LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12633

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Friday, 24 June 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12635

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

12636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG NGOK-KIU

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

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

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12637

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

MR JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

12638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now continue to debate the first motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 23 June 2016

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, before I speak on this motion, I wish to talk about the two valiant fire fighters ― a senior station officer and a senior fireman ― who died in the course of fighting the No. 4 Alarm Fire, which broke out four days ago and is still unextinguished. The two fire fighters died when they were trying to save lives and combat the fire, leaving behind their widows and children. It is indeed heartbreaking to hear of this and I am saddened by this incident. I wish to take this opportunity to pay my tribute and deep condolences to these two brave firemen who died in harness.

Before the meeting, I already passed the deep sympathy and profound condolences of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) to the Secretary for Security and Under Secretary who are attending today's meeting, and through the Secretaries, I also expressed our sincere condolences to the families of the two firemen who died in harness. Moreover, through the Secretaries again, I wish to send my best regards and cheers to those brave and courageous fire fighters who are still fighting the fire in the front line. Since fire fighters all face a very dangerous situation when fighting this very rare No. 4 Alarm Fire in the history of Hong Kong, and also since no one lived in the fire scene, I hope the fire fighting team under the helm of the Secretary and Under Secretary will give priority to the personal safety of front-line fire fighters when fighting the fire and considering different ways of rescue and extinguishing the fire. I hope the Secretary, Under Secretary and the senior management of the Fire Services Department will carefully consider all the rescue and fire-fighting methods to be adopted. Anyway, I hope those courageous front-line fire fighters should first consider their personal safety and then adopt feasible methods and ways to fight the fire. Again, on behalf of Legislative Council Members from the FTU, I express the deepest condolences to the two firemen who died in harness. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12639

President, I am going to speak on the debate topic today. I speak in opposition to Mr WONG Yuk-man's proposal on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee to inquire into the Mong Kok riot, which took place in the wee hours of the second day of the Lunar New Year. I think the person who proposes this motion and those who support it will only show the public that no motion in the Legislative Council can possibly be called most absurd, as there are bound to be motions that are even more absurd and outrageous. What is the reason for my criticism?

First, the opposition Member who proposes the motion and those who support it are exactly those who have been advocating, inciting and resorting to violence inside and outside the legislature over the past few years. They are exactly the very ones who have been upsetting the order of the legislature and Hong Kong. Please bear in mind that the Member who proposes the motion and those who support it have all taken the lead in hurling glasses, sweeping things off the benches and snatching microphones inside the legislature over the past few years. They were also those who splashed black ink and physically obstructed the meetings of the Council. They were the very ones who rushed out from their seats to take control of and disturb the meeting venues. They were the very ones who besieged the Legislative Council Complex and turned it into the command headquarters of the unlawful 79-day Occupy movement. They were the very ones who incited the riots, Occupy Central, Occupy Causeway Bay and Occupy Mong Kok. They were the very ones who added fuel to the fire. May I ask whether they had declared their interests and roles before they proposed and pushed for an inquiry by the legislature? If an inquiry is to be conducted by a committee comprising these Members, Hong Kong people must ask whether the inquiry will be independent, fair and impartial. The investigation will surely not be so. What is even more outrageous is that with support from within and outside the legislature, these political parties and the several Members concerned have been engaging in a colour revolution and the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong over the past few years. The Mong Kok riot occurred precisely against this background. For that reason, if we do not describe the motion they propose as absurd and outrageous, what else can we say? This is the first point.

Second, they have never uttered even a single word in their speeches to condemn the culprits, participants and mobs taking part in the Mong Kok riot, let alone any slightest criticism. Nor have they ever paid any slightest tribute, commendation or encouragement to boost the morale of those police officers who 12640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 fearlessly and selflessly upheld the law and social order at the risk of their own lives. Quite the contrary, they have been insulting and smearing such officers with all kinds of vicious language and unfounded accusations. They are unfair to law-enforcement officers, and they show no respect for them at all. They even call them minions. You see, this is how absurd and outrageous the Legislative Council truly is.

President, with regard to Mr WONG Yuk-man, the mover of the motion, I want to quote all the words he has been using to justify, rationalize and glorify the riot and to poison young people. He says the policemen are the minions of the autocratic Government. He says the Government's stopping of the riot was in fact the suppression of a rebellion. He says the riot was a symbol of valour against violence. He says that those young people only wanted to save our society from imminent collapse. He depicts those young men as valiant. He describes the police sieges of the occupied venues as a form of blue-ribbon violence. He beats the drum to cheer young people on, to encourage their ideas of self-determination and autonomy. How can he use all such words and expressions, which totally ruin all moral standards? His words will poison young people's minds. President, his words are utterly shameful and shameless.

As a Chinese saying goes, the sly one only eggs the stupid one on. The most deplorable thing is that the ones who deserve criticism most are those masterminds behind the scene, not those impetuous youths. The ones who deserve condemnation most are those devils who incite and egg other people on. However, some Members simply sing praises of these devils and glorify such illegal acts of rioting here. These Members even try to revive the spectre of those people here, forcing the Legislative Council to spend its most valuable and limited time on debating this motion, so as to secure voting support for themselves from the most radical electors in the Legislative Council election to be held in September this year. Their intention is just all too obvious.

President, Mr WONG Yuk-man says that "Hong Kong independence" is beginning to take shape as an ideology. He talks as if this ideology is perfectly legitimate and natural. In fact, their sinister motive can be revealed in just one word. I was the first one to point that out as early as 2013 in a meeting of the Legislative Council. I said that the spectre of "Hong Kong independence" was haunting Hong Kong. By now, this spectre has transformed itself into a demon that keeps making trouble and doing evil deeds before our very eyes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12641

As I only have 15 seconds left, let me take this opportunity to pay my tribute again to those brave police officers who upheld the law in the wee hours on the second day of the Lunar New Year.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): On behalf of all pan-democratic camp Members, I hereby extend our condolences to the families of the fire fighters who died in harness. I also pay our tribute to the fire fighters and ambulance personnel who have served Hong Kong people at the fire scene for three days so far, and also to the entire ambulance rescue team of the Fire Services Department, who may have been deployed on standby duty at this moment. We thank them all for their service to the people of Hong Kong.

President, the hawker incident in Mong Kok that occurred at night on the first day of the Lunar New Year was just like a fuse that detonated the most serious clash between the Police and the public since 1967. The sight of the clash at that time was heartbreaking, and we all wondered why Hong Kong people had become so angry and discontented that they even resorted to a street clash. However, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying did not even bother to look into the underlying causes. On the next day of the clash, he hastened to label the incident as a riot and the protesters rioters.

In fact, if the Government really considers the incident so very serious, he should appoint an independent commission of inquiry chaired by a judge for the purpose of investigating the course of the whole incident, whether there were any strategic and response blunders on the part of the Police that night, and also the immediate and remote causes of the incident. The inquiry should also delve into the deep-rooted conflicts in society and examine why the hawker policy had become the fuse that denoted the clash, the causes of such strong grievances, how the political ecology of Hong Kong can be changed in order to resolve these conflicts, and who have caused the chaotic situation in Hong Kong nowadays.

The Labour Party has issued a statement in which we point out that the administration led by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is adversarial in its approach, thus causing widespread public grievances. He is bellicose and loves to antagonize the people. But we also point out that the Labour Party insists on peaceful protests because violence will only breed greater violence. We also uphold freedom of the press and news coverage and also people's right to know. We maintain that under no circumstances should anyone assault any media workers. We believe that the dilemma must be tackled at source. 12642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

President, many people criticize the Labour Party for not using the word "condemnation". We do not use this word because we believe that people's grievances and discontent cannot possibly be suppressed, or blocked and concealed. The only solution is to address and redress the problem at source, at the level of ruling policies. Even in South Africa, where apartheid was practised for so many years and so many people were persecuted and killed, no government officials who tortured and killed black people in the past were prosecuted after Nelson MANDELA came to power. He did not adopt the revenge approach. He only set up local peace committees and required former persecutors to meet with their victims in person to account for their own deeds. They were allowed to apologize to the victims, to show repentance and to ask for forgiveness. The system of local peace committees was not even part of the judicial process of prosecution. There was no penalty, and in this way, the people of South Africa managed to discard their grievances and resentment peacefully.

In contrast, the Hong Kong SAR Government simply hastened to purchase a few more water cannon vehicles on top of the sound cannons already purchased. President, in order to maintain social order, we must understandably give appropriate equipment to law-enforcement personnel, but apart from this, we must most importantly seek to address problems at source. And, no armed forces can possibly achieve this goal. What is required is a serious government attempt to address problems from people's perspectives.

For that reason, we propose the establishment of a select committee. We know that the debate on this motion is just a mere ritual because first, we are sure that the motion cannot be passed; second, even if it is passed, there will not be enough time to set up the committee. Nevertheless, Members should still speak up and express their views. It is because we believe that speeches and public opinions do carry weight. Even though the Secretary and pro-establishment Members before us today are just like a high wall, we still believe that by speaking up, we can set out the story behind the whole incident, bringing home to Hong Kong people the power of peace. We believe that the conflict can be solved one day.

Since yesterday, pro-establishment Members have been saying that the live broadcast of how Members behave rudely in defiance of the Rules of Procedure has set a bad example for young people, inducing them to resort to violence. Honourable Members, you must realize that people in this world are all capable of distinguishing right and wrong. To begin with, the democratic camp is just LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12643 the minority in the legislature. If pro-establishment Members really think that opinions can influence society, then there is all the more reason for them to speak up as much and as hard as they can. They should speak on every occasion and make use of this platform to influence our society. If they do not use this platform as a means of voicing their opinions, they will fail in their duty. Actually, all people, young or old and regardless of age, are capable of telling right from wrong. Do not think that they will buy whatever you say. They all have their own judgment.

But how can people choose between what pro-establishment Members say and what democratic Members say? This actually depends on who can show people that they are in the right. Therefore, once people can tell who are in the right, they will know what stances they should take. However, we must also advise Hong Kong people that they must not allow anger to overwhelm themselves after choosing their stances, nor should they allow anger to blind their judgment on what actions they should take. It is because the use of violence, by either Hong Kong people or the Police Force, will only result in the escalation and increase of violence itself. And, what is the greatest form of violence? It is systemic violence, which is used by the Government and fostered by the pro-establishment camp.

We can see that those "white elephant" projects each costing hundreds of billions or even those projects detrimental to "one country, two systems" all managed to get funding very easily here. It is even easier than drawing money from cash dispensers. Even in the case of drawing money from cash dispensers, one must still commit the password to memory and key it in. But no password is required here. Once you press the button quickly, you can get the money. But on the other hand, universal retirement protection is nowhere in sight. The Government is not doing what it should do, but projects with no public support can all be passed here very easily with the help of the pro-establishment camp. Members of the public are of course enraged by this kind of systemic violence. Unfortunately, the Police Force is thus victimized and pushed to the battlefield.

One inquiry direction we propose this time around is the professionalism of the police tactics that night. Did any decisions cause the actions of the Police Force or individual officers to arouse any unnecessary emotive responses? Why were a small number of police officers left alone perilously in the front line? All these should be the directions of the inquiry. Another area that we should look into is the question of who should be prosecuted. We can see that some of the 12644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 prosecutions have been withdrawn and a few individuals have been acquitted by court. They were even awarded the litigation costs.

Yesterday, some pro-establishment Members said that barristers from the democratic camp even went so far as to offer assistance to those people. I would say that if the barristers concerned had not provided any assistance, all those people would have been deprived of adequate legal representation. In that case, the 10-odd acquittals by court would have become cases of miscarriage of justice. Am I correct? We all stress the rule of law, but one element of the rule of law is the entitlement to a fair trial regardless of the crimes committed. A fair trial in turn implies the entitlement to legal assistance and representation, so as to protect the rights of the accused in the very complicated judicial process. However, pro-establishment Members simply turn a blind eye to this element in the spirit of the rule of law.

President, the Labour Party reiterates that we are against violence. We do not support the idea of violence for violence, and we do not support the idea of using violence to suppress violence. We oppose the use of violence by the Police as a means of suppression. We also think that no protesters should allow their rage to overwhelm themselves and cause injuries to innocent journalists and passers-by. It is because the use of violence by one side will only be reciprocated by escalated violence from the other side. Today, we still believe that the power of peace can draw the support of the general public without making them apprehensive of public assemblies and driving away those people who aspire to social changes and improvement.

People's apprehension of public assemblies has honestly affected the participation of civil society to a certain extent. We could see that the number of people gathering outside the Legislative Council during the Second Reading debate of the copyright bill was only 200 to 300, which was far less than that during the anti-national education campaign. It has made political parties inside the legislature and enthusiasts in civil society who are concerned about the matter feel like they are just fighting the battle alone.

In the long run, the occurrence of conflicts in public assemblies will not be conducive to the pooling of peaceful forces and the achievement of social progress. I also want to point out that campaign organizers who are answerable to the public should consider the safety of participants in their assembly venues. They must also explain clearly to participants the possible legal liabilities that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12645 they need to bear, so that the latter can make a sensible decision on whether they are to engage in any civil disobedience. This is what campaign organizers should do. This explains why Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan can command greater public trust because they always consider the personal safety of participants. They will not just leave after some incidents have happened. They will conduct on-site monitor until the whole procession is completed. They will stay behind to take care of inexperienced people who do not know how to face the Police. They will always stay behind to see the peaceful completion of the entire public assembly.

President, the root of all trouble is systemic violence, which is used by the Government and fostered by the pro-establishment camp. Nevertheless, all advocacies aside ― "Hong Kong independence", self-determination, self-strengthening, autonomy or even "one country, two systems" ― we hope the people of Hong Kong can believe in the power of peace. We should not be gnawed away by anger. We should not allow anger to transform us into the very people that even we ourselves find unacceptable. We should not be driven by anger and should not resort to violence like all those perpetrators of violence.

Thank you, President.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, my speech is about Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion that this Council appoints a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the pubic in Mong Kok.

President, an idiomatic expression in English reads, "There's no smoke without fire". President, many people may misinterpret this expression. In fact, it means that when a person says something bad or harsh about another person, others will always think that there must be a reason for such bad or harsh words, though they may not necessarily know the truth or otherwise of these words.

On the other hand, Chairman MAO once said that three feet of ice does not result from just one day of cold weather. He also said that there is no such thing as love without a reason and hatred without a cause. These three sayings all mean to point out that everything happens for a reason. The first saying can aptly describe many people's perception of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. Yes, about smoke and fire, President, please allow me to stray from the topic a 12646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 bit. This saying reminds me of the No. 4 Alarm Fire at Kowloon Bay today, or over the past few days in fact. And, on behalf of Members from The Professional Commons, I must pay the highest tribute to the two fire fighters who died in harness. I also hope that the fire can be put out as soon as possible and all fire-fighting and rescue personnel at the scene, including firemen, policemen and ambulance crews, can return home safely.

The three proverbs actually mean that everything happens for a reason and nothing happens without a cause. What is the connection between the No. 4 Alarm Fire at Kowloon Bay I mentioned just now and the clashes between the Police and people in Mong Kok? What do they share in common? President, I can see four points. To begin with, both incidents are of great concern to people. Both make people very sad. Both endanger the lives and safety of some people or public officers. Both may either be accidental or premeditated in nature. The fire has of course been covered by the media, and I am not going to talk about it in detail as I do not have much information. However, I heard from the media yesterday … Naturally, I hope that after putting out the fire, the department concerned can conduct a thorough review of the overall rescue operation and procedures and even the equipment or policy of the whole department. I have also heard officials of the Fire Services Department say that after this fire, the department may conduct a full-scale inspection of the fire services equipment at factory buildings aged over 50 years and without sprinkler systems, and legislative amendments may be introduced to regulate factory buildings or mini warehouses.

Similarly, must also find out the deep-rooted causes of the violent clashes between the Police and the public in Mong Kok. There must be both immediate and remote causes, so we cannot blindly say that the incident was caused by just a handful of trouble-makers, and that we can put an end to the whole thing simply by arresting, imprisoning and sentencing them. I can still recall that after the occupation movement, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying told the media and even the Legislative Council that the movement must have been instigated by foreign forces. Was this true? It has been almost two years since the end of the movement. Has Mr LEUNG Chun-ying come up with any finding and conclusive evidence that can tell us which country was responsible for the movement? Admittedly, there may be more than one reason, or even an intricacy of reasons, for the occurrence of one single incident. But it is exactly because of this that we must identify the crux of the problem and then administer the right remedy. I certainly agree to the proposal of appointing a completely independent select committee chaired by a judge to engage experts from different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12647 fields to gather and study the evidence. These experts can be sociologists, youth affairs experts, or even security experts and economists. However, as the Government has already stated that it will not do so, I would think that a more satisfactory alternative is to … Well, then, I must say I agree with Ms Cyd HO that the debate on this motion is just a mere ritual because it will definitely not be passed. Moreover, the Council simply does not have enough time to appoint a select committee within just three weeks.

However, as a matter of principle, I must support Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion, because the Government has already stated that a review committee established by the Police to investigate the clashes between the Police and the people in Mong Kok should suffice, so an independent inquiry committee is not necessary. But what is the purview of the police inquiry? Will it focus only on the police tactics of law enforcement, the intelligence system and equipment? What is the relevance of such an investigation and its findings to the deep-rooted social causes of the incident?

President, speaking of deep-rooted causes, I must say there are just several categories, and the occurrence of this incident was of course due to both immediate and underlying causes. The triggering point of this incident, or the fuse, might well be a clash arising from hawking, but this was not and could not have been the underlying cause or deep-rooted cause of the violent clashes. True, they were discontented and resentful, and these events will just reappear every now and then if the discontent and dissatisfaction cannot be alleviated or redressed properly.

Many people argue that this incident involved certain contradictions. President, by the way, you once took part in a television programme featuring the contradictions between the participants. What kind of contradictions had led to this? Though I cannot list them out one by one, but they are always the same few kinds of contradictions. Some said it is about class conflict, that is, the conflicts between the rich and the poor; it can be generation conflict, that is, the dissatisfaction among the older generation over the actions and the values of the younger generation; it can probably be the conflict of ideologies. What is the conflict of ideologies? It may cover the Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts mentioned all these years, the difference between our cultures, systems and our practices, as well as different views on certain issues related to core values, freedom and incorruptibility; it can also be internal conflicts between the people. Was it because someone had escalated the conflicts? The escalation then resulted in these violence.

12648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

President, these are all my own guesses, and none of them is confirmed or agreed to. We cannot simply ascribe one or a few reasons to the clashes. Therefore, it is the right way to … President, as I have said just now, the Government should appoint a completely independent committee to inquiry into the matters. That said, the second best choice, which is the only choice available before us, is to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council in accordance with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. But it is an option impossible.

Thank you, President. With these remarks, I support Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I believe that like Members of this Council, many members of the public grieve over the loss of life of another fireman reported yesterday. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong would like to pay tribute to the fire fighting heroes deceased, pray for the injured fire fighters and give encouragement to the heroes in the front line. I call on Legislative Council Members to put aside their divisions and groupings for the time being, let us collectively support the work of our fire fighters.

President, I am of the view that the riots broke out on the Lunar New Year's day in Mong Kok are a planned political movement. Hence I oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

Why did I call it a planned movement? The incident was kicked off by some localists who said they visited Mong Kok that day just for buying a skewer of fish balls. I believe Hong Kong people would not believe in such lie. Let us recapitulate what had happened on the day of the incident. That afternoon, various localists and members of the community posted messages on the Internet and social networks calling on people to meet up in Mong Kok at 9 pm to defend the night market. In the daytime, some people even put up notices in the streets summoning people to gather in the segment of Portland Street outside Langham Place for a "valorous fight to defend the night market in Mong Kok ― a part of our local culture". Some even said they wanted to give the Police a Lunar New Year surprise that night.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12649

Starting from 9 pm that night, a group of unlicensed hawkers returned to the main street to do their hawking business. They were accompanied by 10-odd persons, including some localists, all wearing black masks. At 10 pm or so, the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) arrived at the site to take enforcement actions. At first the FEHD staff tried to persuade the unlicensed hawkers to leave the site, but they were scolded by the localists and some people even shouted at them in foul language. Subsequently, someone tried to run a wooden cart carrying boiling oil and cooking stove into the FEHD staff. The helpless FEHD staff had no choice but to call the Police for help. It was until then that the Police interfere into the matter. In fact, it was already known in the daytime that some people wanted to mess with the Police on Lunar New Year's day, so how could it be unplanned? They made such a mess on the Lunar New Year's day which was supposed to be a time for joyful celebration.

Ms Claudia MO did not think the movement was a planned one. If they still speak against their conscience and insisted that the movement was unplanned, perhaps Hong Kong people may need to bring along some "weapons" when they go to buy fish balls in the streets. Why did I say so? The picture is very clear now. Around midnight before 1 am, some tools were unloaded from a van parked in a side street. In addition to some flags and banners, there were also a pile of protective devices and hand-made shields. President, it certainly takes time to make those devices, they were not simple devices made of paper. Hence it was obviously a planned political movement, a conspiracy to overturn the Government.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG said a very good point yesterday. She said, those who came out to defend the rioters have displeased many residents who were enraged by the riots. I very much agree to her point. Many residents want to have social stability, they strongly disapprove of these people messing up the stability of Hong Kong.

Yesterday a Member said the riots this time were not as chaotic as the riots in 1967. As Members are aware, the riots in 1967 were caused by the exploitation of workers, whereas the riots broke out early this year were caused by fishballs. What consequences did the 1967 riots bring? I had no idea myself as I was still a kid then. As I learnt from the older generation, after the 1967 riots, the British Hong Kong Government had substantially revised the legislation on employment, enhanced the protection for workers and improved district administration. My father told me that he needed to work seven days a 12650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 week before the 1967 riots. After the riots, the Government set up the system of District Office in 1968 and significantly reformed the education, healthcare, anti-corruption work and housing of Hong Kong in steps. Moreover, the Government launched the first Festival of Hong Kong in 1969 to provide more cultural activities and entertainment to the people. But what is the picture now in Mong Kok after the riots? The busy shopping zones are deadly quiet, the retailers are immensely affected. What's more, "Mong Kok" has become internationally "famous" because of this incident.

What on earth had happened that day in Mong Kok? In my view, neither the pro-establishment Members' comments nor the Government's conclusion is important, what only matters is the people's response to the incident. The public opinion survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that 70% of the interviewees opined that protestors should use peaceful, rational and non-violent means to express their calls; and 64% of the opinions was against forcing the Government to respond to the calls of the individual by using radical means. I urge the Members of the opposition camp to have a clear idea of how the majority of people think of the Mong Kok riots. If these Members insist their presumption and analyse the incident with political purposes, it would be futile to set up any select committee as it would only provide the occasion for them to talk nonsense, defend the offenders and justify their arguments by all means. But by doing so they would push a group of youngsters onto the road of no return. I implore Members not to be manipulated by the radical camp and forget their well intention.

Lastly, as Senior Counsel Ronny TONG said, some dares not to follow their conscience and speak the truth, and lead the people to walk on the right path, rather, they just drift along with public opinions. In that sense, I would say these people are only Members in title, but not genuinely striving for democracy.

As Members are aware, the highly respectable Mr Jimmy LAI indicated his retirement in the near future in an article he wrote for a magazine under his publishing group. He said he finally woke up, he has over-estimated himself, and that is a disaster. I therefore would like to remind the arrogant and ambitious Members of the opposition camp present today to be humbler, work hard for the well-being of the public at large and the future of Hong Kong, and do not intensify the conflicts and divisions in the community. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12651

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak to oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion. President, I have been listening to Members' speeches so far. The pan-democratic Members support Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion mainly for two reasons: Firstly, they would like to take this opportunity to criticize the police's handling of the Mong Kok riots; secondly, they said the riots were caused by the poor administration of the Government. I would like to briefly respond to these two points.

First of all, I find it hard to understand why the pan-democratic Members are still eager to find excuses for the rioters of the Mong Kok riots and put the blame on the administration of the Government. As Chief Secretary LAM once said, the administration of the Government is not perfect, but it is not a reason for riots. Not long after the commencement of this debate, a pan-democratic Member criticized the police for unscrupulous shooting in the Mong Kok riots, and said it is necessary to conduct investigation into the incident. Under the circumstance that we saw on television, I believe any sensible person would agree that a police officer shooting into the sky in order to protect a colleague under attack is a reasonable and spontaneous act.

Our pan-democratic colleagues probably have detached themselves from the community for a long time. I advise them to go outside and talk with the residents and parents of the constituency they represent, see how many of them would approve of the rioters' attack on our police officers. If they dare ask this question, they would get an unambiguous message from the public at large ― the rioters' attack on the police officers is unacceptable. Today's social division in Hong Kong and the Mong Kok riots are actually caused by the pan-democratic Members, who have been demonizing our dutiful police officers and stirring up hatred for the police among our young people in these few years.

Secondly, the pan-democratic Members justify the Mong Kok riots by putting the blame on the Government's administration problems. President, all the meetings, small and large, conducted in the Legislative Council every day, be it the meetings of the Council or various panels and subcommittees, aims to discuss administrative issues. All the bills and policies deliberated by us concern administration. If their justification that a select committee should be set up as the incident of Mong Kok concerns administration is acceptable, would it mean a select committee should be established every other day to handle various policy and law related issues? Some colleagues had filibustered in this Council time and again, does it mean we have to set up a select committee to look 12652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 into the cause of these filibusters? I recall that during the Occupy Central movement, a colleague of the pro-establishment camp once proposed to appoint a select committee to inquire into the Occupy Central movement, the pan-democratic Members however objected the idea. But today, they eloquently call for appointing a select committee to inquire into the Mong Kok riots. If the relevant motion is passed, I think it is only logical that a select committee is also set up in parallel to investigate the Occupy Central movement.

I can hardly understand the so-called logics and justifications elaborated by the pan-democratic colleagues today. They accused the pro-establishment Members for speaking against their conscience, but this is actually what the pan-democrats are doing. If we only inquire into the Mong Kok riots but not the Occupy Central movement, how can we give an account of such illogical arrangement to the public? This is self-contradictory. President, I do not want to speak too much on this illogical motion. While the work of the Council is frequently impeded by the filibusters, I am glad that our enforcement departments still do their best to reinforce the rule of law of Hong Kong. I would like to pay tribute and express gratitude to all our fire fighters, who have protected the people with their lives.

Hong Kong is a liberal and receptive society for all voices, different views and even fallacious arguments. But we will not tolerate naked bloodshed and violence. I agree that the Government may not handle everything perfectly, yet this is not a reason for street violence. Hence I find the pan-democratic Members' arguments of today highly misleading and dangerous. I hope they would not take side with the rioters just because of their dislike for the SAR government.

President, I so submit.

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

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): At the beginning of my speech, I have to pay tribute to our brave fire fighters and express my deepest condolence to the firemen deceased. Earlier today, a Member said the SAR government is only eager to procure water cannon vehicles. But in this year's budget debate, we noticed that certain pan-democratic Members proposed amendments seeking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12653 to cut the expenditure of the Fire Services Department. Actually we should review whether to improve the fire fighting equipment in the light of the fire at the industrial building in Kwun Tong. Hong Kong people should be smart to understand the real purposes of those Members.

Returning to the subject of this debate ― the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) by Mr WONG Yuk-man to appoint a select committee to inquire into the Mong Kok incident occurred on Lunar New Year this year. The riots in Mong Kok were triggered by the actions taken by the officers of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) to arrest and disperse the hawkers. But may I ask those Members, no matter in the television news of the news photos, did they ever really see the FEHD officers arrest or disperse any hawker? At that time the FEHD officers were only maintaining order.

Everyone knows that the Langham Place and its surroundings is a very busy area always packed with pedestrians and traffic. It is also a spot where cooked food hawkers and their cooking stoves, boiling oil, and so on, are usually found. In case of the occurrence of accident, or some people are injured, I am afraid the Government would absolutely be blamed. The messages on the Internet and various signs observed during the day of the incident show that the Mong Kok incident was meticulously planned and designed in advance. The whole thing started off exactly at the planned time, the people moved in on time and gathered quickly, and the devices, including loudspeakers and "V for Vendetta" masks, were well ready for use. Some said there was no commander. From what we saw on the television, a man surnamed WONG was standing on the roof of a vehicle with a loudspeaker in his hand. "Move!" He shouted like a commander on the battlefield. If he was not playing the role of commander, what was he doing then?

President, I respect democracy, but democracy is different from anarchy. Why do we want to have democracy? Democracy is a means for achieving better and greater unity and harmony. I always have a feeling that the fight for democracy they said has antagonized the people and the Government rather than achieving unity and harmony. I believe in freedom, but freedom is not everything and there is no absolute freedom. They want freedom, but have they ever considered other people's freedom?

12654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Yesterday Mr WONG Yuk-man spoke eloquently. He reminded me of the instigating and brain washing speeches given by the leader of Nazi Germany. Mr WONG Yuk-man not only gives this kind of speeches in this Council, some videos on the Internet show that he also preached these specious and distorted arguments to the students, including primary students, in schools. Earlier today, a number of colleagues cited a few examples out of all the countless distorted arguments he has made. I respect his advocacy of anti-China and anti-Communism. But could these Members have some pity on the parents of these young people? They are ruining the life of these children by soliciting them to commit offence. For God's sake, please spare these children.

Mr WONG Yuk-man always incites others to make troubles. But when things run out of control, he would usually hide up and say something like "the crowd is not guilty", implying that if a big crowd of people is involved, the enforcement authority can hardly impose charges on them. He even called on the pan-democratic Members to take to the streets in the Council. Just now a Member said "the smart one gives instruction for the stupid one to take action". You guys should not be the "stupid one" again.

This small group of people causing the disruption all wore masks as if they were ashamed for what they were doing. They all wore "V for Vendetta" masks, which would make them feel safer. From the clashes outside the Legislative Council Complex, Occupy Central movement to the riots in Mong Kok, as well as the clashes at the meeting of the university board, all the protesters covered their faces with masks in order not to expose their identity when they were causing chaos in the community. A small group of persons is actually assisting other countries, particularly the United States, to reinforce dominance in the region. The unlawful and disruptive activities organized by them in Hong Kong serve as a small part of certain foreign power's sabotage against China. What advantage will these people get for doing all these?

Here I am obliged to mention the impact of the chaos on the economy of Hong Kong. Needless to say, the businesses in Central and Western district are still suffering from the fallout of the Occupy Central movement; and the shops and retailers in Mong Kok have not yet recovered from the loss and damages caused by the Mong Kok riots. The tourism sector is even worse. Not only the number of Mainland tourists coming to Hong Kong has dropped, tourists from all over the world also avoid visiting Hong Kong as a result of the chaos caused by these trouble makers. I suspect that these people have their secret source of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12655 finance, as obviously they do not need to earn their living. However, for the general wage earners, how can they earn their living if the economic environment is poor? You guys really should stop make further troubles.

In respect to the Lunar New Year riots in Mong Kok, some of the Members of the democratic camp were more rational and sensible. They had their stances and attitudes. Moreover, they had drawn the line between them and the rioters soon after the incident. But I find it weird that now they sound rather supportive in respect of this motion moved by WONG Yuk-man. I think they should stick to their stances instead of swaying frequently as members of the public are watching us.

Yesterday, Mr WONG Yuk-man repeatedly emphasized localism in his speech, but he was calling for "Hong Kong independence" in real. May I ask the pan-democratic Members present today, do they have the guts to support these remarks he made yesterday?

I hope Members can vote against the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man today. Thank you, President.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, to begin with, I wish to express my profound respect for the two firemen who died in harness. I also wish to send my regards to all those front-line firemen who are now exerting themselves to put out the fire and also to our journalists.

The fire this time around is very severe. I believe it has caused everybody to heave a sigh with mixed feelings. Today, I received a short message from a teacher. He told me that they were preparing for a memorial service at their school. I wish to take this opportunity to make an appeal to school teachers and principals. They may make some preparations during this weekend and lead their distressed students to express their grief by observing a moment of silence or writing sympathy cards or letters during their weekly or class assembly next Monday or on other occasions. They may also disseminate the message of cherishing life and the living ones.

President, the fire this time around has given rise to many questions, doubts and queries among people in the community. I think the public share the same distress over the fire this time around. On the other hand, the public is now 12656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 contemplating various issues, including the cause of the fire, the fire-fighting strategy, the reason for its development into the present state, and also the regulation of mini-storages and old industrial buildings. In my view, this is only normal. Now, a major incident has occurred and given rise to many queries among people. At this moment, we want to do a few things: first, finding out the facts; second, finding out the cause; third, identifying the way forward. We all want to accomplish these three tasks. Therefore, when the Fire Services Department (FSD) said that a special task force would be set up to examine these matters, people naturally considered it to be a reasonable course of action. Apart from mourning the deceased, we should also squarely address and examine these matters with a positive attitude and then seek to resolve them. I think that even if the FSD refuses to set up any special task force, senior government officials, including the Bureau Directors who are present here, will also instruct the relevant departments to conduct an inquiry. If senior government officials refuse to do so, the Legislative Council should take up this task. We should urge the Government to set up a commission of inquiry. If the Government refuses to do so, the Legislative Council should initiate an inquiry. These matters have already been examined in various forms of social discussion. Whether speaking of social discussions, the Government's internal investigation or the Legislative Council inquiry, they are all aimed to find out the facts, the cause and a coping strategy.

President, the fire I have talked about today and the Mong Kok incident now under discussion are actually the same in nature. Do Members agree that the Mong Kok incident is a significant matter? I think Members will agree that it is. Do Members think that the Mong Kok incident happened out of our expectation? The development of the fire into the present state is out of our expectation, and this is likewise the case with the Mong Kok incident. Precisely because it is out of our expectation and also it is a significant matter, an investigation is necessary.

Now, let us consider the question of whether the Mong Kok incident is a matter of our concern. Why would a hawker dispute turn into a serious physical confrontation between the Police and the public? Why could we even see the use of different forms of violence, such as the hurling of bricks? Having seen all this, we cannot but ask why something like this could happen in the Hong Kong with which we are familiar. Don't you agree that this is already a sufficient ground for an in-depth inquiry? An in-depth inquiry is actually best conducted by a commission of inquiry appointed by the Government. This commission of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12657 inquiry should be given the statutory power to summon witnesses, as in the case of Court trials. I believe the best solution to the whole matter is the conduct of inquiry by the commission of inquiry under the leadership of a judge. For this reason, we have urged the Government in this Chamber to assume this responsibility over the past few months. Should the Chief Executive take the initiative to set up a commission of inquiry? Sadly, soon after the incident, the Chief Executive hastened to turn down the need of setting up a commission of inquiry, with the result that we have been unable to properly examine the whole matter. Consequently, in the discussion at the Council meeting this time around, everybody attempts to explain this matter with theories founded on their own views and boundless imagination and simply adheres to their own subjective views on this matter. May I ask Members whether their views are supported by any clear and objective facts?

Some say that the Mong Kok incident was a machinated conspiracy with leadership. It sounds true. But is it really the truth? We honestly need to find out the truth. Some belonging to other factions assert that the Mong Kok incident was a spontaneous movement. But is this the truth? Should an inquiry be conducted? Everybody merely adheres to their own assertion that this serious incident has produced far-reaching impact on Hong Kong and refuses to conduct an inquiry. Is this something that a responsible government and legislature should do? Why should we refuse to squarely address the problem and find out the facts? Finding out the facts should be the first step.

We actually want to clarify the many doubts looming over this entire Mong Kok incident. We mainly want to find out why an initial hawker management dispute would escalate to such a serious clash between the Police and public. Was the Mong Kok incident really a machinated conspiracy with leadership as asserted by some Members? Or, was it purely a spontaneous movement? Some criticize the Police for their poor action plan. But was this really the case? Who took the first strike ― police officers or the masses assembling there ― thus causing the clash? Why did the incident intensify? Was it due to the action of one group of people or the actions of different people?

Apart from ascertaining the facts on the surface layer, the most important thing is to get down to the crux of the matter. What were the social conditions which enabled the intensification of the matter? Was the clash between the Police and the public an accumulated result of persistent public distrust of the Police? Was the incident caused by certain advocacies in society (such as 12658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 localism and Hong Kong independence)? In the process, who among the young people were the most radical? In the process, who took action, appropriate or otherwise, thus triggering strong reactions from others? How did reporting or information dissemination through the Internet or the media affect the course of the incident?

Actually, if the Government agrees to set up a commission of inquiry, we can find out the facts of the incident in a way similar to peeling off an onion layer by layer, and solve the problem. As some Members said just now, we were able to find new ways to deal with our social problems in the past precisely because we were willing to address our problems. Some examples are the 1967 Riots and also the Lamma maritime disaster. Precisely due to the subsequent inquiries, we succeeded in urging the relevant government departments to do better and enabling everybody to gain a thorough understanding of our social problems and in turn find out ways to cope. That way, society can move forward. If we refuse to address the problems, society can never move forward.

President, I myself was involved in some incidents before. Speaking of the controversy involving the then Hong Kong Institute of Education in 2007, the Legislative Council held a debate on whether it should conduct an inquiry at the time. Later on, the Government was faster than us, in the sense that the then Chief Executive Donald TSANG set up a Commission of Inquiry and appointed a judge as its Chairman to conduct an inquiry. So, the Legislative Council did not conduct any inquiry. Actually, I think this matter was very important. I firmly believe that if the Legislative Council did not hold any discussion on this matter or make any preparations for the possibility of an inquiry, and if the Government did not set up any commission of inquiry, the controversy would come to an end without any positive outcomes, thus making it impossible for the community to learn a lesson and for justice to manifest itself.

My personal experience has made me realize that to both the Government and the Legislative Council, the full and appropriate exercise of the power to conduct inquiry for the purpose of finding out the truth and a coping strategy is right well guaranteed by the system and a way to maintain the integrity of society. If we allow this power guaranteed by the system to go down the drain instead of using it, we will only disappoint Hong Kong people. We can imagine that if we refuse to squarely address the Mong Kok incident, find out the cause or identify a better way to cope, similar incidents can happen again in the future and intensify. When similar incidents happen again and intensify, who should be held LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12659 responsible? Those who refuse to address the problem, to conduct inquiry or to deal with the problem. The reason is that they refuse to use this power and fulfil their duties even though they are given this power and duty under the system. In the end, they must be held responsible and come under query and question.

For these reasons, I would like to call upon all Members present here (including those from the pan-democratic camp and also the pro-establishment camp) to discard their presumptions on the nature of the Mong Kok incident. Members only need to realize that it was a serious matter, one which has aroused many public queries, so we should seek the truth and an in-depth understanding by asking questions and conducting an inquiry, so as to find out a satisfactory way to cope. That way, we can filfil our responsibility to Hong Kong people and the next generation.

With these remarks, President, I support the motion.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, to begin with, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) wishes to express profound respect for the two firemen who died in the course of duty. We are deeply saddened by their death as a result of this fire. Our profound respect also goes to those firemen who are diligently combating the fire at the scene. All people in Hong Kong will offer their support and continue to give their encouragement. As for those firemen who are injured in this fire, I believe all Hong Kong people will not forget them. We hope that those firemen who are exhausted can carry on and exert their utmost to put out the fire as soon as possible.

President, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the Police-public clash with multiple injuries during the Lunar New Year holiday in Mong Kok and other related matters. Actually, the reason for our opposition is very clear. It is because this motion is obviously intended as a motion for stating political stances.

Members are well aware of the current operation of the legislature. Even if a select committee is set up and devotes much time to conducting an inquiry in which witnesses are summoned and discussions are held, Members have actually drawn their own conclusions long before all this. After the riot, Members have 12660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 already stated their stances openly through various platforms. And, Members have also made public their respective views on the cause of the Mong Kok riot and also their conclusions on various platforms. I believe people can grasp the investigation findings of Members without much difficulty. One faction stresses that the rioters were the very first ones to ruin the rule of law in this machinated riot, so the Police must take resolute law-enforcement action and the rioters must be punished severely, so as to achieve a deterrent effect and prevent similar incidents from happening again. Another viewpoint asserts that the Chief Executive must bear the major responsibility for the outbreak of the Mong Kok riot because the blunders of his administration have torn the community apart. I even believe that certain Members will make use of this platform to compile a report urging the Chief Executive to take the blame and step down and seek the support of this Council. Yet another viewpoint of course criticizes police officers for their use of excessive force in the course of handling this riot, adding that the future law-enforcement of the Police will become more passive and difficult.

Frankly speaking, Members have already put forth such viewpoints many times on various platforms of the Legislative Council and also at its meetings. Their viewpoints are nothing new to people. Actually, the positions of various sides are very firm, so firm that I do not believe any one side can possibly convince the other sides of its viewpoints within a short time. Under this circumstance, and also because the term of the present Legislative Council is drawing to a close very soon, I honestly fail to see why a select committee should be set up under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the Mong Kok riot. Except the possibility of degenerating into a political tool and wasting the time and money of the legislature, I cannot see what practical results can be achieved by the select committee. Therefore, the DAB does not support the invocation of the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee in the Legislative Council to inquire into the Mong Kok riot. The reason is that first, in the present state, the Legislative Council is not, and cannot serve as, a suitable investigative body or platform. The reason why I say so is that the Legislative Council no longer commands people's trust of its ability to conduct an objective inquiry. In particular, as the Legislative Council election is fast approaching, Members may very often use the Legislative Council as a venue for stating their political stances, and the findings of such an inquiry will only turn into a political tool of Members. So, I cannot see any possibility to achieve the objective of finding out the genuine cause of the riot or even fixing our social dissension as asserted in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12661 the eloquent speeches of many Members. Frankly speaking, if Members continue to make use of this platform in the legislature for stating their own views, social dissension will actually further intensify instead.

President, as evident from Members' speeches yesterday, the positions of certain Members are very clear. What surprises me most is a remark of Mr Albert CHAN. According to him, the riot on the Lunar New Year's Day was machinated by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying himself. I wonder if he himself also believes in this assertion. Anyway, he already stated this conclusion yesterday. According to some other Members, people's violent resistance is a result of systemic violence. Actually, a system can never be fair, and it is always in the process of ongoing development. Such remarks can fully reflect that Members have already drawn their conclusions.

Some Members say that the Government cannot simply ignore the conflicts and resort to forceful actions. I absolutely agree that the Government should squarely address this matter, reflect on the significance of this incident, and seek to turn this incident into a force driving it to deal with our deep-rooted social conflicts. However, I fail to see how the setting up of a select committee can enable us to set aside our conflicts and achieve a better progress of this matter.

President, there have been way too many occasions for stating political stances in the Legislative Council. The culture of violence and similar occasions for stating political stances in the legislature in recent years are all too familiar to us. During the annual scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill, and also at meetings of various committees (including the Public Works Subcommittee and also the Establishment Subcommittee), certain Members have hastened to make a huge fuss of various issues for the purpose of stating their political stances. Therefore, it is honestly impossible for us to set up a select committee in the Legislative Council as another venue for Members to state their political stances, and we do not have the time or need to do so either.

President, another reason for my opposition is certainly based on the objective reality. The term of the present Legislative Council is drawing to a close very soon, and the remaining time is utterly insufficient for Members to inquire into such a complicated issue. Why is the legislature running out of time, with the result that this motion can only be discussed today? I believe people and Members know the answer only too well. The reason is that certain Members of this Council have succeeded in forcing the repeated adjournment of 12662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Council meetings and kept filibustering. So, much precious time of the legislature has gone down the drain. The present operation of the legislature has degenerated into an abnormal state, in the sense that meeting hours and periods keep changing every day. The main reason is to finish within the remaining limited time the scrutiny of those livelihood-related motions which people want us to pass. For this reason, additional meetings are scheduled for any timeslots available in the legislature. At present, some meetings are held on Saturdays or Sundays, and even from 9 am to 6 pm in some cases.

Attending meetings is certainly a duty of Members, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, some Members keep filibustering and have succeeded in forcing an adjournment of meetings, thus leading to the congestion of agenda items. Instead of properly performing their duties as Members and speaking at Panel meetings, these Members have sought to force an adjournment of meetings by manipulating our meeting procedures or proposed adjournment motions. As a result, there have been clashes of meeting schedules and also cases where a Member has to rush several meetings at the same time because at this final stage, many meetings are scheduled to be held concurrently. This is very undesirable, as our supervision of the Government and opportunity to express our views have been directly weakened. So, under these circumstances, if Members request to conduct an inquiry by setting up a select committee for the mere purpose of using it as a platform for stating their political stances, I definitely cannot give my support because this will only further lower the deliberation quality of this Council.

President, after the Mong Kok riot, Members have already expressed their views on this matter on various platforms. I do not intend to repeat too much about their views here, and I only want to talk about a few points. First, violent and radical thoughts in the community did not originate from the Mong Kok riot. Ever since a Member hurled the first banana in the legislature, ever since the idea of Occupy Central was advocated, radical and violent thoughts have already been mooting and disseminating in the community. We can all see the aftermaths of the Occupy Central, such as mobile occupation, "shopping tours", the kicking of others' suitcases on the streets, and also disturbances to tourists. Street occupation has even developed into the occupation of the legislature. Some radical Members have resorted to the hurling of objects and filibuster in this Chamber as a means of hindering the Government, thus posing many difficulties to the Government's administration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12663

Besides, some radical groups champion the "independence of Hong Kong" outside the legislature and have even declared their intention to build Hong Kong into an independent nation state. Some youngsters carry a knife with them in protests, while some have avowed that they will make bombs. Such violent incidents are indeed of the same nature, and it is honestly necessary for the community to realize the horror of violence. Such extremisms and horrific acts of violence are actually like toxics, in the sense that when they gradually permeate our community, they will do harm to our society and young people. President, as we have learnt from history, violent resistance to tyranny will only set off a vicious cycle and lead Hong Kong to perish instead of resolving our social problems.

Second, we support the Police in strictly enforcing the law, so as to maintain social tranquility. We are also thankful to those police officers who dutifully and diligently faced up to the difficulties for suppressing the riot and restoring social order within a short time. This fully reflected the professionalism of the police force. However, some Members merely speak lightly about the unlawful conduct of rioters but strongly condemn our police officers for their law-enforcement. They have even gone so far as to smear our police officers and question the legitimacy of their law-enforcement and whether it was manipulated by anyone. Such remarks have only served to put the cart before the horse and are untruthful. As I have stressed many times, their sole emphasis on certain individuals' accusations against police officers with no mention of rioters' provocation, their sole emphasis on police officers' use of force with no mention of the charging acts of protesters, and also their sole emphasis on protesters' demand for democracy with no mention of the Police's duty to restore social order have all served to show that their accusations are one-sided and aimed to demonize the law-enforcement actions of the Police. If front-line police officers always face verbal insults in the course of carrying out their duty but they cannot speak in defence of themselves, hard feelings and grievances will gradually develop in them. This will only increase their pressure in the course maintaining law and order and weaken their law-enforcement morale. That way, Hong Kong people will be the ultimate victims.

Third, a handful of trouble-makers in the Mong Kok riot have taken the moral high ground and claimed that they were in pursuit of justice, democracy and their ideals, so they have turned themselves into … in an attempt to rationalize their acts such as hurling bricks and setting fire. Such acts have indeed dealt a severe blow to democracy. Disregarding the law under the veneer 12664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 of democracy or fighting for the so-called "lofty ideals" will honestly jeopardize the rule of law and the principle of democracy. President, everyone is equal before the law. The question of unlawfulness or otherwise should not be determined by Members, the media or people. Rather, only the Court is in the position to make a judgment. This is a very important point. Otherwise, a dangerous trend will develop, the trend that everybody disobeys the law on the pretext of pursuing their lofty ideals and takes the law into their own hands according to their own interpretations of rightness, lawfulness or innocence. This trend will deal a severe blow to the rule of law.

President, since the inception of the Occupy Central, its initiators already stated many times that it was a civil disobedience intended as a forceful resistance to tyranny. Afterwards, many people have sought to rationalize certain individual conduct, and it looks like even the compliance or otherwise with the law has become a debate topic. The persistent efforts of those law-breakers to rationalize their unlawful conduct have therefore driven the community in the direction of violent protests. As I said just now, our observations of history show that violence will only set off a vicious cycle, and forceful resistance to tyranny will only lead Hong Kong to perish rather than resolving our social problems.

President, in the Hong Kong today, politics predominate everything. The line between obedience and disobedience to the law has indeed been blurred and even confused. If people are apathetic about the persistent erosion of the rule of law, Hong Kong will really be pushed to the brink of danger. Therefore, Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong community must stay highly vigilant.

With these remarks, President, I oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, before I speak on Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion, I would like to take this opportunity to pay my greatest respect to two firemen who sacrificed their lives fighting the fire at Ngau Tau Kok, and to express my deep sorrow. At the same time, I wish to offer my heartfelt condolences to their families. Regarding the injured fire fighters, I give my best wishes to their recovery, and I want to pay tribute to the firemen fighting the fire on site and other personnel at the scene, in the hope that they can stay fine and safe.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12665

President, although it has been over four months since the riot at Mong Kok broke out late at night on 8 February, the first day of the Chinese New Year, I believe that many people can still clearly picture the chaos on the night, and the rioters' cold-blooded behaviours, and that the people are still angry about the lawless assaults on police officers who enforced the law, the hindrances to firemen and ambulance crew on relief duties and their lack of mercy in using violence. Most members of the public do wish that the Police can strictly enforce the law and keep devoting full effort to pursue the rioters, so that these anarchic mobsters can be brought to justice under fair trial, facing the penalty they deserve. In this case, we can rightly manifest Hong Kong's spirit of rule of law.

President, I reject the call from certain Members that a select committee be appointed by the Legislative Council to inquire into the incident under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Also, I doubt if those Members proposing and supporting the motion have any political motives behind, or if they attempt to divert the attention so that the rioters can dodge their liabilities.

In fact, the Panel on Security of the Legislative Council passed a motion on 16 February this year to condemn rioters for endangering public security and social order, and urge the Security Bureau to increase manpower for handling the riot, as well as improving police equipment. Furthermore, on 26 February, the House Committee also voted down the proposal that the Legislative Council appoint a select committee to inquire into the incident, and I do not see any particular justification to convince me for supporting Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

Though I reject the proposal for invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to launch an inquiry, it does not mean that I do not concern about the violence. Therefore, I wrote to the Secretary in March this year to express my views and opinions on the issue, pointing out that most of the public agreed that regarding such questions as the developments and causes of the Mong Kok riot and whether it was plotted or planned by any individual or organization in advance, and so on, it is professional and appropriate to adopt measures and arrangements to find out the answers through criminal investigations and Court trials and judgments.

12666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

The number of conflicts in society has apparently increased in recent years, in which some members of the public have acted more fiercely when expressing their views on certain subjects or issues. Among these people, many radicals have actively promoted "using force against violence" in an attempt to beautify violence, even rationalizing their violent behaviours. This has seriously increased the chance of clashes between the Police and the people. We have seen young people frequently participating in the resistance against funding for constructing the Express Rail Link, the development of North East New Territories New Development Areas and the implementation of moral and national education, and they have taken part in illegal Occupy Central, incidents of radical expression of opinions in universities, and even the Mong Kok riot. While young people deserve our support and encouragement for caring about social issues and joining in discussions to express their viewpoints rationally, it is a regret that some youngsters opt to adopt more radical means under the pretence of violent resistance, giving rise to more radicalization and chaos in society. Many people feel sorry about this, hoping for a return to the days when Hong Kong was peaceful and stable with fewer conflicts, lest the ongoing problems will jeopardize the people's livelihood and the economy.

President, a reduced level of harmony and a higher tendency among the people to pay attention to government policies and voice out their opinions have intensified the deep-rooted problems in society. Therefore, with respect to these problems, I pointed out in my letter to the Secretary that the Government must not turn a blind eye to this. It should properly handle the situation instead. As to the means to achieve this, and whether the Government will consider appointing an independent committee to comprehensively and pragmatically review the issue, as well as to identify the reasons for a reduction in social harmony and introduce improvement measures in this regard, so that there is a way out for Hong Kong in rebuilding social harmony, I believe many people will have the same expectation as me.

President, in my opinion, if we are to find out the developments and causes of the Mong Kok riot, it is best and most appropriate to bring the suspects to the Court for trial and judgment. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to set up a select committee for inquiry. Furthermore, as a result of the crazy filibusters launched by opposition Members which seriously impeded the Council's normal operation, delaying the deliberation about various policy purviews and the scrutiny of many items, the current term of Council simply cannot handle the work concerned even if the motion is passed. So, I believe that this is totally a political show put up by the opposition camp at this opportunity. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12667

President, once again I express my rejection to the proposal for invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to appoint a select committee for inquiring into the Mong Kok riot. I so submit.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, let me take this opportunity to express my condolences and regret in regard to the two firemen who died in harness during a Number 4 alarm fire that broke out in a mini-warehouse, and my respect for all the firemen who have been fighting very hard to put out the fire over the last few days.

President, right at the beginning of a Council meeting in mid-March this year, a petition co-signed and presented by two Members under Rule 20(6) of the Rules of Procedure was passed, endorsing the establishment of a select committee to investigate the incident that took place in Mong Kok from the late hours of 8 February to the small hours of 9 February 2016. However, only less than one month is now left in the current Legislative Session, but there are still three bills pending the resumption of Second Reading debate, each involving some controversial issues of different policy areas. Moreover, some other pieces of subsidiary legislation or regulations are also pending deliberation and the issues involved are equally controversial. Hence, we should make the best use of the precious time of this Council, or else the efforts made by various Bills Committees to scrutinize the bills will be wasted. I hope priority consideration can be given by Members to the scrutiny of bills. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Members who presented the petition back then, the possibility of commencing the work of forming a select committee in this term of the Legislative Council is actually very small, and I myself even think that time-wise, it is totally impossible to do so. It is therefore more advisable for us to focus on the scrutiny of bills and complete the task before the end of the current Legislative Session. Thus, I object to this motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man.

More than four months have passed, but the nature, damage and impact of the Mong Kok riot during the Lunar New Year have not become any less serious. I think that even now, people can still remember vividly the acts of violence seen in the television footages that day, and I also think that they are still saddened and shocked by all such acts. In this fiercest outbreak of unlawful violence in the recent history of Hong Kong, large numbers of rioters openly attacked police officers who were on duty and media personnel who were doing news coverage at the scenes. They committed arson, damaging public properties and police 12668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 vehicles. They even dug out bricks from pavements and threw them at police officers. Anyone who still has any slightest sense of human righteousness should strongly condemn such acts of violence. This riot, which was organized and led by extreme local separatists, has ruined the rule of law cherished by Hong Kong over all the years. It has also dealt a blow to the economy of Hong Kong, which is beginning to face various challenges, causing severe harm to social harmony and stability.

I believe most people who truly love Hong Kong will neither tolerate nor connive at such acts of violence. In this present age of advanced information dissemination, we can all see clearly how the riot came about, how it developed and how it has harmed our society, so I need not elaborate any further. Yet, I hope that following the swift arrest of the rioters, the Police can quickly complete the work of evidence collection and bring the cases before the Court. In this way, our trustworthy judicial system can hand down its verdicts, making it clear to all in society that no unlawful acts of violence whatsoever shall be tolerated, and that no one shall use any excuses to mask the unlawful nature of any acts that upset social order in the course of venting his discontent with society.

President, the motion moved today seeks to appoint a select committee to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok from the night of the Lunar New Year Day to the early morning of the following day which caused injuries to many people, and other related matters. Simply put, it seeks to investigate the causes, course and social impact of the Mong Kok riot. As I have said, we are now in an age of advanced and free dissemination of information. Many individuals, groups and media organizations have either uploaded the footages they shot that day to social networking websites or broadcast the footages publicly. Once we key in "Mong Kok riot" to our computers or smartphones, we will find large quantities of relevant information and photographs, annotated by different viewpoints and perspectives.

Besides, the Government has already clarified that the Hawker Control Teams of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) simply did not take any enforcement or arrest actions against the hawkers operating at Portland Street in Mong Kok that very night. The incident could hardly be described as a revolt against government oppression. Rather, some unruly elements hurled abuses at and jostled with the FEHD personnel there. Under such circumstances, and in consideration of the personal safety of law-enforcement officers and other people nearby, police officers were deployed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12669 to maintain order at the scene, but they were later stormed by rioters while enforcing law at the front line. We can review the course of the incident in great detail once again through the channel I mentioned just now, and go over them several times if once is not enough. The whole thing is very clear, without any ambiguity whatsoever.

What is the nature of the Mong Kok riot? President, this is very clear. It was a serious crime of violence committed by large numbers of rioters at the instigation of extreme local separatists, and these rioters were on the lookout for an excuse to break the law. This was just a serious crime of violence, so should we take the place of the Police in the conduct of investigation and evidence collection? Hence, President, this is also one of the reasons why I object to this motion.

President, the community of Hong Kong has been faced with many challenges and difficulties on various fronts since the reunification. These include financial crises, recessions, homogeneity of industrial structure, deadly epidemics, disparity between the rich and the poor, housing shortage, political disputes, and so on, and huge efforts have been devoted by successive governments to tackle such problems. The current Government was also faced with numerous problems at the beginning of its term, such as Mainland pregnant women coming to Hong Kong to give birth and gate-crashing the Accident and Emergency Departments of local hospitals, the supply of formula milk powder, allocation of Primary One places for cross-boundary students, the impact of parallel trading activities on the order in MTR stations and the daily lives of local residents, multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements for non-permanent residents of Shenzhen, and so on.

We should not ignore the efforts made by the Government in its governance, although people may have different opinions on its overall effectiveness. Yet, in contrast, what have some people done in this respect? They have just been making repeated and wanton allegations and criticisms without putting forward any constructive ideas and policy recommendations, or taking concrete actions to help solve the problems. They have only tried to stage filibusters in this Council to hinder our efforts to move forward. Under such circumstances, although the Government has tried hard to improve its governance, I am afraid that it will only end up getting half the desired result with twice the effort.

12670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Many people have suggested that young people are not at all satisfied with the present social situation, and this is one of the factors that leads to the polarization of society and the increasingly contentious political atmosphere. Some youngsters have also been influenced and incited by extreme local separatists and taken part in many protests and movements against the Government.

As a result of such factors as the soaring property prices and rentals in recent years, setback in achieving industrial diversification and limited opportunities for personal development, it is true that the prospects of upward mobility for young people today are very different from the chances available to people of our generation. As young people's predecessors, we may have lots of experience to share with them, but it may not be feasible to apply our experience fully to the younger generation as they have grown up in a relatively better living environment. If we fail to see this point, we can never understand their needs and expectations. Communication is after all a two-way process, and if we are just unilaterally expressing our views without understanding and facing squarely together with young people the problems they encounter, how can this be regarded as an attempt to render assistance to them? As the governance body, the Government should humble itself and engage in direct dialogue and communication with young people in general instead of communicating only with the so-called youth leaders. The Government should refrain from putting itself up high in a prominent position and refuse to listen, otherwise it will move further and further away from young people.

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

Deputy President, criminal investigation has already been initiated by law-enforcement agencies on the Mong Kok riot, and some of the cases have already been set down for trial by the Judiciary. That being the case, instead of meddling with the affairs of others, we should accord priority to executing our duties as elected representative in the legislature and completing the tasks entrusted to this Council properly?

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12671

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): First of all, I wish to convey the assurances of my highest consideration to the firemen who are still fighting the fire for the safety of Hong Kong people.

Our debate today is whether we should conduct an inquiry into the Mong Kok riot under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The people of Hong Kong know that the incident, which happened during the Chinese New Year, is incited by some so-called localists who planned the whole thing by playing on the dissatisfaction against police officers taking enforcement actions against illegal hawkers. Some people may not know the true cause of the incident and think that they are fighting for the right of the hawkers. But most of the Hong Kong people know that the true cause is that they want to stir up troubles so that they can fish for political capital. The matter ultimately evolved into the Mong Kok riot.

Over 80 police officers and front-line journalists were injured and a lot of public property and vehicles vandalized in the incident. It is the most serious and brutal riot since the illegal Occupy Central movement. All Hong Kong citizens think that the people who stirred up the riot should take responsibility. Having said that, I wonder what result we can achieve if we now refer the matter to a select committee for an inquiry. Most probably, it would become a political show for some political parties and it would also give them an opportunity to divert public attention and continue to put all the blame on their political opponent. Their political opponent is certainly the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp. Hence, setting up a select committee is simply not conducive to finding out the truth. Quite the contrary, it will create more social conflicts and dissension. Because of this reason, I oppose the motion proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man.

As Mr Martin LIAO has just said, an Internet search on the term "Mong Kok riot" will return numerous video clips showing on our computer screen protestors throwing bricks forcefully at police officers. Today, if we ask Members or the public whether they know the latest condition of the police officers whose head has been hit by a brick thrown at him, or if we ask members of the public what are the first three things that come to their mind when I mention the Mong Kok riot … I did ask people about this question … none of the top three answers involve the hawkers. So, what is the point of moving this motion? What does the opposition camp try to achieve? In the end, the motion will only create more drama and give more opportunities for them to distort the 12672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 truth with sophistry, and the motion will become a political tool for them to attack their opponents. Forming a select committee will only stir up more conflicts and transfer the stage from Mong Kok to the mass media, the Legislative Council, the social media and then to the Legislative Council Election in September. Why bother to do so?

We often talk about the Asia Television Limited which had been replaying its old TV programmes before its recent close down. I wonder how many times this incident has to be replayed in the Legislative Council and in society. If the public are asked about their feelings of the Mong Kok riot and the Occupy Central movement, some of them may say that these events are an effort to seek justice or to achieve some other purpose, but most of them will express their disgust of the events and that they do not want to hear any more of the events. I believe people have their own answer to the events, which may not be something I agree with, but they have their own stance in their heart about the series of events in the incident, and they do not want us to tell them the truth. Even if we tell them the truth, do you think they will believe us? If the conclusion drawn in the report of the selection committee is not something they anticipate, do you think they will agree with the report? I thus think that it is pointless to form a select committee.

Many Members of the opposition camp say that the more the incident is debated the clearer it becomes. According to the system, our term of office will expire around 15 July. Even if the motion is passed, there will not be time to conduct an inquiry. But I do not want to oppose the motion out of a technicality reason. I hold that the motion is merely a chance for them to express their political stance. If you ask me whether we should look into the series of events that took place in the incident, I agree that maybe we should. However, should we do it by passing such an impractical and pointless motion? I think that the opposition camp should think about the practical function of the motion.

Secondly, regarding the original cause of the incident, some people say that it is the hawker problem which is caused by mismanagement of the problem. No policy is perfect and society is beset by many different new problems. Should we start a riot every time when a new conflict breaks out? I do not think so. I do not want to see any more bloodshed caused by disputes among Hong Kong people over some small problems, though some people may regard them as big problems. People ultimately look for peace in society, so that the economy can be developed and the livelihood of the people improved. But this is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12673 what is happening now. I thus hope that the opposition camp, or even those who took to street and threw bricks at others, to think twice about the impacts of their actions on society.

I do not quite agree with what Mr Martin LIAO just said. Of the hundreds of rioters, some are innocent members of the public who have been incited to take to street in Mong Kok, and thus we should bring to justice the few leading instigators, and prevent people from being misled again to create disturbances in society. We must address social problems practically, and this Council as well as different strata of society should take part in tackling these problems.

Take the hawker problem as an example. We may still remember the clashes, according to news reports two years ago, which broke out when the authorities attempted to stop hawking activities at the night market of Kweilin Street. People did not throw bricks at that time. In response to the clashes, the Democratic Alliance of the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), especially the co-workers in the Sham Shui Po division, has worked very hard to co-ordinate with different stakeholders to find a proposal which can strike a balance between the concerns of the residents over the issues of noise, cleaning and hygiene and the need of the hawkers to find a place for hawking so that this characteristic of Hong Kong can be preserved and they can make some money for a few days. We eventually worked out a proposal with Dr KO to provide the hawkers with a place to continue their hawking activities. Certainly, the proposal is not perfect, but we have done a lot of work along this direction and co-ordinated with many districts. It is a very difficult task but we have at least achieved some preliminary result.

In retrospect, what can the brick-throwers at the first day of the Chinese New Year do for these hawkers? Nothing. Hence, in response to the incident, I wish to share with Members a saying, that is, "Pursue a winding course for work and a straight course for life". Throwing bricks is straightforward, but it does not bring any result. We still believe that however winding a course may be, it may actually be the fastest course to the destination. Throwing bricks cannot solve any problems.

I just said that we should pursue a straight course for life. We may have forgotten about our original mission and only focus on turning conflicts into political issues in order to make the life of the SAR Government difficult. The people of Hong Kong and most of the Members only know too well about these 12674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 matters. What is left for us to argue? What is the point of arguing for so long? After all these arguments, someone left a message in my mobile phone, saying that we the establishment camp have argued enough. He opined that the two camps should both give in and stop fighting, given that we each have our own view on the incident, and that people want to restore peace in society.

In the last election campaign, a few co-workers and I visited some housing estates households. In one of the visits, I could feel the tension between the supporters of two opposing political sides. This is a consequence of the Occupy Central movement. The same problem appeared after people threw bricks in the riot. A family member asked his mother to ignore election candidates from the DAB, but the mother asked that family member to stop saying so, adding that we were the peacemakers. Our argument in this Council has disrupted the harmony in families. Why do we have to do that? Hence, I hope that different sides can stop their opposition and give up some of their retaliatory attitude, and strive to find a way to break the deadlock. If you have a spear in your right hand and a shield in your left, please lay down your spear and just hold your shield. I know you are unwilling to completely disarm yourself. You will not do that and we will not do that either.

Hence, last but not least, I hope that members of the public and fellow Members of the pro-establishment or the opposition camp can work hard together. Let us not forget our will of serving Hong Kong people when we first entered this Chamber. We not only fight for more justice and equality in society, but also more harmony, peace, prosperity and stability in society for Hong Kong people.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I oppose the motion.

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

MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): First of all, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and a group of Members dress in black today to pay our highest tribute to the firemen who sacrificed their lives in performing their duties, and to express our deep consolation to their families. We can all see the contributions made by public officers and disciplinary forces in Hong Kong for the relief of the public and the maintenance of social order and peace.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12675

The Legislative Council is empathetic to the people, and eagerly hopes that the fire can be extinguished soon rather than later, with best wishes to the safe accomplishment of the mission by firemen, ambulance crew and other public officers. We very much hope that the Legislative Council can work with the people, but not operating beyond the understanding of the public. The Council does care about ways to resume social order and harmony so that society as a whole, including the Government's policy implementation, can achieve something for the public. This is the people's expectation for the Legislative Council, rather than witnessing the regression at present.

However, messages that some Members have filibustered for the sake of filibustering ― this is in fact the truth laid bare before us ― have been spreading around WhatsApp recently. Not one Member, but a group of opposition Members proposed amendments to cut the budget related to firemen and various fire fighting equipment of the fire department. This is what we call filibustering for filibustering's sake.

They will say in their speeches that they in fact did not attempt to cut expenses related to fire fighting, but merely aimed to make use of this as their speech topic. How stupid was that? This is exactly an example as to why the Legislative Council's image have been degrading among the public. Gravely concerned about the rule of law and the decay of professionalism in Hong Kong, the people expect us to be pragmatic. But surprisingly, Members are no longer interested in debating about these issues, and even those Members returning from professional constituencies have resorted to launch attacks in every aspects, taking the opportunity to filibuster. This is really puzzling.

We all know that, in such a densely populated place like Hong Kong, contributions made by disciplinary forces are highly important, so do the support and equipment given to them. However, Members chose to abuse this area, exploiting this as a topic for filibuster. Equally, regarding the motion debate today, of course I know that Mr WONG Yuk-man has proposed the motion under the Rules of Procedure, and he cannot move the motion until the end of the procrastination brought by filibuster on the Copyright Ordinance, then another filibuster on the Budget, followed by the work to handle all the backlog of bills piled up in the process.

12676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

It is frequently said that Members must support holding discussion and inquiry first, regardless of the divided views. Attaching much importance in this, opposition Members are particular active in saying so. Yet, I am surprised. According to the procedure, Mr WONG Yuk-man has to wait until yesterday to start debating his motion. However, for those pan-democratic Members from the opposition camp who have just spoken, if they were truly so desperate for an inquiry, it was totally fine for them to demand setting up a select committee by having 20 Members rising in their places, a tactic they employed before. They were absolutely able to do so in February, so why did they not do so then? Seemingly they have spoken with a sense of urgency, but do they really want an inquiry? Or is this merely a gesture? They dared not to condemn the incident, yet they wanted to break off any connection with the event in an attempt to project a peaceful and rational image before the public. No one will believe them anymore. Opposition Members, do you really want an inquiry after all?

Everyone can witness how police officers risked their lives performing their duties that day to protect other fellow officers. More importantly, they served to maintain social order. The matter is so plainly written, so opposition Members, just go ahead with your inquiry if you so wish! But I cannot see that they really care about this. Should they genuinely look for an inquiry, they could have adopted the method just mentioned by me and arranged 20 Members to rise and propose an inquiry back in February. I believe we had the time to establish a select committee then. Instead, they wait until today, as if they have already fulfilled their duty simply by having Mr WONG Yuk-man proposing a motion.

In fact, they are not desperate for an inquiry, yet for the sake of political ethics, they agree to the motion by Mr WONG Yuk-man to show that they intend to monitor the Government. However, it is their hope that the motion had better disappear or die down by itself. They do not even bother if the motion will be passed or not after all these delays, as there is simply no time to appoint a select committee. All in all, it is pointless for them to reveal their shortcomings and expose all these premeditated radical resistance.

On the one hand, Ms Cyd HO has spoken just now that the incident has broken out spontaneously, but she has claimed on the other that the nature of the event has not been determined yet. Then, she has further gone on to talk about the protesters. Any reasonable man can notice that it is more accurate to call LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12677 them protesters. However, since the emergence of radical influence in these few years, all those Hong Kong was proud of, for example, the march by of 500 000 people ― we can discuss later if there were really 500 000 people ― the people were in good order even there were hundreds of thousands of them on the street. In the past, the Police and the people had mutual trust between each other, and the demonstration effectively exerted political pressure from the civil society. This was the spirit of Hong Kong familiar to us then, when the power and might of Hong Kong people earned compliments worldwide. However, Members have inclined towards radicalism in recent years, having been silent on the radicals, with the connivance of their behaviours in the belief that staying civilized can achieve nothing, that adhering to order means hindrance to the fight for justice. Therefore, we have this situation now. So, they had indeed played a part to connive in the occurrence of the incident.

Well, I have queried just now if the incident was planned in advance? In fact, it is most appropriate to hand this to the Judiciary for bringing the people on trial. As Mr Steven HO have mentioned just now, should a select committee is to be appointed, the opposition will just deliberate if the Police has too much power, whereas we will investigate if the protesters had seized the opportunity arising from hawker-related issues to take political actions for other purposes. Everyone knows that the Legislation Council is a venue for politics. Putting a social factor under the examination of the Legislative Council will inevitably produce a report in which the verdicts are poles apart. I personally believe that it is best to leave this for the Judiciary first. If so, the Judiciary that you still trust can hold fair trials and judge if they are guilty. The offence concerned can all be derived from the proofs and the proceedings involving the prosecution and the defence. Therefore, with respect to the motion proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man, I personally consider that it is unnecessary. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions will vote against it.

That said, I have spent much time querying other opposition Members apart from Mr WONG Yuk-man, wondering how much sincerity they actually have in carrying out an inquiry. Or, do they intend to exploit this motion by WONG Yuk-man and take this opportunity to filibuster and delay the process, so that the motion cannot be moved in the end. In this case, as the select committee cannot be appointed, they can simply go through the formalities as if they have really devoted their efforts.

12678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

It is even more terrifying to hear them frequently mentioning pictures in which members of the public or police offices were subject to harm, yet they considered that we should look at the incident from a wider perspective. Why do they not discuss the most pressing issues seen on TV, and acknowledge such problems, but talk about something like a broader perspective? As Mr Steven HO and many other Members have said just now, we cannot look upon everything in society with a wide perspective every day. I believe that we must go back to reality and investigate if anyone had really plotted to disturb social order in the name of supporting hawkers that night, or even planned to act with political motives. These are the right issues that should be taken to the Court by the Judiciary. This is just the right way for us to work on.

Regarding the hawker issue, this is truly one of the policy areas in need of discussion and rectification in Hong Kong, even the senior officials of the SAR Government have confessed that the listing of the Link REIT is a source of public resentment. Apart from inflating price level and rent, more importantly, the Link REIT has created a fundamental problem which suffocates any room for the people to start their own business, leading to the question of whether the Government should re-issue hawker licences.

However, Members with community service experience who truly have visited the communities, or even having been members of District Council, will understand that, while we support hawkers on the one had, this is never an easy problem to deal with as residents will also complain when hawking activity affects their daily lives. As a member of the Islands District Council, I initiate the Working Group on promotion of bazaar development in Islands District, assuming office as the Convenor.

The day before yesterday, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man actively called a meeting with the whole Working Group for a discussion on opinions and proposals received from the community. He said that we could organize another bazaar similar to the Tin Sau Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai, and the departments would even adopt an open attitude towards snacks in night markets, indicating that they would collaborate proactively. This is an example of fine policy implementation and interaction, other than expressing one's own fundamental position against the Government by exploiting the hawker issue. On the second day of the Chinese New Year after the riot, when doing an interview again, a genuine hawker believed that they had been used, being placed right in the centre of the storm. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12679

So what kind of people were they? Why did this happen during the election period for the Legislative Council by-election? I suppose we have the answers well in our mind.

Let us revisit the subject today. Is it really appropriate to assign such a complex issue to this platform built for political deliberation? Therefore, I object the motion. However, I have to emphasize again that I really doubt if these pan-democratic Members do wholeheartedly look forward to an inquiry. It is because, regarding this incident, they are put in an awkward and ambiguous position where they are unwilling to openly condemn the incident, yet rushing to discard any connection with those people. Their disgraceful conduct is apparent to everyone.

In the end, I hereby urge all members of society to, regardless of your political belief, return to one of the core values of Hong Kong's success, that is the trust in the system and the professions, especially disciplinary forces with tens of thousands of members, no matter whether they are polices officers, fire fighters or ambulance crew. They are fine forces with a standard higher than the world average, and are impartial in fulfilling their duties to maintain social order and provide relief to the distressed. Even in the face of life-threatening dangers, they will go on performing the tasks. We should return to this basic belief and trust the professions and the system. I believe that this is the only way for Hong Kong to overcome all these challenges.

Finally, I hope the Secretary can offer the greatest consolation to fire fighters and police officers on behalf of the Legislative Council. I so submit.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me first take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to the two dedicated and brave firemen who died in harness, and let me also pay my highest respect for all firemen who have fought the serious fire at mini-storage so fearlessly.

Deputy President, in the late night of the Lunar New Year day, I stayed at home, kept looking at the television screen and was greatly disturbed and outraged by the many scenes that I saw. I saw that a police officer performing enforcement duties was attacked by rioters, and although he was already huddling himself up on the ground, rioters less than 3 m away still threw bricks at him mercilessly and violently. Even the media workers at the scene also found this 12680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 intolerable, and they stood before the police officer to protect him. I was extremely angry then, and found this most heart-wrenching too since I could not help asking: Is it still the Hong Kong and Mong Kok I used to know so well?

I can feel and have actually heard from the speeches of some pan-democratic and opposition Members yesterday and today in this Chamber that they have kept finding excuses to cover up the acts of these rioters and absolve them from any blame. Dr KWOK Ka-ki has accused the media of editing the video clips to create the false impression of a state of uncontrollable chaos. As we can see, media workers and front-line reporters all discharged their duties professionally under very dangerous circumstances, so that media coverage of the incident would not stop, and the general public of Hong Kong could be provided with the latest information on what happened at the scene. It is indeed ridiculous and shameless of him to say that what we have seen are the results of film editing. This is one big insult to all media workers, and I am deeply outraged.

Besides, Ms Claudia MO has pointed out that firing a gun into the air may accidentally injury people leaning out in nearby buildings to see what was happening. It seems that she wants to express strong dissatisfaction and condemn the police officer concerned for this. On hearing these comments, I just want to ask if she can still be regarded as a human being. The live coverage of the event on television that night has already shown to us clearly the circumstances under which the traffic police fired his gun. When wooden planks were being thrown at a police officer lying on the ground, what can be done to stop the rioters?

Moreover, as shown in a video clip taken with a bird's eye view that I watched on the Internet, a large group of people totalling a hundred were pressing forward steadily to a few police officers at that moment like a pack of wolves, and I can also feel that the situation was really dangerous then. Yet, the police officers were still striving to exercise restraint, hoping that these rioters would take no further action. The police officer concerned only wanted to warn them, and he had utterly no intention to shoot at people at the scene. That the case, how can she condemn in this solemn Chamber the police officer for what he did when he was actually under very great danger? You people also have your families, right? If a family member of hers faces a similar situation, will she still think that her family member should refrain from fighting back and defending himself even though he may be killed?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12681

A scene has also been captured where a taxi was surrounded by rioters who wanted to set fire on the vehicle. If this had really happened, what consequences it might have caused? It might cause extensive damage and serious casualties to people, buildings or residents within 50 m and even 100 m. Opposition Members have ever denounced such an act of violence. What are the reasons for turning a blind eye to such lawless violence and absolving such violent radicals from the blame?

What I find even more surprising and puzzling is that according to Mr IP Kin-yuen, since conflicts concerning hawker management are just minor issues, an investigation should be conducted to identify the reasons why things have got out of hand. The incident is even described by opposition Members as a "fishball revolution", which is in itself a very minor issue. As Mr Albert HO has rightly pointed out, judging from the development of the incident and the relevant media reports, people can notice that things had gone out of control before any actions were actually taken by members of Hawker Control Teams to enforce the law. Information reveals that in the process or even before the outbreak of the riot, messages were already shared on Facebook by organizations like Hong Kong Indigenous and former members of Scholarism and participants of social movements. The people of Hong Kong were called upon to safeguard the rights and interests of hawkers in Mong Kok, and reminded to bring along weapons with them. Is it really a minor issue in itself, which concerns simply the management of hawkers or the consumption of fishballs? As a matter of fact, every one of us who possesses the normal ability to make judgment can easily understand that, but I do not know why Mr IP Kin-yuen, a Member whom we respect, would say that the issues involved are of a minor nature, and thus an investigation should be conducted to find out the reasons why things have got out of hand.

As highlighted by Ms Starry LEE just now, Mr Albert CHAN has not only accused LEUNG Chun-ying of instigating the incident but has also said a lot about the 1967 Riots. I would never use the term "1967 Riots" but rather, I would name it "the Storm of May". Mr Albert CHAN has also mentioned the Riots in Kowloon, and repeatedly condemned the use of violence. I concur that the use of violence should definitely be condemned and should never be tolerated, but views in this respect should be expressed in a rational manner. However, he has specifically mentioned in his speech that some people who participated in the Riots in Kowloon were connected with him, and these are the persons that he is 12682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 proud of. I would like to provide some information here to let everyone know what exactly the Riots in Kowloon was about, and why he is proud of the participants of the incident.

The Riots in Kowloon took place from 10 to 12 October 1956 and in only three days, it caused 60 deaths and more than 300 injuries. With regard to the detailed account of the Riots, a search may be conducted on the Internet since the information I have is also obtained online. Let me give a rough account of what happened then so that you may get a general idea of what the incident was about.

According to what is recorded on the Internet, "The riots continued, an attack was launched on Sham Shui Po Post Office, fires were set on vehicles in many places, foreigners became the targets of attack, vehicles driven by foreigners were stopped by the masses and those on board the vehicles were pulled out and severely beaten up. The victims of one of these cases are Fritz Ernst, the Vice Consul of the Consulate General of Switzerland in Hong Kong, and his wife, who were on board a taxi at around 1 pm when the vehicle was passing through the intersection of Tai Po Road and Castle Peak Road, where the taxi was overturned and burnt by the masses. The wife of the Vice Consul and two other people were killed in the incident, while the Vice Consul himself was severely injured. The incident caused the death of two people who sustained serious injury, and seven people who participated in the incident were arrested by the Police at the scene. The riots that day had also spreaded to Tsuen Wan, where violent radicals forced their way into a number of factories, made arson attacks and killed a whole lot of people. A number of female workers were raped and murdered, many people laid dead on streets of Tsuen Wan, 30 people were killed, the British Forces were deployed to suppress the riots and over 100 people were arrested. According to Ta Kung Pao, violent radicals were incited by secret agents of the Chinese Nationalists Party to make arson attacks and commit robbery."

On the one hand, Mr Albert CHAN claims that he is proud of such rioters, but on the other hand, he keeps emphasizing his anti-violence position. How heartless he is to give such remarks which are both ignorant and inhuman! I have to uncover here to the people of Hong Kong the real meaning of what Mr Albert CHAN has said.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12683

With regard to the proposal put forward today to appoint a select committee to inquire into the Mong Kok riot, as many colleagues have questioned earlier, what exactly is the purpose of doing so? The answer is indeed very simple: Opposition Members are using this to serve a purpose, so as to achieve the objectives of diverting public attention, downplaying the severity of the unlawful acts of rioters and absolving them from the blame with the appointment of a select committee as well as the establishment of a commission of inquiry headed by a judge, which they have proposed earlier. They have repeatedly asked for an in-depth investigation with a view to resolving the deep-rooted conflicts in our society, but it is in fact absolutely not possible for a commission of inquiry headed by a judge to resolve these deep-rooted conflicts. A commission of inquiry may only carry out investigation into prescribed matters, and in the process, the severity of the incident will inevitably be downplayed.

By supporting this motion on the appointment of a select committee, opposition Members have actually drawn their own conclusion, that is, LEUNG Chun-ying is the main cause of all these problems and he deliberately planned everything. The unlawful acts committed by these violent radicals and physical assaults imposed on police officers and reporters should in fact be tolerated, since they are driven to take to the streets when this Government of ours and LEUNG Chun-ying are being so heartless. We find the conclusion utterly unacceptable and thus, we object to the motion moved to appoint a select committee. Thank you, Deputy President.

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is a motion on appointing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to conduct an inquiry by the Council. Though I have time and again pointed out an essential and fundamental element in this respect before, allow me to briefly explain this once more as some members of the public may not have heard this previously.

There are two critical elements. One element is that the matter in question should be a major social or public event, and this was of course a very serious incident gravely concerning the people; another element is that the matter should 12684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 involve major dereliction of duty, or alleged dereliction of duty, on the part of the Government or a public institution. Will this possibly apply to the incident in question? This may form part of the inquiry. However, more importantly, Deputy President, we have to consider the overall request, I mean the requests made under the inquiry proposed. What are the requests then? Upon checking the contents of the motion, I notice that, on top of asking for an inquiry into the incident, Mr WONG Yuk-man has also added the expression of "and other related matters", covering a extensive scope of course. Moreover, we all understand that, suppose the motion is passed, we will then have to decide the terms of reference for which we will further discuss the purview of the select committee. But all in all, this is a very broad subject indeed.

As mentioned by some Members supporting the motion in these few days or during the previous discussion held by the House Committee, they do not merely aim to find out the developments of the incident itself, but the governance problems, political problems, social problems and economic problems as well. They almost request a comprehensive analysis of Hong Kong, as if they are a coroner examining the cause of death. Under this situation, I am afraid it would be a big challenge simply to define the terms of reference of the committee if the motion is passed. What do we want to inquire into? Do they wish to include everything in the discussion, from the faults in general, the Government's faults, deep-rooted problems in society, economic reversals or all political topics seen in society throughout all these years since the reunification? I am gravely worried about the focus, or the lack of focus, of the inquiry.

Third, many Members have queried the issues of logistics, time and feasibility. Upon checking, I notice that the House Committee last discussed this subject on 26 February this year. Many Members presented numerous arguments against the proposal as there was not sufficient time for the Council to appoint a select committee for an effective inquiry. Also, bear in mind that it is just impossible to carry out such an inquiry with a complete lack of focus, as we have seen above.

Forth, Members may concern if the inquiry report is useful or helpful in itself? Or is it an empty talk serving no function at all? Deputy President, here I was … probably the only one who strongly rejected the appointment of an investigation committee, that is, the Investigation Committee to inquire into issues related to KAM Nai-wai, a former Member of the Council. It was about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12685 an accusation having a plaintiff ― sorry, I always confuse the two ― I mean, an accusation having a defendant but not the plaintiff as the person concerned declined to testify and assist the investigation, rending me to predict that, even with an inquiry, it would produce no outcome. But, of course, many Members were more enthusiastic than me in this regard, therefore the Investigation Committee was formed in the end. We did spend much time on the hearings, only to achieve nothing. Therefore, we must take this into consideration this time.

Deputy President, referring to both sides of the argument, there are mainly four reasons from each party. Allow me to briefly go through these reasons. Certainly, Members supporting the motion basically consider that this was a major incident involving some deep-rooted problems, grave problems in society, economic problems, political problems and social problems, making it impossible not to conduct any inquiry. It is not acceptable that the incident is referred to the Government or related law-enforcement agencies for criminal investigations. Even referring the incident to the Judiciary for judgment cannot suffice. As further reasons are involved, the incident must be brought under the inquiry by the Council. As pointed out by me earlier, an inquiry with a total absence of focus is indeed not a very appropriate platform for the task. Probably they wish to identify rectification or preventative measures or policies after finding out the reasons. That said, the lack of focus mentioned by me just now is seriously a matter of concern.

Second, Deputy President, if I do not remember wrong, some Members have made certain remarks. For example, though Mr Alan LEONG has not spoken this time, but he did speak at the meeting of the House Committee last time, and both Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned that as Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying had defined the incident as a "riot", it could turn out that the situation was more critical than a "riot", and an "unrest". They queried if we should inquire into the matter if it was of such a critical nature.

Third, they then remarked that the colonial government handled the two riots in 1967 in a way entirely different from the one adopted by the SAR Government in relation to the incident today. We may as well listen to the Government's response. It said, first, the access to information at that time simply could not match that of today's. In this age of information explosion, 12686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 everyone in Hong Kong more or less knows what is happening around them. This is reasonable though. Electronic technology in those days was not as advanced as today's, whereas we can even get to know everything happening worldwide as long as we are willing to give up sleeping. On the contrary, we had to rely on testimonies given by witnesses on oath to know the details of incidents happened in the past, such as the location and the time where an assault took place. The circumstances were entirely different then. I once had a chance to access to the inquiry report of the riot in 1966, and most of the space was devoted to text records on the accounts given by witnesses about their thoughts and experience. It was like a historic collection of first person experience on the event, rather than investigating the causes, background and motives of the incident, or even possible precautionary measures, and so on. It could be said that it was a chronology, a chronological report, instead of a report prepared in the way proposed by Members at present.

Moreover, Mrs Regina IP talked about a report last time when we discussed this subject in the House Committee, which was a working report, another report, published by the Government for improving local administration system at that time. This report was instead able to resolve the so-called deep-rooted problems, or identify the Government's direction of reform. This was another kind of report differing from the one in question. As I have just said, the report on the riot in Kowloon in September 1966 was only a witness testimony record, rather than the inquiry report referred to by Members at present.

Deputy President, the Government said that democratization has stepped forward greatly today, comprising various tiers of councils and numerous channels for the public to voice out their opinions, making it unnecessary to rely on text reports as in the past. I have brought this out already. Third, as the main focus is on criminal investigation and judicial proceedings, so we do not need to write such an inquiry report at the moment.

Fourth, putting aside the wording of "riot" used by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, comparing the overall magnitude of the present case with the incident in the past, we can note the big difference between the number of casualties, as mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him earlier. The riot in 1966 caused 1 death, and in 1967 the number of death was 51. Furthermore, serious acts of disturbance such as arson and bomb attacks were widespread in society then. Obviously, there is a big gap in magnitude.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12687

Deputy President, these are basically the remarks of Members supporting the motion. The essence lies in the fourth point: As the Government has adamantly refused to set up an investigation committee, the Legislative Council is duty bound to carry out an inquiry. Of course, both sides have presented their arguments as to whether the Government has fulfilled its duties or whether it should prepare an inquiry report, but if the Government declines to do so, does it mean the task should necessarily be borne by the Legislative Council? On the one hand, we of course have the responsibility to monitor the Government and drive it forward, even exerting pressure on it. However, when the Government refuses to perform a task, does it automatically become a duty for the Legislative Council to take on the job? We have to take into account the points mentioned by me just now, including the principle behind appointing a select committee, and whether we can achieve our goals in terms of time, feasibility and public interests.

Deputy President, the views of Members against the motion can also be summarized in four points. First, criminal investigations and judicial proceedings should be given priority to handle the issue. As this process is going on at the moment, we should not take a part in the matter. However, I am afraid that this probably is not a very effective argument to say no as there were many past examples of double-track inquiry involving judicial or criminal proceedings and the inquiry carried out by the Legislative Council. Perhaps this can only be seen as an opinion from them.

Second, the Legislative Council is an arena with hugely divided political views, at least it is the case of the current-term Legislative Council. Even without an inquiry, we can more or less predict Members' viewpoints and political stances, and never can we ensure a neutral process, or a neural outcome, with such a big difference. We cannot totally reject the weight of this remark, as Ms Starry LEE has pointed out just now, and that Mr WONG Kwok-hing did bring out this issue last time as well. In fact, when we look at some recent cases, including the report issued by the Committee on Members' Interests involving Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, we all know that, due to the sharply divided frontline between the camps, a three-three division was frequently, if not always, seen in the inquiring process, summoning of witnesses, the strength of questioning, and even the conclusion. Moreover, as the Chairman was not allowed to take any stance in his vote, the report achieved nothing but a waste of effort. Of course, the Government took the next step yesterday and formally charged one of the Members, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. Is it truly the case that the distinct division of political views in the Legislative 12688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Council has rendered many tasks ineffective, hindering the Council to perform the right function? I believe the people can judge by themselves. As a matter of fact, it is also down to the people to decide if it is more appropriate to leave this to the Judiciary or the law-enforcement agencies. However, generally speaking, I may not completely agree to this option, as sometimes we need to go through the whole process even though we know everyone's standpoints well. That said, in terms of practicability, I am afraid that we cannot afford to neglect such a point.

The third argument for rejecting the motion relates to the diversion of attention. Mr IP Kwok-him has repeated this issue earlier too, and many Members rejecting this motion also pointed this out last time at the meeting of the House Committee. I indeed do not entirely understand their arguments regarding diversion of attention, as basically we should bring out all issues for discussion if an inquiry is being conducted, unless we only focus on a particular point in the course of inquiry, and in such case we will disregard all other points, no matter whether they are positive, favourable arguments, or otherwise. As to whether an inquiry will render such violence become acceptable, or make it a subject of severe condemnation, and whether this will lead to negligence of the nature or severity of violent behaviours, I do not think so. However, I also understand the arguments in this respect. When almost everyone in society relatively considers that the violence was too extreme, political parties, pan-democratic parties included, will have no way but verbally condemn the violence or disconnect any relation with those who resorted to violence, though the pan-democratic camp does not dare, or does not wish, to turn overly against those taking part in the incident. Overall, the argument concerning diversion of attention is probably not entirely a reason for not appointing a select committee.

Deputy President, the fourth reason is time. Basically, a select committee cannot possibly be appointed at all. I can still clearly remember the subcommittee concerning the investigation into Lehman Brothers-related issues during the Fourth Legislative Council. Under the dedicated efforts and guidance of the Chairman at the time, the inquiry lasted over three years. In the end, perhaps because of this ― this is only my point of view ― he was even not able to get re-elected after spending too much time on the subcommittee. Deputy President, at last, the people did not consider the conclusions from the report on the Lehman Brothers incident very helpful. In general, however, regarding the present motion, it is in fact an easy decision though, as it is simply not possible to do anything, given the time constrain.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12689

True, some people may say that we have to support the motion in order to show our stance in principle. If we are to express our stance on a certain policy subject in a general panel of the Legislative Council, I can understand the point. However, exactly as in the case of the Court's handling of an application for an injunction, the Court will not issue an injunction if it is obvious that the matter supposed to be banned has happened already, or the subject of the injunction has already left Hong Kong jurisdiction, as in such case the injunction will not bring about any effect at all, regardless of how strong the principle or the justification is. Equally, I believe this motion before the Legislative Council is not merely an express of one's standpoint, but it should involve some practical actions. If the motion is passed, but we take no corresponding action after we invoke this "Sword of Imperial Sanction", I believe we will only weaken, or even void, the power of the big Sword. If we were to pass the motion, we must affirm that we can do the job, achieve a result, have the time, and agree an unequivocal stance. Otherwise, simply wielding it indiscriminately as a gesture will only jeopardize the power of the whole system and the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance itself. Therefore, I reject the motion.

Thank you, Deputy President.

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

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the two firemen who died in harness in combating the mini-storage warehouse fire in Ngau Tau Kok, and I also wish to extend our sincere condolences to the bereaved families. At the same time, I also wish fire fighters who had injured a speedy recovery. We hereby sincerely hope that fire fighters should pay attention to their own personal safety and to minimize the risk in the course of performing bravery acts in combating the fire, lest to instigate the worry of their families and public anxiety. As far as we know, at present, a number of members of the public have shown their concerns about them, some even express sympathy in person by delivering water and food to the scene. Nonetheless, I wish to express my personal opinion. That is, members of the public should be vigilant that they should avoid affecting the fire-fighting work in the course of showing their concerns. The No. 4 Alarm mini-storage warehouse fire in Ngau Tau Kok has been going on for dozens of hours, the fire-fighting 12690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 work is exceptionally difficult. Nevertheless, we have confidence in our professional fire-fighting authorities as well as other professional teams. I believe they can definitely put out the fire with their stamina and will. The entire society will support this gallant fire-fighting team and we are proud of them.

Today we are debating whether or not we should inquire into the riot which took place in the streets of Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year. In fact, we consider that an inquiry is necessary but it should be conducted by the Government, not the Legislative Council. According to our understanding, the Hong Kong Police Force has appointed a Deputy Commissioner of Police to take charge of the inquiry work and to conduct criminal investigations, to find out the reasons, to bring offenders to court for trial with a view to bringing them to justice. In so doing, at least it can have a deterrent effect to society at large. As to people resorting to violence, society needs to send a strong message that such violence is prohibited.

My colleagues, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr WONG Ting-kwong, pointed out in their speeches that there was every indication, no matter from the Internet or other channels, that the Mong Kok riot was an organized and premeditated crime, including the publicity or messages on the Internet that we could see before the first day of the Lunar New Year as someone was urging the public to take certain actions on the first day of the Lunar New Year. We have also seen the course of events on that fateful night, including some people tried to stir up disturbance while the Hawker Control Teams were controlling the hawkers. We have also seen that they have brought with them loudspeakers and other gears in wooden carts. Senior management of the Police shared the same view with us. Therefore, we consider that the inquiry should be pursued along this direction. We hope to look into whether there were persons or organizations behind the scene organizing, planning and staging the riot.

We can see from the day that they chose that they have carefully orchestrated the riot. It is because members of the public and the Police would be caught off-guard and the Police, who are unprepared, would not be responding fast enough, because the public are usually anticipating a happy new year on the first day of the Lunar New Year. That is why they have tried to stir up troubles and to cause major social impact.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12691

Last night about 10 pan-democratic camp Members spoke on the Mong Kok riot. I consider some of their speeches were trying to divert attention, to obscure the fact, to substitute concepts, space and time. They just touched on the issue of violence lightly. They accused the Police for being the wrongdoers. They accused the Police of abusing their powers. They even considered the traffic policemen the source of the provocation. Worst still, they just tried to make the allegation, distort the facts and shift the blame to others. They even said that it was LEUNG Chun-ying who orchestrated the whole thing. As far as the entire incident is concerned, we can see from their arguments that they have an attitude problem. They just tried to place the Mong Kok riot on the par with the 28 February incident in Taiwan, the 1967 incident, the 4 June incident and the 1981 taxi incident. The conclusion is, as I said just now, they had just obscured the facts. Mr Albert CHAN even said that just throwing some bricks was no big deal at all. They just tried to downplay the seriousness of the riot and said that it was no big deal. These arguments will only connive at and encourage these acts of violence, and the attempt to whitewash these acts of violence will only downplay the damage and impact on society. For that reason, I am very concerned about the arguments of the pan-democratic camp Members that I have mentioned just now.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

In fact, everyone can see that pro-establishment Members have given some well-intentioned advice today. We do not want to stir up any trouble as far as this incident is concerned. Our society and members of the public are all opposed to violence. We want peace. We do not want too much rows in society. If things go on like this, what good will they do to our society? Everybody has to pay the price. As Mr ZHANG Dejiang, the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China, said in layman's term, all of us has to pay for it, all of us has to "foot the bill". For that reason, I consider that we should not encourage acts of violence as far as this incident is concerned.

The arguments of Mr WONG Yuk-man also worried me very much. He said that with regards to the aspiration of the National Party which sought "Hong Kong independence", he took pleasure in seeing its success. In other words, he 12692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 supported "Hong Kong independence". He also said that he sympathized with their acts of violence. He just ascribes the blame for these acts of violence to the Government which had made policy mistakes and treated matters with bias. I consider that we should not foster and encourage these acts of violence and the use of violence. These acts will only cause serious damage to society.

It has been 19 years since the reunification of Hong Kong, and 1 July is a memorable day. However, we have learnt from the Internet that some people will try to stir up troubles on 1 July. For that reason, I hope the Police will strengthen its intelligence gathering efforts and make good preparation work. It is because many people will take the opportunity of festive days to instigate conflicts and to seize upon some pretexts and make a fuss, then shirk the responsibilities to the SAR Government. Therefore, we should be more vigilant about that. We oppose to violence. We demand peace.

With these remarks, we oppose to the motion proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man.

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

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, like other colleagues, before speaking on the motion, I would like to express my concern about the serious fire going on these two or three days; moreover, I would like to cordially express thankfulness to our courageous firemen and deep condolence to the family of the deceased firemen.

While it has been quite some time since the occurrence of the riots related to this motion, any of us in Hong Kong who cares about this city still feels unsettled about the incident.

President, back then, the Mainland press once reported that Hong Kong was "a bit out of order". The incident is absolutely no big deal to the 1.3 billion of people in the Mainland China. But for Hong Kong, a city used to be safe for businesses and well known for its good social order, the incident is not insignificant. Hong Kong people were both enraged and shocked. The enforcement authorities must conduct investigation and take necessary actions in the aftermath of the incident to avoid history repeating itself. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12693

On the night of Lunar New Year's day, after the Lunar New Year night parade, when most people were still indulging themselves with the joyful and festive atmosphere of Lunar New Year, a small group of troublemakers initiated riots in the streets on the excuse of defending street hawkers. The cameras of the media had clearly captured everything ― a group of well-prepared rioters wearing masks and gloves assaulted the police officers with sticks, steel bars, bricks dug from the ground of streets, stones, pallets, glass bottles, and so on. Everyone was shocked by the violent behaviours of the rioters. They even set fires to escalate the chaos. It was heard that a liquefied petroleum gas taxi was nearly burnt. Among the 90-odd police officers injured in the incident, some of them suffered from seriously injury. Moreover, some journalists reporting the riots on the site were also attacked by the rioters.

According to sources, in fact the preparatory work had started in the morning of that day. A group of "indignant youngsters" were summoned to learn how to mask their faces and be prepared to be a valorous street fighter. The delivery of hand-made weapons, including wooden sticks, steel bars, shields, loudspeakers, and so on, to the site by a vehicle shows that it was apparently a planned and organized movement, or more accurately a riot, aiming to disrupt social order.

In fact, the incident is implicative in the light of the disputes inside and outside the Council in recent years. Moreover, the intrusion of foreign political forces and, as reported in these one or two days, the intrusion of "black gold" politics are no longer new issues. The so-called occupy movement initiated by the opposition camp was an attempt to undermine the Government's governance by deliberately violating the rule of law. As reported by the BBC two years earlier, the Oslo Freedom Forum held in Norway revealed that over a thousand of Hong Kong residents had received training, including the training on how to deal with the cops, action management, and so on, before the Occupy Central movement. The Occupy Central movement has not only created social division and chaos, a small group of radical separatists even took the opportunity to advocate "Hong Kong independence" openly. They kept arousing conflicts between Hong Kong and the Central, and stirring up confrontations between the people and the Government. However, their wicked plans and behaviours were not accepted by the public and community, and some of the participants were charged and penalized by the enforcement authorities. This year, these people initiated riots in Mong Kok again on the excuse of defending street hawkers, but it was just another opportunity for them to air their disgruntlement.

12694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Some of the so-called localist groups in Hong Kong are apparently a form of radical political powers aiming to separate Hong Kong from its motherland in the name of localism. They target on the young people. They smear the politics, economy and culture of the Mainland, and attempt to forestall Hong Kong's integration process with the Mainland. They demean civil education as "brain washing", and preach that learning simplified Chinese characters and using Putonghua to teach Chinese language subject are a kind of communization. In addition, they describe Hong Kong's pursuit to play a part in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the "Belt and Road" initiative a kind of boot licking towards the Central. They mess with everything and oppose anything related with the country. But their intentions and actions have become increasingly daring to the extent of using violence, which has absolutely exceeded the bottom line of rule of law.

As witnessed by everyone in the community, this is obviously a series of riots. I just find it hard to believe that this motion describes the riots as "the clashes between the Police and members of the public". Such remark makes this motion even more unconvincing. Actually no one needs the Chief Executive to announce that there were riots, as the media had repeatedly referred to the incident as riots that night; whereas those who call the riots the "fish ball revolution" seem to have other political intentions.

Hong Kong needs a peaceful and rational environment, and effective governance for its economic development and the development in other aspects. The only and the best way to address the riots, serious assaults, arsons and even attack on cops occurred in this island city is to take the necessary law-enforcement actions and strictly penalize the rioters involved.

The motion proposes to appoint a select committee, which will be authorized to exercise the powers and privileges to summon relevant persons to attend inquiry. As the incident has been reported extensively and the public are already informed, I can hardly see any point to conduct further inquiry. Do we still have to summon the rioters to defend for themselves? This is completely a joke. What made them attack the police officers? A number of suspects arrested and the evidences found, including weapons, materials for making explosives, Viagra pills, over $500,000 of cash, and so on, in the searches in the aftermath of the incident should be adequate to impose charges and penalties on the rioters for disrupting the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12695 members of the public are now clear about the circumstance at that time, in fact they are concerned about whether the rioters can be penalized according to the law as soon as possible, and when stability can be restored in Hong Kong as a financial hub. They hope that Hong Kong as the "Pearl of the Orient" would continue to prosper.

With these remarks, I oppose the motion.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I thank Members for speaking in detail yesterday and today on the motion proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man. Members on both sides of the argument have delivered great points to expound their views.

President, allow me to briefly talk about another matter first, because many Members who rise and speak today have expressed deep sympathy and condolence to fire fighters regarding the fire at Amoycan Industrial Centre, and to the two firemen who died in harness. As the Secretary, I believe that I have the duty to express my gratitude to Members for their concern about and support of colleagues of the Fire Services Department. I have also noticed that Members from various parties have dressed in black at the meeting today, soundly demonstrating the support for firemen from the people represented by you, and from your supporters. Excuse me, President, I have to bring this out first.

Now, I will summarize the speeches delivered by Members just now. President, the Mong Kok riot was an incident with a core nature of serious criminal violence in which rioters broke the law with collective intention. The rioters neglected the law during the riot, committing such offences as riot, unlawful assembly, arson, criminal damage, assault on police officers and possession of offensive weapon, and so on.

12696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

We could all see the hurling of bricks on television that night. Upon checking after the incident, we counted that they removed more than 2 000 bricks. At that moment, bricks were hurled to us like rain, and officers fallen on the ground were not spared from their attacks. Members talked of their visits to the injured officers in hospital. I myself visited them too, especially the officer responsible for public relations duty who was seriously injured. I appreciate him very much as he said, once he saw me, "I do not have the slightest complaint about the injury I suffered on duty." He said that it had long been his duty to communicate with young people, and he would go on performing the task after recovery and meet our young people. He considered young people as our hope in future. I saw other officers who were just delivered to hospital, or just arrived for treatment. At that time, I wondered in my mind, "Why do they not reach the Accident and Emergency Department until a few hours after the incident?" Despite picking up injuries, they insisted on performing their duties until accomplishing the mission and arrived at the hospital for treatment only after they were off duty. The whole thing was really pathetic.

Criminal investigation is the right measure to handle the incident under this situation, with an aim to pursue and prosecute rioters at large and bring them before the Court for trial. In the process, the people can come to know the background and truth behind the incident through the open trial regime in Hong Kong.

Members have mentioned in their speeches that criminal trial forms only a small part of the judgment of a case. The happening of the case itself does not represent the development of the whole incident. I believe that both the prosecution and the defence will provide evidence related to the case during the trial, and every case involves a process, as well as cause and effect. Therefore, I do not agree with Members' opinion that these trials, focusing on a fraction of the issue, cannot project the whole picture. On the contrary, I believe that the Court can effectively piece together the overall issue through the trial on a series of cases, so as to present the incident before us. Many Members have supported my view in their speeches. In the course of a fair, open and legitimate process, the Court will pass fair judgments on offences charged to each defendant, which will in return demonstrate the nature of the incident on that day. In the present stage, we do not have to argue if this was a riot, an unrest, a rebellion or a revolution. We do not have to argue on these terms. Hong Kong is a society adhering to the rule of law, where the answer will naturally arise through legal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12697 proceedings. President, I agree that the incident does bring deep introspection among the Government and society, but I do not think a select committee can solve the so-called "impasse in governance". Every government has its own challenge. It is most important that we take Hong Kong's distinctive situation into account and identify ways to rightly strive together against the challenges ahead.

While meeting the media on 16 February, the Chief Executive stated that, "The current-term HKSAR Government attaches great importance to various issues prevailing in our community. In the area of people's livelihood, we have done a lot and our efforts have delivered results … Yet no one should resort to unlawful means, let alone violence, in expressing his demands, no matter what difficulties he is confronting in his daily life, and no matter what he thinks of the community."

It is important that we handle the Mong Kok riot through law-enforcement agencies and the Judiciary, as the rule of law is the core value of Hong Kong, and is the essential pillar of the people's livelihood, social stability, economic prosperity and protection of human rights. The success we achieve today is attributable to the respect for rule of law felt among everyone residing in this society all the time. The most basic condition for respecting the rule of law is that the people abide by the laws and express opinions or resolve conflicts by rational, peaceful and civilized means. Rather, they should not devise their own standard of justice and do whatever they please, even resorting to harming others, arson and assaulting law-enforcement officers. By the way, I believe Members can still project the fire at that night in their mind, and how plumes of smoke had billowed. The site did not have broad streets, and if the situation was not handled properly, the flames would likely spread to inflammable substances in surrounding buildings, causing fire hazard. Furthermore, firemen were blocked when trying to put out the fire.

In May this year, Mr ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) mentioned the challenges faced by Hong Kong when he inspected the city ― just like what I have said earlier ― and the precious opportunities for development on the other hand. He said that the current-term SAR Government, since its establishment, had introduced numerous new measures for economic development, improving the people's livelihood, as well as on such areas as land, housing, supporting the 12698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 elderly and poverty alleviation, and such measures had achieved some initial success.

The two-dollar subsidy always mentioned by Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is just one example to show how the measure benefits Hong Kong residents aged over 65, as they can go out and travel around without being constrained by travel expenses.

Chairman ZHANG said in his speech delivered at the welcome banquet on 18 May (I quote): "The rule of law is one of the core values of Hong Kong society, is the foundation stone of social stability and the bottom line of freedom … everyone is equal before the law. No one is above the law, nor is any law breaker able to escape justice for any reason." (End of quote)

The Chairman conveyed a message to Hong Kong, "Every sector in Hong Kong should have an urgent sense to keep progressing, like sailing against the current, and seize every opportunity, focusing on economic development, improving the people's livelihood and enhancing competitiveness. Quarrel will do no good to Hong Kong, as it brings nothing but wastes time, harms the economy and jeopardizes the people's livelihood."

In such a diversified society like Hong Kong, the Government will strive with different sectors in society and even every member of the public to resolve the conflicts and problems. I urge the people to express their opinions peacefully and rationally. Let us treasure the hard-earned accomplishment achieved by a few generations of people in the past and find a way out together for the benefit of Hong Kong.

President, the Police is conducting criminal investigations and initiating prosecutions for the severe violence and relentless offences committed by rioters during the Mong Kok riot. The Police has also established a review committee to examine such areas as operations, equipment and support. In my opinion, appointing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the Mong Kok riot will, as mentioned by many Members in their speeches, only bring the issue to a political arena, needlessly stirring up further political discussions and arguments, including the presentation of the riot as a problem of governance. This is not conducive to finding out a solution. A select committee under the Legislative Council is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12699 the right platform for this, neither is it the right place for focusing on dealing with the unlawful acts neglecting others' safety, as well as other existing problems in society.

During today's debate session, some Members have mentioned the incident triggered by the Star Ferry fare rise. I believe the riot in Mong Kok at the early hours of second day of the Chinese New Year was not comparable with the one in 1966 in terms of scale, damage and nature.

I reviewed relevant documents and papers in the past, which reminded my childhood memories of the incident. An increase in ferry fares by five cents had set off the 1966 incident. Unrest broke out when police arrested the young people on hunger strike outside the Star Ferry Terminal. The riots lasted a few days, in which rioters set fire, looted shops and hurled stones to police and fire stations. Despite being a toddler then, I still remember the curfew imposed by the government at that time, and the nights we experienced. Not only police were deployed, British soldiers were mobilized when the curfew was in force. The incident caused one death, many injuries and more than 1 000 arrests, and had done considerable damage to the economy. After the incident, the government at that time set up a commission of inquiry to inquire into the causes. In 1967, Hong Kong experienced another riot which lasted a long period, yet no similar commission was set up to conduct an inquiry.

For the above example, it can be seen that the riot in 1966 was much more serious than the one in Mong Kok this year, and Hong Kong did not establish an inquiry committee for every such incident. Access to information 50 years ago was far from the advancement of today's, not having the Internet, and it was even not easy to dial a phone call. There were not many channels for the people to voice out opinions, and policy implementation was totally not as transparent as today's. President, as I have said in the very beginning, arrested rioters will be handed to the Court for trial, during which the prosecution will thoroughly present evidence while the defence will put up a defence. Through the proceedings, the public will then be able to know more about the truth during the trial. Some Members have mentioned in their speeches that the Police dropped the charges against certain arrested people after the Department of Justice (DoJ) had gave instructions upon examining the cases. Here, I have to point out that it is the duty of police officers to enforce the law by conducting investigation and making arrest, whereas criminal prosecution is the duty of the DoJ, and the Court 12700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 is responsible for staging trials. The three institutions perform their own functions. Therefore, that the Police arrests alleged offenders on reasonable suspicion does not necessarily mean successful prosecution and conviction of the suspects.

President, during the Mong Kok riot, rioters deliberately flouted the law against others' safety. Ascribing this unlawful violence to the Government's administration, or equating this with expression of political views will mislead the public …

(Mr WONG Yuk-man yelled in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please hold on. Mr WONG Yuk-man, please keep quiet.

(Mr WONG Yuk-man continued to yell)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please keep quiet.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Just quit your post!

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): … will mislead the public, framing a concept that criminal offence can be rationalized. As the Secretary for Security, I have the duty to maintain public safety and order in Hong Kong. The reputation of Hong Kong as one of the safest cities in the world is an achievement of the people's devotion and effort throughout the years. We cannot afford seeing this achievement nibbled. We must stop this violence though, and work together to bring Hong Kong forward.

I once again urge Members to reject Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

President, I so submit. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12701

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please reply.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, many people in this Chamber today are wearing black clothes in order to mourn the firemen who died in vain and express condolences to their families. This is downright affectation, and I do not think we should behave in this way. Would it be better for us to do more practical things?

The Secretary for Security, who is present today, also tries to piggyback on the incident. Let me tell all of you that he is really very shameless. If he does not resign and step down, how can he face the people of Hong Kong? The Director of Fire Services should step down, and so should LAI Tung-kwok! Two firemen died in vain but as the Secretary for Security, how did he answer questions from reporters? He smiled to himself and this was photographed by the media. His speech today was so very moving and rhetorical, but whom did he try to move? With all his rhetoric and moving expressions, he only sought to lick someone's boots, obsequiously talking about "Chairman ZHANG" and "according to Chairman ZHANG" all the time. Why doesn't he just go to hell? We are now facing a crisis and our firemen are still fighting the fire. But he still has the face to do boot-licking and make a fuss here! I couldn't care less about his opposition to my motion. Well, in fact, I will be puzzled if he is not opposed to it because he will probably be dismissed in that case.

He argues that the nature of the incident will be determined by the Court. But there is no more need to determine the nature of the incident because he has already determined that the incident is a riot. He is free to determine the nature of the incident, but we cannot ask for the establishment of a commission of inquiry. According to him, the Court will determine the nature of the incident, the prosecution can produce evidence, and the whole truth will then be revealed. However, why the deep-rooted conflicts triggered all sorts of social problems? Why are young people willing to risk their life for this? How come an investigation cannot be carried out? We attach great importance to democracy and the rule of law, but the gradual perfection of the rule of law or the legal system hinges on a democratic system, and a liberal, transparent and responsible government. If the principle of democracy is not adopted as the basis of society, if there is no introspection and pursuit of humanity, human beings will be living under the shadow of disasters. This can be best illustrated in the case of Hong 12702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

Kong today, where power and money are everything, no public officer is to be held accountable and made to step down, and corrupt officials can evade responsibility. Two firemen have died in vain, tears have been shed by the Director of Fire Services to settle the case, and the Secretary has faced the public in a brazen and shameless manner, and has even snickered.

He is so hypocritical in this Chamber today, but what exactly is he talking about? Frankly speaking, there is a second motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) which I have to move, so they have staged a filibuster in the hope that I would not have the chance to move the motion, since it is about the incident of the alleged airport security breach by the family members of their boss. We will proceed to vote later after I have finished my speech, and the meeting will then come to an end. At the Council meeting to be held next Wednesday, we will deal with the scrutiny of bills first, and there will definitely be no chance for me to move my second motion under the P&P Ordinance. Hence, this is an ineffective legislature, and the Government is failing its people, who in turn lose hope in the Government, thus rendering the community entirely ineffective. There is nothing we can do to save Hong Kong, since people who have received generous remuneration and benefits are not required to assume political responsibility.

Secretary, you have no right to say anything without doing any research and study, and what is the point of talking nonsense here? You have already determined the nature of the incident, calling it a riot and the participants rioters. Your opening remarks, the speech you delivered just now and the comments you made previously can all show that you want to have all the say and you have already determined the nature of the incident. LAI Tung-kwok, are you a judge? You say that something suddenly dawned on you, but I should in fact be the one to say so. How can there be such a brazen and shameless person in this world? How come we have on this earth a person like LEUNG Chun-ying, who has messed up everything in Hong Kong? It is unbelievable that even fighting a fire can turn out to be such a mess. As the Secretary for Security, how can he face the public? What he has said at the press meeting really gets on my nerves.

I have kept a full record of what he has said. There are Members who have accused us of presenting fallacies to mislead the public. But the public can hardly be misled by fallacies since every one of us is discerning enough to see the truth. He has asked in his speech: What has gone wrong in Hong Kong? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12703

People query what has gone wrong in Hong Kong, and he commented in his speech that the Government has accomplished a lot, citing the public transport fare concession of $2 per trip for the elderly as an example. How shameless of him to say so! How does the initiative have anything to do with him? How does it have anything to do with this motion? He considers the fare concession of $2 per trip for the elderly a benevolent measure introduced by the Government, and since this is a benevolent measure, how come young people have resorted to throwing of bricks? He has totally missed the point and was basically babbling nonsense.

There is a Chinese saying which goes, "People seldom know themselves well enough, but instead, they always mistake themselves as men of competence … this is the fault of not looking at the shortcomings of oneself from another standpoint", and the Secretary is just one of such people. He does not know himself well enough but considers himself a man of competence, since he fails to see the shortcomings of himself. As a principal official, a member of the ruling team and one of the persons in control of the entire government machinery, he is really daydreaming when he advises us that we should weigh things on equal footing, feel for others and put ourselves in other's shoes. The Government should of course be held responsible, and what he has said is sheer nonsense. Even the blind can tell that there is something wrong with the governance of Hong Kong.

The Government opposes to both the establishment of a commission of inquiry and the appointment of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident, but when it comes to the reason for its objection, he keeps repeating the same old story and argues that legal proceedings are on-going. If this is the case, he should refrain from talking all the nonsense every day about those participated in the incident are violent radicals, the incident is a riot by nature, and a large number of bricks have been thrown. Should he comment on all these? According to his reasoning, these should be left to the Court. He said that the truth would be revealed during the public hearing process, and there would be no need to find out the facts at this stage, but this is something to be decided by this Council. You may institute prosecution, collect evidence and produce evidence to the Court, but as elected representatives, we should of course exercise our powers in this Council to find out the facts. LAI Tung-kwok, what do you mean by saying that there is no need to find out the facts? You are taking advantage of the fact that the royalists are the majority in 12704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 this Council and making irresponsible remarks, do you really have to do so? Do you know you are insulting Members of this Council? It does not matter to those who are willing to be insulted by you, but I will never let you insult me. The Secretary also said that a committee has been set up by the Police to conduct a review, but what is the purpose of the review to be conducted by this committee? The committee seeks to review only such issues as the manpower deployment of police operations that night, the performance of the commander and what exactly happened then. The approach is different from the direction of investigation to be carried out by the independent select committee which we ask to set up, is that right?

An analysis was then made by the Secretary on the functions of this Council to point out that a meeting was held by the Panel on Security, and that a motion was passed at the meeting to condemn the outbreak of the Mong Kok riot and the acts of violent radicals. In other words, a motion in this respect was moved and passed by Members of the pro-establishment camp at the meeting of the Panel on Security. Is the Secretary trying to teach us how we should handle our business in this Council? How does it have anything to do with the Secretary? He then pointed out that the motion I moved to appoint an independent select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident was also negatived by the House Committee. This is really ridiculous. It is true that my proposal was negatived by the House Committee, but what is the problem with this? I can still move the motion at a Council meeting, and is it not what I am doing now? Have I ever been forbidden to move the motion? Is he suggesting that there is no need for this Council to appoint a select committee to inquire into the incident simply because a motion was passed by the Panel on Security to condemn the outbreak of the incident, and the motion I moved to invoke the P&P Ordinance to investigate into the truth was negatived by the House Committee? Is he telling us how we should handle the business in this Council? Is it how the executive override the legislature? He has mentioned nothing about the responsibility of the Government, but how can he prove his innocence by putting the blame on others and smearing others? Secretary LAI knows nothing but finding excuses and covering up his faults.

According to the logic presented by the Secretary just now and previously, things should be very simple, and he need not say that much for the case should just be left to the Court, since prosecutions have already been initiated. Moreover, how many people have been arrested by the Police, and prosecution LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12705 has actually been initiated to how many of them? Trial proceedings have not yet commenced, is that right? The Police have taken arrest and prosecution actions arbitrarily, but have also been forced to release a large number of arrestees after investigation since they can find no sufficient evidence to prosecute them. Some people who have been arrested by the Police indiscriminately have approached us for assistance, and according to them, they have never participated in the incident that night. They arrived at the scene after the outbreak of the incident, but were subsequently beaten up and arrested. The Secretary has made no mention of such cases. He will certainly not utter a single word about this, and this is of course something for us to uncover, but before the judge in the future, is that right? The Government is ineffective and has failed the people, this legislature of ours is a failure for it cannot perform its functions, and these have turned Hong Kong into a hopeless society. Who should be responsible for this?

Let me reiterate here that it would of course be impossible to get the passage of the motion today, and some fellow colleagues have said that even though the motion is passed, it would not be able to achieve the intended effect, since the current Legislative Session is drawing to a close. Further discussion on the matter will have to be left to the next Legislative Council, which has to start everything all over again. This is just an opportunity for Members to state their position on the matter, and it is also unexpected to me that I will have a chance to speak on the issue here. It is really bad luck for the Secretary that we have finished our scrutiny of Bills swiftly, thus giving me a chance to swear at him here, but after all, this is all that I can do. The Secretary will have nothing to lose, he can ignore our criticisms and cling to his present position all the same, earning a handsome salary of several millions dollars a year by making desperate boot-licking attempts. After the expiry of the term of the current Government, he may not be reappointed as a Bureau Director by the Government of the next term, but he will probably become a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and how wonderful it will be, will it not? It should be beyond his imagination that as an ordinary civil servant, he would become the Director of Immigration, then the Secretary for Security, and finally have the chance to work together with the Central Authorities. It is really a shame to have him in the ruling team. He gets his salary from taxpayers, and his living is supported by Hong Kong people, but he is much indebted to the people of Hong Kong.

12706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

I am sure this motion will definitely be negatived today, but another motion to be moved by me under the P&P Ordinance is also included in the Agenda. The nature of the issue involved in that motion is even more serious, and it is also within the purview of the Secretary. However, I do not think I will have the chance of moving the motion because four bills are pending scrutiny at the Council meeting next week. Our deliberation on certain motions will have to be delayed once again, the chance for fellow Members to move their motions will be very slim, and then the current Legislative Session will come to an end. After the expiry of the current term of the Legislative Council, there is still one year left in his term of office as the Secretary for Security. I am now telling the Secretary that I will try to settle all these with him again next year, and will never let him get away with it.

I have already prepared a script for the speech to be delivered on my second motion moved under the P&P Ordinance, and I can read out the heading of my speech to the Secretary. Since the Secretary has talked about the rule of law, the heading of my speech is: "Rule of law overridden by rule by man The end for the SAR Government The Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance should be invoked to investigate into the incident of alleged abuse of power by the family of LEUNG Chun-ying at the Airport ".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please leave the script you have prepared for your speech on your second motion to a later stage when you move the motion.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Since the Secretary has mentioned the rule of law, I just want to tell him the script of my speech on the next motion is about the rule of law.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please focus on your first motion and speak in reply.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12707

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I will now continue with my speech. How much time do I have? Is it 15 minutes … but I have only slightly more than one minute left. There are so many impassionate speeches today which are elegant in style and rich in sentiment, but I am not good at saying such things. My speeches are always straight to the point, since being hypocritical and sentimental are not my style, and I am really very angry now. One more word to the Secretary: If he still has the slightest sense of shame, he should bow and step down immediately, tell everybody that he would take the blame and resign, and set a good example for other principal officials appointed under the accountability system. With regard to the serious fire that broke out in the mini-storage facilities at the Amoycan Industrial Centre, which has claimed the lives of two firemen, he should bow and step down, and take the blame and resign so as to show his accountability to the public. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr WONG Yuk-man rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

12708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the motion.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Mr Alvin YEUNG voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Paul TSE, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the motion.

Mr Michael TIEN abstained.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 June 2016 12709

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, seven were in favour of the motion and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion, nine against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 29 June 2016.

Adjourned accordingly at 12.57 pm.