the governance of the SAR Government. Have our officials asked themselves honestly? Instead of properly doing their job, officials have always been criticizing black violence and "mutual destruction". I remind them that Hong Kong will definitely be subjected to "mutual destruction" without a single day of peace, as long as violence is still perpetrated by dirty cops, and the Central Government is still intervening in Hong Kong affairs and is still determined to set up a second governing team in Hong Kong. Has the SAR Government ever taken these matters into consideration?

I have just looked back at the siege of Changchun by the Communist Party of China ("CPC") during the Chinese Civil War. During the siege, the CPC Army had completely cut off all supplies, resources and roads to Changchun. However, instead of fighting their way out, the officials and military personnel in the city had chosen to safeguard their own interests and the lives of Changchun residents. While numerous people were starved to death back then, local officials and military personnel could still prosper. The situation at that time was similar to that of the SAR today. After going through an immense struggle, Hong Kong people hope that the Government will get back on the right track. However, the SAR Government has instead chosen to expand the Police Force and police equipment, and empower police officers to, under the group gathering restrictions, enter shopping malls to disperse people and even arrest those who sing songs to criticize the Government. Reportedly, a young motorcyclist carrying a child verbally abused police officers while driving past them, he was not arrested on the spot, but the Police later went to his residence to arrest him. Has the Government lived up to the expectation of Hong Kong people by governing Hong Kong this way? Government officials could benefit 6210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 greatly, and people with vested interests could profit from collusion with the Government. However, please do not forget the Chinese saying that "the hound will be boiled after the cunning hare is hunted", meaning that a worthy person will be discarded after he has outlived his usefulness.

If Hong Kong is besieged like Changchun back in those years, the community at large will certainly suffer. No official or military personnel in the city, however, could manage to survive in the end. Have our officials ever given some thought to the future of Hong Kong? The pro-establishment camp and royalist parties have committed heinous crimes in the Chamber as they have refused to join hands with us to pressurize the Government into changing its mind in line with public aspirations. Instead, they have been echoing the words of HKMAO and LOCPG every day. While people have been using the expression "violence perpetrated by black (dirty) cops", the pro-establishment camp and royalist party have abbreviated it as "black violence". Mainland officials have categorically said that the Central Government should ensure that the implementation of "one country, two systems" is not distorted or deformed. However, under "one country, two systems", the Central Government currently exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. Will this form of "mutual destruction" be even more detrimental to Hong Kong? If CPC exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong by setting up a second, de facto governing team in Hong Kong, "one country, two systems" will exist in name only.

In his speech yesterday, Dr Fernando CHEUNG cited me as saying that CPC has currently employed the tactic of "verbal attack and violent threat". In order to avoid trouble and protect themselves, Hong Kong people have come to terms with their fate and keep their noses clean. CPC will certainly be happy to see that Hong Kong people have chosen to live with such an attitude. However, as we can foresee, if Hong Kong people have chosen to keep their noses clean in their hometown, they will no longer enjoy the competitive edges of Hong Kong over other Mainland cities under "one country, two systems". For this reason, it is necessary for Hong Kong people to stay united and fight to the end in the disobedience campaign.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, today I am going to speak on the Appropriation Bill 2020, focusing on three Policy Bureaux, namely the Education Bureau, the Civil Service Bureau and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6211

If one is dissatisfied with the performance of a Policy Bureau, he has the right to ask for a reduction of its annual expenditure. Just now, Mr WU Chi-wai gave an impassioned speech, sharing with us his knowledge of history. Since he has proposed amendments on these bureaux, I will talk about their performance.

Frankly speaking, members of the public are very dissatisfied with many Policy Bureaux, public organizations and even the Legislative Council. I therefore find it unfair that the Police have been singled out by the opposition camp for constant attack and severe criticism. In fact, I would say that among all government departments, the Police Force and health care workers are most deserving of a pay raise and funding support. These two departments have performed very well. In order to deal with the protests last year and the epidemic this year, their workload has become exceptionally heavy.

I would like to offer a different view concerning the criticisms of other departments made by Honourable colleagues. Let me start with the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and the Civil Service Bureau. To be honest, we are also dissatisfied with the overall performance of the civil service. During the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and the riots last year, a group of civil servants formed a Union for New Civil Servants ("the Union") and took the lead to participate in strikes to protest against the proposed legislative amendments. The Union has, on multiple occasions, publicly expressed its views by that name, identifying itself as the representative of civil servants. I am not sure if the Union truly represents the civil service, but it has certainly tarnished the image of neutrality of civil servants, especially during these very crucial times when we expected the civil service to play a stabilizing role in society as part of the Government.

Mr WU Chi-wai mentioned a number of times earlier that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau had thrice revised its statement. Frankly, I do not have a good word for neither the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau nor the Education Bureau. They ought to assume a great share of responsibility for promoting the understanding of the Basic Law. I called some of the students I had taught. When they applied for civil service posts, the Basic Law test consisted of multiple-choice questions. It goes without saying that the Education Bureau did an even worse job by incorporating the content of the Basic Law and even Chinese history into the Liberal Studies curriculum, turning it into a "grotesque" subject. The overly broad curriculum has resulted in students being able to learn only a little bit of everything yet nothing very 6212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 much about anything. Recently, a teacher from Ho Lap Primary School distorted the history of the Opium War. How can the public possibly be satisfied with such performance?

Yesterday, I heard Dr Helena WONG compare the anti-epidemic efforts of the governments of Hong Kong and Macao and, in particular, of the two chief executives. She high commended the decisiveness of the Chief Executive of Macao. However, I would also like to point out that Macao enacted its national security law in 2009. It takes more than one-sided effort for "one country, two systems" to be a success.

Earlier on, Mr WU Chi-wai asked earlier why LOCPG has been speaking up frequently lately. First, I must tell Members that … sadly, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and the Secretary for Education are not here today; I hope the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau will not repeat the same mistake again. It is important that our civil servants and high-ranking officials have a clear understanding of the Basic Law. In trying to understand the Basic Law, we must start with the relationship between the Central Government and local authorities. Hong Kong, as a special administrative region of China … can each article of the Basic Law be interpreted individually out of context? Some Members have taken, out of context, Article 22(1) and also the most frequently cited Article 27, a provision on the freedoms of speech, assembly, expression and whatnot, which is also the subject of many judicial review cases. Yet few of us have mentioned the central-local relationship set out in the Basic Law. Had society been stable, perhaps the Central Government would not have felt the need to exercise its powers under the Basic Law on so many occasions.

The full name of LOCPG is the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Do Hong Kong people have a say on the structure of the Mainland establishment? The answer is in the negative; I believe that even those who study the administrative structure in Mainland China as an academic discipline may not know full well which Mainland bodies are classified as ministerial departments. I can say for sure that LOCPG represents the Central People's Government.

I will stop talking about administrative structure in Mainland China for now and go back to the Basic Law. I earnestly hope that the successor to the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs can listen to this part of my speech. If he is not present today, I would like to ask his colleagues to listen first, and he must listen to the audio-recording. If he commits the mistake again, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6213 he too must accept the criticism wholeheartedly. Why? It is stipulated in Articles 22 and 43 of the Basic Law that the Chief Executive is accountable to the Central People's Government. What are the provisions of paragraphs (3), (5) and (8) of Article 48? Paragraph (3) states that signed budgets should be reported to the Central People's Government for the record. Paragraph (5) states that nomination and appointment of principal officials should be reported to the Central People's Government; Paragraph (8) states that the Chief Executive is duty-bound to implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government. Do they understand what is meant by a "directive"? Have Members attempted to understand what is meant by an official letter issued by the Mainland Government and central authorities? Do Members understand what is meant by "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"?

Unfortunately, there is no going back in history. Under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law, in the event of a serious breach of law by the Chief Executive leading to a relevant motion passed by a two-thirds majority of all Legislative Council Members, the motion should be reported to the Central People's Government for its final decision. Do Members understand what this means? Article 73(9) of the Basic Law states, in response to Article 43, that the Chief Executive should be accountable to Central People's Government and, as such, should also be appointed and removed from office by the Central People's Government. It goes without saying that Members do not want to hear this, and I am aware of that; throughout all these years since Hong Kong's reunification, Members have always refused to pay heed to the powers and obligations of the Central People's Government under the Basic Law.

Apart from the Central People's Government, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is another term frequently heard by Members. I believe many Members would be familiar with Article 159(1) and (4) of the Basic Law. No amendment to the Basic Law should contravene the established basic policies regarding Hong Kong. What does this mean? The "basic policies" refer to "one country, two systems". In order to maintain the city's prosperity and stability, Hong Kong practises capitalism instead of socialism. No one (not even the relevant central departments) may make changes to the Basic Law, for this would be a contravention of the "basic policies" known as "one country, two systems". This is why some people have asked: If LOCPG is not bound by Article 22, doesn't this imply that it can do whatever it wants?

Members must understand that the Central Government is subject to the requirements of the Basic Law regarding issues related to Hong Kong and Macao, and the Basic Law is a special law that forms part of China's national laws. Do 6214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Members know what is meant by a special law? As some Members view everything solely from a Western perspective, they have regarded the Basic Law as the constitution of Hong Kong, but that is not true. China only has one constitution, which is the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law of Hong Kong can at best be called the "mini-constitution". I would like to point out that the Mainland academic circle of constitutional research―I attend their annual meetings every year―does not accept the term "mini-constitution". Are Members aware of this?

Some would say, isn't it disastrous if the Basic Law is a part of the national laws? No. In China, national laws are binding on even the Central Government departments, and that explains the significance of the Basic Law as the ultimate guardian of our "one country, two systems" policy, safeguarding "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong and the sovereignty of the Central Government. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, there is no going back in history. Back in 2003, despite the many concessions made by the SAR Government to the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong public―or their predecessors―still refused to accept the relevant arrangements, even after the "three tiger teeth" were removed. Today, the United States Government is very different from what it was before Article 23 returned to the table. Why did POMPEO describe the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong as a violation of the United States' interests? I really do not understand. Why is he so frank? He is really frank.

Are Members aware of the fact that Article 23 has existed since 1990 when the Basic Law was passed? Many Mainland experts were against granting Hong Kong the power to enact its own national security laws, because no national government in the world nor the Federal Government of the United States would allow a regional government to enact its own legislation. There were also those who supported the local legislation on Article 23 out of consideration for Hong Kong, hoping that Hong Kong would legislate for Article 23 in a manner more in line with the political and legal culture of Hong Kong. But did Hong Kong people treasure the chance?

I would like to ask you if you want another chance to enact laws on our own in respect of Article 23. If Members do not treasure this opportunity, or if they choose to paralyse the House Committee and Hong Kong due to their lack of full understanding of "one country, two systems", they will bring harmful consequences to Hong Kong. What does it mean by "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"? What is meant by political balance? Why was "one country, two systems" formulated? It was because our predecessors knew how LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6215 to make compromises; they knew how to find the balance point in a game and what was best for both Hong Kong and the State.

The State has remained silent on the matter as far as possible. What has led the State to break the silence amid the ongoing China-United States trade war and the issues emerging from the epidemic? POMPEO has provided the answer: The legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong will have an impact on the interests of the United States. What country would not protect its own interests?

Hong Kong is a part of the People's Republic of China. If we (including the Legislative Council) give up the opportunity to tailor the local legislation, and if the opposition camp continues its rejection, will the pro-establishment camp push on the legislation of Article 23? Regarding the National Anthem Bill, according to people, it has already ended in a mess and will expire if it is not passed by July. In that case, will the bill be introduced again in the next term? Frankly speaking, I can tell Members that I would not give it a second chance. It is stipulated in Annex III to the Basic Law that―I do not need to elaborate on this for Members may read it yourselves, I am just reading it out―in the event that Hong Kong fails to apply a piece of national law locally by way of legislation, the law will be directly promulgated. What is "one country, two systems" about? Members should learn to utilize the political room available to us in fulfilling our obligations; when we have fulfilled our obligations, other people would not constantly voice their views. Yet the opposition camp not only refused to fulfil its obligations, but blamed LEUNG Chun-ying and called him the father of "Hong Kong Independence". When has he ever mentioned "Hong Kong independence"? He merely points that there are advocates of "Hong Kong independence". However, has the opposition camp said anything about those young people and radical elements? They have already gone as far as to urge the Government to fulfil all their demands, and unless amnesty is granted for all murder, arson and violent incidents arising from the protests, they will bring doom on Hong Kong and effect "mutual destruction" on Hong Kong. Mr WU Chi-wai adopted a similar tone in his speech just now. That is really unacceptable!

Chairman, I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, the pan-democrats have proposed a total of 52 amendments to 42 heads. These amendments involve more than $30 billion according to my rough estimate, and the majority of them seek to 6216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 deduct all the estimated expenditure under "Head 21―Chief Executive's Office" amounting to $125 million. Besides, many pan-democrats have kept repeating their request, like a broken record, to deduct all the estimated expenditure under "Head 122―Hong Kong Police Force", amounting to $25,789,300,000. Simply put, I think all the amendments are unreasonable and I will oppose them.

After expressing my disagreement, I would like to speak on two items in particular. Every year, some Members will propose amendments to deduct the estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office amounting to more than $100 million. The reasons are simple enough. In the eyes of opposition Members, every Chief Executive is an enemy. Whoever assumes the position as the Chief Executive, he or she becomes a real enemy but not an imaginary enemy. That is why they often say that they will exercise the power of one third of Members or the significant minority to impede the executive-led system.

A noteworthy feature this year is that while the Mainland authorities have highly commended the Police for righteously enforcing the law and acting in accordance with the law, opposition Members have repeatedly called the Police dirty cops. Opposition Members have not severed ties with black violence in their comments on any front. Mr WU Chi-wai said earlier that Hong Kong will never have peace if dirty cops are not removed and intervention from the Central Authorities does not cease. He added that "Hong Kong people will stand united in disobedience and fight to the very end". Does he understand what he is saying? Perhaps he has repeated such words too often that he has become indifferent to their meaning. These are statements advocating "Hong Kong independence". In making such statements, Mr WU has breached the oath of bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") and upholding the Basic Law as a Member. Let me remind him again that he has taken an oath under Article 104 of the Basic Law.

Perhaps Mr WU has always despised the relationship between the Central People's Government and Hong Kong and I wish to take this opportunity to remind him. Hong Kong is not a place which merely enjoys "a high degree of autonomy", as claimed by Prof Johannes CHAN. The Basic Law also stipulates that Hong Kong "shall come directly under the Central People's Government". Thus, the incident of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching, which happened in November 2016, was still fresh in people's minds. Later the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China interpreted the Basic Law. Let me read out the third paragraph of the interpretation of the Basic Law (and I quote), "The taking of the oath stipulated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6217 by Article 104 of the Basic Law … is a legal pledge made by the public officers specified in the Article (including all of us) to the People's Republic of China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and is legally binding. The oath taker must sincerely believe in and strictly abide by the relevant oath prescribed by law. An oath taker who makes a false oath, or, (would Mr Dennis KWOK please listen carefully too) who, after taking the oath, engages in conduct in breach of the oath, shall bear legal responsibility in accordance with law."

In the incident of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching, since the duo did not take the oath according to the requirements before assuming the office, the former Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice instituted proceedings to oust them. Chairman, thank you for your recent effort in persistently demanding them to repay the monies owed amounting to over $1 million.

Now, I would like to ask Members the role of the Police. I heard people calling for abolishing the Police establishment. Hong Kong is not very innovative in many respects, but its extraordinary creativity is well demonstrated in this bold and specious suggestion. After the Police establishment is abolished, shall we rely on black-clad rioters to maintain law and order? What kind of a world will it become? It turns out that opposition Members and black-clad rioters are actually buddies and they will not sever ties. Do opposition Members want to deduct the $20 billion-odd estimated expenditure of the Police in order to pay for the living expenses of their "brothers"? Do they also want to turn facilities of the Hong Kong Correctional Services into five-star hotels?

When opposition Members speak and propose amendments, they have forgotten the most fundamental principle of the debate today. Although Members enjoy freedom of speech and will be exempted from civil and criminal liabilities for defamation, etc., they cannot, when speaking in this Chamber, ignore their solemn promise made during the oath-taking under Article 104 of the Basic Law; otherwise, they have to bear legal consequences.

Thus, disregarding the contents of our debate today, if Members think that there are problems with government expenditures, measures or policies, they can, out of good will, point out the problems boldly, so that the Government can take on board their views and improve its governance. However, when Members have overstepped … we cannot play wildly in a football field; similarly, Members participating in this game have to follow the rules. Opposition Members often say that Hong Kong people should stand united, but what do they mean by "Hong 6218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Kong people"? Are criminals and law breakers in Hong Kong their "brothers"? Do opposition Members want to effect "mutual destruction" with these people? Opposition Members mention the term "mutual destruction" time and again; they have not ruled out the approach of "mutual destruction", instead they advocate "mutual destruction".

Yesterday, the press spokesman for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") published an article entitled "No peace in Hong Kong unless black violence eliminated". Earlier, I mentioned Article 12 of the Basic Law which stipulates that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government." I reiterate that Members should not listen to Prof Johannes CHAN. Hong Kong shall come directly under the Central People's Government. The article published by the spokesman for HKMAO is written in accordance with Article 12 of our mini-constitution, i.e. the Basic Law, whereas the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is the basis on which China is to be governed. The article also mentions that "the Central Government has the primary responsibility of protecting the constitutional order of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Have Members listened carefully? The article says, "the Central Government has the primary responsibility of protecting the constitutional order of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; it has the primary responsibility of safeguarding national security; and it is most concerned with the fundamental interests of Hong Kong and the fundamental welfare of our compatriots in Hong Kong"; "for the future of Hong Kong and in the interests of Hong Kong people, the only correct response towards 'mutual destruction' by black-clad rioters is to adopt a clear and firm stance and say 'No' in a loud voice!". I stand upright in this Chamber and, in a resolute and unreserved manner, say "No" to "mutual destruction" and say "No" to black violence!

I have a question for the 24 opposition Members: In order to serve the Hong Kong SAR, you must uphold the Basic Law. Will you uphold the Basic Law in its entirety; only will you uphold some selective articles with the exception of Article 23? The Hong Kong SAR is an authority under the Central People's Government which directly handles Hong Kong's affairs and is concerned with the administration of Hong Kong. These powers are conferred by Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. What is conferred on Hong Kong can be taken back by the Central Authorities. Conferring powers on Hong Kong does not mean the Central Authorities do not have any governing power. The Central Authorities have given Hong Kong "a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6219 high degree of autonomy", but if the governance is unsatisfactory, it is fair, lawful and reasonable for the Central Authorities to intervene. However, Mr Dennis KWOK and other opposition Members surprisingly consider such intervention a contravention of Article 22 of the Basic Law and argue that no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong SAR administers on a daily basis. Mr Dennis KWOK makes one-sided generalization based on one provision of one single article, thereby ignoring Article 12 of the Basic Law. He also questioned whether the Central Authorities intervened with a view to abolishing "two systems". But, he has forgotten the premise of "one country".

While these remarks are still fresh in our minds, on 29 April, Michael POMPEO, the third highest-ranking public officer in the United States (Donald TRUMP being the highest-ranking public officer, to be followed by Mike PENCE), pompously said that national security laws could not be enacted for Hong Kong; and if Hong Kong legislated for Article 23 of the Basic Law, it would directly harm the interests of the United States. I will not comment on whether POMPEO's remarks are correct for the time being.

Members of the opposition camp, including Mr Dennis KWOK, claim to be experts in law and proudly call themselves barristers or members of the Hong Kong Bar Association; yet no one dares to step forward and rebuke POMPEO by saying, "You'd better shut up! You are meddling, not just interfering, with the internal affairs of Hong Kong, and also China's affair." Did anyone dare say so? When they meet these foreign strangers, their masters―and possibly their fund providers―immediately wag their tails and fawn over them, but when their own people become their masters …

I remember that on 1 July, Mr Charles Peter MOK was interviewed by BBC, and even the reporter himself did not accept such a violent incident. When Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Dennis KWOK went near the education facilities of the Legislative Council Complex, they saw some police officers trying to prevent the rioters from forcing their way into the Legislative Council Complex. Surprisingly, the Members yelled at the police officers, saying, "What are you doing here?", "Why have you occupied the Legislative Council Complex?" Mr Charles Peter MOK then said to the BBC reporter, "Look at them! What are they doing to our parliament?" Mr MOK had an ulterior motive, and this is the second time that I have mentioned this point in the Legislative Council. Why did Mr MOK call the Legislative Council "parliament"? Who were his target audience? 6220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

In fact, in this "colour revolution", these shameless opposition Members have failed the general public of the Hong Kong SAR because they have sacrificed the interests of Hong Kong as a whole. Today, they even shamelessly―Chairman, I am referring to these Members as a group and not as individuals―want to topple the police establishment, which is an important pillar for acting in accordance with the law and strengthening the rule of law; what are the real intentions of these Members? They may as well tell us clearly. As I have told Members, there is a 99.9% probability that these Members are promoting "Hong Kong independence", why are they still trying to hide what they are doing? Mr WU Chi-wai said, "Hong Kong people will stand united in disobedience", which means "Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times". What problems have their actions caused? The Financial Secretary has told us that we have recorded the worst economic performance ever. Our GDP has shockingly dropped by 8.9%, and how much money does it represent? It represents more than $70 billion. These people are not money makers, but spendthrifts.

Chairman, we can clearly see today that these Members are actually trying to subvert Hong Kong and split the territory of China in the guise of proposing amendments; and that is the mission of opposition Members. I, Junius HO, must strongly reproach them here. In respect of their behaviour, the SAR Government should not merely say, "Make a timely turn, Mr Dennis KWOK". Instead, it has to step forward and take immediate action. The Chief Executive has the responsibility to uphold and implement the Basic Law. Otherwise, the Chief Executive has to bear responsibility too.

I so submit.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this session today is to debate heads with amendments, and I will focus my speech on the contents of some amendments proposed by Members.

I support the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill"), and I have clearly stated my reasons when I spoke during the Second Reading debate. However, I notice that some opposition Members have expressly stated that they will cast opposing votes, paying no heed to the relief measures proposed in the Budget, including the disbursement of $10,000 in July with applications to be received in June.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6221

This year, a total of 124 amendments were originally proposed by Members, but finally 52 amendments involving 42 heads are approved by the President. The amendments admitted are actually similar to those of last year, which are merely new wine in old bottle. The opposition camp continues to be dissatisfied with the Government and seeks to cut the salaries of the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments, the Financial Secretary and Directors of Bureaux, the reasons cited are somewhat different from those of the past years. I will later focus my speech in this regard again, and in particular, I would like to raise again some concerns.

First, the amendments which effect "mutual destruction" will push Hong Kong down into a fiery pit. Chairman, I have read in detail the contents of the amendments proposed by the 16 Members. The message conveyed is that if there are any departments they are dissatisfied with or any person they dislike, they will propose to slash the funding thereof. The Police Force is the best case in point. As they have strong views against the Police Force, they proposed to slash the estimated annual operating expenses of the entire Police Force, which include staff salaries, allowances, operating costs and departmental equipment, etc. Actually, the purpose of this act of retaliation is to disband the Police Force. In other words, referring to the several major programmes of the Police Force, "maintenance of law and order in the community" can be deleted, "prevention and detection of crime" can be deleted, and "road safety" can also be deleted. Who is going to be responsible for these tasks? I believe thieves will be the first to express gratitude to these Members.

In the Safe Cities Index 2019 published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Hong Kong ranks the 20th. If the opposition camp seeks to reduce the expenditure on remuneration and operation of the Police Force, who shall be held responsible when law and order in Hong Kong deteriorates as there are no policemen or when the Police have no accoutrements to deal with crimes? Chairman, I raise this example to point out that this kind of vindictive amendment to effect "mutual destruction" is superfluous. The opposition camp opposes for opposition's sake. If its amendments are passed, that will truly push Hong Kong down into a fiery pit.

Second, some amendments are nonsensical. There is an amendment that makes me feel doubtful, i.e. Amendment No. 25. An opposition Member seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of $3 million-odd on the annual salary and cash allowance of the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat under the head of Legislative Council Commission. In this connection, if there is an 6222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 opportunity later on, I hope the opposition Member who proposed the amendment may explain why he only proposed to reduce the allowance of the Legal Adviser. Are they dissatisfied with her work, or did she offend them?

Initially, I thought this amendment was proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK. A few days ago, he severely criticized the remarks made by an overseas senior counsel commissioned by the President. The counsel pointed that Mr KWOK acted ultra vires and stalled the procedure when he presided over the House Committee meeting. Mr Dennis KWOK further pointed out that overseas senior counsel commissioned by the President has divorced from reality and is not familiar with the operation of the Legislative Council; yet Mr KWOK endorsed the initial advice given by the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council that he has the authority to handle matters of the House Committee. It turns out that it is Mr CHU Hoi-dick who proposed the aforementioned amendment. Let me see whether Mr Dennis KWOK, who has been abusing power and deliberately stalling the election of the Chairman of the House Committee, will vote for or against this amendment.

In fact, regarding the professional legal advice given by other people, Members of the opposition camp may disagree or refuse to accept. However, if they dislike someone or if they find someone unpleasant, is there any ground for them to seek to reduce the annual salary of that person? Chairman, if they are allowed to do so, I think the person who should have his remuneration slashed under this head is Mr Dennis KWOK who presides over meetings of the House Committee. This Council ought to slash his remuneration first.

Chairman, the third part is about situation caused by Members of the opposition camp who oppose for opposition's sake. Two weeks ago during the Second Reading of the Bill, I heard some opposition Members promoting themselves. Among them, Ms Claudia MO said that if the Legislative Council were led by them, the world would become very promising and no problems would arise in Hong Kong because they attached great importance to people's livelihood and would deal with all livelihood matters; consequently, Hong Kong would no longer have poor people. I once said that I wanted to puke after hearing such remark. How could she say things like "a more beautiful Hong Kong"? Sorry, what I see is precisely an opposite picture. We can forecast the future of Hong Kong with the Bill. If the Legislative Council is led by the opposition camp with the majority seats, Hong Kong will be pushed into a bottomless abyss, or be pushed down into a fiery pit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6223

Just look at the practice of the opposition camp in proposing amendments to this Budget. They will reduce the salaries or estimated expenditures of whatever department they dislike, including the Buildings Department, Security Bureau, Financial Services and Treasury Bureau or Development Bureau (Works Branch). These bureaux and departments will all have their salary expenditures slashed, and the decision is unilaterally made by the opposition camp. Moreover, if the Legislative Council is led by the opposition camp and their so-called "five demands" are not met, they will veto bills and budgets introduced by the Government. It is known to all that their purpose of vetoing the budget is in fact forcing the Chief Executive to resign. Hence we can foresee that they will override people's livelihood with politics, pay no heed to public interests and create political and constitutional crises one after another. They will be most happy to see society in turmoil. The present economic growth rate is already -8.9%. Hong Kong people are indeed very miserable with many people are unemployed. We can foresee, without a crystal ball, that if the Legislative Council is led by them, they will propose motions of no confidence and interrogate government officials who are slow to respond. In short, they are always right while others are always wrong. By then, even if the Government proposes to disburse $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000, they will likewise oppose because they oppose for opposition's sake.

Sometimes, I have a strange idea: If the Government is led by them, say, if Ms Claudia MO is the Secretary for Development, what will happen? If someone has unauthorized building works ("UBWs"), she will order an investigation; any one whom she dislikes will be subject to an investigation. However, she will neglect her UBWs and continues to enjoy her English tea and play with her dog, and will then tell others loudly that the UBWs has nothing to do with her, and being a senior Member of the Legislative Council, she is justified to have UBWs. Chairman, this really will not work.

The opposition camp said it has to fight for "35+" seats in the Legislative Council, but the consequence is already clear to all. Have they not won the District Council ("DC") election and taken the lead? Nevertheless, how is the work of DCs? It is evident to all that things are in an awful mess. Have the various people's livelihood matters been solved? Has transportation been improved? Has the problem of traffic congestion been solved? They talk politics and even abuse power in DCs every day. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong tabled a document to a DC, hoping to discuss the issue concerning some DC members saying that they will not provide service to "'blue ribbons' and dogs" and people with different political views. 6224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Such a practice is wrong. However, pan-democratic DC members did not allow discussion and voting, and the matter was put to an end. Oligopoly, abuse of power and harbouring faults are their modus operandi.

Chairman, given that Mr Dennis KWOK has been obstructing the normal operation of the House Committee for more than half a year, and coupled with the amendments proposed by the opposition camp, the only consequence is that they will continue to carry out "mutual destruction". They are so sick that they are beyond cure. Therefore, even if they have only proposed 124 amendments this time, if the Council is led by them, they may, as in the case in 2015, propose as many as 3 900 amendments. By then, we will be pressing button all day long.

Chairman, the novel coronavirus epidemic is yet to be solved, but many people are already stirring up social sentiments, hoping to rekindle hatred and instigate black violence. At present, Hong Kong people are indeed very miserable as many people cannot make ends meet. They may lose their jobs due to a wave of shop closures. Moreover, no visitor came to Hong Kong during the past Golden Week. What should we do about such a situation? On this premise, the Budget must be passed so that $10,000 can be disbursed to the people to solve their various livelihood difficulties. It is actually a waste of time to discuss these amendments now. We should expeditiously pass the Budget to let the public pocket the money as soon as possible; we should not give the opposition camp the time to declare their stance.

Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 11:30 am.

10:54 am

Meeting suspended.

11:30 am

Committee then resumed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6225

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please speak.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am speaking against the 52 amendments proposed by 16 Members of the opposition camp to 42 heads. I oppose all these amendments, in particular the one proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to reduce the annual expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force under head 122 in respect of subhead 000. I express my strongest opposition to and protest against this amendment. Nonetheless, Dr CHEUNG's amendment does help members of the public to see clearly which Members belong to the opposition camp, which belong to "those conniving violence" and which belong to the "mutual destruction camp". The opposition camp has, disregarding the safety, life and property of Hong Kong people, proposed to reduce the expenditure of the Police Force to zero, and turn Hong Kong into a "police-free city". The purpose is precisely to gradually push Hong Kong into a state of "mutual destruction".

Chairman, the current trend of "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong started in mid-2019 when the opposition camp turned the disturbance arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments into a chaotic situation condoning violence. It then further morphed into a "mutual destruction" movement, and is now half done. Black violence and the outbreak of the epidemic have made the current environment of Hong Kong even worse. The economy receded sharply by 8.9% in the first quarter, and the hardest hit were retail, tourism, transport and hotel industries with a reduction of retail sales by 42%. This is the greatest decline since records began in Hong Kong. As an international financial centre, the ranking of Hong Kong has fallen from the third place to the sixth place in the Index of Global Financial Centres Index published earlier on, surpassed by Shanghai and Singapore. The economic and global status of Hong Kong is now at stake.

Earlier on, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") conducted a survey to see if workers have been affected by black violence and the outbreak of the epidemic. Chairman, 80% of the respondents replied that they were affected by unemployment, layoffs and no-pay leave, and wage earners are living in dire straits. However, some cold-blooded and ruthless Members from the opposition camp, for example Mr CHU Hoi-dick, remarked earlier during the debate on the Vote on Account resolution that Hong Kong people (but not 6226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 including the majority of normal people) should have the courage to jump off a cliff. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen went even further to say that people should have the determination to die altogether.

Opposition Members will certainly not die or jump off a cliff. Only the majority of Hong Kong people will die in the end. The opposition party will continue to have a smooth ride in this year's election. They not only have strong confidence in winning "35+1" seats, but also winning a landslide victory in the coming election. Why would they be determined to jump off a cliff when they are going to have a smooth ride? At present, they must be overjoyed and are busy figuring out how to seize power and take over the presidency. Therefore, Hong Kong people must see clearly who will benefit and who will suffer from "mutual destruction".

The Police Force is the cornerstone for public order and stability, and we cannot do without the Police Force for one day. As I said earlier, the economy is currently very depressed. Even the "yellow economic circle" boasted by the opposition camp and with the endorsement of academics is not much better. "Yellow shops" such as Lung Mun Café and Café de JarGor, which have been playing the leading role, are also in a desperate state. Worse still, the Next Digital owned by Jimmy LAI is also suffering losses year after year. He is now begging for new subscribers as many people have withdrawn subscription. Jimmy LAI cannot even rescue himself. At present, only one circle is able to survive and it is called the "yellow political dividend circle".

Two days ago, Commissioner of Police Chris TANG said some people received "political dividends". What Chris TANG said was probably true and so the opposition camp fitted itself into the picture and immediately asked him if he had any proof. As a matter of fact, this is a common sense political judgment. During last year's disturbance arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, the opposition camp smeared the bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, saying that the legislation was very horrible in that it allowed indiscriminate arrests, thereby causing widespread panic. They then went further to incite Hong Kong people to go to the streets. Initially, the situation was still acceptable. There is no problem with peaceful expression of opinion as it enables us to explain and address the misunderstanding. However, they subsequently initiated a violent siege of the Legislative Council on 12 June, which I believe is still fresh in the memory of Members present at the meeting. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6227

All Legislative Council meetings could not be held. Honestly speaking, these are illegal acts liable for the offence of riot. Chairman, merely obstructing the entry of Legislative Council Members into the meeting venue is an offence. Although the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance safeguards Members when they attend meetings of the Legislative Council, the opposition camp used force to prevent the meeting from taking place so as to achieve the purpose of toppling the bill. Later, the situation evolved into clashes between the Police and the public. In the face of attacks or charging acts, police officers would certainly make arrests. However, the opposition camp described this as police brutality and slung mud at police officers by calling black white. The Police will only take enforcement action after the occurrence of black violence. May I ask if there is any case of not adhering to this rule? Do Members think that police officers are so eager to work?

The outfit of an anti-riot police officer weighs dozens of pounds. An anti-riot police officer told me that they often have to stand for more than 10 hours wearing this outfit. Chairman, I do not think I can manage to stand even an hour. Therefore, we really have to give a "Like" to these respectable police officers. Once the Pandora's box of violence is opened, there will be no return. The opposition camp of the old days, in my opinion, was better as it had some concern for the people and condemned the Mong Kok riot in 2016. However, after one or two by-elections, they found that severing ties with the radical camp would lead to a loss of votes, so they have now fully embraced the radical camp and connive at violence. Their evolution from being the opposition camp to conniving at violence is simply for the sake of election.

In fact, the Pandora's box of violence was slightly opened when the illegal Occupy Central incident took place, and it was only until last year's movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments that the box was thrown wide open. This Pandora's box was created as a result of the opposition camp's "three nos" policy, namely, "no severing ties, no condemnation, no snitching". Despite the spate of incidents, including "11 November setting people on fire" and "13 November hurling objects to kill people", no condemnation has been made. They had even stormed the Legislative Council Complex and vandalized everything inside. The Complex has generally been restored, but what has been restored is only the destruction but not the solemnity of the Legislative Council. This will be recorded in history, and the opposition camp is destined to be nailed to the pillar of shame in history.

6228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Chairman, the prevalence of intensified violence and lying has given rise to very sad cases, for example, the young girl shot in the eye. But why did she get hurt? They dare not investigate. They did not allow the Police to conduct an investigation, nor allow the Police to obtain her medical report. They claimed that many people died on the "31 August" incident, but what did the relevant closed-circuit-television footage show? At the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, I also supported the request to obtain the relevant footage, but the fact is I saw nothing special. They simply keep smearing the Police and keep calling on tens of thousands of people to pay tribute to empty graves month after month.

With regard to the incident of San Uk Ling Holding Centre, it is indeed an insult to the ancestors for people to pay respects to their "brothers" at the Sandy Ridge Cemetery. They keep covering up one lie with another, and this is precisely what the opposition camp has been doing over the past six months or so. They use lies and violence to create a cycle and an intensified situation, instigating young people to commit illegal and violent acts. While these young people should certainly be punished, they are also victims to a certain extent. The opposition camp "urge others to charge forward but flinch from doing so themselves". Opposition Members will only sit in front of the keyboard and send messages like "having criminal record can liven up your life"―even if Mr Alvin YEUNG apologizes hundreds of thousands of times, I will keep repeating his remark. The opposition camp has made numerous impassioned remarks, and even vowed that violence is the solution to all problems. This is all about election and fundraising, am I right? The 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund and the Spark Alliance have cheated hundreds of millions of dollars of Hong Kong people's money and their kindness, but who have they helped? Nobody. Chairman, they refused to help the so-called "brothers" when the latter approached them for legal assistance, not to mention ordinary people. They even demanded full payment of the fees. Recently, they launched crowdfunding again in order to seek external legal advice. Although a considerable sum of money has been raised, they are more stingy than the Financial Secretary. Given that the various funds amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, they should be conscientious and give their "brothers" some money for their families. Instead of sitting in front of the keyboard and sending messages after someone has been imprisoned, the opposition camp should be more conscientious. Yet, it is absurd to expect the opposition camp to be conscientious.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6229

Violent incidents occur day after day. During the riots of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and black violence that happened last year, there were a total of 11 cases involving improvised explosive devices. The explosives seized include TATP, HMTD and ANFO, which are commonly used by international terrorists. On one occasion, as many as 2.6 tonnes of raw materials for making bombs were found in a factory warehouse and several trucks had been deployed to transport these materials. In addition, thousands of petrol bombs were seized, which is very shocking. The firearms seized are not just semi-automatic pistols, but AR-15 automatic rifles, which are generally used in wars. Moreover, thousands of bullets were also found. Even crimes involving the Mainland criminals in the old days had not used such powerful arms. Also people would not use hundreds to thousands of bullets to commit serious crimes.

The opposition camp actually learns from Michael POMPEO of the United States to combine violence with lies. Mr Dennis KWOK visited the United States four times a year, which is more frequent than returning to the homeland. What did POMPEO teach them? The sound bite of POMPEO is, "We lied, we cheated, we stole, and when I worked in CIA, we had entire training courses. This is the glory of the advancement of America." He is the political spokesman of the United States. I wonder if Mr Dennis KWOK's annual visit to the United States was to seek advice from POMPEO―Chairman, they did meet with POMPEO and I did not slander them―POMPEO taught them to use violence and lies to create the present situation to gain "political dividends". Chairman, they often claimed that someone in the Police Force are earning dividends by receiving overtime pay, but after consulting a number of police officers, I learnt that they would rather go home than receive overtime pay. Who wants to work overtime constantly? Do you think this is fun? Wage earners do not like to work overtime.

They want "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong. The political ecology of the opposition camp is to "urge others to charge forward but flinch from doing so themselves". Hong Kong people really have to see clearly for themselves what the opposition camp has done in the past period of time. When it comes to eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood", that is, earning political dividends, some people in the opposition camp did reflect on themselves. A young Sai Kung District Council member from the opposition camp, LEE Ka-yui, for example, said that pan-democratic Members present at the meeting were all elected to this Council by eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood". I 6230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 highly appreciate this young man for his honesty, probably because he is rather young. I wonder if opposition Members present at this meeting are as honest as this young man, and I think it is good to be honest. When opposition Members called on people to charge forward, have you ever seen any of their children or relatives standing in the front line? Definitely not, because they know this will have a high price to pay. It is surely better to eat steamed buns dipped in other people's blood, and there is no reason to eat steamed buns dipped in the blood of our own friends or children. This speaks the truth.

What is the quality of the Police Force? I would describe them as internationally renowned with extensive public compliments. According to the Rule of Law Index published by the World Justice Project, Hong Kong ranked second, whereas according to the Prosperity Index, our ranking in safety and security ranked the fourth. This certainly owes much to the Police Force because without them there will be no safety and security. According to a report published by the Fraser Institute of ―the above mentioned two reports were published by opposition Members' favourite countries, namely the United Kingdom and Europe―Hong Kong ranked sixth in terms of "reliability of police". According to a report published by the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong likewise ranked sixth in terms of "reliability of police services", far higher than the police of their most respected countries, namely the United States and the United Kingdom. So what is the reason for cutting the estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force? If members of the public want to sever ties with the "yellow political dividend circle", they must sever ties with violence (The buzzer sounded) … and we have to count on police officers …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please stop speaking.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to oppose the 52 amendments under discussion. Just now, some Honourable colleagues got very emotional when they talked about the Hong Kong Police and Members in support of "mutual destruction". I would, however, focus on the several amendments targeting the Police. Looking back on the black violence incidents facing the Police over the year or so, I do not think it is right for the Legislative Council to cut the Police's budget.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6231

Regarding the black violence incidents, the scenes on television might give us an impression that all rioters hurled bricks, set fire and thrown petrol bombs, but such behaviour was indeed limited to certain rioters in most cases. However, considering the serious violence that persisted over time, why should we be surprised to see a budget increase for the Police in need of additional accoutrements? Many Members hold that it is unfair to give the Police a pay rise or overtime pay. Although not every protest is joined by one or two million people, the number of protesters is still quite large as compared to the police manpower. Given that the Police are tasked to maintain law and order, protect the safety of law-abiding people in Hong Kong and save local economy by, say, guarding restaurants against petrol bombs, vandalism or destruction, how can Members consider it right to cut the Police's budget?

Let us take a look at what happened in other countries. For the Legislative Council Members who support "mutual destruction", they often speak highly of the United States. Yet, the United States does not only rely on municipal police to maintain law and order. It also has state police and national guard, which are not found in Hong Kong. When we are now facing an escalating violence and an increase in law breakers, how can we not expand the Police's budget?

According to the opposition Members, the Police do not deserve a pay rise because they have used excessive violence. I recall that, a few months ago, I watched a news clip showing a man in wheelchair got shot by a policeman in the United States. That man was unarmed and did not hide anything behind his wheelchair; yet, the policeman fired far more shots than the Hong Kong Police in their confrontation with the black-clad rioters over the past 11 months. It was later revealed that the man in wheelchair had no petrol bombs, bombs, firearms or any other weapons with him, let alone threw a petrol bomb. That is how foreign police behave. Some of our Honourable colleagues have denounced the Hong Kong Police and praised the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom and some other countries out of strong admiration. Have they ever thought of criticizing foreign countries when condemning Hong Kong?

Policemen and firemen have no easy life in Hong Kong, so are their family members. Given the dangerous job nature of disciplined services staff, family members are often worried about the safety of their spouse or parents for fear that they may have accidents at work. However, their families respect their dream of serving Hong Kong people in the disciplined services. Staff members of Hong 6232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Kong disciplined services, including policemen or firemen, have prepared to take pressure and are aware of their occupational risks. Yet, the sad thing is that, today, even their family members are doxxed and bullied. Their young children in primary school and kindergarten also get doxxed by those who disclose that their parents are police officers. When police officers have to withstand pressure like this, honestly speaking, why can't they get a pay rise?

After speaking on the Police, I will now turn to talk about Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"). Just now, some colleagues gave views on whether the Budget should propose a pay cut for RTHK staff. To be frank, I think it should. Chairman, I believe you know very well that the hosts of RTHK programmes, such as City Forum, were very fair and professional in early years. Over the years, different people have acted as host of City Forum. Having been a guest of City Forum for over 25 years, I am very aware that I will always be criticized by people of different political spectrum. I have got used to criticisms on and off the stage. That is okay for me. I was once invited to a press conference in which some Legislative Council Members and their party members called me "20-dollar CHEUNG". In fact, I did not feel bad about that, but the host of the radio programme felt sorry for not being able to control the situation. Although the host might not agree with my political views or the introduction of the minimum wage, or he did not agree to my objection against the minimum wage, he had at least worked hard to do his job well, believing that all guests should be given equal opportunities of expression, free from verbal attack or threat of violence.

But things change. Last time when I attended City Forum, there were four guests, including me. For most of the time, the three other guests do not share my political views, and I have actually got used to that. That is not a big deal. After all, restaurant workers like me often have to take care of several customers in a time. However, last time, even the host expressed political views different from me, and I could not help saying that it was too weird for the debate to be "one versus four" rather than "one versus three". As we have noted, today, the hosts or reporters of media like RTHK are far too biased and may even set traps in their questions. In case their guests refuse to answer or did not answer in the way they wished, they will keep asking the same question again and again …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6233

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, I would like to remind you that the estimated expenditure for Radio Television Hong Kong fell within the last debate session. However, as the Secretary concerned is present, you may express to him your approval for the relevant budget.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): It is exactly because I see the presence of the Secretary that my discussion on RTHK is a bit lengthy. Chairman, I am sorry about that. Let me talk about the reporters. They do not bother to study the relevant issues and will knock off soon after they get the sound bites.

Now that the Chairman has reminded me that RTHK fell within the scope of the last debate session, I wish to make one more point regarding the last session, i.e. Mr CHU Hoi-dick's criticism against my fellow party member Mr SHIU Ka-fai on 6 May. Mr SHIU Ka-fai had urged members of the public to stop fighting and work together to improve the economy; yet, Mr CHU accused Mr SHIU of failing to give insight into how to make Hong Kong better. Mr CHU may have been out of touch with the reality for too long so that he knows little about the people's suffering. While he may not realize the importance of economic development, he should have some ideas about how many people will lose their jobs if he stirs up chaos in Hong Kong. I wish him good luck if his ideal is to call on the people to forget their hunger.

Many of our trade members never care about politics but the reason is not that they are manual workers. Even though the televisions in their restaurants are on for 12 hours a day, they may not know that Tommy CHEUNG is their trade representative. One may say that is because I have failed to perform my job properly. However, restaurant workers who work day and night never have time for television news. Televisions are there for the diners, while restaurant workers are always too busy feeding their families. We, being their trade representatives, should help them create a favourable business environment instead of asking them to participate in politics and ignore the economy.

Hong Kong is a pluralistic society. I urge those who strive for their seemingly lofty ideals not to step on other people's life and way of living. There is nothing wrong to improve the economy, and no one should sacrifice the economy for politics. Should Mr CHU Hoi-dick be the one to decide which one is more important: politics or economy? I am really interested to know his insight into promoting Hong Kong's recovery. Members in support of "mutual 6234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 destruction" have all opposed the Budget, or even the first two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund, because they do not want the Government to succeed in achieving the good. They always act against the Government to ruin its plans. What is "insight" in their view? Is it only right for all Hong Kong people to give up their jobs and help the opposition set fire and hurl bricks?

Mr SHIU Ka-fai and I represent more than 500 000 employees in the catering and retail sectors. It is our responsibility to speak up for them, and the most pressing issues right now are to safeguard employees and their jobs, and help the jobless to find a new job to make ends meet. What is wrong with urging the Government and everyone in Hong Kong to improve the economy together? Therefore, I oppose all the 52 amendments and support the expeditious passage of the Appropriation Bill 2020 to speed up the handing out of public money to the people so as to boost the economic recovery.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I oppose all amendments to the Budget because many of the justifications are unfounded. I will elaborate my views on some of these amendments. Firstly, regarding the amendment to head 151, it is simply groundless to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Security Bureau on salaries under personal emoluments. The Security Bureau, which has a wide range of responsibilities, is the head of all disciplined forces, including the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF"), the Fire Services Department, the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department ("ImmD"), the Customs and Excise Department and the Government Flying Service. It is tasked to maintain law and order in Hong Kong and bring convenience to the public. Over the years, all disciplined forces under the Security Bureau have contributed to public safety, convenient services, good social order and rising international status. The low crime rate in Hong Kong has undoubtedly allowed Hong Kong to stay as one of the safest cities in the world.

Ever since last June, the everyday life of Hong Kong people has been greatly affected by black violence and the novel coronavirus epidemic. Thanks to the efforts of all disciplined forces, which perform their duties faithfully to maintain public order in the territory, the adverse impacts are minimized.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6235

During this critical period, we can all see that the head officials of the Security Bureau have led their departments to stand up to difficulties and challenges under pressure. Let me take ImmD as an example. In the past few months, the frequent revision of immigration policies by different countries as an effort to contain the spread of novel coronavirus, plus massive flight cancellations, have caused many Hong Kong residents stranded in the Mainland and overseas cities in great worry. They contacted ImmD through different channels, and I myself also received some requests for assistance which were later referred to the Security Bureau and ImmD for follow up. By following up on such cases, I have learnt more about the work of relevant departments under the contingency mechanism. For instance, I saw how they contacted the Mainland authorities concerned, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, embassies of China in other countries, foreign Consulates-General in Hong Kong and other relevant organizations, and how they liaised with airlines for flight arrangement when there was no direct flight to Hong Kong or the flights in certain cities were all cancelled. It was because of the effective cooperation of the Security Bureau, ImmD and other departments concerned that detailed and proper arrangements could be worked out to bring back Hong Kong residents from Hubei, Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan, Morocco and Peru.

The Hong Kong Government is now working hard to arrange Hong Kong residents stranded in and Pakistan to return to Hong Kong in batches. During the evacuation process, government officers have to carefully devise protective and testing measures to safeguard their participating colleagues from infection. We can easily imagine how difficult and burdensome their work is. If it had not been the effective mechanism established by the Security Bureau and ImmD, many Hong Kong residents stranded overseas would still have been stranded in fear. The opposition camp, while blaming the , should ask themselves honestly: Were the efforts made by the Secretary and the Security Bureau really as futile as they claimed?

Secondly, as regards head 122, the reason given by Members for cutting the budget for HKPF is a complete reversal of black and white. The opposition camp has deliberately smeared the Police out of political purposes since the protests against the proposed legislative amendments kick-started in June last year. Their strategies include creating a common enemy for the brainwashed 6236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 youngsters; bombarding the Police with criticism by quoting specious cases or negative scenes through "yellow media", irresponsible teachers and politicos to misconstrue normal enforcement actions of the Police; and badmouthing the Police continuously by juicing up negative stories. The opposition camp has achieved quite a success in misleading lots of ignorant people, especially the innocent youth, and tarnishing the long-built reputation of the Police.

The Hong Kong Police has all along been committed to serving the people since the reunification. According to the Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, the Hong Kong Police ranked the world's sixth―significantly higher than their counterparts in western countries such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada―in terms of "reliability of police services". This fact proves that the Hong Kong Police is world renowned for their quality.

As noted by Members, the Police are always quite restrained at the beginning of violent protests. However, protesters are well organized and employ strategic means to provoke the Police by playing different roles, including suspected reporters and volunteer first aiders. The opposition Members and people present on the scene will also disturb the Police constantly, with the intention of causing the Police to make mistakes or distracting the Police's attention during the operations, thereby creating an opportunity for rioters to do damage. It is observed that rioters have become increasingly daring under cover of others. At first, they just used umbrellas, bamboo sticks and iron rods as weapons. Later, they have turned to use incendiary bombs, bows and arrows, knives and improvised explosive devices. In the most recent days, even powerful explosive has been found. The protests are so violent that they have become organized terrorist activities.

Apart from the use of force, the opposition camp also seeks to damage the morale of the Police psychologically. In addition to cyber-bullying, they doxx police officers and their family members by all means. They have totally crossed the bottom line of morality in Hong Kong. Their purpose is to hit the Police's morale and undermine the governance credibility of the SAR Government and the Police. Fortunately, the Police Force of Hong Kong is so outstanding that its officers remain strong and continue to perform their duties faithfully under pressure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6237

Commissioner of Police Chris TANG has breathed new life into the Police after taking office. He is a leader who goes first by visiting the front line frequently and facing the media boldly. He also plans ahead proactively to deal with violent protests. Chairman, in the past 10 months, the Police not only had to handle unprecedented riots and maintain daily public safety, but also had to assist in containing the spread of novel coronavirus. One can easily imagine how great their pressure was. Therefore, the public should not readily believe the rumours which discredit the Hong Kong Police. Rather, they should objectively observe the Police from different angles, cherish and support them. This time, the proposed increase in the Police's budget is no cause for criticism. On the other hand, it is a total disregard of facts for the opposition camp to demand cutting the budget for the Police. All they want is to make use of this debate to further smear the Police, but I do not think any Hong Kong people with a sense of justice will be deceived by them anymore.

Thirdly, regarding head 152, the proposed reduction of the Hong Kong Tourism Board's ("HKTB") yearly budget for reinforcing Hong Kong as "Events Capital of Asia" sounds pointless to me. Chairman, the number of inbound visitors has plummeted over the past few months. Even in the Labour Day Golden Week, the daily number of inbound visitors remained low at 100 or so. All tourism-related industries are in plague and many sectors have suffered. According to the latest figures, retail sales have nosedived by over 40% and the resulting economic loss and unemployment situation are much worse than expected. Members of the public thus hope that the epidemic will soon be over for the economy and tourism of Hong Kong to rebound quickly.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Government to allocate in the Budget an additional $790 million to give HKTB sufficient funds for tourism promotion. Considering the current development of the epidemic, I think Hong Kong and some of our neighbouring countries or cities will be among the first to control the epidemic. Hong Kong's inbound tourism may then recover. Adequate funding is hence necessary for HKTB to promote Hong Kong in full swing at the right time to revitalize local economy.

Hong Kong, by holding numerous events over the years, has established considerable reputation and developed some sort of influence as an events city in the region. The staging of events can certainly enhance the tourism appeal of Hong Kong. It is hence necessary to earmark $277 million in the HKTB's budget for promoting Hong Kong as the "Events Capital of Asia". In recent 6238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 years, the reinforcement of Hong Kong's position as the "Events Capital" has become a strategy for Hong Kong to promote tourism. In 2010, the Government set up the Mega Events Fund ("MEF") to support various events organized by non-profit organizations with the aim of enriching tourists' travel experiences. The Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Tennis Classic and Hong Kong Dragon Boat Carnival were among the successful events funded by MEF. After MEF expired, HKTB has taken over its work to reinforce Hong Kong's position as the "Events Capital".

As tourism is a pillar industry in many countries and places, different countries are willing to put in resources for staging events. Owing to the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments in last June, the organizer of the Formula E Championship decided to cancel the race in Hong Kong and hold it in Marrakesh, Morocco. This is one of the examples showing how fierce the competition is for hosting this kind of expensive sports events. Once the hosting right is lost, it is very difficult to get it back. Chairman, when the epidemic is over, it is believed that all tourist cities will allocate additional resources for tourism to revitalize the economy. They may also take measures to attract new tourists. Hong Kong has the ability and resources needed for taking the first-mover advantage upon the recovery of tourism. The Government has already earmarked adequate provision for promoting Hong Kong's tourism and supporting the industry in the year to come, including, of course, the funding for event organization.

Fourthly, regarding the amendment to head 51, I think it is short-sighted to propose cutting the operation expenditure of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") Hong Kong Port for the year. HZMB is important in many ways. First of all, this convenient and efficient traffic route has brought much commuting convenience to the residents of Hong Kong, Macao and Western Guangdong, giving a boost to the economy and employment in the three places. It also facilitates Hong Kong people (especially retirees) to work and buy a home in the Mainland, thereby easing the housing pressure in Hong Kong. Besides, HZMB can expand the passenger base of the Hong Kong International Airport to Guangdong and Macao, reinforcing the Airport's position as a transportation hub in the region.

Secondly, HZMB has tourism value. Earlier on, HZMB was elected as one of the "seven wonders of the modern world" in the United Kingdom as it had set multiple records with its enormous construction challenges. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6239

55-kilometre HZMB consists of bridges, artificial islands and tunnels. Its immersed tunnel is the world's longest, widest, deepest and biggest, leaving incredible records in architectural history. Given its various world architectural records, HZMB has become a sightseeing spot. Many tourists are caught up in the fever to visit it by taking different means of transportation.

Recently, the HZMB Authority has set out to open an artificial island of HZMB for sightseeing by adding tourism elements. In the six-story integrated operation centre on the island, exhibition halls, observation decks, tea lounges, shopping facilities and coach parking spaces will be provided. Visitors can look at HZMB and the Lantau Island from far, and watch aircraft landing and taking off at the Hong Kong International Airport. They may also be lucky enough to see the Chinese White Dolphins. The artificial island will become another popular tourist spot in Hong Kong welcomed by both locals and overseas visitors. The economic value and tourist interest of HZMB have hence made the Bridge one of the important infrastructures in Hong Kong. For Members proposing to reduce the provision for HZMB, they have simply exposed their ignorance of the value of HZMB.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Chairman, we are discussing 52 amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill") in this session. As I noted earlier upon resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Hong Kong economy has currently been plagued by both domestic and external problems. The China-United States trade wars, social incidents arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and the novel coronavirus epidemic have all accelerated the deterioration of Hong Kong's economic environment. The possible persistence of the internal and external problems for a long period of time will increase the difficulty of recovery.

The Financial Secretary just said on Monday that the Hong Kong economy has currently plunged into deep recession. The three major drivers of the Hong Kong economy, namely exports, consumption and investment, have all broken down. During this critical period, the Government will have to lead the public in making concerted efforts to fight the epidemic and overcome the difficult situation, which will foreseeably be a long-lasting tough battle. However, regrettably, a majority of amendments to this year's Budget were surprisingly 6240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 intended to cut the provisions even before the battle is fought. It is indeed unfathomable why amendments are proposed to reduce the remunerations of a few government officials in charge of Hong Kong's finance.

Chairman, the "Attack by Stratagem" chapter of Sun Tzu's The Art of War stresses the importance of the commander-in-chief: "Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak".1 This excerpt means that the commander-in-chief is the pillar of the State; the State will be strong if the commander-in-chief has provided all-round support, and the State will be weak if he has done a defective job. Although Hong Kong is not a State and we are not confronted with a physical war, the military strategy also applies to the current situation of the SAR Government.

The amendments seek to, inter alia, reduce the estimated expenditure for the annual emolument of the Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary, who is the leading figure guiding Hong Kong's economic development, is responsible for assisting the Chief Executive in overseeing monetary, financial, economic and trade matters. At the helm of the economic policy of the SAR Government, he is also responsible for preparing the annual Budget of the Government, making decisions on the use and redistribution of Hong Kong's financial resources, and implementing the principle of sustainable economic development in Hong Kong. Simply put, the Financial Secretary has been instructed to launch a counterattack against economic recession.

Chairman, I know that to a certain extent the Council is a microcosm of society, and I understand that different Members have different views and expectations on the Budget. While I have also proposed numerous initiatives to boost Hong Kong's economic and financial developments, they have not been incorporated in this year's Budget. Even if the Budget cannot fully meet our expectations, it is unjustified to put all the blame on the Financial Secretary, isn't it? The Government has recently put forward two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund. To many people, quite a few industries and individuals have been left out. They have requested the Government to study the feasibility of launching the third round of the Anti-epidemic Fund. It is still necessary for the Government to examine the progress of Hong Kong's economic recovery and

1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6241 resolutely put forward relief proposals necessary for boosting the economy, thereby enabling Hong Kong to tide over the difficulties. We count on the Financial Secretary to come up with measures to carry out these efforts. If the Financial Secretary fails to do so, the public will definitely take him to task again. However, it is unfair and unreasonable to require the Financial Secretary to work without pay. Those amendments are illogical. Similarly, it is extremely unreasonable to cut the estimated expenditure of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau.

Chairman, apart from finance officials, all the 40 employees of Invest Hong Kong ("InvestHK"), another department chiefly responsible for attracting foreign investments, have been targeted in the amendments proposed to reduce their annual remuneration. InvestHK plays the role of inviting investors, most of which are multinational companies and Mainland enterprises including small and medium enterprises ("SMEs"), to set up or expand businesses in Hong Kong. InvestHK will offer them support. Frankly speaking, in my view, InvestHK still has much room for improvement. As I said during a recent meeting of the Panel on Commerce and Industry, InvestHK still has much work to do in terms of introducing family office into Hong Kong, such as formulating specific objectives. That being said, according to the figures released in January this year, InvestHK assisted 487 overseas and Mainland enterprises to set up or expand businesses in Hong Kong in 2019, creating 6 009 jobs.

According to the figures released by the Census and Statistics Department in April this year, Hong Kong's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the first quarter has risen from 3.7% to 4.2%, the highest level since 2010. If Hong Kong's economic recession continues and foreign investors reduce their investments in Hong Kong, the local unemployment rate will undoubtedly continue to go up. Hence, a reduction of the resources of InvestHK will further weaken the momentum of Hong Kong's economic recovery.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong has set up 13 Economic and Trade Offices ("ETOs") overseas to enable the local governments and political, economic and commercial sectors to grasp the most recent situation in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Washington, D.C. ("Washington ETO") has also been targeted by the amendments. Washington ETO is mainly responsible for appealing to the United States Government and Congress in seeking Hong Kong's commercial, trade and economic interests. Amid the China-United States trade disputes, it is a vital task to inform the United States business sector 6242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 of the actual situation in Hong Kong now. By undermining the role of Washington ETO at this moment, I believe that Hong Kong's lobbying power will only be further weakened.

Chairman, on the other hand, in order to support enterprises and safeguard jobs, the Government has introduced a range of subsidy schemes for SMEs to help them maintain mobility and raise competitiveness. Meanwhile, the Trade and Industry Department ("TID") is responsible for implementing schemes such as the SME Loan Guarantee Scheme, the SME Export Marketing Fund and the Trade and Industrial Organisation Support Fund. There are currently over 340 000 SMEs in Hong Kong, accounting for over 90% of enterprises in the territory. TID is responsible for implementing various subsidy schemes to provide necessary support to SMEs, such as providing them with loan guarantee for the acquiring operational equipment and facilities and general working capital, and encouraging their participation in export promotion activities in order to expand their markets outside Hong Kong. If TID's annual expenditure on emoluments is reduced, local SMEs will be unable to get the necessary support, which will definitely deal a further blow to their operations.

Chairman, some of the amendments I just cited seek to reduce the remunerations of personnel in charge of economic matters, whereas the following two amendments I am going to highlight will have a direct impact on Hong Kong's future economic policy. I am particularly concerned about the proposal to cut the annual expenditure of the Financial Services Development Council ("FSDC"). FSDC is the chief advisor for promoting Hong Kong's financial services sector and financial industry. It is responsible for advising the Government on strategic development directions to enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness as an international financial centre. Over a period of time in the past, I have been striving for additional resources for FSDC. Although FSDC has indicated that many members of the financial sector are currently providing voluntary services, basic expenses for administrative support, publicity and promotion are also very much needed. The amendments will undoubtedly hinder the sustainable development of Hong Kong's financial industry.

In addition, as one of the four economic pillars of Hong Kong, the tourism industry has also suffered a heavy blow. According to the figures of the Census and Statistics Department, the tourism industry has generated an added value of $121 billion in 2018, accounting for 4.5% of the local GDP. In 2018, 256 900 people were employed in the tourism industry, accounting for 6.6% of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6243 working population. However, since the social incidents began in June last year, the local tourism industry has been dealt an extremely severe blow. Coupled with the impact of the epidemic in recent months, the number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong for the first quarter has dropped 80% year-on-year. If the additional funding earmarked for promoting event tourism and thematic tourism is to be reduced, the livelihood of over 200 000 members of the tourism industry will further deteriorate.

Chairman, lastly, I would like to talk about the amendments seeking to reduce the funding of the Police Force. As various industries have been devastated and people are living in dire conditions, the SAR Government should deploy resources to enhance the protection of people's livelihood and jobs. The Budget has proposed a number of counter cyclical measures, including waiving part of salaries tax and profits tax, subsidizing family and living expenses, paying rent for public housing tenants and disbursing various forms of social assistance. In my opinion, the Government should consider injecting more funds where practicable. As to other government expenses, the Government should uphold the principle of spending money where necessary. If public order is restored in Hong Kong, those resources can be redirected to other areas.

Chairman, in terms of the five levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, we are now at the second level, namely Safety Needs, just one level above Physiological Needs. Hong Kong used to be a very safe city. However, after months of violent incidents arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, I believe that members of the public have realized that law and order (including personal safety) is vital to our normal life; and that the Police do play an important role in ensuring that the safety needs of the public be fulfilled. In view of the current social environment, we have no other choices. I therefore absolutely oppose a reduction of police funding in order to avoid any potential threats to the safety needs of the public.

Chairman, in my view, all amendments are essentially political postures only. For this reason, I will vote against all the amendments and support the Bill. I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, my speech in this session will be focused on the two amendments proposed by me, that is, reducing the annual salaries and cash allowances for the Secretary General and the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat under subhead 000 of head 112. 6244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Although the posts of Secretary General and Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat are not very prominent, the post holders are playing very critical roles. If they are dedicated to their duties and serve the Legislative Council without taking any political stances, for example, by strictly complying with the Rules of Procedure in an impartial manner, they will help enhance the credibility of the Legislative Council among the public. If they are dedicated to the overall development of the Legislative Council by acting in accordance with the rights conferred on them, they will help strengthen the democratic system in Hong Kong. If they are willing to play a good gate-keeping role to prevent the Executive Authorities from forcing the Legislative Council, through unconstitutional means, to pass bills which infringe the basic rights of Hong Kong people, they can help consolidate the system of separation of powers in Hong Kong.

However, when people who take up these two posts do bad things instead, they will ruin the credibility of the Legislative Council and turn the separation of powers into cooperation of powers, thereby reducing the Legislative Council to a murderer trampling on the human rights of Hong Kong people. What Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat Kenneth CHEN and Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Connie FUNG did at the start of the current Legislative Council term in 2016 reflected precisely that they were doing all kinds of evil, pushing the Legislative Council into an abyss. However, due to time constraints, I will briefly describe four sins committed by Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG since 2016.

The first sin is unlawfully establishing the candidature of Andrew LEUNG during the election of the President of the Legislative Council in 2016. Under the Basic Law, the President of the Legislative Council cannot have the right of abode in foreign countries, and the responsibility of confirming the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency falls on Kenneth CHEN, the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat. Although this incident took place a few years ago, it is very critical and its impacts are far-reaching. The deadline to run for the President election was 5 October 2016, but Andrew LEUNG had not submitted to the Legislative Council Secretariat the official documents to confirm his eligibility before the deadline. At that time, Kenneth CHEN continued to allow Andrew LEUNG to run for the President election. Consequently, there is a very serious loophole in the system since the start of the current Legislative Council term. Under the connivance of Secretary General Kenneth CHEN, a person who has failed to clarify his nationality has become the President of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6245

The second sin took place during the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance last year. At that time, Mr James TO, being the most senior Member of the Legislative Council, was responsible for presiding over the election of the chairman of the relevant Bills Committee. As the royalists considered that under the chairmanship of Mr James TO, the chairman of the Bills Committee could not be elected within their preferred time frame, the Secretary General and the Legal Adviser thus devised a "dirty trick" to hand over the matter to the House Committee. The House Committee then decided to directly deprive Mr James TO of his eligibility to preside over the election of the chairman and appoint Mr Abraham SHEK to chair the meeting on the election of a chairman. Mr Abraham SHEK considered that the arrangement was not a big deal as "he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". When Mr SHEK took over from Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung the chairmanship to preside over the election of the President of the Legislative Council in 2016, he also forcibly drove other Members away and disregarded the queries about Andrew LEUNG's nationality. In 2019, they wanted to act in the same fashion and had distorted all the rules during the process. Therefore, Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG are the ones who have jointly worked out some means to destroy the system of the Legislative Council.

Regarding the third sin, when the royalists proposed to amend the Rules of Procedure or when the Legislative Council scrutinized the co-location arrangement for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), which was in obvious contravention of the Basic Law, Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG offered assistance. For example, Members proposed to amend the Rules of Procedure to lower the quorum of the committee of the whole Council from 35 members to 20 members. This has apparently contravened the Basic Law. However, the Legal Adviser turned a blind eye, thus Members could proceed to propose the amendment for the approval of the President, resulting in the current situation. On the one hand, the pro-establishment camp expanded the power of the President indefinitely, and on the other hand, the quorum of the committee of the whole Council was lowered from 35 members to 20 members, which obviously allowed the royalists to stay lazy. The one who allowed such ridiculous amendments to get passed was the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council.

What is the purpose for having the Legal Service Division of the Legislative Council? The Division is to help Members examine whether there are problems with the legislations submitted to the Legislative Council by the 6246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Government, as well as point out which provisions are apparently unconstitutional or obviously cannot be implemented or so stipulated. The Division should act like a firewall in blocking the evil laws of the Government. What happened when the issue of the co-location arrangement for XRL was handled? At that time, Rimsky YUEN attempted to request the Standing Committee of National People's Congress ("NPCSC") to confer additional rights on the Hong Kong SAR under Article 20 of the Basic Law, so that the West Kowloon Station of XRL could be excluded from the territory of Hong Kong for the implementation of the so-call national laws. His attempted move could still be described as lawful. However, the Government refused to take this action. It bypassed all the provisions in the Basic Law and, through a so-called decision made by NPCSC, forced Hong Kong people to accept the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill which was in contravention of the Basic Law, and to accept the fact that in a certain underground place in the city centre of Hong Kong, national laws rather than Hong Kong laws would be implemented. Nowadays, a group of Mainland Public Security Bureau Officials and the People's Armed Police are stationed in XRL. How could such a bill be submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny? The reason was that the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council turned a blind eye to it. With only the power of the Communist Party of China ("CPC") in her mind, she has forgotten that her mission is to assist the Legislative Council and Hong Kong people, and to prevent the executive authorities from acting ultra vires.

As for the fourth sin, although not many people are aware of this incident, it remains fresh in my memory. In the Finance Committee, the power of a Member is not merely pressing the button to vote for or against the funding for public works. Under the Resolutions of the Legislative Council of the Capital Works Reserve Fund (Cap. 2A), the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council may specify conditions and exceptions for some works funding and impose some limitations on the Government. In 2017―at the time I still had little hope in this system―I thought that given the said legal provision, the Finance Committee should accept my amendments on conditions and exceptions proposed in accordance with the law and the rules of procedure. Chairman, I proposed imposing a condition on the Government in respect of the funding for the Hong Kong Disneyland ("HKDL") project, that is, upon approval of the funding by the Legislative Council, the Government had to discuss with The Walt Disney Company on allowing the 60 hectares of land reserved for the Phase 2 development of HKDL to be used by the Government. I also proposed imposing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6247 a condition on the Government in respect of the funding for the Kai Tak Sports Park, that is, while the Government could use such funding, no access control or restrictions prohibiting people's access to the Kai Tak Sports Park would be allowed in future. However, the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council rejected all the amendments which were obviously in compliance with the law. Her action was tantamount to siding with the Government to suppress the entitled powers of the Legislative Council.

Of course, Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG have committed far more than these four sins during their term of office. The President has recently intended to allow Ms Starry LEE to convene a House Committee meeting without first going through the election of the chairman of the House Committee. These two persons have also played a role in this farce. However, fellow citizens, the course of history is often very wondrous. When these two persons were working very hard and discreetly to execute the political missions for CPC, thinking that the Legislative Council could soon be converted into the National People's Congress, their acts have conversely aroused greater resistance from Hong Kong people and many people, including me, have given up the expectation that the improvement could be made to the system. I have to thank Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG because they have taught me that it is useless to talk about rules with CPC. They have also taught me about the meaning of "mutual destruction". Hong Kong people know that CPC is a bad loser. As demonstrated over the past few years, when CPC was confronted with the possibility of losing or being challenged, it would arrange Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG to cooperate with the royalists to think of ways to destroy the system and deal with the persons who raised queries. What is "mutual destruction"? "Mutual destruction" means that although Hong Kong people know that CPC is a scoundrel, they will not shrink back but will keep striving to defeat them, so as to let CPC go crazy in the public eye of the world. Chairman, perhaps not many colleagues will be aware of the importance of these two roles. I do not know if other colleagues who will speak after me will refute me or have an in-depth discussion on the subject. However, I believe that it is already too late now because many things cannot be reversed.

Finally, fellow Hong Kong people, I would like to give you one more reason why you must vote for the pro-democracy camp in the Legislative Council Election in September. When the pro-democracy camp is in control of more than half of the seats in the Legislative Council, the first thing that can be done is to fire Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG. We have to identify some persons 6248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 who are free from the control of the Communist Party, who are genuinely professional and independent, and will help the whole Legislative Council and Hong Kong people to attain separation of powers. The posts of the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat and the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council can only be taken up by such persons. The two amendments of this year are only a rehearsal.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Chairman, I oppose all amendments to reduce government expenditures. Many colleagues have spoken on the importance of the Police Force and the Security Bureau in maintaining law and order in Hong Kong and I will not repeat what they said. I just want to take this opportunity to respond to some remarks made by colleagues recently, such as separation of powers in Hong Kong mentioned by Mr CHU Hoi-dick just now.

Chairman, as a matter of fact, Hong Kong does not practise separation of powers and separation of powers has never existed in Hong Kong. The so-called separation of powers is a fiction created by the pan-democrats to deceive the public. Chairman, you know very well that before the reunification, the Governor was the President of the Legislative Council and ex officio Members and appointed unofficial members made up the majority of the Legislative Council. At that time, though the President said "The ayes have it", the Legislative Council actually did not have independent power. Chairman, we can see from the photos outside the Chamber that the first President of the Legislative Council who was not the Governor was senior barrister John SWAINE.

Hong Kong does not have separation of powers. Back then, the Executive Council firmly controlled the Legislative Council. From 1982 to 1984, China and Britain started to negotiate on the future of Hong Kong. I can say that the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), often mentioned by Mr CHU Hoi-dick, was deceived by a smart British diplomat into thinking that after Hong Kong's handover in 1997, the Government was executive-led, the Chief Executive in Council had the final say and legislative proposals would be submitted to the Legislative Council for examination and approval. Hong Kong did not have separation of powers before the reunification and the Basic Law has not specified separation of powers. They want to get close to their home state but there was no separation of powers in the United Kingdom before 1997. I am really shocked by the contents of some textbooks. Why have so many ignorant and incompetent people written textbooks to teach students wrong information?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6249

If one wants to study the Western political system, he should read an authoritative book, The English Constitution, written by Walter BAGEHOT, one of the founders of The Economist. In the book, the first lie that the author wants to break is that the United Kingdom has separation of powers. The United Kingdom never has separation of powers; it only has an executive-led government formed by elected members who become cabinet members. Under the parliamentary system, the executive and legislative branches of the government are intermingled. In fact, only the United States has separation of powers because its constitution has been elaborately crafted and there are checks and balances in many aspects. I hope that Members present, especially those teachers who believe that they are promoting democracy, will not disseminate to the public the erroneous message that Hong Kong has separation of powers. I also hope that they will stop saying that the SAR Government or the Central Government has violated separation of powers.

I often hear Mr CHU Hoi-dick talk about CPC over and over again. I am not sure about his purpose; is it because he knows that many people in Hong Kong are afraid of CPC? Chairman, you also know that many people of the previous generation came to Hong Kong after liberation. Mr CHU Hoi-dick mentioned CPC whenever he talked about the Central Government. What actually is his purpose? I dare not make arbitrary judgments. Does he want to provoke Hong Kong people's dissatisfaction with and fear of the Mainland so that he can get more votes?

I would also like to comment on some of the remarks I heard yesterday. Mr KWONG Chun-yu berated the Government for its incompetency. I clearly remember what he said: "We have $1 trillion reserves and several trillion dollars of foreign exchange funds; the money should all be disbursed. As the elderly are living in misery, we should help the poor by disbursing all the money to them." I do not know if Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr KWONG Chun-yu still have time to respond to my question, i.e. if all the money is disbursed and no money is left, what can we live on in future? Owing to the black violence last year, people are living in misery, and the outbreak of novel coronavirus pneumonia this year has dealt another blow. As the Government has prepared for a rainy day in the past, it can introduce three rounds of economic relief measures, costing a total of $290 billion, which is equivalent to one tenth of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). The Government must have reserves before it can relieve people's difficulties.

6250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Mr KWONG said that the Government should help the elderly; who do not want to help them? The Budget has substantially increased social welfare expenditures by 23.5% in 2020-2021. Among various policy areas, social services have the largest increase in expenditure. Let us consider the trend of government expenditure. The expenditure trend in the past five years has far exceeded the economic growth rate. According to the information provided by the Financial Secretary on total government expenditure, from 2015-2016 to 2020-2021, total public expenditure increased by 10.6% while the nominal GDP growth was 4%. The Financial Secretary also predicted a fiscal deficit in the next five years. Strictly speaking, we have violated Article 107 of the Basic Law, i.e. the Budget must be in line with GDP growth. These issues require in-depth understanding and analyses. Elected Members should not ignore the overall and long-term interests of Hong Kong and casually reduce the expenditures of government departments after listening to the elderly's request for disbursing more money. Can Hong Kong be in an anarchic state? Can Members casually propose to reduce expenditures of government departments they disliked or having grudges with, such as the Security Bureau, Fire Services Department, Trade and Industry Department, Home Affairs Bureau and Information Services Department? Who will take up the work of these departments? Can Hong Kong be in an anarchic state? Democracy has been promoted in Hong Kong for more than 20 years and so many Members with this mindset have been elected. If they succeed in effecting "mutual destruction", kicking us out, dismissing Kenneth CHAN and the Legal Adviser to become the masters, what will happen to Hong Kong?

Yesterday, the Central Government issued another statement about Hong Kong and there are a few points worth noting. First, Hong Kong is now in hardship; second, economic data show that Hong Kong will enter into deep recession. I do not know if the SAR Government does not have the courage to tell the public that we are now in hardship. Hong Kong and the rest of the world cannot expect a V-shaped rebound after the coronavirus has come under control. We will not have a V-shaped rebound because we will not once again ask "Grandpa" or CPC to allow Mainland tourists to come to Hong Kong to rescue the economy. We will not do so because too many tourists will cause friction, turning something good into something bad.

Places around the world will not have a V-shaped rebound because many people, especially those in Europe and the United States, do not tolerate too many constraints. Although stay-at-home orders have been issued by state governors LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6251 or mayors, many people cannot wait to restart the economy. When there is an increasing number of infections and deaths, leaders in Europe and the United States have to partially restart the economy. This means that we will not have economic recovery and The Economist even mentions that we will have a 90% economy or 50% economy. The biggest crisis is that novel coronavirus pneumonia may stage a comeback and we may have to co-exist with the virus for a year or less until there is a vaccine. For this reason, some commentators in the West called this epidemic "The Hammer and the Dance". "Hammer" means we have to deal with the epidemic with strong force, prohibiting people to go out while "dance" means that we have to co-exist with the epidemic.

Hong Kong is indeed in hardship. In this connection, the Government has put forward many economic policies and there are also a lot of financial measures. However, some finance-related bills cannot be introduced because the chairman of the House Committee has yet to be elected. Undoubtedly, these bills are very important to consolidate Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre. Examples include bills to provide ship leasing tax concessions, bills to facilitate insurance institutions establishing foothold in Hong Kong and bills facilitating privately offered funds to conduct business in Hong Kong in the form of limited partnership.

Secretary YAU is experienced and knowledgeable and he must know that some private equity companies have few employees. Large-scale private equity companies only have 200 employees worldwide. Of course, insurance can offer help to many people but we have to ask "Brother Por" about the effectiveness in introducing captive insurance to expand the insurance industry. We have to do these things but we cannot resolve problems such as serious slowdown in economic growth, a high unemployment rate and the widening gap between the rich and the poor; what strategies does the Government have?

I just heard Mr YIU Si-wing express his views and I think the tourism industry needs new thinking. We can no longer rely on mass travel as in the past because if too many Mainland people come to Hong Kong, they will not be welcomed by Hong Kong people. When foreigners foul Lan Kwai Fong up mess, there were no dissenting voices; but some people reject and dislike Mainland people. I am delighted that the Government announced yesterday to distribute CuMask that can be reused 60 times to members of the public. I also received one and I will try it out; and I would also like to thank the Government. We should not forget who lent us a helping hand when we were most scared and 6252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 most in need of face masks. Starting from 24 February, the Shenzhen Municipal Government donated 100 000 face masks to us each day through the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR, and the first batch was 1 million face masks. This was timely assistance indeed. Why did pan-democratic colleagues not consider these facts?

For more than two decades, what is the role of the Central Government in Hong Kong? Is it to suppress our freedom or to assist in our development? I believe relevant debates will be held on other occasions later. The Panel on Constitutional Affairs will discuss the implementation of Articles 12 and 22 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong and I will provide some historical information then. Yet, the Budget is commendable as it proposes many relief measures, but the requisite is that the Government has reserves. The reserves cannot be arbitrarily spent and we cannot endlessly allow uncontrolled increases in recurrent expenditures; otherwise, there will be "a fatal car crash"―a director of the Central Government said before the reunification that he was from CPC, a party that Mr CHU Hoi-dick dislikes most.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2:00 pm.

12:50 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:00 pm

Committee then resumed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6253

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this year, as in the past years, opposition Members will propose around this period of time tons of bizarre amendments to the Budget for the purpose of filibustering in the Council. They take it as a chance to make political statements or attack the government departments they dislike. Members of the public may take a glance at their amendments if they have time. This year, there are only 50-odd amendments as they have been consolidated according to the President's ruling. However, these amendments, if passed, will bring different impacts to Hong Kong.

Here is an example. If this government department is deprived of its budget, the safety of Hong Kong people's life and property will be at risk. According to the amendments proposed by the pan-democratic colleagues, the annual estimated expenditures for the Police operation, prisoners and deportees, the Police plant, vehicles and equipment, as well as the police specialised vehicles, should all be reduced.

Just imagine, what will happen if the budget for the Police or the estimated expenditures for all the aforesaid items are reduced to zero? If the Police are not given any funding for their operation, all police officers will be dismissed. In that case, if we encounter a crime in future, we will no longer be able to seek help from the Police by calling 999. If there is no provision for deporting offenders, it means that "bogus refugees", illegal immigrants and incoming criminals released from prison will not be deported from Hong Kong. They will continue to stay in Hong Kong, with their living costs being borne by Hong Kong people. Moreover, as I said earlier, the absence of police officers will put the life and property of all citizens at risk.

By making such requests in their amendments, the opposition Members have made their political intention clear. They bluntly urge for disbanding the Police Force, believing that it is best for Hong Kong to be police-free. But what will happen if Hong Kong is police-free? That is too bad to imagine. By then, who will be in charge of law enforcement in Hong Kong? Probably their black-clad "brothers". In case their black-clad "brothers" have taken the place of policemen, the consequences will be disastrous. The black-clad rioters will then be free to do whatever they like. They can execute vigilante justice, vandalize shops, burn down places and block roads at will. Do Hong Kong people really want Hong Kong to become lawless? If the Police Force is disbanded without a single policeman left in Hong Kong, Hong Kong will become a crime paradise. Is that what we wish to see?

6254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Just now, when many pan-democratic colleagues spoke, they called for disbanding the Police Force or cutting the salaries of police officers as there were black sheep in the Police. However, every barrel has its bad apples. This same thing happens in every department and group, or even the pan-democratic camp. Is it right to paint all policemen with a single brush? Chairman, although I am one of the Police's supporter in this Council, I dare not say that there is no black sheep in the Police Force. I support punishing all law-breaking police officers squarely under the law and I will definitely sever ties with them. I will not act like the pan-democratic Members, who support the black-clad rioters instead of severing ties with them. I trust that Hong Kong is a city under the rule of law, and all offenders should be penalized under a fair and just judicial system, be they police officers, government officials or media moguls. It is right and natural to put offenders on trial. How come the pan-democratic Members make it an issue and demand cutting the entire budget for the Police owing to the existence of black sheep? How come they use this matter to incite anti-police sentiments for their own political interests?

"Sweat and toil of employees are not for free" is a saying on the lips of trade union representatives. However, the Member who proposed to cut the budget for police emolument today is regrettably a trade union representative, that is, Dr Fernando CHEUNG from the Labour Party. How come a trade union representative would advocate not paying workers for their work? I do not know how he plays his role as a trade union representative.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG has also proposed another ridiculous amendment to reduce the estimated expenditure for deportees. Of course, that is because he wants to keep on piggybacking on the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. However, if the budget for deportation is cut, incoming criminals and the 99% "bogus refugees" that we often discuss may continue to stay in Hong Kong. Is that what we want? They will then continue to work illegally and commit crimes. In this case, the money that Hong Kong spends on "bogus refugees" will be driven up to over $1.2 billion per year. While the Honourable colleague may truly want to help the less than 1% of genuine refugees, the resources should be used only to help the genuine refugees. It is against the interests of Hong Kong to help all "refugees" blindly regardless of their true identity. Likewise, it is against the interests of Hong Kong to propose such an amendment.

By proposing the Budget amendments, the pan-democratic colleagues also seek to attack the various department heads that they dislike. We can see that they have proposed an amendment to deprive the Director of Fire Services of his LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6255 annual emolument. Chairman, as far as I know, the Director of Fire Services has come to office for less than three months, probably for only about two months. He has barely done anything or anything wrong, why should he suffer a pay cut? I went through some relevant information to find that he had used the word "cockroaches" to describe the black-clad rioters. Is that why he has to be deprived of his emolument for the whole year? Have the pan-democratic colleagues made things personal? Are they simply picking on the person? Is that fair? Do they just allow politics to take the lead?

Apart from the Director of Fire Services, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong is another victim of their pay cut amendments. Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong was once a member of the Democratic Party, but I will not make things personal. I will not support giving him a pay cut simply because of his affiliation with or broad participation in the Democratic Party.

In fact, I do not agree with some of the practices of Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong. For example, after the announcement of the universal cash handout of $10,000 by the Financial Secretary, we kept asking Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong whether the money could first be handed out to the grass roots in need or the recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance or other social welfare for they already have an account with the Social Welfare Department. Could $10,000 be first disbursed to the people most in need? He said no as it took time to build a system. However, soon after the announcement of face mask distribution yesterday, the Government has a system in place to handle the registration for mask claims. Members of the public can, after registration, even opt in or opt out for future collection of anti-epidemic products under the same system. While the registration system for face masks could be built in an instant, the cash handout system developed by the Government years ago has failed to expedite the Budget initiative of handing out $10,000 to the people. What a disappointment! We have repeatedly asked the Government to enhance its cash handout system as soon as possible or handle its in-house procedure in advance so that the people in need can receive the money quickly without having to go through the trouble of re-registration or handling banking procedures again. Yet, I do not understand why the Secretary cannot even make this happen.

My other grievance is also against Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong. After the Chief Executive had announced the expansion of the $2 concessionary fare scheme to cover people aged between 60 and 64, we urged him to implement this initiative expeditiously but he said no again. According to the Secretary, the 6256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 implementation will take a year as he wishes to stop people from taking advantage of this initiative by abusing the existing Elder Octopus. However, if there is anyone who wants to take advantage of this fare concession, he should have done so already. Also, there is a mechanism in place to penalize passengers abusing this concession. When laws and regulations are present, will people bother to risk big for a few dollars? Of course, some people will, but we have the regulatory mechanism for that. After the Government's announcement that people aged between 60 and 64 can enjoy the $2 concessionary fare, the Secretary is free to do the relevant research and development. He may take his time to do the research for two to three years or till the next Secretary for Labour and Welfare takes office. I do not mind. Yet, he should first let people aged between 60 and 64 enjoy the fare concession. How big can the cost difference be? The Secretary should not keep thinking that people want to cheat money out of the Government.

Chairman, because of black violence and the epidemic, Hong Kong has been in dire straits since last year. If we do not want Hong Kong to be further destroyed by "mutual destruction" but that everyone in Hong Kong can keep their job and have a happy life, we should vote against all the amendments and stop wasting time on making meaningless political statements in the Council. Therefore, I will oppose all amendments and support the Budget. I also urge the Directors of Bureaux concerned to disburse $10,000 to the people most in need as soon as possible. Thank you, Chairman.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope you will allow me to make some additional comments. When I spoke in the first session of the debate this morning, I talked about the Head of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the latest situation concerning face masks. I would like to spend a few minutes to express further views on these matters. As the Government has provided updates or additional information this morning, I do not want my remarks in the first session of the debate to be inaccurate.

This morning, the Innovation and Technology Bureau disclosed the name of the company that produced the masks and the place of production was Vietnam. It also explained that the non-disclosure of the producer name was to avoid bringing trouble to the company. Hence, after obtaining the consent of the producer, the Bureau disclosed its identity, i.e. Crystal International Group LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6257

Limited. Why should disclosure be made after getting the consent of the other party? After all, the money spent is public funds. The Permanent Secretary said that the producer has spent money and made efforts to help Hong Kong; it may not have profits or may even incur losses. Therefore, the Permanent Secretary did not understand why some people talked about transfer of interests. How could we know what happened if she has not told us? She has also said that many corporations in Hong Kong have participated in the project. After making the announcement, Hong Kong people may thank these corporations. Thus, it is very important to be frank and transparent.

Will the production process be not hygienic enough? The Permanent Secretary responded that the footage we saw might not show the final production process as a disinfection process would follow. We sometimes have doubts because the Government has not made things clear and this is a case in point. It seems that many royalists from the industrial sector are unhappy and they queried why face masks are not produced in Hong Kong. Chairman, I will not spend any more time to discuss this issue but I would like to conclude that this experience tells the Government that it must, in handling various matters, give a clear account and provide us with the relevant information.

Chairman, I would like to talk about "Head 122―Hong Kong Police Force". Similarly, everything must be explained clearly and concealment should not be made. In these two days, many colleagues criticized the work of the Police in the past year and they subjects they touched upon include police brutality, indiscriminate arrests, abuse of power, additional expenditures for procurement of armaments and additional manpower, etc. They also mentioned that many people demanded the dissolution or reorganization of the Police Force and asked for apologies to be made to the public. I fully agree with their arguments and I will not repeat what they said.

I would like to give another example to illustrate that the Police often fail to explain to the public details of their work. Hence, some Members proposed to reduce the expenditures on their salaries for the whole year under "Head 122―Hong Kong Police Force". Members definitely have reasons to propose this amendment. I would also like to talk about my written question. In the first six months of each of the past few years, I asked all government departments to account for the details, number of requests, reasons for making the requests and the course of events relating to the requests made by the 6258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Government to information and communication technology companies, network platforms and social media for disclosure and removal of information in the preceding year. In addition to the Innovation and Technology Bureau, a few departments have responded to my written question. Chairman, I raised a similar question upon joining the Legislative Council eight years ago and at that time, I considered the Hong Kong Government pretty good because it was willing to answer my question; whereas the governments in some places might not be willing to do so.

Throughout the years, we have seen from the relevant figures that the Police always topped the list in terms of requesting for disclosure and removal of user information. Last year, the Government requested technology companies for disclosure of such information for as many as 5 517 times and requested for removal of information for 4 420 times. In terms of the number of requests made, the Police again ranked first among all government departments.

With the continuous growth in the number of cybercrime cases, the number of requests from the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") for provision and disclosure of user information reached 2 181 in the first half of the year and 3 144 in the second half of the year. The number of requests made by the Police accounted for 96% of the requests made by all government departments; the number is far too many. Moreover, the number of times the Police requested for removal of information reached 180 in the first half of the year and 3 995 in the second half of the year, i.e. a 21-fold increase in the second half of the year as compared with the first half of the year. The removal of information is just like a "cleansing operation" as the Police may think that it is necessary to remove some online information which they dislike. In the past year, we received some complaints, saying that when the Police considered that some online information or posts on social media would affect their image, they would request information technology companies to remove the relevant information. Is there any legislation related to the image of the Police? When the Police are being criticized or when certain words that are not pleasing to the Police―the Police also use words the public dislike to make criticisms―the Police have the power to request for the removal of the relevant information. Some companies may sometimes ignore the request as they consider that there is no reasonable legal basis; yet, the Police have abused power in making such requests. Since some companies may not want to set themselves against the Police, they will remove the information as requested.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6259

Over the years, HKPF have had similar problems. The Police will adopt various measures, such as the current group gathering restrictions to prohibit members of the public from expressing their views. For online information, the Police will exhaust various means to force technology companies to cooperate by removing videos, texts or pictures. Many international Internet companies and social media find the request disturbing and they think that Hong Kong has changed. They used to think that Hong Kong was a highly developed place and its level of free flow of information was comparable to that of Japan, Europe and the United States. However, at present, they find the situation of Hong Kong disturbing, comparable to that of some developing countries such as Pakistan, Myanmar, Africa or South America, etc. The requests made by the Police are highly unreasonable.

Since 2013, I have asked HKPF for the number of successful requests for removal of the relevant information each year. Did the companies think that the requests were reasonable or were they afraid of the Police? How many cases involve the issuance of court warrants? The Police said they had not kept records of the number of requests accepted or made according to court warrants. I have been asking the same questions for more than eight years; do they want to evade our monitoring? If additional funding is provided, the Police should increase manpower to count the numbers of requests that have not been recorded. The Police can start keeping the relevant records now but they simply refuse to do so. I have been very dissatisfied with this situation for years, and I think the Police definitely have something to conceal. There is no reason why the Police cannot record the numbers of requests made, and the Police also refused to tell me if court warrants have been issued. What exactly do they want to conceal?

I believe a comparison is sometimes needed. Among the disciplined forces that I have made the relevant request, the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") ranked second. C&ED requested for disclosure of information for 176 times last year. It had clearly stated that the disclosure was related to user information or IP addresses; and the purpose was to prevent crimes, conduct investigation, make arrests, etc.; 85% of the requests were accepted, meaning that the companies concerned considered that the requests were reasonable. Moreover, C&ED requested for removal of information for 184 times and court warrants had been issued in all these cases. Why is it that the Police do not adopt the practices of C&ED; why should the Police have greater freedom or not subject to monitoring? Both are government departments and the Police have higher salaries. Therefore, for years Members have the view that the Police lack 6260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 monitoring or cannot be monitored. Some Members have proposed to reduce the expenditures of the Police for reasons that the Police have gone out of control, have done certain things that the public do not want them to do, and also have tarnished our international image, freedom of information and our economy. Many pro-establishment Members or royalists said that if the relevant expenditures are reduced, there will be no policemen to answer the call when members of the public report crimes. I hope they will not mislead people anymore.

First, abuse of power by the Police had happened in many countries in the past. For example, the Korean police had apologized to the people and undergone reorganization and the Korean Government had also passed laws to reduce police power. Why can't we do so? Under the Basic Law, if the Legislative Council refuses to pass the budget, the Chief Executive does not necessarily have to dissolve the Legislative Council immediately, and he/she may apply to the Legislative Council for provisional appropriations or even introduce a new budget; thus, discussions can be held. The Basic Law specifies such an arrangement; if the Chief Executive fails to do so after a certain period of time, he/she may request for election of a new Legislative Council. Why can't this be done? The Government will not come to a standstill and the Police will not cease operation. Do not be deceived by the royalists. If this doesn't work, the Chief Executive will have to resign. How come the pro-establishment camp stands firm for the Government? Since the democrats have got fewer seats for more than 20 years, Hong Kong people are unconvinced, but the pro-establishment camp is unwilling to hold any discussion. They should not deceive Hong Kong people anymore. They always say that the Government will stop functioning if this Council refuses to pass the Budget and the public will not be able to report crimes. This is not true and they are just misleading the public. There is a system of check and balance under the Basic Law but they are not following the rules. Hence, I must clearly say that they are seriously misleading the public. (The buzzer sounded)

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, among the 28 amendments that I proposed, I will now mainly speak on the amendment on "Head 74―Information Services Department". I propose to reduce the provision for the publicity work of the Information Services Department ("ISD") by approximately $72 million.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6261

What does ISD do? We watch a number of Announcements on Public Interest ("APIs") on television every day. These expenditures come under Programme (4) Civic Responsibility and the aims are to enhance public awareness of issues of wide concern and promote a greater sense of civic responsibility. On the face of it, there is no problem and this is something that should be done. APIs produced in the past included those appealing to the public not to litter, dengue fever prevention and avoid having unauthorized building works. In the coming financial year, ISD will conduct publicity work on application for new smart identity card, road safety, etc. I do not have any opinion on such work. Although we asked ISD about the costs and cost-effectiveness of producing APIs in the past, it is actually difficult to explore if an API can really have publicity effects. As for of production, we should not be harsh or demanding, but some APIs are certainly better while some others are dull; some are neatly presented while some others are more creative.

I propose this amendment today to target the messages of APIs. There is definitely no problem if the messages of APIs are correct. However, the APIs produced by the Government in recent years focus on political struggles; they have distorted the facts, incited hatred, and even stigmatized protesters who participated in the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and in the protests against police brutality. I find this absolutely unacceptable. The Government uses money of Hong Kong people to produce APIs to discredit and attack Hong Kong people. ISD is actually the Government's makeup artist, i.e. a spin doctor. Not long ago, I asked ISD about the production expenses of some APIs and some small disputes have taken place on the Internet. Taking the last financial year as an example, the most costly API was entitled "Treasure Hong Kong, our home" in which the Chief Executive and principal officials appeared, and the production cost was $938,000. When I asked officials of ISD at a special Finance Committee meeting, they responded that the production cost was not too expensive because the API lasted three minutes. Another API entitled "See the clear picture" lasted only 30 seconds but the production cost amounted to $390,000.

I do not want to discuss here whether these APIs have excessively high production costs or whether the costs involved are worthwhile because these are not my main points. Let me make an analogy, a star makeup artist charges $100,000 for a job. I am not saying whether this makeup artist is worth paying $100,000; I am saying whether it is worth spending $100,000 public money to 6262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 arrange a makeup artist to serve Carrie LAM. Even if this woman is heavily made up, she cannot deceive Hong Kong people. Should we allocate money to prettify the SAR Government? It is alright if we make ourselves pretty because all of us want to look nice. We may want to wear some make-up, even though we may be very ugly; yet, we should not discredit others.

In the past year, the Government had spent a lot of public money to produce a number of APIs, with a view to stop violence and curb disorder. A typical example is the API entitled "See the clear picture" as I mentioned just now. According to the authorities, this API calls upon the public to see the clear picture and not be misled to violate the law; it also reiterates the importance of taking enforcement action against illegal acts to maintain law and order. The production cost of this API is $390,000. Have colleagues watched another new API entitled "Stop Violence Think of the Consequences"? This API has a serious problem. In the film, we see someone tying his shoelaces and on his side, an umbrella. The caption reads, "Taking Part in an Unlawful Assembly Maximum Penalty Five Years". We only see someone tying his shoelaces and an umbrella on his side, how can this be associated with an unlawful assembly? No wonder a person on his own will still be arrested under the current group gathering restrictions. All people tying shoelaces have been stigmatized. I believe that many people with capacity for thinking will not agree with this API and I really do not know who the target audience are.

In another API, inside the backpack of a young man, there is a hammer and a metal pipe. The caption reads: "Possession of Offensive Weapon Maximum Penalty Three Years". It is really bad. What will happen to engineering and fitting-out workers? I would also like to share my personal experience. After an assembly at Victoria Park, members of the public were marching to the east, I saw a young man surrounded by more than 10 riot police officers at Tin Hau. I did not know what offence he had committed, and upon enquiry, I learnt that he was charged for possession of weapons because he had two cutters with him. The charge was withdrawn in court. It turns out that the Government, from the top level to the lowest, share the same thinking that people carrying a hammer or a metal pipe is a thief and should be arrested by the Police for disrupting the rule of law in Hong Kong. What effects does the Government want to create by producing these APIs?

In another API, we see a man wearing a "pig's snout" (gas mask). The caption reads: "Taking Part in a Riot Maximum Penalty Ten Years". During the epidemic prevention period, 10% of people wear "pig's snouts" because they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6263 are durable, reusable and more protective. The Government obviously wants to make people discriminate those wearing "pig's snouts". I do not know if "blue ribbons" will be affected by the messages of APIs produced by ISD, thinking that people who have hammers and umbrellas, people who tie shoelaces and wear "pig's snouts" are black-clad rioters. Who is inciting hatred by inaccurately and irrationally labelling some young people, dissidents or even protesters?

As I have recently noticed, the pro-establishment camp, the Government and even the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR have said that black violence should be combated and being leftist is better than being rightist. In order to act fairly, should APIs on combating police brutality also be produced? Of course, APIs on black violence can continue to be shown, but I wonder if APIs on police brutality can also be produced to show how the Police assaulted and arbitrarily pepper-sprayed members of the public? Should those who do not support the Government and disagree with the Government be classified as criminals? I believe that the situation will only worsen in the coming days. In the past, the strategy of political spin was adopted to beautify and promote the Government. The "Sustainable Lantau Blueprint" API was an example; yet, the strategy today is to discredit the other party.

The royalists have become more and more outrageous. Have colleagues read the article published by Dr Priscilla LEUNG today? She wrote about the queues outside "yellow shops", saying that "many young people who supported protesters queued up in front of 'yellow restaurants', causing congestion and group gathering, seriously affecting public health. They should hence be reprimanded." They will reprimand those who do not side with them.

When it comes to anti-epidemic efforts, I would like to convey my views to ISD. The timing and messages of APIs produced by ISD are sometimes quite confusing. For example, the group gathering restrictions or the regulations restricting business operation have been implemented so rashly that there is basically not enough time to produce APIs. When the relevant API is ready for release, the number of people allowed to gather may have increased from four to eight. I do not know if colleagues have watched an API with "Lazy Lion" as the main character; the Government is still asking the public to avoid gathering with family members and friends at this moment. However, officials said in these two days that people could go out on Mother's Day and the restrictions on restaurants could be relaxed. I am not commenting on what is right or wrong; I 6264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 just want to point out that the messages are rather confusing. While one is watching an API on television asking people not to go out and have gatherings with relatives and friends, the Government has relaxed some regulations on group gatherings, seemingly to encourage people to go out for shopping and meals. What is the policy objective of the Government? If APIs fail to fit in with the timing of government policy, it would be better to save airtime and production costs.

Apart from reducing the provision for ISD, some Members also propose to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office. I will certainly strongly support the proposal. In fact, during the anti-epidemic period, the Chief Executive and Executive Council Members have been thinking all the time about suppressing political opponents and those who do not support the Government. Since the outbreak of the epidemic, health care personnel were the first group of people to foresee the shortage of medical supplies, ahead of the World Health Organization ("WHO"). The health care personnel also acted ahead of WHO in demanding border closure. They took industrial actions at the risk of being accused of disregarding the interests of patients to put pressure on the SAR Government to close the borders. Finally, they succeeded in bringing about partial border closure. Nevertheless, if this group of health care personnel had not taken industrial actions, we might not have had partial border closure or partial border closure might have come later. Yet, Carrie LAM and some Executive Council Members are resentful and they still want to settle accounts with these people who willingly took the risk to take industrial actions to demand for border closures to secure people's lives.

In the early days of the outbreak, the Democratic Party called on people to wear face masks ("masks"), but Carrie LAM, Executive Council Members and even some officials thought that we wanted to use the epidemic to instigate members of the public to wear masks. They regarded those wearing masks as anti-government forces and rioters, so they initially had reservations about and avoided wearing masks and they even asked those who were not sick not to wear masks. It was even said that those wearing masks should take them off. An official complacently said that he had not worn masks for many days and would leave the masks for health care personnel. Looking back, it is clear who was right and who was wrong. The Government is distributing masks after the epidemic; why did it ask people not to wear masks during the epidemic? Fortunately, Hong Kong people have set themselves against the Government from the beginning of the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6265 amendments, so they chose not to believe the Government. When the Government asked them not to wear masks, they insisted on wearing masks to protect themselves. Luckily, the Carrie LAM Government is not like the Government of Singapore; otherwise, it would really be teased for a lifetime. Singapore produced a promotion video asking people not to wear masks and it also ridiculed Hong Kong. Today, our government can finally brag about itself in respect of the epidemic situation in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Nonetheless, from the policy on wearing masks, we can see that the Government's timing is completely wrong. Many people say that it is belated for the Government to distribute masks now. Do not think that people who collect the mask will appreciate the Government. They just do not want to miss out something and they may not necessarily wear the mask they have collected because there are many unresolved issues, e.g. how the mask should be washed. Since the mask cannot be blow-dried, tumble-dried or twisted, we are not sure if the filter layer should be detached while washing. There are uncertainties and people collect the mask simply because they do not want to be at a disadvantage.

I know that many middle-level government personnel have made great efforts during the anti-epidemic period but the management, especially Carrie LAM, took the epidemic lightly or even set herself against others in the early days. Hence, I support Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office. I still want to express my views on other amendments and I hope I will have another chance to speak today.

I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): In this session, I would like to talk about the governance of the self-opinionated Chief Executive. Carrie LAM has been the cream of society who came first in school examinations every year. Having started her career as an Administrative Officer, she has a good understanding of the bureaucratic system and legal loopholes. She is good at exploiting these loopholes and making use of the whole bureaucratic system to serve her personal ambition. LEUNG Chun-ying, who came from outside the civil service, wanted to break the bureaucratic system, but his performance in the past was not satisfactory. However, the destructive power of Carrie LAM is very extensive because she is destroying the government traditions. Therefore, I reached a 6266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 conclusion in the last session that when compared with LEUNG Chun-ying, Carrie LAM has caused far more severe, thorough, comprehensive and irreversible damage.

I want to cite some examples to prove my viewpoint. I said in the last two sessions that in respect of the implementation of "one country, two systems", Carrie LAM has totally surrendered the governance of Hong Kong. Therefore, she allowed the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") to claim, with full justifications, that they are not regulated by Article 22 of the Basic Law; she also let the "two Offices" to oversee the Hong Kong Government on all matters. Carrie LAM has betrayed Hong Kong by her attitude.

However, what is unimaginable is that under the governance of Carrie LAM, the Hong Kong Government cannot even do some basic work well. Taking the distribution of face masks to all Hong Kong citizens as an example, the Financial Secretary has indicated that the Hong Kong society will face a very severe economic crisis, so the Government has to try its best to create jobs. The Government will first distribute a reusable face mask to everyone, and later distribute filters or even more face masks to the public. In essence, this lays a foundation for re-industrialization of local research and development ("R&D") results in Hong Kong. If the face mask franchise belongs to the Innovation and Technology Bureau, meaning that it is owned by the Hong Kong Government, the remaining work is to promote the technology as the basis for Hong Kong's re-industrialization. Hong Kong was once a centre for textile industry, so there are many women who are good at sewing. Besides, do not forget that the Innovation and Technology Bureau has approved 20 production lines to set up some clean rooms in Hong Kong for producing one-off face masks. If the reusable face masks are also manufactured in Hong Kong―the workshop requirements for such face masks may not be that strict or clean rooms may also be required, more Hong Kong workers can then be employed as the workshops, the franchise, and the basic materials required are all in place. While the Government often talks about re-industrialization, why can't the Government take this opportunity to have the relevant work process done in Hong Kong?

This morning, I heard a very ridiculous message. The Commissioner for Innovation and Technology said that they had a hard time as they had to sustain losses and face fluctuating transportation fees. However, why did it have to face LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6267 fluctuating transportation fees? This is because the Bureau has outsourced the entire work process to Vietnam―perhaps a small portion is done in Hong Kong―and this is where the problem lies. A similar case which is often mentioned by us is that some test kits developed during the epidemic have to be produced in Shenzhen despite they are the R&D results of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This reusable face mask is an R&D result of Hong Kong, but Vietnam has been selected as the main manufacturing base. That is to say, Hong Kong only undertakes the most high-end and smallest portion of R&D work.

(There was noise interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please move your mobile phone away.

(Mr WU Chi-wai checked if he was carrying his mobile phone with him)

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am not carrying my mobile phone with me.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): To the Government, re-industrialization is only a process of increasing funding for research, without the intention of setting up factories and production lines in Hong Kong even when opportunity arises. With this way of thinking, how can the Government cope with future challenges? In particular, in the face of the current epidemic, many countries around the world have indicated that they may move their industrial chains set up in the world factory―the Mainland―back to their own countries. Has the Administration considered the impact of this move? Is it the best option for Hong Kong to rely solely on the service industry? Should we launch the work of re-industrialization as soon as possible while conditions and room for development are still available? Opportunities, even when available, are not given to Hong Kong people. This is the most unimaginable practice of the Chief Executive in handling Hong Kong's policy issues.

6268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

I now wish to talk about another example. While Carrie LAM thinks that she has a good grasp of the entire bureaucratic system, she still fails to resolve the problem of duplication in the government structure. In the case of open data, upon the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, the then Secretary said that the Bureau would open up the Government's internal data, so that society would have more creative space under the Government's open data platform, and innovative technology development can be promoted with the government data.

The SAR Government has also set up the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") and re-deployed the staff from the Central Policy Unit to ITC. According to the Government, the purpose of ITC is to remove barriers between bureaux and government departments, as well as break some departmental constraints. The Chief Executive also announced in the Policy Address that open data would be promoted in Hong Kong. However, in practice, when the Government implemented a Common Spatial Data Infrastructure, the Development Bureau had to apply for funding from the Finance Committee. The funding was not used for handling the technical issues, but was used to employ an official tasked with horizontal coordination. The duty of the official is to liaise with different government departments and solicit their support for and participation in the website of the Common Spatial Data Infrastructure. For such a small website, the Government has to repetitiously solicit different departments' participation, which reflects that the operation of the whole Government has failed to progress with time, or the Government has even turned a blind eye to the problems identified.

Today, many Hong Kong citizens are waiting for the Government's universal cash handout of $10,000 and the Legislative Council will finish examining the Budget next week. In 2011, when the Hong Kong Government handed out $6,000 for the first time, the colleagues of the Legislative Council and the public also asked whether the Government could use the existing social welfare system as one of the tools for disbursing cash. Of course, the system would only be one of the tools as not all Hong Kong people were recipients of social benefits. However, the Government pointed out at that time that this practice would involve privacy issues, that is, when the Government obtained such information, it did not inform the information providers that the Government would use the information to disburse money to them. Thus, the Government could not use that system. This incident took place in 2011. To my surprise, the answer given by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") under the Labour and Welfare Bureau today is still the same. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will, after this cash handout exercise, direct the Labour and Welfare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6269

Bureau and SWD to make good use of the welfare information system to facilitate the disbursement of cash in future, so as to spare the old, weak and disabled from the trouble of queuing up for registration. Does the Government expect that the elderly will register online? Does the Government expect that the old, weak and disabled will register online to get $10,000? Why does the Government not make use of the social welfare system? What are the technical difficulties apart from the privacy issue? If there are difficulties, this means that the system itself fails to progress with time. In future, when Hong Kong economy becomes robust, the Government may share wealth with Hong Kong citizens; during economic downturn, we have to tide over the hard times together. As these situations may keep repeating, will the Labour and Welfare Bureau direct SWD to tackle this problem? It should at least enable a certain number of citizens in the Hong Kong to obtain such financial resources directly without having to register.

I have stated clearly in this session that the problem with the Chief Executive is that she is not only "mentally retarded" politically, but also fails to make breakthroughs in managing the civil service which she is most familiar with. Needless to say, she has surrendered the governing right of the Hong Kong SAR Government to the second ruling team, and accepted that HKMAO and LOCPG can oversee the Government's work on all matters. This has apparently contravened the Basic Law which stipulates that apart from defence and foreign affairs, the Central Government will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Hong Kong Government. In Hong Kong, is it a violation of rules or regulations for a group people sharing the same views to operate a "yellow shop"? Is it right and justified for the Central Government to direct, through LEUNG Chun-ying, the people in the "red economic circle" not to place advertisements on certain newspapers, thereby affecting the operation of some newspapers and media? As Hong Kong people, have we committed serious crimes by patronizing, with our own money, some operators that we considered acceptable? This has precisely reflected the biased mentality of the Chief Executive who has placed politics above everything and considers that the economic system of Hong Kong should not be diversified but should solely rely on the Communist Party of China. If this is so, how can Hong Kong face international societies and comply with the basic logics of "Hong Kong ruling Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy", and Hong Kong people resolving Hong Kong's problems? Therefore, I seek to reduce the annual salary expenditure for the Chief Executive because she has betrayed Hong Kong. Thank you, Chairman.

6270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in opposition to the 52 amendments proposed by the opposition camp. These 52 amendments are utterly senseless because the opposition camp would propose amendments to reduce the annual estimated expenditures of whichever government departments that they do not like, in particular the Police Force, such as the remuneration of the Commissioner of Police or relevant Secretaries. In fact, they have done the same every year. First, they know well that the expenditures cannot be reduced; second, they know that Members of the pro-establishment camp will throw in their support; so, they can say and do whatever they want.

These tricks have been used countless times over the years. Many people really took them seriously and came to question us about it. But actually, they are not to be taken seriously. For example, in Amendment No. 2, Ms Claudia MO proposed to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on euthanasia of animals, arguing that that the estimated expenditure should be reduced by $1.2 million as she opposes the euthanasia of animals. As we have to pass the Budget, we will definitely vote against their amendment. Once we voted against the amendment, they will make extensive criticisms that pro-establishment Members supported euthanasia of animals by not voting for the reduction of expenditure. Their extensive propaganda will depict the pro-establishment camp as inhumane "animals killers" who want to kill animals. They are using the amendment to smear others and elevate themselves.

I love animals very much. I cannot bear to eat animals, which is why I have been a vegetarian for more than 30 years. Nevertheless, I understand that euthanasia is a relief for some seriously injured animals. I have asked many animal lovers and veterinarians and they all think that it is impossible to cut the expenditure and forbid euthanasia completely. Their talk from the moral high ground seems sensible, but in fact it is only a trick for packaging themselves and smearing others. They even use the solemn Chamber of Legislative Council to package themselves. Therefore, I have to make it clear from the outset today: Do not be deceived by them anymore. Do not believe that we support killing all animals just because we do not support the reduction of $1.2 million in the expenditure on euthanasia of animals. This is utterly senseless.

Just now, I heard Mr CHAN Chi-chuen propose to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Information Services Department ("ISD") on publicity work because ISD has stigmatized protesters. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6271 talk seemed so righteous and justified. However, lies told righteously should not be taken as the truth. How did ISD stigmatize protesters? He even asked ISD to stop smearing protesters. How did the Government smear protesters? Government publicity is not necessary as we could see them every day in the news. Yesterday, we saw a woman, who was filming with her mobile phone, being chased and bullied by a large group of people. ISD did not need to publicize this. How did it stigmatize protesters? If they have not hurled petrol bombs, the Government could not have filmed footages of hurling petrol bombs; if they have not vandalized shops and beat people badly, are those people in the footages actors hired by the Government? Facts are facts. No matter how righteously they talked, rioters are rioters.

Mr CHAN also said that the duty of ISD is to cover up for the Government and smear rioters. How did it cover up? Who can cover up better than them? Rioters are called "righteous fighters"; arsonists are called "fire wizards". They also said that imprisonment will make one's life more exciting and being arrested will make one proud. Are these remarks which have a bad influence on children not a cover-up? These are the most powerful cover-ups which have a bad influence on children and youngsters. They urged others to dash ahead and instigated others to play the "righteous fighters" and "wizards" to save Hong Kong. But where have they been? Mr Alvin YEUNG said imprisonment will make one's life more exciting, so why did he not make his own life more exciting? Why did he not dash ahead together? Why did he not check out how exciting prison life is? They asked children of others to dash ahead and play the "righteous fighters" so that they can seize political power, enjoy a comfortable life as Members, while giving orders in air-conditioned rooms and packaging themselves as people of greatness. This is truly an extensive cover-up. I find what he said really laughable.

Besides, I heard Mr HUI Chi-fung point out that many people rather have only bread to eat than have tourists. He also said the "yellow economic circle" is doing great with long queues these few days. As long as the "yellow economic circle" has long queues, they do not care about other Hong Kong people who are jobless and cannot make a living. Those who do not support the struggle are not their comrades or brothers, so they do not need to care about their life and death. Is Hong Kong that hostile now? Not only do they patronize "yellow shops" exclusively and never buy from those without the "five demands" slogan, they even vandalized those shops so that they cannot do business. They set fire to shops which have the nerve to display slogans supporting the Police 6272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 and threatened people there. Black-clad mobs do not like TVB (Television Broadcasts Limited) and Oriental Daily News. If companies dare to advertise on them, they will send out pictures taken at the entrance of these companies and threaten to harass them if they place advertisements on them anymore. Is this the "yellow economic circle"? Is this justice? As long as they survive, it does not matter if all other Hong Kong people die.

Mr WU Chi-wai described the Police as "bad cops". He claimed that Hong Kong will never have peace as long as the violence of the "bad cops" and interference persist. Chairman, he is threatening us. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council are obviously agencies authorized by the Central Government. Yet, they cannot make a comment or two on the situation of Hong Kong, otherwise it will be considered interference and thus, Hong Kong will never have peace. On the contrary, it is fine for them to visit the United States for dozens of times, asking for sanctions against Hong Kong, for the US Congress to comment on Hong Kong affairs and for POMPEO to oppose the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law. The legislation on Article 23 is stipulated in the Basic Law. Are their actions not considered interference in Hong Kong affairs? Do they want a fatal duel with us and deprive Hong Kong of peace forever because of that? According to me, as long as the "mutual destruction camp" and "black violence" persist, Hong Kong will really never have peace. If the United States continues to interfere in Hong Kong affairs and causes chaos in Hong Kong, Hong Kong will never have peace. Do they actually speak for Hong Kong people or for Americans?

Mr HUI Chi-fung also talked about the District Council, as if they have done a great job. Please read the statutes of the District Council carefully. Their agenda clearly went beyond the functions of the District Council, so naturally the Administration refused to assist them in the meeting. Because of that, they went as far as to make intimidations. A large group of them gathered around the Home Affairs Department. The District Officer dared not come out as a result of their intimidations, and then they said the District Officer was evasive and scared. Could the District Officer not be scared under intimidation? Because of that they want to reduce the budget.

They spoke of one thing but did another. They preached about how great a job they have done for Hong Kong, and how they would vote against the Budget if the expenditures of the Police Force are not reduced. On the one LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6273 hand, they said that they would help the public fight for the $10,000 handout; while on the other hand, they opposed the Budget. On the one hand, they said the Government's Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") was not good enough and they should help the public fight for more, while on the other hand, they opposed the entire $130 billion AEF. Is there still anyone who believes that they want to help Hong Kong people?

They proposed seven amendments seeking to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Police Force, including those for rewards and special services, expenses of witnesses, prisoners and deportees, plant, vehicles and equipment, and even Marine Police craft. That is equivalent to abolishing the entire Police Force, which is certainly what they want. It is better to have no Police in Hong Kong. Without Police in Hong Kong, "black rioters" can do whatever they want. By then, shops that have not put up the "five demands" slogan will all be vandalized and no tourist will come to Hong Kong. They prefer empty streets. According to them, it does not matter if all other Hong Kong people die as they can survive with just the "yellow economic circle". They believe that they will achieve mutual destruction of Hong Kong in this way, and thus the central government will be forced to let Hong Kong be independent. How ridiculous! With what do we save Hong Kong if it is destroyed and dead? Do other Hong Kong people not need to eat?

Chairman, how many people are unemployed now? How many shops have shut down? How many families do not even have money to last until the next month? How many people do not have the means to pay mortgage or tuition fees next month? How many phone calls asking for help do we receive every day? Every day, we think hard for any possible ways to help these people overcome their hardships. Meanwhile, they use the platform of the Council to talk nonsense today by proposing so many meaningless amendments, wasting Hong Kong's time and taxpayers' money. Eventually, they will still vote against the Budget and continue to destroy Hong Kong.

If they succeed to take charge and destroy Hong Kong, they will immediately abolish the Police and Hong Kong will become a lawless place. It will definitely turn from the safest city to the most terrifying city with bombs everywhere. By then, those who love Hong Kong and the country will emigrate and there will be only "yellow" people left in Hong Kong. Is that what they want for Hong Kong? Does Hong Kong belong to them exclusively? I also 6274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 have a share in Hong Kong. Will the society built by generations of citizens who love Hong Kong be destroyed by them today just like that? They always claim to represent Hong Kong people. Yet countless Hong Kong people have told me: "Please do not say that they represent me. I have not authorized them to represent me."

Chairman, this is the Budget at Hong Kong's most difficult time and a relatively better one in recent years. Although I still find some shortcomings, I will not vote against this Budget because many people are waiting for the money to meet their pressing needs. Therefore, if we want to save Hong Kong, we must remember to refuse "mutual destruction". Remember the Members of the opposition camp and those advocating "mutual destruction". Do not let them destroy Hong Kong all together any further.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, Ms Elizabeth QUAT's earlier speech may be similar to that of mine, mainly because we both wish to refute the fallacious arguments advanced by some Members from the opposition camp or the "mutual destruction camp".

Just now, Ms Elizabeth QUAT has asked in particular whether the United States will stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs. I can tell members of the Hong Kong public that the United States will not stop. As long as China remains an economic rival of the United States in the global arena and affects its international status, it will go to any length to cause trouble to China in any way. And it is precisely the historical issues of Hong Kong that has rendered it as the best window for others to attack our country. But strangely, the staff members of the Consulate General of the United States in Hong Kong and Macau responsible for processing visas greatly outnumber that of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"). Why? If my memory serves me right, it probably has a staff size of 1 600. I am not sure how many of them have been expelled from Hong Kong or returned to the United States of their own accord. And as far as I know, the total headcount of the several offices of LOCPG definitely does not exceed 800 people. Hence, just by comparing the number of people posted to Hong Kong by the United States to that posted to such offices as LOCPG (not including the Chinese People's Liberation Army) by our country, we can tell how LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6275 much the United States values Hong Kong, with many different forces planted across the territory. Over the years, the Hong Kong SAR Government has only been muddling along for mere survival. And due to some undesirable practice left behind by the Government, it has even failed to arouse people's vigilance about problems in this regard, thereby giving rise to various loopholes enabling the opposition camp and a number of flunkeys of the United States to launch collective attack by making use of this place.

Certainly, the "mutual destruction camp" has proposed 52 amendments to the 42 heads involved in the second session. Are these their new tactics? These are not new tactics. But it does not matter whether a trick is old or not as long as it works. Take "Head 22―Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department" as an example. Every year, we will see on Facebook some people urging others to see the true colours of a group of pro-establishment Members, calling them super animal killers who are reluctant to reduce the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on euthanasia of animals. In some measure, this is similar to the handling of items of business by the Finance Committee under paragraph 37A of the Finance Committee Procedure, and some people will keep slinging mud. As stated by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in his speech just now, it seems that an Announcement in the Public Interest ("API") of the Information Services Department ("ISD") has slung mud at protesters, subjecting persons tying shoelaces to discrimination. But I have to tell members of the Hong Kong public. Be it the Budget or the anti-violence API launched by ISD mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, we should look at the whole picture instead of taking things out of context.

As mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, a person tying shoelaces is alleged to be a protester taking part in an unlawful assembly or possessing offensive weapon for having an umbrella around and wearing a respirator, dubbed a "pig snout", or goggles. After his speech, I watched the API again. It serves to advise members of the public to be prepared before taking part in those activities. Members of the Hong Kong public even have the impression in mind that those hammers, modified umbrellas, "pig snouts" or goggles, etc. are the gears which the opposition camp has been, in its propaganda since June last year, urging others to wear when protesting and charging out there. Of course, if someone is just tying shoelaces with an umbrella around, we certainly cannot accuse him of conducting an unlawful assembly. But taking into such factors as his conduct and gears into consideration, it may not be a coincidence. Hence, the API seeks to advise us not to be incited to any action by those sitting at the 6276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Chamber or the headquarters of , asking people to read newspapers or fight for Hong Kong's future at the cost of our own future.

Earlier on, Ms Elizabeth QUAT has also mentioned Mr HUI Chi-fung's remark in his speech that the "yellow economic circle" is something good. Ms QUAT has made a good point. But there is one thing I would like to add, that is, this group of people are precisely those who benefit from the "yellow economic circle". I talked about the "yellow economic circle" a few months ago. Theoretically, if all money is poured into the same "yellow shop", its business will certainly be buoyant. But not all shops in the "yellow economic circle" are like that. Those not famous enough will also find it hard to stay afloat. Take the Maxim's Group, which they call a "blue shop" nowadays, as an example. Will it close down? Of course not. But I do not know whether I will jinx it. Perhaps it will run into trouble a few days later because the overall economy of Hong Kong is bleak. This group of Members eat "steamed buns dipped in human blood" in the Chamber, and at the meeting of the Sai Kung District Council ("DC"), those DC members, their fellows, also said that none of them had secured the current position not by eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood", and asked what problem there was with that. They then moved on to discuss the naming of the two parks. That is their way of doing things.

Members of the Hong Kong public have to take a careful look at these amendments. Those Members sitting in the Chamber who may get public support in September are actually at the top of the food chain. They will certainly crown their fellows fighting out there as "righteous fighters", "fire wizards", "water wizards" or "light wizards", inciting their fellows to fight for the future of Hong Kong. They can then reap political dividends. What are the grounds and instruments for the action taken by the so-called protesters―I am also a spin doctor actually, giving them a nice name―or some rioters out there? The amendments proposed to the 42 heads by the opposition camp in the Chamber today are actually part of the process in a bid to stir up social tension and incessantly attack the Government through the Budget. The Government will not be perfect. I often criticize it too. Certainly, I hope Members can leave room for dialogue in their discussions. Just now I have particularly mentioned that a number of officials of the SAR Government have connived at violent protesters and even failed to denounce those acts of the opposition camp which go against the overall interest of Hong Kong. This shows the feebleness of the Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6277

During my conversation with a Member this morning, I came to know that he had profound feelings about the response given by Secretary Prof to Dr Fernando CHEUNG. I feel the same way because I also heard it at that time. Saying at the meeting that the arrival of several hundred thousand people in Hong Kong from the Mainland on 1 May would lead to another coronavirus outbreak, Dr Fernando CHEUNG asked what the SAR Government could do. Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN was really funny. At present, all people arriving in Hong Kong are required to be put under isolation for 14 days, and the Mainland has completely suspended the issue of entry permits. So, how many people will come to Hong Kong? Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN's response was amusing, saying that Hong Kong's anti-epidemic measures were rather effective and those people were also required to be put under isolation, without directly refuting his arguments that sought to play to the gallery and steal the show. In her response, the Secretary did not point out anything wrong at all, and she even thanked him for the question, which was a stupid one. Is the SAR Government feeble? This is the first point.

Second, the Member representing the education sector is present today. Is the head under discussion by us now related to the Education Bureau? Head 156 is related to the Education Bureau. In fact, I am not going to talk about something that happened this year or last year, i.e. 2019. Rather, it was a problem that existed before 2014, which concerned our teaching materials. Those teachers of Liberal Studies or General Studies keep instilling some wrong values and ideas, and there is no proper monitoring of teaching materials. As a result, our next generation has been raised under such values. The reason is also the feebleness and connivance of the SAR Government. I have to blame not only those evil-minded Members supporting violent protesters and attempting to push Hong Kong into the darkness, but also the SAR Government, which has failed to do its part. This is what I, as a pro-establishment Member, find most distressing. Hence, I hope the SAR Government can turn over a new leaf from today onward, and for the past happenings, I will criticize and complain no more. Mr Caspar TSUI, Secretary for Home Affairs, is present today. We are party comrades. I hope he can change the practice of the Government, so as to bring about real fairness and impartiality. Why do I make special mention of him? It is because there are also problems with his Policy Bureau.

A number of people sent me short messages saying that the opposition camp had done tons of things against the law. They asked whether the Government dared not prosecute them due to political reasons. The Policy 6278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Bureau of Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN dared neither remove a lot of banners illegally displayed on the streets nor clean up a good number of Lennon Walls. What are the duties of the Home Affairs Bureau? It seems that applications have to be made in advance for fund-raising activities. Later on, I would like the Secretary to answer me why there is often no need for the opposition camp to make any application. The Secretary may give me some figures so that I will know whether they have made any application. Have they made an application before setting up donation boxes? I do not mind members of the public donating money, and have no comment on their political rationale. They can support the Democratic Party, the or the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, some people will exploit such loopholes for money laundering. I really do not believe some $1 million can be raised by setting up donation boxes. The sum of some $1 million in the box can be reported to be $10 million. But the SAR Government has neither squarely addressed the legal loopholes nor pointed out the problems. Over the years, it has grown accustomed to that. What has it done? Has there been enough criticism today? Chairman, I hope the Secretary can talk about the fund-raising issue in his response later. Lots of members of the public have questions in this area, and they even blame the pro-establishment camp for inaction. I have therefore put this question to the Government today.

Let me further talk about how Members from the opposition camp, being at the top of the food chain, skilfully join the Council by eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood". According to many, they have double standards, and that was also what I said in the past. But that is not completely accurate. Just as taking Article 22 of the Basic Law out of context. Any interpretation will seem right. As a matter of fact, the only guiding principle for them is to make every move based on political calculation. One simple example is that yesterday, the SAR Government asked people to do registration for distribution of masks. Mr YEUNG―I had better not mention his name―a Member came forward and called for caution in providing information to the department concerned, as their fellows might get arrested. Yet, he has forgotten that a number of departments have got information of members of the public. They have also taken the initiative to collect information. One of them is Mr Gary FAN, now a DC member, who beats others to the punch.

Since the incidents of violent protests and massive marches last June, street booths have been set up across the territory to assist members of the public in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6279 doing voter registration. The relevant information is also given to the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") of the Government, and it is even more detailed than that collected in the current registration for masks. Since the relevant information is also given to government departments, what is their purpose actually? They aim to create panic. They have inconsistent and double standards concerning collection of information. We can look at their hidden agenda. They will consider whether the relevant information is to their advantage. Given the constructive and positive effects of REO's voter registration exercise on their political gains, even if information has to be provided to the Government, they will definitely proactively promote it or act as if nothing has happened. Nevertheless, when the Government wants to do something good, they can go so far as to claim that the masks distributed come with 5G functions.

Let us take a look at how many smart lampposts were torn down in the episode of violent protests last year. Even if they were told that those lampposts were only used for collection of meteorological data, they were still worried that trouble would ensue. The installation of a number of closed-circuit television cameras by DCs at the districts previously might just serve to catch litterbugs. Yet, they were still worried that their fellows would be captured by the cameras. A Member told me that while it all boiled down to their conjecture, they would rather forgo the deposit than endorse the installation in the end.

Hence, I again openly call on members of the Hong Kong public to get a clear picture of the prevailing situation in Hong Kong. We have to look at not only the 52 amendments proposed to the 42 heads or the Budget, but also the real agenda behind those Members from the opposition camp or the "mutual destruction camp". For the sake of political gains, they have manipulated all kinds of local political events and provoked conflicts among people. The "yellow economic circle" or different economic circles, freedom of the press, democracy, other kinds of freedom and the overall interest of Hong Kong are nothing but tools for them to reap political gains. To become a real Hongkonger, we must first upgrade ourselves. Even if it cannot be done overnight, I hope Hongkongers can keep going.

Chairman, I so submit.

6280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Chairman, today I have listened to the speeches by many Members of the constructive camp, including those having just delivered their speeches, namely Mrs Regina IP, Ms Elizabeth QUAT and the tall guy Mr Stephen HO. They made such excellent remarks. But I feel it is unfortunate that now many Hongkongers are unable to hear such voices. However, we still have to make the best efforts to communicate our stance and thoughts to people. All along, the Budget debate has often been used by the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp" to smear the pro-establishment camp and the constructive camp. Their tricks have succeeded for years. Despite our rather late start in striking back, it is a good move nonetheless. We can certainly refute their comments. In the past, we just refrained from speaking to refute them, and why did we not do so? Because we were afraid of wasting time. However, we have been fooled around by them for many years, and some negative perceptions have become deep-seated. Therefore, it is now very difficult for us to rectify the erroneous arguments and point out the correct concepts. Fortunately, there are still many righteous people in Hong Kong.

Chairman, first of all, I have to make it clear that I oppose the 52 amendments on the reduction of the estimated expenditure. The main reason is that such amendments are impossible to implement. As far as I am concerned, such 50-odd amendments are against all senses. I will give an example, which is Amendment No. 26 by Dr Fernando CHEUNG. It seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure by an amount equivalent to the annual operational expenses of the Hong Kong Police Force in 2020-2021. If the constructive camp has lost its sanity like the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp", and votes for the amendment, the Hong Kong Police will not be paid their salaries. Then who will maintain law and order? Would all hell not break loose in Hong Kong? Just now, many Members have also explained the consequences, and why are all Honourable colleagues still so calm and at ease? Because all of them know it too well that the constructive camp will definitely vote against the amendments to stop such ludicrous situation from arising.

Nevertheless, I advise all citizens not to be so calm and at ease, for even more ludicrous situation may arise in the future. Why? Because the "mutual destruction camp" has held a press conference to announce its intention to vote down all bills and Budgets presented by the Government. And the "mutual destruction camp" absolutely can achieve its goal of "striving for 35+", i.e. securing more than half of the seats of the Legislative Council. Nowadays, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6281 people are all accustomed to receiving information via mobile phone and fully believe the contents of social media. And social media provides an unlimited supply of information users like to read on the basis of their preferences, rendering them only able to hear views and comments from a single angle. Among such views and comments, many incite anger, hatred and fear in an organized and premeditated fashion, causing some people to believe and consider that they have been subjected to the persecution of an utterly unfair system, and thus vote irrationally and emotionally. I believe any result may emerge from people voting amid such an atmosphere. Therefore, if people still think that the "mutual destruction camp" is only verbally bluffing, they cannot be more wrong. I consider it very likely for such absurdity to happen. For this reason, the results of the Legislative Council election in September will determine, after getting through the "black-clad violence" for six months and the epidemic for another six months, whether Hong Kong will have to live through four more years in the abyss of upheaval. In this connection, people really have to think carefully and say no to "mutual destruction".

My opposition to all amendments does not mean that I am very satisfied with the Government's policy implementation. I do not wish to waste time to go into a detailed discussion. I only want to make one point and I am particularly concerned about education. The reason is that, as it is commonly known, recently a teacher of a school, in explaining the Opium War to the students, actually likened opium, which was a drug, to cigarettes, and that the United Kingdom waged a war so as to make people quit opium consumption and destroy opium. Such utterances could indeed be made, sending an uproar and shock waves across Hong Kong. I have received a lot of relevant messages. People are very worried that it was not a single incident, but only the tip of the iceberg and that similar cases are actually quite common. Now, parents are upset, as they have to fully monitor the teaching materials and do spot check on their children's homework after returning home. Parents also have to discuss with their children their views on various incidents and the country, because parents are very afraid that their children will be "poisoned". Buddy, why are parents nowadays so miserable? Why has parenting now fallen to such a low status? Making a bad influence on the next generation is the most shameless, abominable and despicable behaviour in the world, as well as the thing that distresses and disgusts parents the most. I know that Secretary has seriously dealt with all suspected cases of questionable teaching materials. Sometimes, after I had passed the questionable teaching materials to him, he promptly gave me a reply, which showed that he was dealing with it.

6282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Today, while the representative of the education sector in the Legislative Council, Mr IP Kin-yuen, is present, I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words to him. I ask teachers in Hong Kong to exercise self-discipline. Do not let the reputation of the majority of teachers who truly aspire to cultivate talents be tainted by a fraction of their unscrupulous counterparts. They often refer to the Police as "dirty cops" and suggest that they have assaulted riot participants. I agree that I have seen such ugly scenes on screen. As regards such individuals, society can deal with them in accordance with the law. But they cannot equate the assaults on others committed by such police officers with the conduct of more than 30 000 members of the entire Police Force. By the same token, I would not extend my aversion to the misbehaviour of a fraction of teachers to other teachers and their families. I would not do so, and neither do I hope that he and members of the education sector would do so. Do not exert a bad influence on the next generation of Hong Kong. As parents, we are truly, extremely worried.

I also want to make a response to the amendment by Mr CHU Hoi-dick regarding head 112, which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the pay for the Secretary General and the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat. I have taken up the chairmanship of the Finance Committee ("FC") for nearly five years. During this time, I have been working in harmony with the staff of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser as a team. I have good knowledge of their ways of handling matters and thinking. I want to especially mention that, when I assumed the chairmanship of FC in 2015, as it was known to many, I checked and read all verbatim transcripts of the meetings of the previous term of FC, and raised close to 100 points of order to the Legal Adviser and the Secretariat. After we have spent some dozens hours on discussion, I am able to have a better understanding of the procedures and practices of FC. As a matter of fact, even the Legal Adviser had to check records and information to ascertain the way of handling in some situations. Moreover, in recent years, FC has been a key target of attack by the opposition camp. Therefore, over the years, I have had meetings for at least two or three hundred hours in total with the Legal Adviser and the Secretariat. For this reason, I consider that my contact and interaction with the staff of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser are ample enough to allow me to pass fair comments.

The work of the Legislative Council Secretariat is to provide administrative, secretariat and research support, etc., for the Legislative Council. As per my observation, staff of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser all conduct their work in strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") of the Legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6283

Council. Every day, they do their work according to RoP. It is beyond any doubt. Well-versed in RoP, they have a clear understanding of the literal meaning of each provision, as well as the relevant proceedings. More importantly, they do not only look at the literal meanings of the text, but also understand the reasons behind the practices of the Legislative Council stipulated in RoP. If they are in doubt, they will check previous examples to find proof. I consider staff of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser all committed to their duties. And they always stick to RoP and insist on not deviating from the rules in every task they undertake. I believe it is the tradition of the Legislative Council Secretariat. In my experience, if Members propose some practices or make suggestions that they consider inconsistent with RoP, they will raise their objection. Of course, the President makes the final decision. With such attitude, they safeguard the Legislative Council. Even a new Legislative Council is formed every four years, and Members come and go, the system of the Legislative Council can carry on over the years precisely by virtue of such parliamentary system, culture and traditions. Therefore, I consider staff of the Secretariat a band of righteous guardians of the system, and I applaud their work.

Frankly speaking, staff of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser have carried out their jobs seriously following the traditions while upholding impartiality. As far as I am concerned, their work style is naturally more on the conservative and safe side. For example, as regards the filibuster during the election of the Chairman of the House Committee ("HC") for this legislative session, the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser both considered the election of the chairman the first task. Honourable colleagues please note that they initially considered it a first task for the reason that, judging by the experience in the past several decades, the election of the chairman for a new session only required 15 minutes, until the filibuster scene appeared in this session. I hope Honourable colleagues will pay attention to my remarks as follow. If they have read the press release by the President of the Legislative Council on this matter―I believe many have not read it―I will now tell you the gist. "As early as October last year, the Secretariat's Legal Adviser had explained in detail the implications on the operation of HC pending the election of its chairman. The legal analysis made at the time was based on the ordinary course of events envisaged in HC". As the Legal Adviser could not foresee that it would fail to elect its chairman in half a year's time, "it is anticipated that HC could complete the election of chairman within a short time".

6284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

"In summary, pending the election of a new chairman, while the incumbent HC Chairman should have all the usual powers to conduct the business of HC". However, Honourable colleagues should note that "the exercise of such powers is subject to certain caveats and he/she should exercise caution as to whether to exercise the powers … In this regard, Senior Counsel's advice is no different from that provided by the Secretariat earlier". I hope all Honourable colleagues understand that the two pieces of advice are no different from each other. The Legal Adviser initially considered that it would only require 15 minutes for a chairman to be elected, and therefore the chairman election was the first order of business, otherwise the former chairman could permanently assume the chairmanship. That would be an undesirable scenario. However, in the face of hindrance, which delayed the election of the chairman, the matter has to be handled flexibly. Issues that might not warrant immediate attention may have to dealt with first. That is the whole story. Therefore, I think the current situation should not be interpreted as there are two different pieces of legal advice.

As clearly stated in the press release, the two pieces of legal advice are no different from each other, for they were given at different times. The Senior Counsel also considered that "[Mr Dennis KWOK] allowed HC members to have discussions on a number of issues and motions covering the security arrangements and their implementation in the [Legislative Council] Complex, matters under the purview of The Legislative Council Commission, as well as a number of non-binding motions. […] [I]t is difficult to see how such discussions could be relevant to the election of the HC chairman." Honourable colleagues' attention should be drawn to the last sentence: "The Secretariat has also expressed similar views to the presiding Member." But did he take heed of it? God knows.

Of course, the HC Chairman can disregard the Secretariat's views. I had also personally telephoned the clerk to HC and chided her for not telling the chairman the basic rules. For example, could there be no limit to speaking time? Many members spoke for 20 minutes each time and for multiple times. In that case, could the meeting ever end? It was impossible and was apparently a deviation from the usual practice. Even if the deviation was minor at the beginning, it would become a huge one as the situation persisted. The Secretariat stated that it had informed the presiding Member of such problems, but such advice was ignored. Therefore, as the presiding Member of HC made such decisions, he cannot shift the blame to the Secretariat. It is utterly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6285 unreasonable, and utterly unfair to the Secretariat. It will also destroy people's trust in the Legislative Council.

Members should not easily chide the Secretariat. When the Secretariat gave advice different from theirs, they issued a joint condemnation. Why did they not sit down and discuss with the Secretariat so that both parties could present their legal grounds and exchange views? Why did they not do so? Why did they often send letters immediately to denounce the Secretariat, rather than lodging a judicial review? Because they regarded that as an opportunity for publicity and for bad-mouthing the Legislative Council. Such a move has continuously eroded the foundation of the Legislative Council, making people distrust the Council, "buddy".

Therefore, I wish to say a few words to Hong Kong citizens. Quoting a line of well-known lyrics, "truth or falsehood is difficult to discern/how deceitful people's faces are", which I would rewrite as "truth or falsehood is difficult to discern/how deceitful politics is". I hope people will truly discern what happened.

Given the time limit, I want to respond to the four crimes perpetrated by the Secretary General and the Legal Adviser as pointed out by Mr CHU Hoi-dick. Honourable colleagues all heard his accusations, the charges of which include irregularities they committed when handling the election of the President of the Legislative Council in 2016 and also when handling the election of chairman of the Bills Committee on amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, slacking when handling the procedure for the co-location arrangements, playing favouritism towards the pro-establishment camp, etc. He even mentioned FC. I just want to tell them: as they consider such matters so important, why did they not lodge a judicial review? There are many lawyers in the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp". Why did they not do so? They only care about engaging in empty talks on irregularities. They should have rebutted law with law. And why did they not do so? Because they had no confidence, knowing that what they said was nothing but bragging.

As my speaking time is limited, if any Member twists or distorts my meaning later, I will definitely give a response. Accordingly, I shall stop here and respond later. Also, just now Mrs Regina IP has made sincere and well-intentioned remarks in response to Mr CHU Hoi-dick's speech. Hong 6286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Kong citizens should have listened carefully. Mrs Regina IP's speech is of good quality and well-founded, contrary to the bragging comments made by Mr CHU Hoi-dick. His accusations are sheer fiction and totally groundless (The buzzer sounded) … I hope all Honourable colleagues will understand that.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, please stop speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): We just saw a perfect demonstration of how a person becomes a cuckoo once he turns blue. That is a cuckoo through and through! Buddy, these people are all parasites fed on the milk of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and functional constituencies. Will they please stop making a fool of themselves here? What they have done is so ugly already. Will they please stop making these remarks? I think they should do their own job. For instance, the person who represents the insurance industry should properly comment on issues relating to his industry but he did not draw attention to how miserable the situation of the insurance industry is and only spoke on some irrelevant matters. But as there is no way for me to propose a reduction of his salary, I would come back to the amendments.

Chairman, in my previous speech I mainly focused on the reduction of part of the expenditures for the Office of the Financial Secretary and the Chief Executive's Office. I will further expound my points today. The Government announced just yesterday the details concerning the distribution of over 7 million reusable masks. But why is it that every piece of work handled by the great "777" will always turn from a good thing into a bad one? These masks should have been able to relieve Hongkongers of their plights. Who could have expected that it would again become a scandal, prompting the public to wonder if transfer of benefits and black box operation, and also breach of the Government's established procedures are involved in the process?

I have no idea to what extent this issue has to do with former Secretary for Innovation and Technology, Nicholas YANG, who has been sacked, as a person surnamed SIT is the one who comes forth to take charge of it now. But actually, we all know that in the entire Government, these officials are not the smartest―LAW Chi-kwong who has a higher IQ cannot be counted, for he may be cleverer―because the smartest must be Carrie LAM. This is why we can see the characteristic of this woman in all the policies of the Government. For such LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6287 a good thing which could have helped solve the problem of face masks in Hong Kong, it is nevertheless turned into a scandal. What do we see? The Government spent $800 million on making 7 million masks, which means that each mask costs around $112. The masks have become a laughing stock as they are mocked for their resemblance to underpants, and so on and so forth. I do not wish to make further comments as this is just a matter of taste, and it is not a bad thing to have poor taste.

The problem is that in this issue, we have seen that even you, Chairman, are dragged into troubles. I do not wish to mention your part in it since you already made clarifications. But this could have provided an opportunity for small and medium enterprises or other companies in Hong Kong to make contributions and yet, it has turned willy-nilly into something like a movie. Everybody knows that the production process of the masks was mostly carried out in Vietnam. But after they were transported to Hong Kong, some window-dressing gestures were made to turn the situation into something like a movie set as some sewing machines and carton boxes were put there in anticipation of a visit by Carrie LAM. Everybody knows that these 7 million masks definitely were not made there.

Why did the Government have to do these things? Worse still, there was no tender exercise conducted by the Government. How urgent was this matter? We all heard the public say that the Government is distributing masks only when the epidemic has almost subsided, and we would never forget how "777" Carrie LAM had reprimanded Hong Kong people. She said that basically the public should not wear masks, all the more so for civil servants who should take off their masks even if they have put them on. At that time, several Directors of Bureaux had put on masks, and when asked by reporters she said that they were sick. But we all know that the sickest is actually Carrie LAM. She is mentally ill.

What we have seen is that since several years ago, the entire Hong Kong … actually we did not notice it several years ago because as we all know, Carrie LAM is smart in that she used to be good at political spin and camouflage. This is why when she held the office of the Chief Secretary for Administration or Secretary for Development, nobody knew that she could do such a great deal of harm until she took up her present position. To put it bluntly, there had not been one good day since she took up office. Words are used to substitute actions for everything. Early last year, everyone was telling her to leave Hong Kong alone and stop taking forward the extradition to China law but she refused to listen. In fact, when it comes to "black violence", I only know that the "blackest" violence 6288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 lies in those policemen wearing black helmets and mirrored eye masks, and also those black-clad "raptors" hiding in the corner and beating people with black police batons. This is black violence. Could it be that those people took to the streets all day long because they had too much leisure time? Many young people have sacrificed their future as a result. Then those "blue ribbons" or cuckoos said such things as "steamed buns dipped in human blood". The person who is eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood" is called Carrie LAM.

Where is CHAN Tong-kai now? Is it not a window-dressing gesture again in telling him to turn himself in? At that time Taiwan expressed their willingness to discuss ways to take him back without having to do it through the extradition to China law but she refused to listen. If she is genuinely concerned about the feelings of POON Hiu-wing's parents, is she sending them her regards or sympathy now? CHAN Tong-kai has been released now but she has done nothing. Playing up the urgency of the situation back then, she said that CHAN Tong-kai would be released in no time and if the extradition to China law was not passed, it would be impossible to send him back to Taiwan. Shame on her! This is "steamed buns dipped in human blood". What nonsense.

Now that Hong Kong has come to this pass, and actually it is difficult to move forward. People's mind has changed. Be it the young generation or the middle-class people in Hong Kong, many Hongkongers have since last year fully realized that the biggest problem confronting Hong Kong is "one country, two systems" having become a downright fiasco. The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and LOCPG published a commentary yesterday on how "black violence" has affected Hong Kong, telling Hong Kong people to put a stop to "black violence". But where does "black violence" come from? Who instructed Carrie LAM to push through the extradition to China law? We all know it only too well. Was it because they had to catch a few corrupt Mainland officials in Hong Kong and wanted to rationalize their actions of kidnapping that the extradition to China law was resulted? Did the Government think clearly how much harm this would do to Hong Kong? Had Xiaoping been alive now, he would have seen these unworthy descendants doing these things to ruin his notion of "remaining unchanged for 50 years". DENG Xiaoping said at the time that Mainland China should conceal her strengths and bide her time, and what has XI Jinping done? He tried to play smart but in vain, and the Belt and Road Initiative has plunged the entire China into an abyss of suffering, and coupled with the Wuhan pneumonia, the people are indeed having a hard time these days.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6289

In fact, it is the civilians in China who are hit the hardest because the wealth of the corrupt officials will not taper off as they already transferred their money to Europe and the United States ages ago. They scold the European countries and the United States every day but the children of the corrupt officials all study in European countries and the United States. It is best to look at XI Jinping's daughter. Where does she study? Harvard! Do not scold the United States any more. His daughter studies in Harvard. Do Members have any idea about how many children or grandchildren of senior officials study in renowned universities in the United States and how they boasted of their brilliance in having studied in Harvard, Yale, Stanford? Every one of them is saying the same thing, and just look at the Mainlanders in investment banks …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman, sorry about that. I understand that you already tried very hard to hold back. I am very glad to have spoken for more than eight minutes now.

So, the reduction of "777" Carrie LAM's full-year emoluments will actually do her good because the amendment only proposed to cut her emoluments for one year. As for the several tens of millions of dollars that she had ripped off previously for her several years of office as the Chief Secretary for Administration, there is no way for us to recover it. The amendment proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai seeks to reduce Carrie LAM's emoluments for this year only. This is actually to her advantage because it is impossible to recover the emoluments paid to her before.

I can see that the new Secretary for Home Affairs is in the Chamber now. I do not know what to say. He is a member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). When a member of DAB left, there comes another member of DAB; and when a member of the pro-establishment camp left, there comes another member of the pro-establishment camp. This is how they play musical chairs. Having said that, I do not know what future holds. I will wait and see what he will do.

6290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

We have proposed to reduce the full-year emoluments of the Secretary for Home Affairs and the 18 District Officers. We can see that officials in Hong Kong have their brains directed by their butts. Why do I say so? It is because they do not use their brains to think about how improvements can be made to the District Councils ("DCs") or the representative government or district administration in Hong Kong, which, as we all know, have been issues under discussion since the 1980s. But instead, they merely look at who the people are. In the past when DCs were led by the pro-establishment camp, surely all their demands would be entertained and funds were granted to them however much they asked for. Things are different now as the democratic camp is in charge, and they even sought to cut their funding and refused to convene meetings.

An incident occurred just yesterday in the Central and Western DC where the secretary to the DC outrageously had the guts not to attend the meeting. They are paid by public coffers, and every DC member is returned by the people, so they should deserve some respect in any case. What was the issue over which discussion was forbidden? The issue intended for discussion was about police violence. Go ask all the people of Hong Kong. Nearly half of the people gave the Police zero mark. It is said in some reports that children aged four or five are now scared when seeing policemen and will run away at once. Children used to say that they wished to become policemen when they grew up. Now they cry when seeing policemen because when they turn on the television, they see the Police beat people until they bled all over from their heads, and then the children asked why the young lads should be beaten so badly that blood was running down all over their faces. And there are people who said that it is the duty of the Police to maintain law and order and eradicate the bad elements for the safety of law-abiding citizens. No kidding. Just look at the Commissioner of Police Chris TANG, who attended an activity the other day. How possibly could he look like a police officer? To put it bluntly, he looks more like a scoundrel than a cop.

Moreover, we have seen that he himself or other senior police officers have been successively revealed to be involved in scandals. He could go so far as to say that when he, being a law enforcement officer, saw the unauthorized building works, he did not know that it was an unauthorized building works. He did not know that that rooftop structure measuring a few hundred square feet was an unauthorized building works? Has he just been born in Hong Kong? When a police officer who has been a law enforcer for several decades saw that rooftop structure, should he not ask if there was any problem with it or check the floor plan before renting the flat? Let me tell Members that the Buildings Department LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6291

("BD") has the floor plans. If a flat has a legal structure, BD's papers will show that it is authorized. It is very simple. Had he attached importance to abiding by the law, he should have done some checking. It so happens that the several police officers whose scandals have been disclosed recently are all non-ethnic Chinese. I wonder if it is coincidence or there are some important missions behind it because in this world, there are things that can be thrown away after use, or thanks to Auntie MO for enlightening me, things that are for one time use only, and this will need no further explaining by me. So, we can see that the situation now is actually lousy.

I can see that Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong is in the Chamber, and I do not wish to see him getting bored. He teaches social work programmes. We proposed to reduce his emoluments for one whole year because he has failed to live up to his name. The subsidies in hundreds of millions of dollars to be disbursed are not in the least helpful to the two most miserable groups of people, namely, the unemployed and the underemployed. Is the Secretary aware of this? Those people are out of job, but the Secretary could outrageously say that they can apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). Let me tell him that Carrie LAM hates people who draw CSSA, or perhaps Secretary, you share this view too. I recall that a decade or so ago the Government consistently hinted that CSSA nurtured lazybones. When we read newspaper, we would definitely find reports about CSSA nurturing lazybones. Many reporters also said that the stories in the reports were disclosed by the Government. Why should the Government do it? The purpose was to defame recipients of CSSA, giving people the impression that they are lazybones. Now Carrie LAM said that she had never said such a thing, and the Secretary also said that he has nothing to do with it, because it is smartest to apply for CSSA now. How dare they make such remarks! What is wrong with them? Unemployment assistance is provided all over the world. The unemployed are most pathetic now. The Government is helping employers to pay their employees. This is fine, and we do not mind it at all. But to people who are out of job or underemployed, the Government nevertheless said, "Sorry, please apply for CSSA." Even though the value of self-occupied property will not be factored into the means test for one year, a person has to spend almost all his assets in order to be eligible. Buddy, do bear in mind that it takes a four-member household some $100,000 to raise the children. What they have done is indeed so ridiculous, heartless and detestable. Therefore, his emoluments must be slashed.

I so submit.

6292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

MS CLAUDIA MO: I have to say it is almost beneath my dignity to have to refute some of the statements, if not all of the statements, made by those worms. And I call them "worms" because they are mere parasites.

Only this morning did Mrs Regina IP say that there is no such thing as separation of powers in Hong Kong. That was not the first time I heard it. As a matter of fact, I heard it for the first time from somebody called CY LEUNG, although in private. He told me at some, I think, breakfast meeting. If this is quite so true and quite so open, they might as well declare it.

You have to remember that back in 2009, the then top Beijing official, XI Jinping, came to Hong Kong for a visit. At that time, Mr XI did call for the cooperation of the three powers in Hong Kong. But cooperation does not mean no separation. This is based on common law practice and our Basic Law. Who can tell me that the Basic Law never implies that this legislature must not operate separately from the executive branch? Does it say that at all? If there is no separation, what are we doing here? What are we doing here, right? It is such a lie. And go and ask the signees of the Sino-British Joint Declaration as well.

I am sorry that I cannot talk any faster because I can hardly breathe with this mask on. I will be speaking for some 10 minutes. What I was saying just now is that we should watch the Beijing toadies trying to put on some pugnacious face. They are very much up for the fight, and so on. It is simply disgusting and makes one want to barf. These include Mr CHAN Kin-por, who is still there, the Chairman of the Finance Committee. But never mind, toadies are toadies. They are persons of no consequence.

What I am trying to say really is I have heard enough of those worms saying that they will vote down all the democratic legislators' amendments, mainly because they disagree with all the "smears" heaped on the Police Force in Hong Kong and all those accusations are "unfair". However, the total 52 amendments made by the democrats include mine and mine has nothing to do with the Police Force. It is about animal rights and animal welfare. Are they going to vote it down as well? Of course they will.

I appreciate free will all the time. That is what free speech is about, but they do not have that. They have no free will because all they can do is toe the party line, even on animal affairs. I have just heard the speech of this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6293 representative of the agriculture and fisheries sector. One may think agriculture and fisheries have got something to do with nature, something to do with wildlife. Watch out! Let us see how he is going to vote on this particular amendment of mine. As I was saying yesterday, they just need to sing from the same song sheet.

What sort of message will they send if they do vote down my amendment about scrapping official spending on the so-called animal euthanasia? Oh, let us kill them humanely, but unnecessarily most of the time. Just watch out, see how they are going to behave. I am sorry, but I never can deal with sanctimony well because they are just phony, so unacceptable. If they even vote down an animal rights amendment, what sort of message are they going to send to the rest of Hong Kong, if not to the rest of the world? A message that the Chinese do not care about animals, we just eat them all, and we treat wildlife conservation as a joke? But this is a wrong impression.

Let me tell you that I watched a BBC Earth programme not too long ago, and it showed the conservation of our blue-faced monkeys in China, in the middle of China. They are very well conserved. Nobody talks about the cliché of giant pandas anymore. These blue-faced monkeys are what we call in Chinese "golden folk" monkeys. It is a very impressive part of that particular episode. But now, in Hong Kong, what are we still doing on the animal front? We are still the international hub of fur trade and most of the furs come from China. A Member of this legislature, by the name of Mrs Regina IP, was wearing a fur coat in the lift, and I quickly checked the temperature and it was 22°C that afternoon. I said, "You should not be wearing fur coat." And she retorted, "You are out." Oh, really? Wearing fur is so in? Hongkongers, be reminded that high fashion labels and top international designers, including―I need to name them―Versace, Gucci and Armani, all have announced the abandonment of using fur in their fashion designs. Now, who is really out? Who?

Another point is that in Hong Kong, we still use loads of animals for laboratory tests in the name of human advancement. Of course, the officials keep telling me, "Do not worry. We mostly use fish." The point is that hundreds of thousands of animals are used. They mostly use fish, but still, in the three years between 2015 and 2018, up to 1 400 cats, 1 800 dogs and 4 100 rabbits were sent to the laboratory for that sort of scientific tests. Of course, I understand it may not be okay still to sort of call for the eradication of this animal test business, but shall we at least not expand it? No. Our Hong Kong Science Park has just got $10 billion funding, and I think I was told that about a third of 6294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 the $10 billion was for the setting up of a new animal test laboratory. So, what do you say? We are going against the international trend. Can I also remind everyone that the European Union already announced back in 2013 a ban on all animal tests for cosmetic products? So, can Hong Kong please not lag behind this animal rights and welfare trend?

And another thing we all must notice is the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") keeps calling on Hong Kong animal lovers or pet lovers  I hate the word "pet" because they are not pets. They are members of the family. You would not call your own child a pet, right? But anyway, AFCD keeps calling on Hongkongers to adopt, not to buy, animals. But two years ago, they legalized domestic breeding of dogs. What is the legalization for? Of course, it is for commercial purpose. To make money. Oh, cute, sweet, little puppies, and so on. This is just schizophrenic. This logic does not work. They have jumped from point A to point Z as they wish. And from March 2017 to last year, there were only two prosecutions and a fine of HK$2,000. Big deal. They say they have made all the legal conditions for domestic breeding, and they will carefully supervise what has been happening. The point is that they should not have legalized domestic breeding, domestic commercial breeding, of dogs in the first place. This is just so wrong.

And last but not least, bowing to the pressure of the world, Beijing announced a ban on the eating and trading of wildlife back in February. That is a very good move on the part of the Beijing Government. But what is happening in Hong Kong? Our smuggling trade here seems to be thriving still. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to check but once we actually caught nearly 9 000 kg of pangolin powder. Can you imagine that? How many pangolins got slaughtered? OK, you would say, "That is trade. Never mind." But, we still need to update our protection list, our list of protected animals. If China, who has the ultimate sovereignty over Hong Kong, has declared this ban on … I assume we do not eat that much wildlife in Hong Kong, but then in respect of trading, shall we not have Hong Kong's own list of protected wild animals be updated at all? You have not heard from AFCD or, for that matter, Sophia CHAN's Bureau, right?

Having said all that, my point is I do not believe a word of your claim that you are being rational. If you actually vote down all democratic legislators' amendments because you "sympathize" with the Police Force, you will just neglect our animal front. All animal lovers, all planet lovers, vote them out!

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6295

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, to start with, I wish to speak on the two amendments relating to the Home Affairs Bureau and the Home Affairs Department. The two amendments respectively read: That head 53 be reduced by $4,180,000 in respect of subhead 000, that means to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the Secretary for Home Affairs in 2020-2021, and that head 63 be reduced by $42,346,800 in respect of subhead 000, that means to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the 18 District Officers in 2020-2021. Chairman, regarding the issues of street sleepers and the homeless, the Home Affairs Bureau has done nothing except shirking responsibilities over the years. Hence, I support these two amendments.

Under the impact of the epidemic, this year the presentation ceremony of the Hong Kong Film Awards was modified and the winners were announced online instead. Among them, CHEUNG Tat-ming won the Best Supporting Actor Award with I'm livin' it. The film tells a story about a group of "McRefugees" who keep watch and help each other. I can imagine, if CHEUNG Tat-ming could address the audience at the scene, he would definitely say this is a film about the social problems in Hong Kong. It is hoped that through this film, public attention can be drawn to the plight of street sleepers and "McRefugees". CHEUNG Tat-ming's acting skill was noted by the adjudicators, but in real life, was the predicament of the homeless noticed by the community at large and the Government? Or have the homeless become the "voiceless", "imperceptibles" or "outcasts"?

My mention of the word "outcasts" bears two meanings. First, it certainly means that they cannot afford the exorbitant rent. As a result, they are forced to sleep in the street or stay in fast food shops which operate round the clock. The other meaning is that the Government has never squarely addressed the issue of street sleepers. We want to enquire which department is responsible, but the departments just pass the buck, shirking the responsibility onto each other. Subsequently, they have become like outcasts. According to the homepage of the Home Affairs Department, one of its main tasks is to "assist in alerting residents and providing temporary shelters, as well as coordinating relief services in emergency situations and during or after natural disasters". In reality, however, in the heat of the epidemic, the fast food shop McDonald's suspended its dine-in services, implying that once again, hundreds of "McRefugees" across the territory could stay nowhere, having lost their only shelter.

6296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

This could have been a good opportunity for the authorities to squarely address the issue of "McRefugees". At least they should review the number of hostels currently subsidized by the Government or operated by social welfare organizations on a self-financing basis. They should even provide temporary accommodation for "McRefugees" and then help them seek employment or give them an opportunity to turn over a new leaf. The request of "McRefugees" and the homeless is most humble. They merely hope that the Government can open temporary centres for them to stay. Even if it cannot be done at the moment due to the epidemic situation, at least the stadiums or public bathhouses should be opened for their use. However, no matter how many Legislative Council and District Council Members of the pro-democracy camp had written to the Home Affairs Bureau, the then Secretary LAU Kong-wah, perhaps knowing that he would soon leave office, continued to give play to his "invisibility", turning a blind eye and remaining indifferent to the letters. Since he did not even bother to reply to the letters, we directly requested to meet with him. But the Secretary said he was busy with official duties and refused to meet us. I remember that on 15 January this year, I attended a meeting in the Public Complaints Office, during which matters relating to provision of assistance to the homeless and formulation of a homeless-friendly policy were discussed. At that time Assistant Director of Social Welfare PANG Kit-ling made it very clear. I asked her again and again, and she repeated firmly that the overall policy on the homeless fell under the purview of the Home Affairs Bureau, while provision of subsidized services to street sleepers was the work of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). This point was recorded in the minutes of that day's meeting. Unexpectedly, when the Public Complaints Office resumed the meeting on 14 April, Chief Secretary for Administration took back these words in the submission. With no direct response as to which Policy Bureau was responsible for the policy and coordination of services in respect of the homeless, there was only a big bunch of words which perfunctorily said that if one had a financial need, one could approach SWD, and if one had a housing need, one could approach the Housing Department. But there was no clear answer as to which one was the corresponding department for the overall policy. What does the whole picture illustrate? That means since 2001, discussion was held, be it by the Panel on Welfare Services or the Panel on Home Affairs, almost every year about provision of support services for street sleepers, but it was a total waste of efforts and time, just like pouring water into the sea. Who can tell me what the Home Affairs Bureau or Home Affairs Department has done for street sleepers and "McRefugees" except clearance? Do the Secretary and the 18 District Officers LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6297 deserve their salaries? I find it regrettable that not only did the Home Affairs Bureau fail to do anything good for street sleepers, but it also did not stop bad things from happening and even condoned its staff's behaviour of adding insult to injury, aiding and abetting evil-doers. Some cases gave me the impression that they bullied the disadvantaged in society.

I would like to share with Members a case recently followed up by me. In February this year, plain-clothed police officers not wearing their warrant cards went to Tung Chau Street Park in Sham Shui Po twice. In the name of an anti-crime operation, they smashed the street sleepers' belongings and even ripped open a pack of rice, spilling the rice all over the ground. What is worse, they used violence against the street sleepers. Afterwards, the street sleepers sought assistance from a priest who later informed me about it. I then wrote to the Divisional Commander of Sham Shui Po Police Station, requesting him to investigate the incident and find out the truth. During that time, the priest received a call from the Police Community Relations Office, which threatened him that if he did not make a clarification, he was being irresponsible. He was asked to immediately make a clarification on Facebook. Really worried that the priest would be framed, I wrote to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"), requesting it to keep the videos about the incident recorded by the closed-circuit television in Tung Chau Street Park, and make an arrangement for the street sleepers, the priest, the lawyer and me to watch the footage together. As a matter of fact, a police officer suspected of criminal damage has been interdicted and arrested, thus proving what was said about the incident is true. After lobbying for two months, we had originally made an appointment for the street sleepers, the priest and me to watch the footage together in LCSD on 29 April. To our surprise, on the day of the appointment, LCSD suddenly said that at the request of the Police, it would not let the people concerned watch the footage and cancelled or postponed the entire appointment. Here I severely censure LCSD under the Home Affairs Bureau again for blatantly collaborating with the Police, repeatedly making things difficult through administrative procedures, shielding police violence and bullying street sleepers. I have written to the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services to complain about the disclosure of the arrangement for watching the footage to the Police by the relevant manager. I have also commissioned a lawyer to apply to the Court for an injunction order to prohibit LCSD from deleting the relevant footage to destroy the evidence. Here I formally request the Secretary to actively follow up the incident and not to shelter anyone or act in collusion with wrongdoers.

6298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Besides, I would like to speak on subhead 000 of head 141. The relevant amendment proposes to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare in 2020-2021, which is $4,180,000. Chairman, I support this amendment.

Among the expenditures in the whole Budget, $4-odd million accounts for only a small portion. The main reason why I support this amendment is that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare did not do a proper job. During the epidemic outbreak, wage earners were obviously faced with problems of underemployment and unemployment, but the provision of support for workers was slow and failed to focus on helping those in desperate straits. Chairman, no worries. I will clearly expound on this point.

Given the deterioration of the economic situation in Hong Kong, coupled with the pneumonia outbreak after the Lunar New Year, the Hong Kong Government had long expected an increase in the unemployment and underemployment rates. Being well aware of an upcoming tide of unemployment, the Government should respond expeditiously and address the people's pressing needs. On 21 February, the Finance Committee already granted the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") in the sum of $30 billion, including the disbursement of a special allowance for households eligible for Working Family Allowance and Student Financial Assistance, supporting the grass roots in response to the epidemic and the downside risks of the economy. Not only is the Secretary totally indifferent to households that are not recipients of the Working Family Allowance and Student Financial Assistance. Also, according to the paper submitted by the Government, this special allowance will not be disbursed until the middle of the year. In other words, now that the epidemic has eased off but it is still not available. Such performance is even worse than the distribution of face masks. How can the unemployed grass roots pull through these several months?

In fact, the major measures in the first round of the AEF sought to rescue the market. Blindly believing in the trickle-down effect, the Government thought that as long as it could save the operators in the retail and catering industries, thereby enabling them to tide over this epidemic, workers would be spared from layoffs or wage reduction. The Budget continued to go in this direction, aiming to "support enterprises and safeguard jobs", giving continual support for enterprises to rescue the market. Such an arrangement for rescuing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6299 the market instead of the people was indeed unacceptable. However, when rolling out the second round of AEF involving $137.5 billion, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare continued to adopt this arrangement and direction, utilizing $81 billion to launch the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"). At first, I still had some expectations, considering this an opportunity for the Government to plug the gap.

In April, as the epidemic escalated, the Government implemented an order to prohibit group gatherings, and unemployment became even more serious. Actually, the Secretary could have introduced a new scheme a month or so after the announcement of the first round of AEF to make up for the inadequacy of its first round. However, what did the Secretary do? This ESS can be regarded as the work of a genius. On the pretext of helping wage earners, it provides employers with financial support, claiming to safeguard jobs but not wages. Such a way of lavishing public funds is indeed unheard-of and unseen across the world. Taking an overall view of the special measures launched by governments around the world, one would see that they mainly assist wage earners forced to take leave and the unemployed. Certainly, different governments would also support individual industries in response to the epidemic situation. Yet such disproportionate use of public funds to support enterprises' payment of wages really cannot be found elsewhere. This is really shocking.

Not only does ESS lack support for the unemployed. Employers may even receive kickbacks by replacing the list of employees, having their relatives or other people collect the subsidies. The Secretary has reiterated the need to encourage people from middle to old age to work. The age threshold of the Elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") has also been raised. However, the measures for safeguarding jobs do not benefit the elderly. The elderly cannot benefit because they do not have to make any Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contribution.

In the past, the Government often said that public funds must be used properly, but this ESS just hands out money casually. Self-employees who are affected by the epidemic but do not make any MPF contribution cannot benefit. Yet enterprises making fat profits from the increase in business turnover in the wake of the epidemic, such as takeaway platforms, online shops and supermarkets, may apply for government subsidies. Community groups, labour unions and Members have unanimously requested the Bureau to set up a more focused unemployment assistance fund which can use the public coffers more 6300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 properly, but to date, the Secretary still works with the attitude of giving priority to administrative procedures and leaving people's livelihood aside. The Secretary said that the establishment of a brand new unemployment assistance fund scheme would take a long time. Distant water cannot put out a fire nearby. However, the present items under the two rounds of AEF, as well as the disbursement of $10,000 proposed in the Budget, will not be implemented until six months after the epidemic outbreak. As far as members of the public are concerned, did the Government really try to put out the fire?

More importantly, there are many loopholes in the items under the two rounds of AEF. If the Government allows enterprises to exploit the loopholes and make gains at the Government's expense in a way which is said to be not illegal, why can it not take care of the unemployed grass roots in dire straits with the same attitude? When applying for government subsidies, members of the public encounter numerous difficulties and need to produce a lot of proofs. That is the case with applications for both the Working Family Allowance and CSSA. However, under ESS, enterprises may make applications in the simplest way. The bare truth is, the Government is harsh to the grass roots and lenient to enterprises. If it operates the unemployment assistance fund with the same leniency adopted in ESS and deals with the people's unemployment with urgency, tens of billions of public funds can be used in a more efficient and focused manner. Regrettably, the Secretary did not work in this way. The Secretary asked the unemployed to apply for CSSA, thinking that an increase in the asset limit could readily help them resolve their problems. The problem is, as pointed out in my speech in the first session, CSSA seeks to meet the basic needs in living. It has nothing to do with maintaining the living standard of the unemployed. The applications of some unemployed people have been rejected by SWD because the rent currently paid by them is too high. All kinds of problems still exist.

Chairman, the Secretary did not play his role properly. He does not deserve this remuneration. For this reason, I support this amendment. (The buzzer sounded)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6301

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the second time I speak. More often than not, a Member would not know when it will be his or her turn to speak. As a number of colleagues have put forth proposals to delete the provision for various items in the Budget, I would like to express my views here.

Certainly, the Education Bureau is a topic I talk about most. As I mentioned earlier, a teacher from Ho Lap Primary School has distorted the history of the first Opium War in his teaching. He said that the Opium War broke out between China and Britain in 1840 because Britain sent troops to attack China in an attempt to ban opium smoking because Britain had found back then many people in China were smoking opium. Yet, the truth is that the Qing Dynasty had issued a ban on opium and appointed LIN Zexu to execute the policy of destroying opium, which had aroused discontent among British merchants selling opium for a profit and provoked a series of conflicts. As a result, Britain sent troops to attack China and war broke out. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain. This piece of news is a testament to the failure of the Education Bureau.

Amendment No. 45 proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung regarding head 156, which seeks to cut the estimates for all secondary and primary schools in organizing or subsidizing schools in organizing Mainland exchange programmes. May I ask the Education Bureau of the amount of provision it has received from the Legislative Council since the reunification? Actually, I am keen to speak in the presence of Mr IP Kin-yuen, yet it was not my turn at that time. No matter how, I have to ask the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union ("HKPTU")―they are always eager to press the authorities for more benefits for teachers, and I would not blame them for this as universities are also part of the education sector and their call for more benefits for primary and secondary school teachers will surely be a good thing. Yet, apart from asking for more benefits, HKPTU … In this time of recession, apart from people with "iron rice bowls", that is, those working in public organizations, including people paid by public money, many people in society are living from hand to mouth, worrying about how to pay for the basic necessities of life. However, according to my understanding, Mr IP Kin-yuen so far is merely concerned about how to get a pay rise.

I would like to share this with you. In the past, university teachers and HKPTU would find their common ground in certain subject matters on various occasions. When I was a member of the City Staff 6302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

Association, we had helped with some legal matters and joined hands to strive for staff benefits and confront the management. There is nothing to be said against it. Nonetheless, I recall that in 2003, many staff associations of universities proposed a voluntary pay freeze with a view to riding out adversity with the public. Honestly, all political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council today should propose a pay freeze or pay reduction―such a proposal should have been put forward earlier and it is indeed a bit late to do so now―for we have a steady job. Hence, when the Secretary for Education enquired about which party has been seeking a pay rise and has been waited for a long period of time, I pointed out to him that in the current situation, he should stop coming here to explore the pay rise issue. Does he know that many people can hardly secure their "rice bowls" now? In fact, this is a token of goodwill which comes from our hearts.

Regarding primary and secondary education―let us put aside university education for the moment, for we have talked about primary schools just now. I recall that a few years ago, at a time when the Occupy Central probably had not yet taken place, I chatted with a representative of a student association of the University of Hong Kong. He said that it was the era of "Chinese occupation". He said that it was "Chinese occupation" and no longer "British occupation" and that "British occupation" was of the past. What he said has reversed the international law, history and law altogether. At that time, I wondered if he was taught so at the university or he had received such incorrect knowledge at secondary school. Now, we see that it is from primary education. I know that such expressions as "the whole family of bad cops must die" were heard in some kindergartens, instilling hatred in children. How are they going to face Hong Kong?

Political disagreements are natural. Mr CHU Hoi-dick likes to criticize the Communist Party, yet he does that skillfully and presents it in a moderate manner. Nonetheless, every time he speaks, you can feel the hatred inside … I do not know where his hatred comes from, yet this has prompted him to set up the "Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus" ("the Caucus") with some organizations in Taiwan. Am I right? His hatred may have prevented him from hearing and seeing the problems with the remarks of Michael R. POMPEO, which states that the interest of the United States would be violated if legislation is enacted for Article 23 of the Basic Law to safeguard national security. May I ask him of the number of laws implemented so far by the United States for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6303 safeguarding its national security? In what position are other countries to comment on this? Hong Kong is part of China. This is an ironclad fact in history, which has been enshrined in the international law and the Basic Law. Nonetheless, he does not accept it and has made no mention of these.

Should Mr CHU Hoi-dick focus on environmental discussions, it will be good, for he has done his homework and raised lots of questions, including those on the mistakes of the Legal Adviser. He is very tactful and will not tell all every time he speaks. Who initiated the physical confrontations arising from the so-called opposition to the proposed legislative amendments last year?

I have served in the Legislative Council for 12 years. I want to tell Mr IP Kin-yuen an incident. I recall that back then, when WONG Yuk-man hurled the first banana here in this Chamber, and the three men―including "Long Hair" and "Hulk", their speeches were really coarse. They may say that Members are entitled to immunities under the law in this respect. I recall CHEUNG Man-kwong once confronted WONG Yuk-man, telling him that foul language should not be used in this Council, and we all know that. We as colleagues may have different views, and he has even engaged in electioneering activities of my opponents, yet I have to state the fact that there is a bottom line.

Regarding the establishment of HKPTU back then, we understand that university education is also part of the education sector. Why do people still respect SZETO Wah? For he had a bottom line. He would not sacrifice the country. He would not turn Hong Kong into the slave of others. Today, the moral standard of Mr IP Kin-yuen, HKPTU and teachers does not live up to the expectation of society at all. I have mentioned repeatedly at meetings of the Panel on Education that we have received cases supported by facts and evidence. In addition to teachers holding distorted political views, there are many cases about teachers whose conduct is below standard. Nonetheless, apart from striving for benefits, has he ever come forward to say that they are wrong? I saw a youngster aged 12 to 13 at Tsuen Wan MTR Station … A photo taken by someone shows a boy aged eight or nine beating the police officer with a rod. Is such behaviour correct? Worse still, there were teachers or senior students at the scene. What message has it conveyed?

Even if our political viewpoints are vastly different from one another, it is still "one country, two systems". "One country" and "two systems" go together. It is a no-brainer. Rejecting "one country" but holding onto "one country, two 6304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 systems"? No way. Mr CHU Hoi-dick always speaks with hatred, making people hate the systems of the country. Others "stab" you out of the interests of their countries. Yet, what is the benefit of "stabbing yourself to death"? It is true that the country has a lot of painful experience in history. We have experienced painful history not merely after 1949 but also before 1949, from the Eight-Nation Alliance to the Japanese occupation. Upon the unification of China, there was a lot of painful experience in history after 1949. We accept the painful history. More so, in history, there were wrong decisions sometimes. Yet, it does not mean that the next generation of Hong Kong should not know anything about our history or even learn the opposite of it.

What has the Education Bureau done? The Education Bureau simply beats around the bush. Secretary Kevin YEUNG today―I would not mention the Secretary for Education of the previous terms, and I have tried to speak for him every time, explaining that this is not the responsibility of any Secretary of a specific term. Regarding the teacher of Ho Lap Primary School, the school has merely made an apology. Has the Secretary ever exercised his power as the Secretary for Education? He must take actions with deterrent effect. For example, some people are using bombs and have planned to use iron nails, yet you still try to absolve them. They even say that these people have only acted this way because the authorities adamantly refuse to accede to the five demands. Do they know how cruel it is to say so? They are putting the hat of "political ideals" on the heads of this group of people. Yet, these people are probably too naïve and keep breaking the law for them. Their acts are serious crimes, causing heavy casualties and harming innocent members of the public. This is "local terrorism", is it not? Besides, these foolish acts are often done by young people heedless of the consequence. Some juvenile offenders even do not know the sense of pain. Some have killed people. One has killed his parents. The case is horrible. He said he only knew the sense of pain when he was beaten.

In respect of primary and secondary schools, apart from discussion of politics, they should be accountable to society. Hence, I cannot but use the time at the Legislative Council to tell the Secretary for Education that he has been weak and incapable all along. Regarding the incident of Ho Lap Primary School, I have not seen him take specific follow up actions and impose punishment. How about the person-in-charge of Ho Lap Primary School? There is another case involving a primary school in Kowloon West. According to investigation, the whole school, from the principal to frontline teachers and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6305 students, has problems and it is a famous school, okay? So far, the Education Bureau merely admits in its feedback to me that it actually happened and the Bureau would discuss this with the sponsoring body. What is the current situation? Six months have passed, any update? How does the Education Bureau face the next generation?

Given the above remarks, they may query why I do not support cutting all the relevant expenditure. First, the amendment is not focused on the Education Bureau. Second, the amendment merely seeks to cut the expenditure relating to Mainland exchange programmes. What is wrong with such exchange programmes? Why would exchanges be equal to "brainwashing"? They may have been "brain-washed" during their primary and secondary education and lost their immunity. Not only in the context of politics, they have undergone "reverse brainwashing" in terms of their conduct, integrity, practice and the concept of the rule of law. In the past century or so, Hong Kong has made strenuous efforts to establish a society of the rule of law and the spirit of the rule of law. Yet, they have smashed all these overnight. Then they rationalize the conflicts here.

One of the five demands is definitely unacceptable, that is, unconditional amnesty for people involving in protests, riots and serious violence in relation to the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments. If amnesty is granted to them in this manner, how about those innocent members of the public, the person killed by bricks being hurled and Mr LEE who suffered burns, as well as shops being messed up―how did these shops offend you, is it merely because they are doing business with the Mainland? It is stupid, is it not?

Hence, I hope Mr CHU Hoi-dick … What he has been talking from morning to night is to pit "one country" and "two systems" against each other. In so doing, he is putting an end to "one country, two systems". I hope everyone will stop discussing "one country, two systems" with such an attitude. There are bound to be differences under "one country, two systems", yet we should have the collective political wisdom to handle the relationship between the Central Authorities and the region properly, face up to the temptations and challenges in the international arena rationally, fighting adversity together. (The buzzer sounded)

6306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking.

I now suspend the meeting until 5:15 pm.

4:43 pm

Meeting suspended.

5:15 pm

Committee then resumed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak today to indicate my general support for the passage of the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill"), and I will vote against the various amendments proposed by Members of the opposition camp. Chairman, commencing from 2013, a battle of filibuster in respect of the Budget would take place in this Council from April to May every year, lasting for more than a month. Members of the non-establishment camp would move a large number of amendments every year in an attempt to procrastinate the passage of an Appropriation Bill.

Coming back to the scrutiny of the Bill this year, 16 Members have proposed a total of 124 amendments in a bid to reduce the financial provision for various heads of expenditure. Following comprehensive consideration by the Chairman, 52 Members' amendments involving 42 heads are admitted eventually. It is estimated that the scrutiny of the Bill will take about 36 hours, and all proceedings will only be concluded on 14 May. Chairman, procrastinating the scrutiny of the Bill by way of filibuster will not only lead to the loss of time and public money, the unreasonable contents of these amendments also warrant our examination and revelation. I am going to highlight the issues that the engineering sector and I are more concerned about.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6307

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed Amendment No. 5 which seeks to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO"). As we all know, the major functions of OGCIO are to enhance the use of information technology ("IT") in the Government, facilitate the various bureaux and departments to implement the electronic submission of government forms, provide Hong Kong with the necessary IT infrastructure, and support various smart city initiatives to promote the application of IT in society.

Chairman, promoting e-Government services is essential for Hong Kong to develop into a smart city. Unfortunately, the impact of the novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic has highlighted the deficiencies of the e-Government services in Hong Kong, making us lament that it is only when we are using electronic services that we find the shortage of such services. Earlier on, many government departments implemented the work-from-home arrangement due to the impact of the novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic. Yet, subject to the lagged development of e-Government services in Hong Kong, civil servants encountered numerous obstacles in operation while working from home. The situation faced by the engineering sector is even worse under the epidemic. For instance, the relevant vetting and approval procedures for submission and alteration of engineering drawings, etc. still remain at the stage of reviewing physical drawings. Nevertheless, the Buildings Department ("BD") has already been allocated with a funding of some $200 million by the Finance Committee as early as in February 2019 for the development of an Electronic Submission Hub using government cloud facilities. But it is not until the first quarter of 2022 that BD will gradually accept plans and applications submitted through electronic means. That is to say, we still have to wait two years for the implementation of electronic vetting and approval of drawings.

In view of this, I have repeatedly urged the Government to speed up the pace of promoting the development of e-Government services. Yet, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has now proposed to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for OGCIO. He has also proposed in Amendment No. 17 to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for BD. I of course have to oppose these amendments resolutely. Chairman, both the economy and people's livelihood have been hit hard as Hong Kong has experienced the impact of the extremely violent protests in the past six months or so, coupled with the blow dealt by the novel coronavirus pneumonia recently. This has resulted in a slump of business 6308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 in various trades. All of us have high hopes on the SAR Government to unite all sectors to fight against the epidemic together, while at the same time striving to revive the economy and enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong.

All sectors of society agree that the promotion of innovation and technology ("I&T") will help enhance the competitiveness of all trades, so as to improve people's livelihood. The Financial Secretary has announced in this year's Budget that the Government will earmark $3 billion for Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme. Moreover, $60 million will be earmarked for the establishment of the first Geospatial Lab, whereas $100 million will be allocated to the development of an integrated digital platform for works supervision, etc. Our sector welcomes these projects which will be substantially conducive to the development of Hong Kong into a smart city while enhancing the efficiency of city management. Notwithstanding this, Amendment No. 33 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the Secretary for Innovation and Technology. It is really perplexing and unacceptable.

Being an important functional department of the SAR Government, the Innovation and Technology Bureau was established when its funding was approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council on 6 November 2015 after years of considerable efforts made by all sectors of society. The Bureau is responsible for formulating various policies in relation to I&T and promoting the development of the related industries, including coordinating the formulation of the Smart City Blueprint for Hong Kong 2.0, monitoring the implementation of the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund, as well as implementing measures such as enhanced tax deduction for expenditure incurred by enterprises on qualified research and development ("R&D") activities. Does Mr CHAN Chi-chuen reckon that the aforesaid work undertaken by the Innovation and Technology Bureau can be suspended casually? It is also unreasonable if his amendment is said to be targeted at the Secretary for Innovation and Technology personally, since the incumbent Secretary , who held the post of Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services originally, has only taken up his new position on 22 April this year. All sectors of society have high expectations of him on promoting the development of I&T. As a matter of fact, Secretary SIT has also promoted I&T projects when he headed the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD"), including the launch of the E&M InnoPortal with a view to matching the needs of government departments for applying new technologies with I&T projects by start-ups in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6309 order to promote the commercialization of the R&D results and also I&T development in Hong Kong. As such, I strongly oppose this amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.

Chairman, Amendment No. 35 proposed by Mr Andrew WAN seeks to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Development, whereas Amendment No. 47 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for the Development Bureau (Works Branch). I strongly oppose these amendments as well. As we all know, one of the important functions of the Development Bureau is to provide stable and adequate supply of land through effective planning. Other functions include completing the Hong Kong 2030+ study and promulgating the updated territorial development strategy, coordinating and overseeing the infrastructure works projects, promoting and ensuring building safety and timely maintenance, as well as continuing to facilitating urban renewal, etc. The work undertaken by the Development Bureau (Works Branch) also includes ensuring the provision of a reliable, adequate and quality supply of water, promoting heritage conservation and tree management as well as the Energizing Kowloon East initiative, etc. which are closely related to the economy and people's livelihood of our society.

Can the public have sufficient flats to live in if there is no new land and infrastructure project? Will the quality of life of Hong Kong people retrograde without a reliable supply of quality drinking water? This is basic common sense. Speaking of the Development Bureau, I cannot but have to mention an important issue related to the current situation faced by the engineering and construction sectors. The social unrest in the past six months or so, added with the impact of the current epidemic, have made the matter a lot worse for the construction sector. The sector is facing the interruption of the work chain, supply chain and capital chain, which are the three major operational risks. According to the latest labour force statistics released by the Census and Statistics Department, the unemployment rate in the construction sector has risen to 8.5%, whereas the underemployment rate has also risen to 7.1%. In the past six months or so, some violent protesters have repeatedly threatened to bring forth "mutual destruction", but the first thing we can see is the sacking of quite a number of wage earners. Some statistics reveal that the number of job vacancies open for university graduates has decreased sharply by 40% in the first quarter of 6310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 this year, rendering the employment outlook even more austere than the period during the SARS outbreak in 2003. I am deeply concerned about the employment support for graduates and ensuring that the industry will keep on nurturing talents in difficult times. Chief Executive Carrie LAM has announced earlier on a series of new measures to retain and create jobs under the Anti-epidemic Fund, which include the proposed creation of around 30 000 time-limited jobs in the public and private sectors in the coming two years to ease the worsening unemployment situation. I have proposed to the Chief Secretary for Administration, Secretary for Development and Secretary for Labour and Welfare respectively that the Government and the sector should endeavour to safeguard the employment opportunities of new entrants. In the meantime, graduates should be provided with appropriate induction training despite the pressure of an economic downturn with a view to nurturing successors for the sector. The several officials have responded very positively, and I hope that these measures can be implemented as expeditiously as possible.

Secretary for Development Michael WONG has indicated in his reply that the Development Bureau and the departments under its purview, such as EMSD and BD, will create about 4 700 short-term jobs in the future for people of different fields, skill sets and academic qualifications, including professionals, as well as technicians and backend office staff who provide support services. Such jobs include those to inspect the external drainage pipes of buildings, speed up the implementation of the Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme and expedite the replacement and repair of drainage systems, etc. Furthermore, there will be positions for fresh graduates such as graduate programmes in building surveying, town planning, estate surveying, land surveying and engineering. The Secretary has pointed out that the aforesaid newly created positions include more than 530 government positions and over 4 100 positions in the private sector, some will progressively materialize within three months at the earliest. In my opinion, whether it is epidemic prevention, saving the economy or assisting graduates to secure employment, all of these are extremely pressing issues. I do not wish to see any unexpected troubles crop up due to the passage of the relevant amendments proposed by Members of the opposition camp, which will turn a good thing into a bad one.

Chairman, Amendment No. 46 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Transport and Housing under the head of the Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch). The Transport Branch is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6311 responsible for promoting the development of land, sea and air transportation as well as logistics in Hong Kong. The Government announced the "Railway Development Strategy 2014" in 2014, proposing the development of seven new railway lines, which has gained strong support from the engineering sector. Regrettably, six years have passed. The authorities have only made the decision to construct the Tung Chung Line Extension on 7 April and invited the MTR Corporation Limited to proceed with the detailed planning and design of the project. The engineering sector and I will continue to press the Government to speed up its work. The new railway projects will definitely be hampered again should Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment be passed.

Chairman, in light of the above, it is not difficult to understand that should the amendments proposed by Members of the opposition camp be passed, not only policy administration by the SAR Government will be hindered, but the economic development of Hong Kong and our efforts to improve people's livelihood will also be undermined. We must strongly oppose such "mutually destructive" amendments.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Chairman, actually I will only speak for a few minutes. Before all else, I wish to respond to Dr KWOK Ka-ki, who told me to talk only about insurance but not anything else in his earlier remarks. I believe it is because he was afraid that I would reveal the harm done by "mutual destruction" to all sectors in Hong Kong. If they successfully bring forth "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong, people doing all sorts of business in Hong Kong will suffer altogether. Therefore, I now have to speak for all sectors, including the insurance sector. Second, Dr KWOK Ka-ki grinned cheekily just now and said that "people will become brainless when they get old"―he did say so―He would only describe others as brainless when people disagree with him. Here I wish to cite two examples to show all of you what kind of person he is.

To start with, he claimed at a meeting of the Finance Committee that the Police killed a lot of people on 31 August. Mr SHIU Ka-fai then asked him to clarify who had died, but he just hummed and hawed as he could not tell the name of any victims and then dragged on. Yet, he was very serious when he spoke, as if he was telling the truth. How terrible it is when members of the public heard what he said. They might think Members would not talk nonsense 6312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 when giving a speech, but he has been acting recklessly indeed. What is more, he always criticizes the Police, yet he immediately reported to the Police after being hit by someone on the MTR. In fact, I should not spend too much time on such kind of person, so I will not comment on him anymore.

I have forgotten to talk about one point just now due to the time constraint, which is about reducing the expenditure of the Legislative Council. In my view, if any Members would seek to reduce the remuneration of the relevant officers just because the Secretariat or the Legal Adviser does not interpret the Rules of Procedure in a way that would please them, or if the officers go against their wishes, many people would regard it as a form of intimidation. Therefore, I think such behaviour will only undermine the credibility of Members in people's mind. The Secretariat staff will not have confidence when performing their duties, and they would be afraid to hold on. This is precisely the same as what the "mutual destruction camp" has done to the Hong Kong society. They keep cracking down on people holding different views, prohibiting people from placing advertisements in certain media, as well as prohibiting others from patronizing certain shops. I consider it a retrograde step and absolutely oppose it if they would adopt the same approach in the Legislative Council. Thank you, Chairman.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, actually Members of the Legislative Council have expressed their views on the Appropriation Bill 2020 not only at this meeting today. These views, which also included many different observations, had long been submitted for consideration by the President.

If the SAR Government can address squarely the problems raised by us and truly resolve them at root, many of these views can drive the Government to make institutional and policy changes. Due to constraints in the consideration of the Budget, we cannot propose amendments to increase expenditures. We can express our views only by proposing reduction of expenditures. The Government's attitude is one of indifference because there are definitely enough votes to pass the Budget, and this is why it only kept saying how things would be like after the passage of the Budget.

In fact, it is just normal to see a divergence of opinions between representative assemblies and the Government or between the executive and the legislature. I recall that during Bill CLINTON's presidency, the Senate and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6313

House of Representatives of the United States Congress were both under the control of the Republicans. This can be compared to the Chief Executive not having any vote in this Council but it is still necessary to identify ways to reconcile the differences in society as a whole. This is the duty of the Chief Executive and the duty of the Government, too. If the Government has done nothing but put the blame on other people and then said that our views are not worth mentioning, such an attitude points to executive hegemony.

Let me cite a simple example. Earlier on Members have put forward a lot of views relating to land. I did not feel anything in particular at first, but when it comes to the land issue, I am hot under the collar. The land issue is very complicated. During Donald TSANG's era, no land had been created and this, I understand. But did LEUNG Chun-ying create any land after he took office? Has Carrie LAM produced any land after she took office?

When land remains insufficient no matter what is done to produce it, the Government introduced the Lantau Tomorrow Vision which is still awaiting discussion in the Legislative Council. The land production proposals under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision are quite controversial, and people always want to know whether it is because other options are not pursuable that the Government has to resort to reclamation, plunging Hong Kong's precious harbour into a state of no turning back. The Government has been evasive and did not respond to these questions, except saying that Hong Kong has sufficient financial capacity to meet the costs and that concerns about exhausting the fiscal reserve are unwarranted. But the problem lies not in the costs involved but whether or not land resources are used in accordance with the wish of Hongkongers. I recall that Carrie LAM had appointed Mr Stanley WONG to hold a big debate on land supply. Back then there were detailed discussions in the community and priorities were set, with the Lantau Tomorrow Vision being put in a position lower down the list. Such being the case, why is it still necessary to commence deliberations on this controversial issue in the Legislative Council? For what purpose is the Government doing it?

Moreover, in Hong Kong there is a shortage of land resources, and we have no idea why the SAR Government has long since allowed the 60 hectares of land next to the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort ("HKDL") to be left idle for years and does not care about it at all. Some time ago the Government said that efforts had been made to negotiate the matter with HKDL and the latter agreed to 6314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 develop a flower-themed garden there but eventually this idea has been dropped. We proposed that be developed on that 60-hectare site but the Government said that it would be difficult to do so. Taxpayers had contributed to the financing of the development of HKDL and when there are great difficulties in the use of land resources in Hong Kong society, the Government outrageously allowed 60 hectares of land to be left idle. Regarding the housing problems that we face nowadays, should the Government not be blamed mostly for its inaction? And I have not yet talked about the Sunny Bay reclamation which is under study. What is the purpose of this reclamation project? The purpose is to develop another amusement park. I told the Government that such a plan could no longer respond to the needs of the time and should be revised because when taking forward new development in society, the Government would need land to complement the reprovisioning of economic operations on brownfield sites. The reclaimed land should be put to good use, so that the Government will be able to make compensation arrangements when resuming land with economic operations. However, the project has continued to lay emphasis on the development of an amusement park, so how can the people be convinced that the Government will utilize land resources effectively?

In the end, we proposed that since there are 2 000 or 3 000 hectares of privately-owned land in the New Territories, the Government may consider addressing the problem through bold, resolute policies on land resumption. The Government, after resuming land, can explain to taxpayers that the land resumed according to the relevant procedures will be designated for uses in the public interest, such as for developing public rental housing, flats under the Home Ownership Scheme, schools, hospitals, roads or transport infrastructure, and this will be considered convincing. In the course of planning by the SAR Government, former Secretary for Development Carrie LAM, who was most familiar with the situation, said during her term of office that unauthorized building works in small houses and village houses would be accorded the same treatment but this is actually just empty talk. Therefore, the injustice in land use by the Government has resulted in a queue of 280 000 households on the Waiting List now, and in the course of their waitlisting, the Government did not tackle the problems direct but introduced the points system for non-elderly one-person applicants. As a result, no one knows for how long the young people have to wait before they can be allocated with a suitable one-person flat to live in. Some people may refute that young people in Hong Kong are actually capable of standing on their own feet in five years and so, they do not have to rely on public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6315 housing. I beg to differ. Just take a look at the young people. For how much their entry pay has increased since the reunification? Can it cope with or catch up with the increase in property prices? Their upward mobility is on the decline, and this is a fundamental reason for the great dissatisfaction in the entire community with the Government's governance. Has the Administration thought about it? What I have seen is that they have, in an attempt to solve the problem, engaged non-governmented organizations or NGOs to develop youth hostels for young people to live for three or five years, after which they have to move out. But how many flats have been provided so far? After the provision of these flats, how can young people cope with their living when they are forced to move out in three or five years?

So, there is something which I find quite amazing. Carrie LAM has always taken pride in having worked in many different government departments, one of which is the Development Bureau, and her handling of the Queen's Pier and land issues often made her think highly of herself. But now, she has turned in a "blank examination paper" and put the blame on other people. Where are Carrie LAM's capabilities now? Whether in her handling of the problems of the Government as a whole or her governing ability and vision, she invariably takes a narrow view. When she was an accountability official, she acted as if she was very smart but when she is the person in charge now, she has no ability, no wisdom, knowing only to listen happily to her superiors and admit happily that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council can oversee the policy administration of the SAR Government in all areas. How can she be answerable to Hong Kong?

The second thing that I would like to talk about is that many people asked what would happen if there is no policeman in Hong Kong. I would like to tell Members that if our policemen who have weapons and public powers in their hands are biased in law enforcement and take a discriminatory attitude targeting the young people and members of the community who voice their views to the SAR Government, nobody would want such a Police Force because the duty of the Police Force, as dictated by its nature and original intent, is to maintain law and order. But the Police Force today has become an epitome of "black police violence" or "black violence" as termed by many of those in the pro-establishment camp.

6316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

"Black police violence" is now a problem of grave concern to society and members of the public. We have seen the degeneration of the Police Force, and we have seen that the Police Force no longer enforces the law fairly as it used to be. The public have seen that in the course of law enforcement by the Police Force, a world where all are equal before the law has changed as they can first put you under arrest in all circumstances and then take you to the court, telling you to lodge your complaints to the Judge. I wish to say that this is why we always said that the rule of law does not uphold fairness for each and every member of the community in their lives, and our Police Force neither maintain law and order in Hong Kong society nor protect the personal safety of each and every citizen but has merely become a tool of suppression.

So, as we can see, in the "21 July" incident, the white-clad men, who were first seen in the evening at Yuen Long Station, assaulted people everywhere in Yuen Long and even entered Yuen Long Station to attack people indiscriminately. When the policemen on patrol duties saw them, they nevertheless turned around and went away. It made me think of the scenes in Young and Dangerous film series because in the movies, we can always see that when policemen on patrol duties saw triad members gather ahead of them, they would turn around and go away. I do not know how real these scenes in the movies are. However, on the day the "21 July" incident happened in Yuen Long, I was watching live broadcast on television and I saw with my own eyes that the policemen at the scene could take no action to protect the public. They even allowed those white-clad men with unknown background and armed with plastic rods or planks to attack the public, or put it in their words, "punish the young lads". But can this be acceptable?

I also saw that in some other places, such as North Point, some men in blue shirts came out with iron rods in their hands but the Police escorted them away from the scene. How can they justify it to all the innocent civilians at the scene? Is it the duty of the Police to enforce the law selectively? (The buzzer sounded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please stop speaking immediately.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6317

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, in the previous session, I mentioned the "yellow political dividend circle". Actually, I still have something to say about it. We have to stop the "yellow political dividend circle" from gaining votes by means of violence, lies and eating "steamed buns dipped in human blood", thereby seizing political power. We must stop violence in order to break this cycle. I would like to reiterate this point clearly.

Regarding the "yellow political dividend circle", should the opposition camp secure the expected "35+1" seats and take over the position of President, what would happen to Hong Kong? In the general sense, we would end up in "mutual destruction". As a matter of fact, the slogan "If we burn, you burn with us" was not invented by us. This slogan was chanted by the protesters from the opposition camp during the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments last year which have developed into black violence and riots. They consider that the suicidal "mutual destruction" could force the Central Government to give in. In Mr CHU Hoi-dick's wording, this is a jump off the cliff. In Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's wording, this is pressing the Central Government with the will to die. In fact, we can all see that.

Another trick they play is crying "stop thief" when they themselves are the thieves, and Mr WU Chi-wai has just demonstrated that. They are finding excuses to criticize the Budget. As we can see, if the "35+1" scenario really takes place in real life, all these amendments to the Budget will be passed, just like a nightmare comes true. The opposition camp is not telling us that these amendments are proposed casually, is it? Once amendments are proposed, they will be put down on the record of the Legislative Council in black and white. It means that the opposition camp really wants to implement such proposals, which are somewhat considered as its policy agenda. Am I right? Certainly, some of the amendments target the Police Force, while some others target the highest echelon of the Government, mainly Directors of Bureaux, such as reducing the emoluments of Directors of Bureaux and those of the Chief Executive, as well as trimming the resources for the Office of the Chief Executive. Nonetheless, many of the amendments involve specific livelihood policies.

Why do I say that it is the trick of a thief crying "stop thief" just now? I really have to respond to Mr WU Chi-wai. He said he was gravely concerned about land supply and mentioned that Donald TSANG did not create land, a point which I agree. Then, he switched his position, which does not seem successful though. Honestly, LEUNG Chun-ying and Carrie LAM are rather proactive in 6318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 identifying sites. In the course of identifying sites, one of the greatest obstacles is definitely Members from the opposition camp in this Council. In identifying sites for housing developments, be it through land resumption or reclamation, can the Government's proposal be implemented smoothly without the filibuster or unreasonable obstruction by the opposition camp for once? No, not even for small projects like Wang Chau in Yuen Long, which made Mr CHU Hoi-dick famous. Am I right? Mr CHU Hoi-dick manages to stand out from the crowd in the incident. He has been very successful in doing that. To tell the truth, the consultation of the proposal had gone through the Council―I am referring to the District Council―the members of Yuen Long District Council from the Democratic Party at the time also supported the implementation of the project in two phases. Afterwards, Mr CHU Hoi-dick asked why the second phase was not introduced. It is implemented now, right? Regarding the so-called "development of brownfield sites before greenfield sites", this is actually what the Government is somehow doing now. Yet, is the resumption of brownfield sites a panacea to all problems? In fact, there are operations on those sites and workers are involved. Relocation has to be carried out step by step.

Moreover, if reclamation is not carried out, there will not be large-scale land creation. In that case, how can the authorities wrestle with landlords in land resumption negotiations? Since reclamation strikes rightly at the pain point of those with the greatest vested interests like major estate developers and land owners, some people stand out and speak against it. I wonder if the opposition camp which always object to reclamation and the Lantau Tomorrow project shares common interest with real estate hegemony and land owners having vested interests. I do not want to make speculation. Yet, objectively, in some measure, they are helping the real estate hegemony by keeping land in short supply in Hong Kong and making the market believe that property prices and land prices will continue to rise. If so, the salaries of wage earners will never be able to catch up with land prices. This is the difficulty faced by wage earners and young people in their daily lives.

Back to the specific amendments, I would like to cite a few examples. Amendments No. 14 and 15 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen target the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD"). One of the amendments concerns head 76, subhead 000, seeking to cut the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Chief Assessor (Stamp Office) of IRD. I do not know how IRD has offended Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. As far as I know, stamp duty mainly serves as the "curb" measures. Special Stamp Duty, Buyer's Stamp Duty ("BSD"), etc. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6319 are the "curb" measures to combat speculation, hoping to help the public to buy their first properties. Is there anything wrong with this? Deletion of such expenditure and abolition of the "curb" measures will only make property speculators happy, while the "real estate blokes" will be the happiest.

Chairman, when it comes to the point that "real estate blokes" will be the happiest, I am really angry. Now that the House Committee has come to a standstill, I hope the Chairman will really do something to break the standstill of the House Committee, for it has already prevented the implementation of the "Special Rates" on vacant first-hand private residential units ("vacancy tax"), and the "real estate blokes" will be most happy about this. Back then, Mr Dennis KWOK pressed for its implementation in a high profile way. In fact, the Hong Kong Federation for Trade Unions ("FTU") proposed this measure 10 years ago and he has merely put forth such a proposal recently. I wonder why he can ignore the vacancy tax, a measure he desires to implement, for the sake of filibuster in the House Committee now. This is actually doing real estate hegemony a favour. Am I right? Real estate developers are sniggering in a dark corner. Since the vacancy tax cannot be implemented, they may continue to sell their flats in a toothpaste-squeezing manner, raising the flat prices by limiting the number of flats put on sale, and the public cannot but continue to put up with the high property prices. That is the way it is. Hence, many Members of this Council who brandish the banner of justice and public interests are actually helping capitalists and serving the hegemony. The public must see carefully. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment to cut the expenditure of IRD is a case in point.

Second, as a Member of the labour sector, I have to oppose Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment to head 90, subhead 000, seeking to cut the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Assistant Commissioner (Employees' Rights & Benefits) of the Labour Department. What are the job duties of the Assistant Commissioner? He is responsible for formulating, implementing and reviewing policies and strategies on five employees' compensation-related ordinances, overseeing the work of four related statutory boards, monitoring the improvement of work injury protection for employees in high-risk industries, and formulating and reviewing labour inspection policies, and so on. He is also tasked with the supervision and implementation of labour inspection work for labour and immigration laws, and the formulation and review of complaint handling for breaches against labour laws, that is, illegal workers. All the above strategies have to be formulated and executed. He is a 6320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 government official of considerable importance in protecting labour rights and benefits. This is definitely not a political position. Why would Mr CHAN Chi-chuen still propose to cut the expenditure? I do not know. In fact, does it mean that he is just talking the talk but not walking the walk? He says he will strive to expand labour protection to include COVID-19―I am not sure if I am right, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen may respond to this later when he has a chance to do so―we agree with this idea. In fact, the Government has not shut the door immediately and refused to do so. What he is doing now will merely bring the work of the Labour Department on protecting labour rights and benefits and employees' interests to a halt, calling a stop to everything.

In the case of Amendment No. 44 proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to "Head 152―Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)", subhead 000―the Secretary is in the Chamber now―it is seeking to cut the provision of $270 million for reinforcing the attractiveness of Hong Kong as "Events Capital of Asia" and so on. Chairman, the tourism industry has plunged into deep freeze and there is no visitor at all now. When the epidemic ends, a lot of promotion work has to be introduced immediately. I have discussed with the industry and have come up with many ideas, and I will have to discuss these with the Secretary later. I know that due to the epidemic, many plans and all events have been cancelled earlier. Hence, we have to catch up afterwards. The above provision allocated to the organization of activities is extremely important. When we visit foreign countries, we like to enjoy the local culture and arts. Many Hongkongers like to go to Japan to watch parades and festive events with singing and dancing in a lively atmosphere. They find these really enjoyable. In fact, many foreigners are also eager to participate in the festive events in Hong Kong, particularly traditional events with historic and cultural colours of Hong Kong, such as the Tai Hang fire dragon dance in Mid-Autumn Festival, the count-down on New Year's eve and the fascinating Chinese New Year parade, and so on. We aspire to revive the economy. Under the influence of "black violence", many visitors have been driven away and the tourism industry has suffered. How can we rebuild our image as "a city of hospitality"? Apart from eliminating "black violence", we should certainly organize some attractive events with gimmicks to lure visitors to Hong Kong. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, buddy, you are sitting here as if you are sitting tight in a fishing boat, taking "steamed buns dipped in human blood" on the one hand and gaining "political dividend" on the other, so you have no concern about these. Yet, many people in the tourism industry, such as hotel employees, tourist guides and tour escorts, as well as workers in the catering LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6321 industry are working hand to mouth. Will he give tourists another opportunity to come to Hong Kong? If Mr CHAN Chi-chuen does not want to help, never mind. However, he should not rub salt in the wound, depriving them of the chance to work.

As evident by Mr HUI Chi-fung's proposal which targets the Education Bureau and seeks to cut all the estimated expenditure for Mainland exchange programmes, the opposition camp will allow their own brainwashing but not regular teaching. As the saying goes, "travelling brings about far greater benefit than mere book learning", we certainly wish to help students, particularly those from the grass roots, so that they will have the chance to go beyond Hong Kong to observe the development of the country. I think this is a normal practice. I wonder if the opposition camp wants the young people to feel alienated from the country and know nothing about the country forever, so that it can carry out political brainwashing and smearing easily. Ignorance breeds fear and alienation, which fits in perfectly with their political agenda. Many things are obvious to all. Even when they are brandishing banners and chanting noble slogans, they are actually doing these for "mutual destruction". I have been thinking for quite some time about the greatest benefit they can make from doing so. Certainly, they are collaborating with the United States to attack China. Since Hong Kong is an open economy, they use it as a base to undermine and rein in the trend of the peaceful development of the country. On the other hand, in the domestic context, countries like the United States often resort to the "mutual destruction" tactics to push down the domestic market, so that their multinational capital can enter the market to buy all the valuable assets, such as stocks, properties, factories and shopping malls, and so on. When the prices appreciate in future, they will grab the chance to fleece―Mr Christopher CHEUNG may find it familiar upon hearing this―this is a trick in international finance, as a financial war is one of the tactics used in international scuffles.

Hence, members of the public have to be discerning, so that they will not be blinded by their noble slogans. When we examine the amendments closely, we will notice that many of them are really ridiculous, such as the amendment concerning the Director of Fire Services. I find this amendment ridiculous too. The Fire Services Department ("FSD") is responsible for saving lives and putting out fires, so I do not understand in what way the opposition camp find their work offensive. Many fire prevention laws have to be reviewed and enforced rigorously, for fire prevention work is about public safety. Among the many disciplined forces, I do not want to set the order of priority, yet the contact 6322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 between the public and police officers is the most frequent, to be followed by firemen. If no one leads FSD, I cannot imagine what it will be like. As we in the pro-establishment camp are strenuously supporting the legislature and Hong Kong, these amendments definitely will not be passed. Yet, I must read out these ridiculous amendments, so that members of the public and audience in front of the television will know what nonsense amendments the opposition camp has proposed. I think they are somehow under the influence of Trumpism. Donald TRUMP always says nonsense and makes meaningless remarks. Just like his saying that the injection of disinfectant into the body will cure novel coronavirus pneumonia, the opposition camp is also saying that these nonsense amendments will help Hong Kong.

Chairman, this is outrageous. I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now in his 15-minute speech, Mr LUK Chung-hung repeatedly asked the people of Hong Kong to take a closer look. I will only ask Hongkongers to take a closer look at one point. They said that in such a difficult time as now, the Hong Kong Government should provide an unemployment relief fund. However, when the Government launched the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund in the sum of $137.5 billion earlier, we already mentioned that people most in need of assistance at the moment were the unemployed. How could the Government, instead of providing any unemployment relief fund, force them to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance or join the "Love Upgrading Special Scheme" which actually did not provide any courses? We told the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") that it was unreasonable to ask unemployed workers to wait for two or three months and not to provide them with any assistance until the launch of the third or fourth round of the Fund. Eventually, FTU fell in and threw their support behind the proposal obviously biased towards the business sector and company owners. That means the monthly subsidy of $9,000 for six months will all go to the company owners' pockets. This is the point which warrants a closer look. Among them, there are Executive Council Members who have joined the discussion on this proposal, which tilts towards company owners and the business sector, in the Executive Council. We asked them to fight together with the pro-democracy camp for a better proposal for the unemployed. They immediately flinched.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6323

Chairman, just now I also heard Mr CHAN Kin-por especially respond to my two amendments directed at the Secretary General and Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat. He said these two amendments amounted to intimidating colleagues in the Secretariat or the Legal Service Division. I hope that when criticizing me, Mr CHAN Kin-por will carefully look at every piece of fact cited by me. As cited by me earlier, since 2016, there were quite a number of occasions on which Kenneth CHEN and Connie FUNG did not comply with the Rules of Procedure in handling critical issues. They did not notice that the bills submitted to the Legislative Council by the Government were obviously in breach of the Basic Law. They did not note that the Legislative Council is empowered by the law to impose conditions and restrictions on public works and investments, thus arbitrarily depriving Legislative Council Members of their due rights. Each accusation is justified and based on facts. If he accuses me of intimidating the Secretariat, will he please come forward and refute my previous accusations one by one. Do not speak in an exaggerating and vague manner, thinking that it can dismiss my concrete criticisms against the Secretary General and Legal Adviser.

Chairman, where does the problem lie? In my opinion, the problem is that the existing system pretends there is a legislature and there is the rule of law, but in reality, the dictatorial authority of the Communist Party of China ("CPC") is untouchable. Hence, for those colleagues who look neutral and seem to assist in the operation of the system, the higher-ranking they are, the more they will understand that in such a position, they cannot but be controlled by the orders of CPC. The higher the position, the more likely that is the case. What can they do? Since they have already fallen into the net of power, they simply cannot imagine that Hongkongers can in fact find someone to represent their voices, and these representatives can be the majority in the Legislative Council. They find such a possibility unimaginable because CPC does not allow such a possibility to exist. That is why those people like Mr LUK Chung-hung are so afraid now. They often say they are afraid of "mutual destruction" because FTU is most worried that people's voices can be turned into practical deeds. They always carry workers on their lips. Be it in Mainland China, Hong Kong or facing Taiwan people, what does CPC fear most? They fear the people most. Article 2 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China reads, "All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people." But actually, they fear the people most. They keep racking their brains to find ways to get rid of people who raise problems …

6324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please return to the question of this debate.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, the third point to which I would like to respond is the deduction of an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the Secretary for Innovation and Technology in respect of subhead 000 under head 135, which is Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Bureau. In this connection, I cannot but refer to the recent incident of fabric masks. Chairman, according to the news report today, the Permanent Secretary said that there was no transfer of benefits in the Government's selection of Crystal International Group Limited to produce the face masks, but she could not disclose how much was charged by the group out of the $800-odd million. It was a mates' rate anyway. The Government started to work out the project in February and did not distribute the masks until May. Yet surprisingly, it did not conduct any open tender exercise. Even Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, the Legislative Council Member returned by the functional constituency representing the sector, openly remarked that as Hong Kong clearly has the productivity, the production could have been shared by different factories, but now the Government has carried out all the production in Vietnam. Why? This is untenable.

Chairman, I remember that in February, we had another dispute about the quarantine centres, including those in Lei Yue Mun Park and Holiday Village, Sai Kung and Pat Heung. Without directly conducting any open tender exercise, the Government awarded four or five projects to companies which it regarded as capable of providing assistance within a short period. Back then, there was already a controversy. We questioned why the projects which had to be completed in a month were awarded to such companies as China State Construction International Holdings Limited. At least Secretary for Food and Welfare told us at that time that they could indeed deliver the work within a month. On the first and second days of the Lunar New Year, the Bureau requested them to carry out the projects, and they completed the work in 20 or 25 days. At least this reply could stop me from asking any further. However, now the case with this Crystal International Group Limited is different because the epidemic has lasted almost three months. As such, why was there no open invitation of tenders? The Government just "mobilized the troops after the robbers have fled". Now many people have already bought more face masks than they need. It is not until everyone has bought a load of masks that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6325

Government gives away 9 million masks, not to mention that there is only one adult size. My office received one such reusable mask yesterday. After putting it on, I found it too loose and had to tie two knots to tighten it. It also covered half of my face. Chairman, even Dr HO Pak-leung opined that frankly, this mask is so loose that people having symptoms should not wear it. Now members of the public may not be alert on other fronts, but when it comes to face masks, they do have knowledge and know how to wear them. An unsuitable mask is useless. The Government spent several months on preparations, but it turns out that Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, who represents the functional constituency of textiles and garment, can have such big grievances. It is just conceivable how lousy the Innovation and Technology Bureau is. However, the Secretary in charge has already left and been replaced by the new one Mr SIT. I do not know whom we should hold responsible for this case.

Chairman, if we look at the performance of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and places around the world in respect of their tackling of the epidemic in the past few months, we would see the difference. In February, Taiwan already set up an online system urgently and promptly, informing people which places nearby were allotted face masks for sale. Our Government, however, stepped in three months slower. Now no one wants the Government's mask. Although Dr CHENG Chung-tai said yesterday that some 1 million people have registered, I guess that after the masks are delivered to the registrants' homes, frankly, it is unlikely that they will wear them. Many people will just leave the masks at home … It turns out that 2 million people have registered. But still, they should not think they have done a good job and feel happy that there are 2 million registrants. Do those people really think they need this mask now? How badly do they need it? In February, when they were most in need of masks, where on earth was the Government?

Besides, Chairman, I would like to talk about the various amendments proposed in respect of the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF"). I mainly wish to give one example to illustrate that HKPF currently has a problem. That is, starting from when, I am not sure―perhaps it started with Andy TSANG, the Commissioner nicknamed the "Condor". He said the Police had done nothing wrong. I remember that his predecessor TANG King-shing was called "Sorry Sir"―it seems that starting from Andy TSANG, one cannot admit any mistake one has made. This has become an unwritten rule in HKPF and persisted since 2014. Let me cite again the example given by me yesterday―it was not something serious, but I consider it preposterous―in early March, when escorting 6326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 on the highway a vehicle carrying people under compulsory quarantine to a quarantine centre, a traffic policeman took both his hands off the steering wheel, posing like a bird taking off, for four or five seconds. It was recorded on video. Subsequently, his way of riding the motorcycle was criticized as dangerous. Later, at a meeting of the relevant Legislative Council Panel, many Honourable colleagues questioned the Transport Department whether such an act had violated the Road Users' Code or other rules. Of course, the Police came forward to say there was nothing wrong with such an act, though the Road Users' Code explicitly provides that motorcyclists should give arm signals with one hand rather than both. I then kept putting questions to the Police since March. In respect of the gesture of taking both hands off the steering wheel when driving the motorcycle, the Police stated at the meeting that such an act was well-grounded with overseas examples. I asked where the examples came from. After I kept asking for a month or so, in mid-April I received a reply that when the Police went on an exchange visit to Australia in 2013, the Australian Police taught and demonstrated it to them. I then enquired with the Australian Police whether they had taught the Hong Kong Police riding the motorcycle in this way. In the end, the Australian Police replied that they did not do so, adding that the Australian Police would not ride the motorcycle in this way. They could not find any record of having such an exchange with the Hong Kong Police either.

Chairman, a straw shows which way the wind blows. A policeman did something which members of the public and all drivers know is obviously questionable. However, refusing to admit any mistake, the Police kept adopting underhand tactics, covering up one lie with another. Eventually, they were―using a popular phrase on the Mainland―given a big slap in the face by the Australian Police. As we can see, such a minor issue can be handled in this way. No wonder now all the police officers have become like "authorized gangsters" in the 1960s. They consider it right to assault offenders. They find themselves right to impose extrajudicial punishment and abuse all the procedures. Any challenge to them will be regarded as an insult to them. Perhaps one of the important reasons is that in our Legislative Council, so many Honourable colleagues in the pro-Government camp blatantly support them. (The buzzer sounded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking immediately.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6327

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has just now referred to my speech yesterday concerning masks. I originally had no intention to speak on that front, but as there has been more information today on the masks manufactured by the Government, particularly on the place of manufacture of CuMasks, I would like to make my comments. I very much empathize with Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and agree with his speech. Leaving aside the argument over whether mask production can benefit local manufacturers or small and medium enterprises and micro-enterprises, I think that treason was committed when the Government found a Vietnamese manufacturer to make CuMasks. This is a very serious issue. Vietnam is a country that directly competes with , China. Why did the Government find a Vietnamese manufacturer instead of local manufacturers? Was it not trampling on Dongguan? It was certainly politically incorrect to do so, but I will speak no more on this. Treason was committed.

In my ensuing speech, I will respond to the amendments to cut the expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force. I think the Chairman also knows what I want to say. On the Tuesday that has just passed, the Panel on Security held a meeting to discuss the brief report on Hong Kong's law and order situation last year. As Secretary Patrick NIP has changed his job to serve as the Secretary for the Civil Service, I hope he will take note of my speech this time around. The focus of my question targets civil servants, that is, how the Secretary will revamp the civil service, particularly the discipline and conduct of the Police Force.

At the meeting on Tuesday, I put a question to Commissioner of Police Chris TANG. Regarding the report, he explained that there was a drop of over 8% in the overall detection rate in 2019 when compared with 2018. Regarding serious drug offences the Police have been fighting against by way of proactive actions, the Commissioner said that the drop in the number of drug cases in 2019 was attributable to the anti-extradition amendment bill movement last year, as a large number of police officers were deployed to deal with protesters and thus … I will not bother to use my own words, and I will read the text of the report. "Drug offences have been one of the major offences the Police have been fighting against by way of proactive actions. However, since large amount of police resources had been redeployed to the numerous 'anti-extradition amendment bill' related cases and public order events since June 2019, the number of drug cases registered in 2019 might not reflect the actual drug situation of the year."

6328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

I will put aside figures, such as the number of arrestees, provided by the Police. In the Budget, the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") has provided other figures for our reference. According to C&ED, there was a fourfold to fivefold increase in seizures of various drugs in 2019 when compared with 2018. In 2019, 628.9 kg of cocaine were seized, around three times as many as the 253 kg or so in 2018. In 2019, 266 kg of cannabis were seized, nearly twice as many as the 141 kg or so in 2018. In 2019, some 35 600 tablets of ecstasy were seized, around 10 times as many as the 4 500 tablets or so in 2018. In 2019, some 251 kg of ice were seized, an increase of some 100 kg compared with the 147 kg or so in 2018. These are the figures concerning drugs seized by C&ED last year on the sea and at places such as boundary checkpoints.

While other pan-democratic Members focus on police brutality in their speeches, I will instead speak on the discipline and conduct of the Police Force. There was a piece of shocking news today that a station sergeant of the anti-triad unit of the Kowloon West Regional Headquarters was arrested when he was undertaking a sort of a transaction with 2 kg of ice and $100,000 cash in a hotel. Members may have paid no heed to news, but I have put together several pieces of news, so that Members can grasp the circumstances of the case. The Special Duties Team of the Mong Kok Police District was then investigating one man and one woman in two rooms of the Royal Garden Hotel, and 400 g of ice, cocaine and ketamine were found in the rooms. If Members have no ideas about gram and kilogram, let me give an example concerning the amount of ice seized. According to past court judgments, the person concerned may face a sentence of 3 to 7 years in the event of less than 10 g of ice seized, a sentence of 7 to 10 years in the event of 10 g to 70 g seized, a sentence of 10 to 14 years in the event of 70 g to 300 g seized, and a sentence of 18 years in the event of over 600 g seized, which is a serious crime.

As the Police seized 400 g of ice in the rooms yesterday, the person concerned may face a sentence of 14 to 18 years according to past court judgments. When the Special Duties Team was discharging its duties, it discovered an off-duty station sergeant, commonly known as "chick cookie", of the Kowloon West Regional Headquarters carrying 2 kg of ice. One kg equals 1 000 g. Information available to me indicates that if more than 600 g are seized, the person concerned may be sentenced to 18 years or above in prison. When the same team of policemen were discharging their duties, an off-duty station sergeant carrying 2 kg of ice was caught red-handed. Today the Kowloon West Regional Headquarters was turned upside down, as the Narcotics LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6329

Bureau came to the anti-triad unit to thoroughly gather evidence. Someone is suspected of stealing the ice seized in another case in Yau Ma Tei two months ago. Some 300 kg of ice were seized in that case, and some Members are possibly in the dark about this figure. Given 300 kg, how many years in prison will one be sentenced to? It is now said that the station sergeant is related to that case.

Chairman, I have not deviated from the subject. The Police Force I am talking about is the largest force among our disciplinary forces. When I had asked the Commissioner of Police on Tuesday about why the report clearly stated that failure on the part of the Police Force in 2019 to effectively crack down on serious drug offences was due to protesters, he replied that the Police attached a great deal of importance to cases of drug offences and would take the initiative to conduct investigations. That said, what has happened today is indeed a plot that even the writer of the film Young and Dangerous or Cowman may not be able to create, and the comic book series Teddy Boy have actually ended. A station sergeant who had purchased two bottles of soda on the street and was carrying 2 kg of ice in a hotel ran into his colleagues on duty and was caught red-handed. It turns out that two months ago some 300 kg of ice were seized, and someone is now suspected of stealing what was entrusted to his care …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please return to the subject of the debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I have all along been speaking on the subject.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): When you refer to an individual case, please respect the rules of making a speech.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, as you have reminded me that I have spoken enough on this front, I will move on to an even more exhilarating plot.

Who is the Regional Commander of Kowloon West? Does Secretary John LEE know it? Does the Chairman know it? He is Rupert DOVER. No one 6330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 can escape the long arm of the law. Someone has encountered a series of unfortunate events. Rupert DOVER was promoted to the Regional Commander of Kowloon West following the retirement of his predecessor in February. Rupert DOVER is best known for "abhorring evils" in the Police Force. An internal comment on "foreign devil commanders"―I have no intention to use a derogatory term―like him is that they are very careful about cracking down on drugs, particularly triad activities, due to the colonial history. In the past, the Independent Commission Against Corruption was established exactly for addressing , gambling and drug dealing in the Police Force.

The 300 kg of ice referred to today have been the largest quantity of ice seized in a single case over the past 30 years in Hong Kong. Given the discovery of such a big deal in the first quarter of 2020, is Hong Kong actually a drug entrepot? Or did anyone simply take advantage of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") to do a big business deal? Due to the failure to pass the Bill, someone expeditiously sold their stock of ice to the Mainland, and then someone further sold it from the Mainland. What sort of a place is Hong Kong? This is not a gangster's place. This is a remark made by Donald TSANG instead of me.

This case today should have been very shocking, but I fail to understand why reporters have only focused on the place of origin of masks. Is mask-related news that eye-catching? It should have been enough to cover that type of masks shaped like underpants for two days. No one pays attention to the news today concerning Rupert DOVER, the Regional Commander of Kowloon West. Is the station sergeant of the anti-triad unit of that Police Region suspected of stealing what was entrusted to his care or participating in syndicated criminal activities? Or, to a broader extent―this may not be directly under the charge of the Secretary for the Civil Service―has a major reshuffle or sectarian strife in the Police Force enabled the policemen to undermine each other?

Chris TANG appeared and said that he was taken aback. I have really been taken aback, Chairman. I just raised my question on Tuesday. I am not a prophet. Rather, I had read the papers and examined the figures before raising my question. What sort of a place is Hong Kong? The Police have surprisingly said that there was a 50% drop in the number of serious drug cases compared with the previous year. Had the Police not adopted a laisser-faire attitude, would that have been the case? Hong Kong is orderly in its own way, and other places are also orderly in their own ways. These places used to be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6331 unrelated to each other. The common goal of opposing the Bill has enabled various forces to come together. Now problems have emerged. Someone could blatantly carry 2 kg of ice on the street after stealing what was entrusted to his care. Even if I were the writer of Young and Dangerous, I would not have been able to create such a plot. Is there not something wrong with the entire Police Region? Various senior officials, use your brain to make some inferences. How could a station sergeant bypass so many procedures and easily take away and pocket an item before carrying it to a hotel? Do you really treat members of the public as idiots?

Chairman, I am a fair person. I approve of cutting the funding for the Police Force, not because of police brutality, but because of the degeneration of the Police Force, which are involved in prostitution, gambling and drug dealing. I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to talk about Amendment No. 42 concerning "Head 148―Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Financial Services Branch)". It is proposed that head 148 be reduced by $32 million, an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Financial Services Branch) on the provision of subvention for the Financial Services Development Council ("FSDC") in 2020-2021.

Chairman, the Chairman of FSDC briefed the Panel on Financial Affairs this Monday to report on their work in related fields in the previous year. In fact, I have extremely high expectations for the work of FSDC. Yet, I am somewhat disappointed after reviewing the background leading to the establishment of FSDC against its functions and performance nowadays. FSDC was positioned as a high-level and cross-sector advisory body when it was established in 2013. What is an advisory body then? It is an organization through which the Government can gauge views from the industry or the industry can reflect their views to the Government, with the aim of facilitating communication between the two parties.

I also serve as a member of the Trade and Industry Advisory Board ("TIAB") under Secretary YAU's purview. TIAB is solely responsible for consultation without any administrative or policy execution functions, which renders it obviously an advisory structure or body. Coming back to FSDC, the 6332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 problem lies in why it was named the "Financial Services Development Council" when it was established. I have raised a good deal of queries concerning its name back then. As the name of FSDC carries the word "Council" ("局"), will it work side by side with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") like a dual authority system? I had doubt over this back at that time.

This being so, what exactly has FSDC done over these years? FSDC is mainly responsible for conducting researches on some new financial initiatives. I notice that the Policy Research Committee under FSDC has published many reports in the past five years, which were compiled by its members on their own initiative during their spare time. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau or other regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") or HKMA, would follow up the contents of some reports and introduce market reforms accordingly. Yet, a majority of the research reports are actually some sort of "creative writing" of a rather academic nature. It is of course necessary to conduct researches, but if FSDC is merely an advisory body and the findings of the many researches it has conducted will not be materialized, what is the role of FSDC?

It is now 2020 and the structure of FSDC has already changed. In 2018, the Government considered the role of FSDC somewhat embarrassing as it was merely an advisory body instead of a legal person. It is because FSDC has actually organized many events, such as international financial forums, in the past few years. As a result, a change was effected in September 2018 to incorporate FSDC as a company limited by guarantee. Notwithstanding this, FSDC continues to receive subvention from the Government annually despite its new status as an independent legal person, whereas the subvention is of course covered by the head under the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau.

In this connection, I have taken a look at the estimated expenditure of FSDC for this year. Amendment No. 42 proposes that head 148 be reduced by $32 million, an amount equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure of FSDC. That said, the estimated expenditure was about $34 million as submitted by FSDC at the meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs this Monday. So, how will the budget be spent? About $2 million will be spent on research, about $6 million on market promotion, $500,000 on human capital development and about $25 million on staff, accommodation and other administrative costs. The overhead costs are rather high. I think a budget of some $30 million is virtually LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6333 a drop in the bucket when we talk about research or market promotion, not to mention that more than $20 million therein will be used to pay office rent and employees' remuneration. However, if we really have to rely on FSDC to carry out market promotion, I think Secretary YAU should know full well that it often costs $5 million to $6 million or even over $10 million to launch a large-scale international promotional campaign.

Hence, Chairman, I have some mixed feelings when the Government now allocates $6 million to FSDC for market promotion. On the one hand, I find what FSDC has done inadequate and its performance unsatisfactory. Yet, on the other hand, we had better cut down its estimated expenditure in full, as suggested by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, if its positioning is so ambiguous. It is because some of the existing functions of FSDC can readily be taken up by other financial regulators, such as HKMA, SFC or even the Hong Kong Trade Development Council ("TDC"). Otherwise, the Government should simply expand the scale of FSDC, since an estimated expenditure of $34 million or $32 million is indeed neither fish nor fowl, and the only purpose is to keep FSDC alive. Or else, the Government should allocate a funding of $300 million to FSDC directly to turn it into an entity similar to TDC, or they should just let it go. It is because, at present, it appears that the Government allocates $32 million or $34 million to FSDC for the sake of keeping it in existence. This is absolutely undesirable.

Chairman, FSDC actually has a lot to do on areas such as research, market promotion and human capital development, but it has failed to take prompt actions … Certainly, it is possibly due to factors such as the epidemic outbreak that FSDC has not done much. FSDC published six reports last year. In addition, I have been told that since Hong Kong's financial markets are rather mature, what FSDC aspires to do have already been done by somebody else, or FSDC simply cannot think of any new ideas. Having said so, market promotion is another function of FSDC. I participate in the International Finance Forum every year, but FSDC had a low profile at the forum last year. Eventually, the industry―including asset management companies and banks―turned out to be a more active participant in the summit forum.

There is another issue. I remember the then Secretary Prof K C CHAN indicated back at that time that, according to the initial concept, FSDC was an organization composed of the industry to serve as a communication platform, and facilitate the publicity and promotion efforts of the industry. In fact, why is 6334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

FSDC not financed by donations from the industry? For instance, each company in the financial services sector would have to pay several thousand dollars, given the large number of companies in the industry, the sum raised may be sufficient to meet the annual expenditure of some $30 million and support FSDC to become an independent company limited by guarantee. Why do we still need to pay the some $30 million under the head of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau? I do not understand. After all, is FSDC an organization composed of the industry―of course, this is the original intention but FSDC has now become a high-level advisory body―or does the Government intend to turn it into an entity like TDC? Certainly, FSDC is now facing shortages in various aspects such as resources or manpower.

On the front of market promotion, Hong Kong actually does not lag behind others when it comes to financial security, work-from-home arrangements and financial technologies ("Fintech"). Most of the practitioners in the financial services sector worked remotely instead of getting back to office in February, March and April. Yet, insofar as market operation is concerned, whether it is the handling of transactions, provision of consultation services for clients or holding some international conferences, we have used a lot of technologies and applied a great deal of Fintech such as blockchain to get our job perfectly done.

Generally speaking, we may consider that the epidemic in Hong Kong has been partially under control to this date, such that ordinary social activities or commercial activities can start to resume. As a matter of fact, the crisis management of our city is one of the key components of market promotion, whereas the most remarkable and salient selling point in crisis management is our handling of the epidemic. This is what FSDC should promote. Our financial institutions ("FIs"), whether at the quasi-official, regulatory or retail level, have been operating as usual in spite of the epidemic. We do not need to impose a complete lockdown, and we have managed to get through it without a complete lockdown. This exactly makes a selling point.

In contrast, Singapore, our competitor in Asia―I must say that Singapore has mocked Hong Kong in February―I do not intend to belittle any neighbouring regions or countries, but why do we not take this opportunity to examine what we have learnt during the epidemic? Particularly, the ways to stabilize the financial markets. Certainly, all financial markets, be it the bond market, stock market or foreign exchange market, have experienced fluctuations recently, and we are inevitably affected by the world trends. The China-United States trade war, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020 6335

Europe, the United States or other countries have all been greatly affected by the epidemic. As such, why do we not launch marketing campaigns of a larger scale at this juncture?

In addition, I find it rather strange that FSDC has only set aside $500,000 in its budget for human capital development, as the amount is utterly negligible. What exactly have they done on nurturing talents in the previous year? It has been reported that they implemented a programme to assist university graduates to modify their curriculum vitae. I have these questions in mind when I heard of it: What is wrong with them? FSDC assists university students to prepare or improve their curriculum vitae? Is this the function of FSDC? In the light of the poor performance of FSDC on its work relating to market promotion and human capital development, do we really have to reduce its expenditure, or should we overhaul the entire system?

Let me switch to another issue, which is about road shows. Speaking of the development of the financial markets, apart from the often-mentioned Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, etc., actually there is a desperate need for us to approach other countries such as those in the Middle East, Europe or the United States. That said, how can we accomplish this with such a meagre funding?

I have heard the story that the Monetary Authority of Singapore sent a team to approach all FIs in the United Kingdom when it was aware that the United Kingdom was planning for Brexit three years ago. The team invited those FIs to move to Singapore, saying that they could offer assistance and those FIs would remain as a world market player. Yet, I have learnt from an official of the United Kingdom that Hong Kong had made no response. If FSDC just sits back and does nothing at these times, when will it take action?

Chairman, I have mixed feelings towards this amendment. On the one hand, I wish to reduce the expenditure of FSDC, but I also wish to increase its expenditure on the other. Nevertheless, I certainly cannot increase any expenditure. However, the ultimate goal is that FSDC can establish a proper position for itself and practise good corporate governance. It is also hoped that FSDC will draw up and submit a detailed work plan for scrutiny by the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council next year.

6336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 7 May 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members that according to the scheduled arrangements for the debate, this debate session has already been going on for more than 12 hours and there are about seven hours left. Committee will continue with this debate session next week. We will then vote on the amendments seriatim and deal with questions of the sums standing part of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 13 May 2020.

Adjourned accordingly at 6:47 pm.