LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9145
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 12 May 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 CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
9146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9147
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 MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
9148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
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
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:
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9149
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
MS CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
DR DAVID CHUNG WAI-KEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
9150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will continue to put to vote the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2016.
Dr Helena WONG, please move Amendment No 263.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2016
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 263, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr Helena WONG moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 138 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9151
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Helena WONG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Gary FAN and Dr KWOK Ka-ki are not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 266 and 267.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 268 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 268, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9153
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 138 be reduced by $104,440,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
9154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I appeal to Members once again to stay in the Chamber when the vote is being taken. I will suspend the meeting for 15 minutes at 11 am for a break, and for an hour at 1 pm to let Members have their meals.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 269 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9155
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 269, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 139 be reduced by $97,800,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 271 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 271, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9157
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 139 be reduced by $11,800,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 272.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 273 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9159
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 273, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 140 be reduced by $2,162,400 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 274 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 274, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9161
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 140 be reduced by $3,994,000 in respect of subhead 85C."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 16 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 275 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9163
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 275, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 140 be reduced by $7,071,000 in respect of subhead 899."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 276 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 276, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9165
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 140 be reduced by $824,108,000 in respect of subhead 979."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
9166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 277 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 277, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 141 be reduced by $97,831,000 in respect of subhead 000."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9167
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 278 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 278, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 141 be reduced by $95,814,000 in respect of subhead 000."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9169
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 280 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 280, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 141 be reduced by $14,700,000 in respect of subhead 000."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9171
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 281.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 282 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 282, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9173
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 141 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 283 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9175
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 283, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 141 be reduced by $954,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 284 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9177
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 284, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $950,620,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 285 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9179
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 285, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $117,958,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 9180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 288 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9181
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 288, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $13,900,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 289 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9183
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 289, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $9,166,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 290.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 291 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9185
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 291, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $3,970,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr LEE Cheuk-yan is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 293.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 294 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9187
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 294, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $3,150,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr WONG Kwok-kin and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 296 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 296, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9189
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 142 be reduced by $2,830,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN 9190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 17 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Dr KWOK Ka-ki is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 297 and 298.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 299 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9191
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 299, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 143 be reduced by $18,800,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 300.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 301 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9193
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 301, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $605,120,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 302 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 302, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9195
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $168,381,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA 9196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 304 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9197
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 304, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Cyd HO rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9199
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 305 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 305, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $3,060,600 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
9200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (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 CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9201
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 306 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 306, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $2,830,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Cyd HO rose to claim a division.
9202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9203
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Dr KWOK Ka-ki is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 307.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 308 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 308, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $400,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9205
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 309 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 309, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $246,000 in respect of subhead 88A."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9207
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 310 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 310, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 144 be reduced by $201,000 in respect of subhead 88B."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9209
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 311 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 311, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 147 be reduced by $139,517,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9211
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 312 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 312, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 147 be reduced by $135,601,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9213
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 313.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 314 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 314, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 147 be reduced by $62,950,000 in respect of subhead 281."
9214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9215
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 315 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 315, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $149,000,000 in respect of subhead 000."
9216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9217
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 316 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 316, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $144,901,000 in respect of subhead 000."
9218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
(After the division bell had been rung for one minute)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9219
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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 18 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 317 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 317, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
9220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $136,961,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9221
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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 318 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 318, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed. Members need not support it.
9222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $450,000,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr KWOK Wai-keung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9223
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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 319 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
9224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 319, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed. Members need not support it.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $21,700,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr KWOK Wai-keung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9225
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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr KWOK Ka-ki did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 320 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 320, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed. Members need not support it.
9226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 148 be reduced by $1,000,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr KWOK Wai-keung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9227
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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 321 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 321, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
9228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 151 be reduced by $480,550,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9229
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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 322 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
9230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 322, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 151 be reduced by $142,924,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9231
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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 323 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
9232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 323, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 151 be reduced by $4,600,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9233
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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 324.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 325 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
9234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 325, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 151 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Cyd HO rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9235
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN and Dr KWOK Ka-ki voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Gary FAN is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 326.
9236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 327 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may now move your amendment.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 327, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 151 be reduced by $1,790,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9237
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr KWOK Ka-ki voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 328 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 328, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $871,860,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9239
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 329 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 329, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $435,930,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9241
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 330 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 330, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $196,200,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9243
CHAIRMAN (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 Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 17 were present and 16 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 331 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 331, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $194,728,500 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9245
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 18 were present and 17 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 332 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
9246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 332, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $169,743,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9247
Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Gary FAN is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 333.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 334 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
9248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 334, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Cyd HO rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9249
Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Dr KWOK Ka-ki voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, five were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Gary FAN are not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 335 and 336.
9250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 337 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may now move your amendment.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 337, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $1,790,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9251
CHAIRMAN (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 Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Dr KWOK Ka-ki voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 338 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 338, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 152 be reduced by $204,682,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9253
CHAIRMAN (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 Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Claudia MO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 339 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 339, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 155 be reduced by $97,940,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9255
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 340 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 340, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 155 be reduced by $78,794,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9257
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 341 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 341, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 155 be reduced by $70,031,500 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9259
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 342 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 342, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 155 be reduced by $4,487,000 in respect of subhead 603."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9261
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Claudia MO, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 343 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 343, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 155 be reduced by $9,946,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9263
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 344 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 344, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $3,228,744,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9265
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 345 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 345, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $2,102,160,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9267
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 346 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Claudia MO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 346, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Ms Claudia MO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $831,100,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9269
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 347 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 347, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $96,400,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9271
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 348.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 349 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 349, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $17,700,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9273
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.
9274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 11.15 am.
11.00 am
Meeting suspended.
11.14 am
Committee then resumed.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, a quorum is not present in the Chamber for the voting.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members had yet to return to their seats)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please move Amendment No 350.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9275
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 350, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr Helena WONG moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Helena WONG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Helena WONG rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Prof Joseph LEE and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr TANG Ka-piu voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG and Mr Alvin YEUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 18 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 22 were present, nine were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 354 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9277
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 354, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $2,500,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU 9278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr KWOK Ka-ki voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Alvin YEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Gary FAN is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 355.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please move Amendment No 356.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9279
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 356, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed
Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $1,790,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Alvin YEUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 357 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9281
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 357, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $1,320,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU 9282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Si-wing, 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 and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Ms Claudia MO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Alvin YEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 358 and 359.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please move Amendment No 360.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9283
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 360, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $56,500,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr KWOK Wai-keung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Alvin YEUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 21 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 361 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9285
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 361, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 156 be reduced by $35,500,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, 9286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr Alvin YEUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr KWOK Ka-ki did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 362 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9287
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 362, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 158 be reduced by $218,194,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU 9288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Fernando CHEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 363 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9289
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 363, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 158 be reduced by $147,816,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU 9290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Fernando CHEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 364 and 365.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please move Amendment No 366.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9291
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 366, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 158 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, seven were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 367 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9293
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 367, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 158 be reduced by $1,790,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted for the amendment.
9294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Gary FAN and Mr WONG Yuk-man are not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 368 and 369.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9295
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please move Amendment No 370.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 370, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 158 be reduced by $35,900,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
(Mr LEE Cheuk-yan indicated a wish to claim a division)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, since I have already declared the voting result, I cannot allow proceeding a division.
If Members intend to claim a division, please so indicate before I declare the voting preference of the two groups of Members present.
9296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please move Amendment No 371.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 371, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 159 be reduced by $375,991,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9297
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK and Dr Elizabeth QUAT voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO and Dr Fernando CHEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If Committee can finish the voting of all the amendments by 1 pm, I will suspend the meeting for one hour upon the completion of voting, so that Members may have lunch and then return to the Chamber to continue to deal with the subsequent procedures.
If Committee has not yet finisthed the voting of all the amendments by 1 pm, I will suspend the meeting for an hour at 1 pm to let Members have lunch.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please move Amendment No 372.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 372, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 159 be reduced by $17,300,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9299
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO and Dr Fernando CHEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 9300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 373 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 373, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 159 be reduced by $40,949,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9301
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO and Dr Fernando CHEUNG did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 9302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 374 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may now move your amendment.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 374, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 159 be reduced by $1,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9303
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr Dennis KWOK did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 9304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 375 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 375, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 160 be reduced by $43,224,000 in respect of subhead 603."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9305
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 9306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 376 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Ms Cyd HO, you may now move your amendment.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 376. Will Members please vote against this amendment, and I will claim a division.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 160 be reduced by $10,870,000 in respect of subhead 603."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Ms Cyd HO rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9307
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 377 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 377, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 160 be reduced by $37,821,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9309
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
9310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 378 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 378, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 162 be reduced by $513,600,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 379 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move your amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9311
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 379, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 162 be reduced by $460,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 380 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 380, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 163 be reduced by $1,113,685,000 in respect of subhead 000."
9312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9313
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 381 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 381, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 163 be reduced by $600,000 in respect of subhead 661."
9314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9315
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 16 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 382 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 382, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 166 be reduced by $274,934,000 in respect of subhead 000."
9316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 383 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 383, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 168 be reduced by $11,245,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9317
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 384 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 384, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $144,000 in respect of subhead 157."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9319
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 385 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 385, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $5,950,000 in respect of subhead 176."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9321
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 386 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 386, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $1,000,000 in respect of subhead 177."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9323
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 387 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 387, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $21,361,000,000 in respect of subhead 179."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9325
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 388 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 388, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $20,653,000,000 in respect of subhead 180."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9327
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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 amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 16 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 389 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 389, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $44,707,000 in respect of subhead 184."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9329
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 390 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 390, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $5,247,000 in respect of subhead 187."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9331
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, 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 POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
9332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 391 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 391, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 170 be reduced by $3,539,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9333
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
9334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 392 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 392, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 173 be reduced by $687,074,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9335
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Albert CHAN is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 393.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please move Amendment No 394.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 394, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $1,582,942,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
9336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9337
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr Albert CHAN is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment No 395.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please move Amendment No 396.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have a point of order. I could not hear clearly what you said just now about when the lunch break begins. Should Members return to the Chamber at 2 pm? Do you mean there will be a break of an hour once the voting is completed?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will be suspended after all the voting is completed and then resumed at 2 pm.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): That is it. I really could not hear you clearly. I thought you meant one hour after the voting, which I found unreasonable. Now that you have said we should come back at 2 pm, I have nothing more to say. Come back at 2 pm, all right. You are reasonable.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please move Amendment No 396.
9338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 396, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $1,117,580,000 in respect of subhead 166."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9339
Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 397 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
9340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 397, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $27,189,000 in respect of subhead 603."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9341
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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Ms Cyd HO did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 398 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
9342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 398, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $29,941,000 in respect of subhead 661."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9343
Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 399 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
9344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 399, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $82,068,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9345
Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 400 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, you may now move your amendment.
9346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 400, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed. Please vote against it.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $1,000 in respect of subhead 700."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9347
Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present and 16 were against the amendment. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 401 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 401, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
9348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 186 be reduced by $18,787,000 in respect of subhead 927."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9349
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 402 as set out in Appendix II attached to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 402, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
9350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 188 be reduced by $372,611,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9351
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 403 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 403, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
9352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 190 be reduced by $17,966,120,000 in respect of subhead 000."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr WONG Yuk-man is not present, Committee will not deal with Amendment Nos 404 and 405.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please move Amendment No 406.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 406, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 194 be reduced by $4,543,660,000 in respect of subhead 223."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9353
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 407 as set out in Appendix II to the Script.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may now move your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I move that Amendment No 407, as set out in Appendix II to the Script, be passed.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 194 be reduced by $18,322,000 in respect of subhead 661."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9355
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, 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 YIU Si-wing, 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, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.
9356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN Mr Jasper TSANG and Mr SIN Chung-kai did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 24 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, one was in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee has voted on all the amendments, which were all negatived. Committee will then proceed to the debate on the sums for the 74 heads without amendment standing part of the Schedule, and then to the vote on the question.
I now suspend the meeting until 2 pm.
12.42 pm
Meeting suspended.
2.00 pm
Committee then resumed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9357
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please summon Members back to the meeting to show respect for the Basic Law.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the sums for heads 21 to 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 42, 44 to 49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 100, 106, 112, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 135, 137 to 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 181, 186, 188, 190 and 194 stand part of the Schedule.
Committee will now proceed to the seventh debate on the question that the sums for the heads read out just now stand part of the Schedule. The debate will continue until around 8 pm this evening. Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button as soon as possible.
Does any Member wish to speak?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, under your leadership, this Council can ultimately cut off the filibuster before it rises, and with the concerted efforts made by the pro-establishment Members for the protection of Hong Kong and this Council, the 400-odd frivolous, meaningless amendments were ultimately negatived along with the cutting off of the filibuster. Having said that, I wish to tell all the people of Hong Kong that the problem has not yet been resolved and that the cutting off of the filibuster today is not a solution to all of our woes.
As the opposition camp and the pan-democrat Members in the Legislative Council have engaged in filibusters on all fronts, their non-cooperation movement has led to dire consequences. Apart from the Budget or the Appropriation Bill which has become a target of filibuster, various funding applications under consideration by the Public Works Subcommittee, the Establishment 9358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Subcommittee and the Finance Committee have all fallen prey to the filibusters. As a result, some 20 items and bills on the agenda over which discussion should have been conducted have all fallen behind schedule and a "congestion" has thus occurred. In this connection, I hope the public will continue to support the pro-establishment Members in continuously working for the cutting off of the filibuster, or else I am afraid the Legislative Council could not complete the deliberation on all the motions and items on the Agenda before the end of the Session in mid-July this year. Therefore, I call on all the people of Hong Kong to support the pro-establishment camp in working hard for the cutting off of the filibuster.
Chairman, I certainly support these sums standing part of the Schedule. It is because they had proposed 400-odd amendments and other than some 1 000 to 2 000 amendments ruled out by the President ― credit is due to the President ― the remaining 400-odd amendments can be described as shameless and frivolous. They filibustered for the sake of filibuster and they put up opposition for the sake of opposition. I have made these remarks for several reasons.
First, they are unprofessional and unsympathetic; their words and deeds are exactly opposite to their position and vows of caring for the people's livelihood and taking up the cudgels for the people when they were elected Members of the Legislative Council; and worse still, they are far from serious. As Members should have heard from their speeches, they were often tongue-tied even when reading out the amounts of deduction proposed in their own amendments. They got the amounts wrong even when reading them out from the scripts that they picked up in haste. From this we can see that they actually did not talk sense. They just shoot their mouths off and, put it more plainly, they talked rubbish. So, their fallacious arguments cannot be more absurd. What is most meaningful to them should be the doing of headcounts, because in the course of doing a headcount, they do not have to speak while they can waste 15 minutes of the time of the meeting every time it is conducted.
Mr Albert CHAN again requested a headcount shortly after the meeting resumed. Why do I criticize them as being unsympathetic? With regard to the second last amendment moved earlier on before the cutting off of the filibuster, namely, Amendment No 406 concerning "Head 194 ― Water Supplies Department", Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposed to deduct the annual expenditure for purchasing water …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9359
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, the question under debate is that the sums for the 74 heads without amendment stand part of the Schedule. Members should not further debate the amendments which have already been voted on. Therefore, will Members please not discuss the amendments for which votes have been taken.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am only citing an example to explain that they …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, since Mr WONG Kwok-hing is making such frivolous, naïve remarks, please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, they are again wasting our time by way of a headcount.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Let me remind Members that the question under debate is that the sums for the 74 heads stand part of the Schedule. Members should not further discuss in their speeches the amendments which were already voted on at the Committee stage, or else it would mean restarting the debates on the relevant amendments which were already concluded.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the example cited by me just now involves the Water Supplies Department. It is also because I support the sum for Head 194 ― Water Supplies Department standing part of the Schedule that I consider the request for this item of expenditure to be reduced unreasonable. Given the first reason mentioned by me just now, we should support these reasonable items of expenditure incurred by the Government and the employment of such items in a reasonable manner. Let me cite another 9360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 example. It is unreasonable for the sum for head 21 to be reduced since it is used to meet the payment of War Memorial Pensions/Volunteer Pensions. Members who request that these sums be reduced are devoid of conscience. I therefore support the sum for this head standing part of the Schedule. Take the sum for head 30, which is used to meet the payment of earnings to persons in custody, as another example. A Member has gone so far as to request that the annual earnings of persons in custody be reduced ― although he was once jailed, he has failed to see their plights. What reasons does he have? The amendments proposed by these Members are therefore unreasonable. I support the sum for this head standing part of the Schedule.
The second reason I would like to cite is that a number of heads involved in the seventh debate are actually classified as recurrent expenditure items, which means that they are essential items incurred annually. However, the movers of the amendments proposed that these expenditure items be reduced or scrapped, which is considered by me perverse. In dealing with their amendments, we also found it very strange that Members proposing the amendments requested others to oppose their proposed amendments. They were not only behaving in a self-contradictory manner, but also undoing what they had done with their own hands. This demonstrates that their proposed amendments were frivolous and absolutely meaningless, as well as a waste of time.
Let us examine the numerous heads involved in the seventh debate. In our opinion, they merit support because they are all recurrent expenditure items. As for Members proposing amendments to scrap or reduce the sums for these heads, except for one who was required to appeared in court, they were absent from the meeting when they were supposed to move their amendments. I gather that several Members were absent from the meeting when they were required to move their amendments. This illustrates that they did not make any sense at all.
My fourth reason for supporting these Heads was that in the course of voting, we could see their ugliness fully exposed with only two or three Members at most supporting the amendments, or only the mover of the amendment casting a supportive vote. Actually, all expenditure items under these heads should be supported because they were fair and reasonable. It is evident in the failure of the movers of the amendments to gain support from other pan-democrats that they were unpopular. Furthermore, they were spurned by Members belonging to the same camp.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9361
Chairman, we have now finally come to the seventh debate, and these heads can now be considered for standing part of the Schedule smoothly. I certainly will render them my full support. Had Members of the pro-establishment camp failed to play their roles faithfully in their posts, I believe we would not have proceeded to this agenda item. In the past couple of weeks, we have been kidnapped and indirectly blackmailed in the Chamber. What is more, we were unable to perform other public duties because we were stranded here. I hope people from all walks of life understand our plights and support us. Not only do we guard our positions steadfastly and defend the Legislative Council and Hong Kong, but we also strive to ensure the passage of this Government's Budget, particularly the $30 billion-odd initiatives that will benefit the people in their living.
The 74 heads discussed in the seventh debate cover medical and health services, education, youth affairs, civil service pay and many initiatives for supporting the socially disadvantaged. Owing to the 79-day unlawful Occupy movement and the ensuing "gau wu" (which means shopping) and "anti-locust" campaigns, Hong Kong has seen its reputation falling rapidly. Many sectors, including hotel, tourism, retail, logistics, traffic and transport, and especially construction, have been badly hit as a result of the filibusters staged by the opposition camp in this Council. The affected people are desperate for the passage of the Budget as soon as possible, so that the $30-billion support initiatives for the socially disadvantaged can be implemented expeditiously with a view to boosting Hong Kong economy.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong is currently facing a rebound in the unemployment rate, and various trades and industries are in dire straits. In the past several weeks, for instance, marches and petitions were staged one after another by alliances formed by several trades and industries, and press conferences were convened to make strong calls in the hope that the stimulant initiatives taken by the Government or the expenditure aimed at helping the socially disadvantaged can be implemented expeditiously. Nevertheless, the opposition camp and pan-democrat Members of this Council appear to have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to such calls. These well-paid Members, who are sitting in air-conditioned rooms and enjoying all sorts of special privileges, appear to be carefree and contented. Their repeated attempts to stage filibusters and requests for headcounts in the Chamber really arouse people's scorn.
9362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Chairman, can Members not be moved by the calls made by the community? A newspaper reported today that it had been pointed out in a press conference held by unions of the hotel and catering industries that nearly 40% of their 600 or so practitioners were facing a redundancy crisis. Some hotels have failed to raise their occupancy rates even though they are willing to reduce their room rates. For instance, some hotels in Tsing Yi and its vicinity can still not lure tourists even though their room rates have been slashed to $100 per night. In the face of pay cuts and retrenchment crises, they cannot but request their staff to take leave earlier in order to tie over the difficulties.
In yet another example, in a petition staged outside the Legislative Council Chamber earlier, the 16 organizations set up under the Hong Kong Construction Association Limited called on this Council to pass motions expeditiously to approve the allocation of funds. The construction industry has been going up and down like a roller-coaster. What can be done when 10 000 university graduates studying construction-related discipline will soon join the industry this summer holiday? Some consultancies have originally planned to provide opportunities for further studies for more than 3 000 students, but will these opportunities be still available? In the face of a crisis of starving "斷 炊 (pronounced as 'ham2' here)", Members remain unmoved.
Earlier, an alliance formed by the operators of Ladies Market came forth and expressed their earnest hope for this Council to approve the sums for the 74 heads covered in the seventh debate due to their extremely poor operating environment. However, Members of the opposition camp in this Council are still taking a lethargic attitude here. They are indeed extremely unsympathetic and cold-blooded. On the one hand, they are receiving money from taxpayers and drinking the milk supplied by them and, on the other, turning a blind eye to the sufferings of the taxpayers and public. I strongly condemn their acts of filibuster.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In referring to the expression "斷 炊" in his speech, Mr WONG pronounced "炊" (ceoi1) as "砍" (ham2) rather than "吹" (ceoi1). I have raised this point here so that the staff responsible for making records of the proceedings can make the corrections.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9363
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Indeed, what can someone who cannot tell the difference between "fire" and "stone" 1 do? Mr WONG Kwok-hing, now there is an online software which will pronounce Chinese characters in Cantonese after the characters are entered. Would he please buy one? He receives the taxpayers' money …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not stray away from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, since the Chairman has given him advice, I can give him some advice too, can I not? If he is not enlightened, we will have to guide him from time to time. I now advise him that there is a software which will readily give the Cantonese pronunciations of Chinese words. If he does not have any, let me give him one for free, okay?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak to the question of the seventh debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, he often accuses other people of ignorance and incompetence, right? Chairman, I do not know why I often have to speak after him.
First of all, Mr WONG Kwok-hing said our filibuster was frivolous. But the Chairman has already cut out some of the amendments. As regards the other amendments, he allowed us to debate and vote on them here. In that case, that means he was reproaching the Chairman. Frankly, this has nothing to do with me. He can reproach Jasper TSANG, right? The Chairman has already screened out so many amendments. If he has the time, he can reproach the Chairman. What is the point of speaking to me? Yet he does not dare reproach him.
1 The Chinese characters "砍" and "炊" are respectively formed with the radicals "石" (meaning stone) and "火" (meaning fire). 9364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
It is very simple. I have explained this here many times. According to Article 74 of the Basic Law, in respect of these heads, we cannot increase the government expenditure unless with the Chief Executive's consent and approval. As we all know, LEUNG Chun-ying and I are such "good friends" that whenever he sees me in front of him, he will walk away from me at the back. How will I be able to find him? Deputy Chairman, you have seen LEUNG Chun-ying ― I do not know if the two of you are on friendly terms, but at least you can talk with each other. Actually, whatever Members such as Mr "MONG Kwok-hing" ― I have pronounced it wrong. Not "MONG Kwok-hing". It should be WONG Kwok-hing ― have said here in the Legislative Council that they want to do, they can really do it in a flash. Since they support the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration, they may as well tell LEUNG Chun-ying their requests, right? For those things they said they would fight for the masses in Hong Kong, they cannot achieve anything after talking about them for more than two decades. It does not have anything to do with me, does it? After all, what did they say to LEUNG Chun-ying when they dined with him?
Now the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) faces two major problems. One is standard working hours. Leaving the other problems aside …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the Chairman has reminded you that the question of this debate is that the sums for the 74 heads stand part of the Schedule, but so far you have not spoken on the question. Let me remind you once again. Please expeditiously focus your speech on the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I know you have ganged up, because just now Mr WONG Kwok-hing's speech was not related to the heads at all. He only mentioned one head, the one which I proposed to cut in relation to the annual expenditure of the Water Supplies Department for purchasing drinking water. After that, he kept talking nonsense. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9365
Jasper TSANG could not bear seeing it any longer, so he left the Chamber. Then the Deputy Chairman pretended that he was not aware of it. Not a single point in his speech was related to the heads. He was only reproaching people. Now I refute him, but you said I cannot do so. What the heck are you doing? Do you wish to not let me speak? I can choose not to speak.
Since Jasper TSANG has left the Chamber, you are acting as the Deputy Chairman, but just now you did not listen to his speech. Now let me first answer his first question. As we all know, if the Government is unable to purchase Dongjiang water, surely it will have to engage the Legislative Council in discussions. When the Government approaches the Council for discussions, Mr WONG Kwok-hing may act as the team leader. If the Government refuses to formulate standard working hours, he can tell the Government, sorry, we cannot purchase Dongjiang water, right? During the debates here, they often say that we are like the woman in King Soloman's story who would rather have the baby killed since it was not her own son. Can they not apply this same principle now? If LEUNG Chun-ying does not have any money to purchase Dongjiang water, he certainly will have to engage in discussions with us. He will ask Mr IP Kwok-him what he wants, right? When Mr IP Kwok-him meets LEUNG Chun-ying in the Executive Council, even if the former only glances at the latter while walking past him, the latter will feel scared because there will be no water to consume. I have stated clearly …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, let me remind you again that in this debate, Members' speeches should centre on whether they support the sums for the 74 heads standing part of the Schedule. They should not repeat the discussion about the amendments relating to these 74 heads.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I do not support it. It was he, not I, who said such things.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now remind you that you should speak to the question.
9366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, but why do you not allow me to speak when you have allowed him to speak? He spoke here. Just now when Jasper TSANG rebuked him, he made those remarks, but Jasper TSANG did not say anything to stop him.
Deputy Chairman, I do not mind whether I can speak or not, right? However, you should have some professional standards. The two of you are the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. One of you allowed him to speak as he pleased. In his speech, he strayed away from the question, and it was not until the end that he mentioned the head relating to my second last amendment. He could speak in such a way, but now I cannot do the same. Are you trying to silence me now? You should apply a fair hand. His entire speech was a telling-off. I was reproached by him by name. Actually I could have stood up and asked if he had doubts about my motive, but I did not do so, right? You should apply a fair hand. He may reproach me, and I may reproach him too. It is the debate time now, but now the Deputy Chairman has interrupted my speech, right?
Actually it is very simple. He said I was malicious in attempting to cut the annual estimated expenditure for purchasing drinking water. However, how will it work if the Government does not feel any pain? Deputy Chairman, as I have said many times, in 2011 John TSANG, being slothful, exactly followed the practice in 2008 and distributed $6,000 to each Mandatory Provident Fund account of the employees. Sending out their demand in unison, they said that the Budget would be unable to pass if that was the case. Deputy Chairman, what they said was that the Budget would be unable to pass, not that there would be no water to drink. Accordingly, Hong Kong would be unable to move on. How did they speak to John TSANG at that time? How did they speak to us? When they went for the meeting, everyone took a group photo with John TSANG with a smiling face. Do Members think John TSANG was stupid? When Members reproached him outside, he asked them to take a group photo with him and said he himself had changed then. It was the pro-establishment camp who had told him to change. In this way, they had succeeded. Did I ever criticize them? Nevertheless, at the time when I threw the bananas, they were still hurling criticisms. I remember the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) expressed acceptance of the proposal, whereas the FTU said it was not good, but still it stated acceptance …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9367
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speech has strayed farther and farther away from the question. This is the last time that I am reminding you. Please speak to the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I see. This proves that if people who reproach others really wish to do something, they will be able to do so. Am I now asking for their lives? I am just saying that the Government has allocated $50 billion to serve as the seed fund. What remains to be done is merely to announce the implementation of universal retirement protection. This is also the goal which the FTU and the DAB have striven to achieve for more than two decades. Mr TAM Yiu-chung is a classic example, for he said the same thing in the FTU and the DAB. The President of the Legislative Council, who is now hiding in his office, also said this is a political issue. Granting the wish to resolve it, actually it can be resolved right away. This is what the DAB said. President Jasper TSANG said that universal retirement protection is a political issue which boils down to how the Government looks at the elderly. That is also the case with minimum wage. How easy it sounded at that time! So is the case with standard working hours now. Come on. Having talked in vain for so many years, they had better commit hara-kiri. This is the situation I have noted here now. Deputy Chairman, I only ask for one thing: universal retirement protection. This is all I ask.
Deputy Chairman, now Carrie LAM has gone there to play with pandas. She nearly dropped the national treasure and the national treasure's great grandchild to death. She has already said that she will do nothing more, blatantly humiliating Members. Other Members may swallow such an insult in meek submission, but not me. For this reason, I have to do something which is so-called nonsensical, that is, to sign a peace treaty in explicit terms if any amendment ― the greater the amount involved, the better ― cannot be passed. Let me assign Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok to be our representative, but Mr IP Kwok-him cannot do it because he is an Executive Council Member. I can assign Mr TAM Yiu-chung as well. He has striven for it for so many years. I can also assign Mr WONG Kwok-hing over there to be our representative. Everyone can take part in negotiating with her. Of course, we need to make her feel worried to death and state the terms clearly. Do not tell me my guess is correct, that they have entered into such an agreement.
9368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Another point I wish to talk about is the problem of the works projects. Mr WONG Kwok-hing has actually turned a blind eye to everything. We wish to stop the Finance Committee from granting funds to the two major projects which have incurred a serious deficit. They are projects with cost overruns and problems which still remain unsolved. One is the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project in which the anchors are still moving. The other one is the Express Rail Link project which has incurred a cost overrun of some $10 billion. What I am doing is about this matter. We had repeatedly asked LEUNG Chun-ying to submit those motions which could be passed more easily, but he refused to do so. Now my point has been proved. Can any motion not be passed now? All of them are being handled swiftly. The funding granted for miscellaneous expenditure alone is $10-odd billion. Did Mr WONG Kwok-hing ever attend the meetings? Was he really present? Was he a virtual reality?
Deputy Chairman, there is another problem. We have long since asked the Government not to launch only "white elephant" projects for the Belt and Road in advance. Instead, it should carry out more community projects and construct more public housing and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) units. Speaking of this, Deputy Chairman, as you know, back then, the "Suen's Nine Strokes" were increased to ten, preventing the Government from constructing public housing and HOS units, and Donald TSANG did not even want to place any land lot on the Application List, thus leading to this situation today. Deputy Chairman, I guess you might not support it at that time, but who did raise their hands in support? Who raised their hands in support, thus causing the people of Hong Kong to be short of land and housing now? They did. Please do not forget that Michael SUEN is still alive. When he came to the Legislative Council, who voted for his proposal? As regards The LINK REIT, I was slammed at that time. They talked about getting rid of "the big double-crosser CHENG" and "Long Hair", who were blocking Hongkongers from getting rich ― of course they said I was blocking the Link from getting rich. Each of them had a friendly relationship with The Link, right? Who caused such a mess? Was it me?
Deputy Chairman, all along, I have advocated constructing more public housing for the people of Hong Kong, building more schools and community halls, and carrying out more projects from which foreign companies will not be able to reap gains so easily. I have said it many times. Back to construction LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9369 workers. Now Mainland-funded construction companies seem to take everything for granted. They have taken up almost all of our projects. Now they say there is a shortage of manpower and need to import 10 000 workers. Did the FTU make any rubbish speech? Yes, but it was really rubbish. That means it can be ignored. Moreover, I have called for the introduction of unemployment financial assistance. In my first protest in the Legislative Council, I called for unemployment financial assistance and comprehensive social security. In the wink of an eye, 12 years have since passed ― more than 12 years. It has been almost 20 years. That was 1997. Nineteen years have since passed. What did the FTU achieve? Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please do not insult the FTU.
Simply put, my entire …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Just now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned Mr WONG Kwok-hing, but he is not present. Would you please do a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, now that Mr WONG Kwok-hing is present, I would like to answer his question first. At the end of March, the Finance Committee already approved project funding of 9370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
$35-odd billion. It is so simple. As we all know, funding applications were also approved in April. Hence, in respect of what he said, no decency will ever come off his graceless mouth. He takes bullshitting as speaking.
Applications for project funding of $30-odd billion are still being processed now, but I think this is actually very simple. Since this Legislative Council has been distorted, pro-government Members who can join the Council without going through universal suffrage will support whatever the Government says. For this reason, they definitely have played a part in causing the pain which the Government has inflicted on the people of Hong Kong. I may not be correct, but I know one thing. When the Government has done something wrong, I will certainly speak up and point out that it should not act in such a way. Moreover, I will not support the Government blindly.
When they stood for elections, they made all kinds of promises. For example, universal suffrage is also something for which they have pledged to fight. Deputy Chairman, it is very simple. If all the Members of this Council were returned by universal suffrage, or if I had the chance to run in the Chief Executive Election, I would have no need to talk so much, would I? I would put my election platform into practice in response to the votes. However, their presence is pre-set, right? They are pre-set here to support the Government. Mr WONG Kwok-hing said people are now living in dire straits in Hong Kong, describing the situation in such a way, but Deputy Chairman, do I have such power? Do I have such power and ability to make the people of Hong Kong live in dire straits? As a matter of fact, the problem was caused by the Government's administration because the Government is biased in favour of the tycoons, especially the large red consortiums of the Communist Party of China. This is where the problem lies. I can hardly resist it. The Umbrella Movement failed. However, I will not forget about universal retirement protection for which I have been fighting over the past decade, and this is my cause for filibustering on this occasion. Let me say it again. So long as they ask LEUNG Chun-ying to properly deliver on this, I promise that I will not filibuster. Would they please do it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9371
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, first, I have to respond to Mr WONG Kwok-hing's earlier speech. If the Chairman opines that Members have digressed from their speeches, I must say that 70% of what Mr WONG Kwok-hing says is not true. First of all, he remarks that the 407 amendments which have just been voted down are frivolous. I'm sorry to say that these 407 amendments are not frivolous. Only those from the 2 100-odd amendments ruled to be inadmissible by the President are frivolous. In the President's opinion, these 407 amendments have to be tackled and they are in line with the Rules of Procedure. I have said over and again that he should express his views to President Jasper TSANG or outside the Council, or he can even choose to write a complaint letter.
Second, he says that the pan-democrats have launched a non-cooperation campaign. I beg your pardon. The pan-democrats have not launched any non-cooperation campaign. Pan-democratic Members have only joined forces to filibuster over the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014. As regards his accusation that pan-democratic Members have filibustered during the meetings of the Finance Committee, the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee, it has deviated more from the facts. This is not the first time he has said so.
Let me take the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee as an example. Mr WONG Kwok-hing said that if no toilets would be provided at the Sham Shui Po bus interchange, he would not vote in favour of the funding application. I agree with him. When Members scrutinize funding applications, they have to put the maximum pressure on the Government with the hope that the Government will take on board their recommendations. The Public Works Subcommittee held an extra meeting on Saturday and spent three hours to discuss a swimming pool project and a library project. Members from both the pro-establishment camp and the democratic camp raised questions. No Members deliberately delayed the passage of the funding application.
Since the handling of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Express Rail Link (XRL) projects, no Member has intentionally staged filibuster at the Finance Committee, the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee, and the meetings have proceeded smoothly. Any Member can raise questions. The Public Works Subcommittee held a meeting yesterday to discuss a youth hostel scheme. Pro-establishment Members, such as Mr Michael TIEN, also raised some sensible and logical questions. For 9372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 example, he asked if the scheme would involve double benefit and whether the youths could be allowed to wait for public housing. These are normal discussions. Mr WONG Kwok-hing always says that we filibuster ― luckily, he has put away his scissors ― but in fact, filibuster has long become non-existent. Among the pro-establishment Members in the Legislative Council who are against filibuster, he is the most unequivocal but I think he should not go overboard. Those who buy his comments have long agreed with him. For those who do not see eye to eye with him, it will be to no avail for him to keep talking. I notice he has changed the slogan on his banner from "anti-filibuster" to fighting for paternity leave for male employees.
Deputy Chairman, just as Chairman Jasper TSANG said, these 407 amendments were all vetoed. According to my calculation, when compared with the last four years, Members are given the least speaking time in this year's Budget debate. This is an objective fact. As for the reason, I will not argue since Chairman TSANG and I will surely blame each other.
I have proposed a total of 200 amendments, of which 73 have been ruled admissible and involve 42 heads. The debate is divided into six sessions ― the first session is on heads with no amendments and the remaining five sessions involve heads with amendments, but the fifth and sixth sessions have been combined ― and in most cases, I have only spoken once, or twice at most, in each session. In the previous meetings, since Members who have proposed amendments had no chance to explain when they spoke, they were queried or even smeared by pro-establishment Members like Mr WONG Kwok-hing. In this session, of course I cannot explain the amendments one by one but I wish to give an overview of the amendments again.
The amendments we propose can be divided into several categories. The first category involves amendments seeking to remove a department by cutting a certain subhead. For instance, an amendment seeks to cut the annual estimated operating expenditure or the estimated expenditure for the annual emolument of the Head of the Central Policy Unit under "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary". Several Members have proposed six similar amendments. Another example involves amendments to "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office" with a similar purpose.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9373
The second category involves amendments seeking to remove all expenditure. The aim of these amendments is to deprive those departments of their funding. An example is the amendment to cut the annual expenditure on putting down animals by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department under "Head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department". Another situation is that the department ― especially the most senior officer of the department ― has made serious mistakes. The amendment seeks to cut the expenditure for the department to punish those officials or exert political pressure on them to demand their resignation.
Let me cite two examples. The first is "Head 28 ― Civil Aviation Department" (CAD). In my speech made earlier, I asked to cut the annual estimated expenditure for the CAD. I believe Members understand that I do not mean to ground the planes or turn the sky into "a state of anarchy". I just want to issue the biggest warning to the CAD for its mismanagement over the past year or even years. The second example is "Head 60 ― Highways Department". Although I ask for the cutting of the annual estimated expenditure for the Department, it does not mean that the Department is not allowed to repair bridges and roads. In the past few years, the Department has failed to properly oversee "white elephant" projects such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the XRL. I therefore ask for the cutting of its annual estimated expenditure.
The third category of amendments seeks to pinpoint estimated expenditures which are not good value-for-money, or those which can even be said to be a waste of public money. I have proposed an amendment under "Head 47 ― Government Secretariat: Office of the Government Chief Information Officer" (OGCIO). Some Members say that information technology is very important. Hong Kong has to become a "smart city". We have invented the Octopus card and we also have the smart identity card. The mentioning of these only serves to embarrass me. The smart identity card was introduced in 2003. What more functions has it got by now, 2016? In the past, the OGCIO was under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Now, it comes under the Innovation and Technology Bureau and it has a new Officer. I ask for a cut in this head because I want to warn the OGCIO that it is wasting public money.
I would like to discuss three things which we will come into contact with each day. The first is government webpages. Members may find me subjective but my comments are that it is unpresentable, boring, unattractive and 9374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 dull. It is far from being user-friendly, making it difficult for people to search for information. Take voter registration as an example. Applications (Apps) developed by the civic community are better than the software programme launched by the Registration and Electoral Office for online registration. How can the authorities say that the funding is value-for-money?
The second is Apps for mobile phones. In recent years, the situation has improved as apps will not be developed too frequently and arbitrarily. In some cases, an application is only downloaded by a few dozen people a year. I believe the number of staff within the department who try it out exceeds dozens.
The third is WiFi. Although the Government has invested much money, Hong Kong fares worse than neighbouring cities. Many people complain that the signal is weak or there is virtually no WiFi coverage at some venues. My purpose of cutting this head is to point out this problem.
Since we cannot increase expenditure in the Budget, we can only express our dissatisfaction with some funding items which are insufficient funding through proposing amendments which seek to cut expenditure. Theoretically, there is no limit as to how many times Members can speak during the Committee stage to discuss an amendment. I have proposed 70-odd amendments but I do not have the opportunity to speak on each of them. Some Members say that my amendments are not justified and I am simply buying time. Strictly speaking, this in fact amounts to a speculation of my motive.
We really have no opportunities to explain our reasons for the amendments one by one. I have said earlier that sometimes when we propose amendments seeking to cut expenditure, we actually mean to ask for an increase in expenditure. One example is "Head 24 ― Audit Commission". The Audit Commission has made good efforts and contribution. Every year in the Budget debate, Members will quote information from the Audit Commission's report to support their arguments over dissatisfaction towards government departments.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's amendment to "Head 30 ― Correctional Services Department" is also an example. He asks to remove the annual estimated expenditure on meals for correctional institutions. According to Mr WONG Kwok-hing's logic, does Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung want to starve the inmates to death? Of course not. This year, we do not have the opportunity to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9375 explain but Members can refer to the record. Two years ago, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung also said that the purpose of removing the annual estimated expenditure for meals was to bring out the fact that correctional institutions failed to handle inmates' meals properly.
Another example is "Head 45 ― Fire Services Department". Several trade unions object to my cutting the annual estimated expenditure for the Fire Services Department. I have no opportunity to speak on this head. In fact, I am targeting the management rather than the front-line firemen. Furthermore, I would also like to bring up another problem, that is, the existing regime has ignored the ambulancemen. In the past, we voiced out for them on various occasions. I hope they can understand that although Members seek to cut the subhead under head 45, they do not mean that fire fighting is not important and their work should be neglected.
As regards "Head 82 ― Buildings Department", apart from protesting the mismanagement of the Director, the amendment also seeks to point out that the resources for the Department are not sufficient. I asked at a Panel meeting and the special meeting of the Finance Committee why the Department was "not approving what should be approved" and "not removing what should be removed". This boils down to insufficient resources and manpower.
For "Head 166 ― Government Flying Service", surely I have no intention to remove all its expenses, rendering it impossible to provide service. When I visited the Service, a member told me that he was injured the day before when carrying out his duty and had undergone a check at the hospital. I asked him why he did not take a day's leave. He replied that he could not do so as there was a serious problem of manpower shortage. I demand cutting the subhead under head 166 because I want to bring out this problem. Of course, time does not allow me to explain in detail.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the speech delivered by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now shows his ignorance and skin-deep knowledge about the Rules of Procedure. He criticized that all the 400-odd amendments could not be passed in the voting procedure, so he said that these 400-odd amendments were all frivolous in nature.
9376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
I think he must be willing to learn, to handle his work more seriously and to understand all the questions and issues. If the amendments were frivolous, the Chairman would have disallowed them already. He just wanted to reprimand and criticize others. On the one hand, he praised the Chairman, but on the other, he criticized him for approving these 400-odd amendments and stated that these 400-odd amendments were frivolous. This only proves that he lacks any knowledge and does not use his brain and only knows how to defame and admonish others with his big mouth. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) should be ashamed of having a Member of such a low calibre. It is really very saddening to note that having been a Member for so many years, his understanding of the Rules of Procedure and various topics is still so shallow. But taxpayers have to pay $100,000 each month to raise these lazybones. Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount. Please summon these slothful people back to the meeting.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, about the relevant amendments and the filibuster, I must tell him that we have actually been discussing the issue of filibuster for four or five years. Unfortunately, people of such a low calibre will never understand, or have no intention to understand, and they also lack the wisdom to grasp the political strategy. Filibuster emerged as early as the times of ancient Roman, the era of Julius Caesar. For that reason, if we are to tackle political issues, we should have a political mind-set. Besides chanting the slogan of "Down with Capitalism", one should also read the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9377
Nevertheless, people of such a low calibre will only say that our filibuster is completely bankrupt and useless. If such an act of ours can already cause such great trouble to them, they should really commit seppuku! Those who dismiss our filibuster as worthless, unconstructive and futile are now trembling. They must come and go five times before they can finish one single meal. Sometimes, they must even implore certain Members not to request a quorum call, so that they can go to the bathroom. Therefore, the young District Council members of FTU are so very ashamed of those Members like Mr WONG Kwok-hing who are of such a low calibre. Sometimes after coming across these District Council members of FTU, I will tell Miss CHAN Yuen-han that they are of a much higher calibre than these Legislative Council Members …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have spent more than three minutes on responding to the speech of Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Please focus your speech on the topic of discussion.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I understand. Chairman, I understand that clearly. People Power opposes the question that these 74 heads stand part of the Schedule. The reason is simple. By objecting to the inclusion of these heads, we intend to do an analysis and in turn criticize the deplorable state of this legislature.
Chairman, in the blink of an eye, it has been 18 years since the reunification. But when we look at the power of the Legislative Council to monitor the executive, in particular its fiscal policies, we can say that such power has existed in name only. The quality of monitoring has been deteriorating year after year and one Legislative Council after another. The scrutiny and approval of the Budget is very important to examining the problems with the Government. Admittedly, one can see that the number of questions on the Budget from Members has been increasing year after year, but if we look at their quality, we sometimes really cannot help laughing.
Why do I criticize that the passage of the Budget will rock the mechanism for the legislature to monitor the executive? Why do I draw this conclusion? All is because I can see a constant deterioration in administration of the 9378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Government and its use of financial resources. Chairman, you should remember very clearly how the then Legislative Council monitored the 10 major projects launched by the British Hong Kong administration in the 1990s. Can you still remember the seriousness and prudence of those Members who monitored the use of money? Sadly, such seriousness and prudence has now disappeared completely. At that time, no matter how minimal the cost overrun was, Members would still request to examine the relevant reports, seek to ascertain culpability and hold one meeting after another to ask the Government for an account and explanation. But now, a cost overrun exceeding $10 billion is just something very common. As a result, I often say that the Finance Committee has already become the cash dispenser of the bigwigs. During their scrutiny of the Budget, Members must base their consideration on different perspectives. On the one hand, they must examine the expenditure on large projects or any new expenditures and proposals. For instance, People Power is firmly opposed to the Belt and Road Initiative. On the other hand, Members must also examine the allocation of funding, use of public money and various expenditures proposed in the Budget, with a view to ascertaining their appropriateness. We need to monitor the expenditure of government departments and in particular, we even need to consider whether any specific departments should still deserve funding in the light of their performance. This is also the case with private-sector organizations. Many Members here are engaged in industrial or business operations. Suppose a certain general manager has been employed by a company for five years. But over these five years, the company has been facing cost overrun and project delay year after year. And, the manager has been pouring away money at will. Year after year, there are deaths of workers in the course of work, and even the bridge under construction faces the problem of shifting. In that case, why should the manager be allocated any further funding?
However, with the exception of me who keep criticizing that particular department, all Members have behaved just like the three mystic apes ― they see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, as if nothing has happened. Therefore, this legislature is honestly the citadel of the Government. All the proposals it put forward over the last 18 years have managed to secure passage without even the slightest amendments. Escorted by the royalists, and especially with the shielding of functional constituency Members, this hegemonic administration has been able to perpetrate whatever evils it wants to do. In the past, although many projects would surely be passed in the end, the Government was often forced to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9379 make certain improvement undertakings before eventual passage due to Members' criticisms and monitoring. Such cases happened from time to time. But all this has completely disappeared over the past few years. Chairman, all this has completely disappeared. Chairman, you were a Member of the then Legislative Council in the 1990s. At that time, although many appropriation requests and laws (especially the Budget) would surely be passed in the end, there were still lots of bargaining and negotiations in the course of scrutiny. As a result, in order to secure the passage of a budget, the Government often had to make certain improvement undertakings, especially in respect of services for the people. But there no longer any such cases now. If there are any, I hope that royalist Members can tell us proudly, "I have managed to make the Government do this and that for the passage of this or that appropriation request."
When the funding requests for the Express Rail Link (XRL) and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) were passed in the Finance Committee, I condemned Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, "You betrayers of workers, seven workers were killed, but have you ever said anything?" Sometime earlier, one more worker was killed. For that reason, I can see this legislature has ignored its fundamental duty ― the duty of us all. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is perhaps the most notable example. He has reprimanded us, the opposition camp, for making it impossible for him to have a meal, to go home and sleep, and maybe to make extra money outside of this Council. You know, many Members do have other occupations. Right, this debate can precisely force them to stay here, so that they cannot go outside and attend to bigwigs or any unknown groups and people. That way, they are unable to make any extra money outside. Since they have been made to stay here for one or two weeks, they understandably hate the filibuster. These political bigwig need flatterers and bootlickers, or they need to bootlick others outside this Chamber.
Therefore, the 400-odd amendments to this Budget ― in fact the number should be bigger because there were almost 2 000 to 3 000 amendments at the beginning ― have all negatived. Not even one of them can be passed. In the Budget debate this year, Members, especially those from the pro-government camp have been praising the Government's use of public money and harbouring its misdeeds. They are indeed they shame of this legislature. Actually, from the perspective of monitoring government finances and the use of public money, 9380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 the past one year must be the worst. That is because cost overrun was serious, the spending of public money was at a record high, and problems were the most numerous. But they simply let the Government go so very easily.
Therefore, the inclusion of these 74 heads in the Bill is no different from further condoning the Government's ineffective governance. Please take a look at these 74 heads, Chairman. One of them is about the Chief Executive's Office. Many people are infuriated and dissatisfied with that, and you also have much to say about "689". There is also the Information Coordinator. His annual salary is more than $3 million, and he will get a pay rise this year. This person, who is deemed totally worthless and without any virtues by the entire the journalistic world, is almost the highest-paid person in the fields of journalism and public relations. He will get a very handsome pay rise and such a proposal is passed without any difficulty. Some Members proposed an amendment to abolish the funding request, but the amendment was negatived.
If we look at these 74 heads, we will see that they involve "689", the Information Coordinator, the Civil Aviation Department (which I have repeatedly criticized) and the Highways Department. The Director of Highways must be pinpointed because of his dereliction of duty. Throughout the past five years of his office, he was in charge of the whole project. Yet, incidents of cost overrun, shifting or drifting and death of workers kept cropping up. I had a chat with some officials earlier. They said, "Hulk, please do not hit him that hard. He is going to retire soon." Can I just let him go? Can I show mercy because he is going to retire soon? What system is this? If an official is guilty of dereliction of duty, he should be fired immediately. If he is guilty of dereliction of duty, he should lose his pension, because this is the principle the Civil Service must adhere to. However, the reality is very different. Can't you see that they are shielding each other? "Hulk, please do not hit him that hard. He is going to retire soon. Are you going to destroy him completely?" But can I possibly turn a blind eye to the nature of the problems? Can I possibly turn a blind eye to whether he is guilty of dereliction of duty and stop asking for any investigation? And, can I possibly also turn a blind eye to whether our public money is put to good use?
Moreover, the amendment which proposes a deduction of the expenditure for the remunerations of the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission is also negatived. Dr LAM Tai-fai has repeatedly criticized the Secretary for Education and the relevant government departments, and he has his views about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9381 our education system. Several days ago when the red rainstorm signal was issued, we saw another problem: these departments and the people in charge simply failed to fulfil their obligations over and over again. Well, should they just give them a dressing down and then let them go? Are just a few words of reprimand enough?
However, we have the real power, so we can change their attitude towards governance. We can use this power to propose amendments to the Budget and to send across a clear and explicit message that these officials should not and cannot keep on doing things arbitrarily. Why can he keep on doing things arbitrarily? How can he … just now I said that despite all the incidents that took place in the past five years, the Director of Highways is still in office as if nothing has happened. He is still so happy, enjoying the benefit of that post. How can he pretend that he has made no mistakes at all? All is because the pro-government camp has been harbouring him. Have I made myself clear to the people of Hong Kong? Just now Mr WONG Kwok-hing asked you people to continue to support the pro-government camp. You have been supporting it for the past 18 years, and the people of Hong Kong have been living in miserable conditions for the past 18 years. Public money has been wasted, and even the bridge can drift or shift. The quality of the environment keeps deteriorating, and the quality of life keeps worsening, while the interests of the bigwigs are expanding incessantly. This is the retribution of giving your support to the pro-government camp. Can you see it clearly now? Please take a good look at the nature of this legislature. For that reason, how can we support those issues involved in these 74 heads?
Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please speak.
9382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, Hong Kong has seen a drop in inbound tourists for 10 consecutive months as at March this year. Retail volumes of conventional large-scale shopping malls and retail hotspots have plunged almost 20%. These phenomena are related to the deceleration of the overall economy. However, suitcase-kicking, other acts that drive away tourists, the Occupy Central movement and street riots, which happened in the community in recent years, have also accelerated the recession of the tourist industry, the service industry as well as the retail industry. With the shrinkage of retail industry, reduction in shop sizes and the ensuing staff downsizing, pay-cuts and bonus-cuts one by another, the general public hold that Hong Kong people are committing "self-destruction".
Chairman, instead of facing the economic situation squarely, some Members of the Legislative Council go against public wish by filibustering arbitrarily to delay and prevent the passage of bills. The current Budget is also a victim of filibustering. The formulation of the annual Budget entails consultations with the public and various political parties in the Legislative Council early on. Government departments also contribute to the process with due regard paid to the policy objectives of the Chief Executive, the overall situation of public revenue and expenditure, and the stipulation of Article 107 of the Basic Law. In other words, the departments "follow the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget, and strive to achieve a fiscal balance, avoid deficits and keep the budget commensurate with the growth rate of its gross domestic product". All items of expenditure are proposed only after prudent and comprehensive consideration.
Of course, there are habitual critics of the Financial Secretary about his financial management, making such comments as he is a miser who refuses to hand out cash and other benefits while sitting on a fiscal reserve of a trillion dollars. However, there are many others who make routinely criticism that handing out "candies" cannot help improve people's livelihood. Furthermore, many find the tax base of Hong Kong too narrow and they hold that the Government should strive to increase the types of taxes in order to ensure a stable source of income. Opinions are highly diversified and the Financial Secretary has probably got used to them.
Understandably, different voices in society have different demands but it is definitely irking to see frivolous and meaningless amendments raised in the Legislative Council year after year. Filibuster does cause a serious drain of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9383 precious time available for handling bills, delay the passage of the Budget, and may further create a fiscal cliff and bring about serious repercussions. It is indeed a pain in the neck. During the scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill 2016, the 90-plus requests for headcounts have taken up almost 20 hours, causing the abortion of three meetings and wasting as much as 19 hours and 57 minutes. It would have made much better sense if such a great length of our precious time had been used to scrutinize other bills.
Chairman, every head, subhead and all items of appropriation in the Budget are prudent and serious ones proposed after thorough consideration. Admittedly, there is no unanimous view but dissent opinions can certainly be expressed through various channels in a rational way. Amendments should not be moved randomly and arbitrarily, and Members should not stay away from meetings to induce meeting adjournments nor ask for headcounts frantically to deplete our time for debates. Members of the opposition camp said they knew for sure their amendments would be opposed by Members of the pro-establishment camp and thus be negatived and therefore it did not really matter even if amendments were moved recklessly.
Such an attitude is irresponsible. The opposition unheedingly engages in such perverse acts as if they would not have to face any consequences. Should any problem occur, the pro-establishment camp was to blame for its failure in defending the Government. Members of the opposition refuse to attend meetings and go missing collectively to cause abortion of meetings. Yet, they will unabashedly put the blame on pro-establishment Members for the lack of quorum. According to them, meetings will not be aborted if all pro-establishment Members stay in the Chamber. The specious excuse of the opposition helps them evade their own responsibility in attending meetings. But whenever a meeting is aborted, there are only a few opposition Members present. The Budget debate is crucial to people's livelihood and thus a weighty matter. But the opposition has chosen not to attend meetings but engage in filibustering and creating adjournment of meetings. Hong Kong people can never accede to what they have done.
Raising amendments arbitrarily is both absurd and hazardous. On top of these, it shows that the opposition are faking claims deliberately. They are haughty and prejudiced, not the least prudent and rigorous. The expenditure cuts proposed in the amendments are groundless and not reasonably substantiated. For instance, the proposed cuts include expenditure on the fare 9384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 concession scheme for the elderly, funding allocations to universities by the Education Bureau, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, Old Age Living Allowance, "fruit grant", Disability Allowance, and so on. In addition, a lot of funding appropriations related to people's livelihood and the emoluments of the Civil Service, such as the annual emoluments of the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the disciplinary forces, the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department, the Fire Services Department and the Hong Kong Police Force, are proposed to be cut. What is more unreasonable …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have to remind Members not to discuss in detail during this debate the amendments which have been voted. Mr CHAN, your speech should focus on the question about the sums for the 74 heads stand part of the Schedule.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do understand that. I was about to ask rhetorically the reason for these 74 heads stand part of the Bill. It is because the opposition Members in the Legislative Council have moved amendments to the Bill unreasonably. Now, these amendments have been negatived, owing to the objections from the pro-establishment Members. Hence, the sums for these 74 heads must stand part of the Bill. I must make it clear to the people the reason for such an arrangement.
We see that problems have come up in the Legislative Council during the recent debates on the expenditure cuts. We must tell people that these unreasonable amendments propose to cut the funding for young people's growth and training. We may say that all funding allocations with regard to assistance to the underprivileged, education, concerns for young people, maintenance of peace and order, and social construction across the entire society have met with cuts proposed by the opposition.
Chairman, we support these 74 heads stand part of the Bill as these funding allocations are crucial to people's livelihood and the normal operation of society. For instance, they propose expenditure cut on "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office". A big problem will occur if it does not stand part of the Bill. Just now a Member of the opposition camp said he would vote against this head standing part of the Bill. We should note that a large number of items are involved under LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9385
"Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office". We all know that according to the stipulation of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is the head of the SAR, and therefore his office operates on a huge budget as it handles a heavy workload. Apart from working on social and economic developments and various other aspects, the Chief Executive's Office have to collect a large number of views from society, which is also part of their job. As such, we must grant them adequate administrative expenditure every year.
We see head 22 involves the work of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. They have a hefty workload as they are responsible for the work on the often-mentioned topic of conservation and all aspects which are related to nature, especially the care of stray cats and dogs which many colleagues are concerned about. All these are very important. One of their expenditure items is the $1 million annual subvention for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If we do not give them support, their work would have to stop in the forthcoming year.
Moreover, head 23 involves the Auxiliary Medical Service whose workload is also rather heavy every year. They provide support in times of emergency in the community. Of course, many other heads, such as the annual expenditure of the Correctional Services Department which amounts to billions of dollars every year, are also involved. Public security and the rule of law are well observed in Hong Kong, but law-breakers cannot be eliminated altogether and hence the support from the Correctional Services Department is necessary. How can we leave it out from the relevant budgeted expenditure?
Likewise, the work of the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department is very important. The funding for them comes under head 31. The Civil Engineering and Development Department, with so many ongoing infrastructure work in society, also requires our support for its expenditure proposal. Chairman, there are a lot of other relevant departments, such as the Environmental Protection Department, whose annual expenditures are quite sizable. Their function is highly relevant to people's livelihood, and they deal with the management of landfills, waste management facilities, waste management expenses, and so on. We have to provide them with support. We all know that the Environmental Protection Department has begun its work on the waste charging scheme in recent years and I believe that the Legislative Council is going to support it in due course.
9386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
The expenditure for the Fire Services Department is also very important. Nowadays, the living environment of Hong Kong is very crowded and fires break out every now and then. We may say that the work of the Department is dangerous as well as hectic. If their annual expenditure does not stand part of the Bill, we must explain clearly how we can prevent accidents and handle severe catastrophes or fires when they happen. I believe that without the staff of the Fire Services Department to take care of such work, our lives will all be at risk.
Chairman, another head, "Head 46 ― General Expenses of the Civil Service", involves welfare and retirement expenses of the Civil Service. To me, this cannot be ignored. Hong Kong boasts an outstanding civil service system. Civil servants serve Hong Kong people, providing us with an environment under which we live and work contentedly. We must support them in terms of their expenditure.
Furthermore, there is the work of the Government Chief Information Officer. We all know that the present-day society attaches a lot of importance to the work on aspects such as innovation and technology. The workload of the Government Chief Information Officer is very heavy too. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department falls under head 49. We know that the Hawker Control Team is crucial to the management of markets and hawkers. I consider it mandatory for the relevant head to stand part of the Budget to secure its funding.
Chairman, there are yet more important items such as "fruit grant" for the elderly people, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance for the elderly and the $2 fare concession scheme, and so on. I find all these Budget items indispensable. Providing $2 fare concession to those aged 65 or above gives expression to the SAR Government's respect to the elderly. I also consider it mandatory for the society to provide assistance of various sorts to the disabled.
Unfortunately, the opposition raises frivolous amendments with regard to the Budget over the years, and then asks us not to support their amendments. I find this absurd and ridiculous. It seems that they do understand their amendments are very inhumane, even groundless and unacceptable. They therefore ask us not to cast votes wrongly and tell us that we should never support their amendments. I must criticize such acts here. This also shows that the presence of a large number of pro-establishment Members in the Legislative Council is the cornerstone underlying social stability. I hope all of you will support us. Thank you. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9387
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session, we are going to debate on the heads to which amendments were proposed but negatived and decide whether the sums for these heads should be included in the Appropriation Bill 2016 (the Bill).
Chairman, a lot of things have happened in Hong Kong lately but I think the discussion on the coming of ZHANG Dejiang, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, should be the most heated today. He is coming to Hong Kong in good time when we are having the Budget debate and I wonder whether this is the reason why a target has been set by the Chairman well in advance to cut off the filibuster. A very interesting point to note in the debate this year is that quite a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp are competing to speak but most regrettably, they have failed to show to the public how their speeches delivered in the Budget debate this year can help voice the aspirations of more people.
ZHANG Dejiang will treat some Members to dinner next Wednesday and we all know that he is seemingly coming to attend the Belt and Road Summit. However, not much attention has been called to the fact that whether he will really talk about the Belt and Road Initiative and tell us how Hong Kong will be involved in the Initiative. Instead, what people are most interested to know is whether this high ranking official from Beijing would give us some hints on the coming Chief Executive election, and whether a word or two would be uttered to let us know if LEUNG Chun-ying or other possible candidates ― and Chairman, it is heard that you are also one of them ― would have the chance of securing the support of the Beijing authorities.
9388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
It should be a good thing for him to come to Hong Kong because the University of Hong Kong has just released the latest findings of its public opinion surveys on 3 May and I wonder if the popularity ratings of principal officials can be described as the lowest in the last 20 years. Principal officials have therefore made some very strange remarks recently. For example, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and LEUNG Chun-ying indicated two days ago on different occasions that they have fulfilled more than their commitment in livelihood initiatives during the current term of office.
Chairman, what they have said has only shown to me that hypocritical rhetoric could actually be played to such an extent. It is obvious to the general public that the livelihood problems in Hong Kong have not yet been resolved because nothing in the Government's work on universal retirement protection, healthcare, education, housing and infrastructure construction can prove to us that real planning has been made for the public in these few years, and that government policies can be implemented. Yet, these two high ranking officials can go so far as to boast that they have fulfilled more than their commitment.
However, Chairman, they have definitely fulfilled more than their commitment in tearing society apart. The problems of social division, public resentment and the death of hope on the principles of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" are definitely more serious than anyone can expect … Chairman, I am now going to talk about …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you should express these views in other debate sessions.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have good reasons for putting forward these views. As the emoluments of some principal officials are included in the sums for the heads proposed to stand part of the Schedule, and a large part of our discussions on the Bill as well as a large number of amendments proposed by Members, including me, are related to cutting the emoluments of public officers who are not performing well, we have to explain why we consider that the sums for these heads to which amendments were proposed but negatived should not stand part of the Schedule.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9389
Chairman, let us examine what initiatives have been proposed in the Budget this year for our society before ZHANG Dejiang is coming to Hong Kong. The greatest myths created for the entire society, including the Budget at present, are the launching of more and more "white elephant" projects and the obsession with infrastructural development. This actually is not something new. Since reunification, the ratio of the spending on such areas as education, healthcare, social security to infrastructural spending was $80.3 billion to $30 billion, that is, 2.6:1, in 2007-2008. The gap was narrowed in 2009 to a ratio of 1.4:1, and the amount involved was $86.5 billion to $62 billion. It was further narrowed in 2013-2014 to a ratio of 1.2:1, which was $112.5 billion to $95.8 billion.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please speak on the subject of the debate, that is, the sums for the 74 heads to stand part of the Schedule.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, let me talk about the heads then. It is our opinion that the Budget this year cannot cater to the demands of the general public since it fails to realize the biggest problem at present, which is the fact that we have taken the wrong direction. I have already explained many times how grass-roots people are treated in the Budget this year but I would like to point out once again that only $180 million has been allocated in the Budget this year to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
Only $170 million among hundreds of billion dollars has been allocated by the Government to provide 160 additional day care places for the elderly and 1 600 places for the Enhanced Home and Community Care Services. The elderly population aged 65 or above in Hong Kong is about 1 million and over 5 000 elderly persons passed away while waiting for an allocation of residential care places every year. The Government, who claims to be so caring about our elderly people, allocates only $140 million, that is, one thousandths of the total spending, to provide 1 200 additional places. This is the Budget delivered by the Government for our endorsement.
What about hospital services? Although it is promised that the recurrent expenditure on medical and health services should account for 17% of the recurrent government expenditure, the percentage has dropped to 16.5% in the Budget this year. Instead of an increase, the estimated expenditure for the Hospital Authority (HA) has been reduced, which is tantamount to forcing the 9390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
HA to exhaust its meagre reserve at hand. With such attitude, policies and practice, how can the Government ask us to endorse the Budget? It is our hope that in the Budget debate this year, particularly in our discussion on the amendments proposed, we would be able to point out the inadequacies in the Budget and the governance of the Government, voice a reprimand and then ask for improvements.
We do not have many initiatives in the Budget this year to help us tide over the economic hardship …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you should express these views during the Second Reading debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to speak on the sums proposed to stand part of the Schedule.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please express your views on the subject, that is, the sums for the 74 heads to stand part of the Schedule.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I express great reservation about the sums for the heads proposed, in particular those for head 181, to stand part of the Schedule. In our amendments proposed to head 181, we have suggested to cut the departmental expenditure of a number of government departments, including the Lands Department (LandsD). The enforcement work of the LandsD last year was far from satisfactory. In particular, it turned a blind eye to many offending acts in rural areas. For example, as evidenced by many cases that took place in different parts of New Territories West, including Kingswood Villas and Lok Ma Chau, various government departments, including the LandsD and the Planning Department, have been ineffective in their law enforcement in preserving land in protected and conservation zones, making it impossible to conserve the valuable rural land resources which members of the public would very much hope to retain and preserve. Chairman, this may only serve to benefit a small number of large property developers, who are at the same time major landowners, and individual powerful persons in rural areas.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9391
Besides, with regard to head 170, which concerns the work of the Inland Revenue Department, it is revealed in the report recently published by the Audit Commission that the total amount of outstanding rates and government rent is as high as $100 million. As a result, further tax concessions to be offered to many taxpayers will not be effected, and worse still, they may even be further affected.
Chairman, it would be difficult for us to accept the Budget this year, which is plagued with defects in such areas as livelihood, healthcare and education. The most worrying question is whether there are means for the younger generation to find a way out through tertiary education in the face of rapid economic transformation. However, as we see it, the vision of the Budget is so narrow that it is impossible for the young people to a way out at all.
On the other hand, it is also mentioned in the Budget that efforts would be made to increase the land supply for housing, and it is hoped that various land policies would be implemented with the concerted efforts of different government departments, particularly the Housing Department (HD) and the Transport and Housing Bureau. However, we find it most worrying that in the case of public housing, even if subsidized housing units were offered to grass-roots people one day, the general public would still be subject to exploitation by subcontractors and large consortia because the HD has already decided to outsource the operations of markets in all new housing estates. Residents in public housing estates or housing estates under the Home Ownership Scheme would thus be affected tremendously and directly.
Chairman, I am deeply disappointed by the speeches of other Members, especially Members of the pro-establishment camp, during the debate on the amendments proposed to the Budget. If they really share the concerns and feelings of members of the public, they should not vote against these amendments. If they consider that public officers who are not doing well, including principal officials whom we have named, should not receive their emoluments in full, they have no reason to vote against the amendments. Regrettably, some amendments were negatived in the Budget debate this year and by doing so, they have connived at the Government once again so that no matter what initiatives are proposed in the Budget, they will all be accepted in this distorted Council with the support of the pro-establishment camp and the royalists. No matter how inadequate these initiatives are in responding to social needs as far as the care of the underprivileged, healthcare services and elderly services are concerned, and no matter how much suffering has been caused to the 9392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 underprivileged, this Council will still accept the proposals put forward by the Government even though it has failed to draw up any improvement plan in the Budget in a responsible manner.
Hence, Chairman, the inclusion of the sums for these heads into the Schedule is, in principle, unacceptable to us. It is possible that ZHANG Dejiang is coming to listen to our views on the Government of the current term, but a lot of "prospective candidates" hope that he would give us some hints on the coming Chief Executive election. However, it is most regrettable that there is no vision, hope and planning in Hong Kong today. The Government is obsessed with infrastructural development and has resorted to hypocritical rhetoric in its governance to cheat the public. Under such circumstances, no matter what wonderful promises have been made in the Budget this year, the general public cannot place their confidence in Hong Kong, and neither can young people find any reason to give up (The buzzer sounded) …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, your speaking time is up.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … their call for the independence of Hong Kong. I so submit. Thank you.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the 74 heads standing part of the Schedule.
Just now Dr KWOK Ka-ki expressed a deep regret. He held that heads 137, 122 and 118 should not stand part of the Schedule because the emoluments of some Secretaries should be cut. He also pointed out that the healthcare services and the services for the elderly failed to cater to the demands of the community.
I would like to tell Dr KWOK that as Members are aware, Hong Kong is now in dire shortage of medical practitioners and the demand for doctors is particularly acute in public hospitals. In the light of the heavy workload of our healthcare personnel, what can be done to increase the number of medical practitioners in Hong Kong? How can we overcome this bottle neck, say can we import more doctors from other countries and regions? I would like Dr KWOK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9393 to strongly promote this idea in the Medical Council of Hong Kong or relevant organizations because Hong Kong really needs more doctors. Many doctors choose to set up their private practice, which is more rewarding. I do not oppose their decision to do so as everyone has the freedom to make his own choice. I believe the Public Private Partnership Programme introduced by Secretary Dr KO Wing-man can help ease the manpower shortage in the public healthcare system. I hope Dr KWOK would keep up his efforts instead of only proposing to cut the emoluments for public officers.
Chairman, what makes me support the 74 heads standing part of the Schedule? Earlier on, a number of Members said that should these heads be included in the Schedule, it would break the heart of the people. I think these Members have missed the point as this is certainly not the concern of the general public. The people only hope that the Government can improve its policies and administration in various areas. But how can it do so? It is absolutely wrong to think that if we obstruct the inclusion these heads in the Schedule, or propose to cut the emoluments of certain officials, we can pressurize the Government to improve its policies and administration.
The governance of an organization or enterprise is based on a system or a set of policies. It is thus impossible for it to dismiss someone or cut the emoluments of someone whenever it wishes to do so; otherwise the entire system and administrative structure would break down. We cannot use personal preference … Among all the 407 amendments under the 74 heads, we understand the justifications for raising some of the amendments, and we even agree that the performance of some departments is not good enough. However, Members should not use this as an excuse to propose cutting all the emoluments for these departments and say they are justified to do so. I believe these amendments would only intensify the crisis faced by the Government. When the Government is in trouble, our society would be in even bigger trouble. Members should know that all officials are protected by their employment contracts. If we negative the appropriation of funding today and the civil servants are not paid as a result, what should they do?
It is unfair to say that the pro-establishment camp is harbouring the Government. Every year, some Members would propose to cut the emoluments of the officers of various government departments. As Mr Albert CHAN said, all the attempts he had made over the last 18 years to cut the emoluments of various officials were unsuccessful. He was enraged as he had failed to achieve 9394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 anything in these 18 years. But Mr Albert CHAN should … I do not mean to harbour any official; why do I need to do so? Many of them are not my acquaintances. I admit that the Government's performance is not very good in some aspects. But would that help even if the responsible officials were dismissed instantly? Of course not. We need to have systems. Despite our dislike for a certain official, this does not mean that his position does not deserve the pay. We can express our views strongly and urge the Government not to renew the appointment for someone in the future instead of proposing to cut the emoluments for a certain position. Do you get my point?
I hope Members can understand the reason for us to support the 74 heads standing part of the Schedule. I believe the community and many elderly people would be greatly disappointed if we do not support certain heads standing part of the Schedule. For example, a Member's amendment to cut the annual expenditure on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) is no big deal to some Members, but it would affect the CSSA recipients considerably. If the provision of funding is finally voted down due to our dislike for certain heads and our consent to exclude those heads from the Schedule, I think this would harm the interests of many people in the community. It is therefore impossible for us to support those Members.
In addition, some Members have proposed to cut the $2 public transport fare concession for the elderly and persons with disabilities. If the pro-establishment camp agrees to cutting the subsidy for this fare concession, many elderly people would feel very upset. This will create more problems and cause more grievances in the community.
Just now Mr Albert CHAN seemed very upset. Recapturing the past ― though this term of Legislative Council will soon come to an end, he was not referring to the previous four years, but his life as a Member in the last 18 years ― he was enraged because of his failure to achieve anything over these years, and he attributed such failure to the pro-establishment camp's efforts to harbour the Government. However, at district level, many District Council members belonging to the DAB are very pleased with their achievements. As they always emphasize, they have successfully achieved or got something. Some may laugh at the DAB for always emphasizing that they have successfully achieved or got something. In many cases, however, we cannot achieve or get anything unless we really fight for it. Those DC members have indeed spent long time striving for some policies and measures which are beneficial to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9395 livelihood of people. There is no better expression than "having successfully achieved or got something" that can most faithfully convey their thoughts and feelings.
I hope the Members belonging to the pan-democratic or opposition camps can understand one thing ― just scolding and swearing endlessly would not help them achieve or get anything in the future. If they keep scolding and swearing whenever they have opportunities to discuss with government officials, how can they have a meaningful discussion with the officials? What do "harmony with people" and "harmony with things" mean? "Harmony with people" should always come first if we want to achieve something successfully because communication is most important, right? This is a point that we have to understand clearly.
I would like to give Mr Albert CHAN some tips which may help increase his achievements in the future. Three of them end with "-ence", namely persistence, patience and conscience, and the other two end with "-ity", namely popularity and sincerity. As long as he bears these in mind when communicating with the Government, I am sure he will be more successful in having achievements.
Chairman, I support the 74 heads standing part of the Schedule. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan need not lecture me on all this. I myself will definitely devote all this to my wife.
Chairman, it is indeed very ridiculous for Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to teach us how to conduct ourselves as elected representatives. How are Members of the DAB qualified to teach Members of the People Power how to represent people? The DAB gives undivided attention to the communist one-party rule and the Hong Kong communist regime. Whether they will give undivided or divided attention depends on needs. When facing the masses outside the legislature, they will say that their decisions have to be supported by public opinions. In essence, however, they are mere political lackeys. When the Communist Party 9396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 and the Liaison Office of the Central People Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region press the button and give their instructions, they will automatically follow.
The problem with the pro-establishment camp is that more often than not, they do not know what they are doing. Three pro-establishment Members have just spoken, including Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr WONG Kwok-hing. But their analyses are totally off the mark. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan dismissed me as a total failure. I absolutely do not think so. Our filibuster over the past four or five years has brought much misery and pain to the pro-establishment camp. We successfully pulled down the proposal on "five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux" and also the legislation for the "Internet version of Article 23". I think our efforts have borne much fruit rather than failing to achieve anything. According to Mr WONG Kwok-hing, our filibuster has gone bankrupt and is useless. And, Mr CHAN Kam-lam has criticized our filibuster for plunging workers into unemployment.
I hope the pro-establishment Members can align their stances before putting forth any analyses and criticisms against us, or "trouble-makers" in their words. Their words were inconsistent, and the three Members drawn three different conclusions and analyses in their speeches. This has precisely shown the incapability of pro-establishment Members and proven their low calibre. Chairman, I will not talk about them any further, lest much time will be wasted.
Chairman, let me return to our opposition to incorporating the sums under the 74 heads into the Schedule. Of course, in the five debate sessions on certain individual items earlier on, we already put forth many views. But people may be unable to grasp certain issues. For example, why will the incorporation or otherwise of the 74 heads into the Schedule cause a great deal of difference? If Members vote for the incorporation of the sums under the relevant heads into the Schedule and then agree to the question that the Schedule stand part of the Appropriation Bill 2016 (the Bill), the relevant sums will formally materialize after the passage of the Third Reading of the Bill.
Chairman, as I said before, the scrutiny of budget bills is a very important duty of a parliament. When the parliament of an overseas country scrutinizes a budget bill, the opposition will very often direct severe criticisms at the ruling party in its analysis. There are previous examples showing that a general election will be inevitable if the ruling party does not have a majority of seats, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9397 and certain small political parties do not give their support to a budget bill due to their divergent views. In every country with a democratic parliament, it is common to see how the refusal to pass a budget bill leads a government to step down and necessitates the conduct of a general election. A budget bill is of great significance to the implementation of major public policies.
Of course, in the legislature of Hong Kong, there is only the royalist camp rather than any ruling party …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are now speaking for the second time, so you should not go too far in your discussion. Please focus on the incorporation of the sums under the 74 heads into the Schedule.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am explaining why I oppose the incorporation of the relevant sums into the Schedule. Precisely due to the failure of the Budget to indicate people's opinions, sentiments and demands and to improve people's livelihood, and also because what is involved …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You should have put forth these views in the Second Reading debate.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I already put forth the above views and made an analysis during the Second Reading debate. Since I am explaining why I oppose the incorporation of the sums under the 74 heads into the Schedule, I must set out my grounds clearly so as to obtain people's support. It is not true to say that we raise opposition just for the sake of raising opposition and without any grounds as asserted by certain "opposition Members". Of course, we raise opposition definitely because of our opposition. We cannot possibly oppose a proposal because we support it, right? But I must set out clearly the grounds for my opposition.
In my previous speeches, I talked about the Chief Executive's Office (CEO), the Information Coordinator in the CEO, the Civil Aviation Department, the Highways Department, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and education. Chairman, environmental issues are actually very important too. 9398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Christine LOH, Under Secretary for the Environment, is now present. As I pointed out in my "Letter to Hong Kong" two weeks ago, the environmental policy in Hong Kong is very backward, and this shows that the whole team of officials in the SAR Government is devoid of any determination or even ability in its governance. In the case of the proposal on the "three landfills and one incinerator", we have conducted many discussions before. As the relevant sums involve a number of major policies and the estimated expenditures of different government departments, as well as the emoluments of the officials concerned, I must point out that Members' support for the incorporation of the relevant sums into the Schedule will mean they agree to the estimated expenditures for these policies and the emoluments of the relevant personnel.
Just now, I took the case of a company as an example. If a staff member fails to carry out his duties properly or discharge all his duties, or even gets involved in corruption, should the board of directors turn a blind eye to all this and approve the financial provisions, so that he can receive his wages, retire on time, and get his fringe benefits? So, before determining the passage or otherwise of the financial arrangements proposed by the Government, we must ascertain if our money has been spent properly. This is a very important principle.
Some have said that the Bill entails various sums amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, and the estimated expenditure for a government department can be as much as billions of dollars. They have therefore argued that we should not vote down the Bill simply because of one single item or the poor performance of a department head. We must understand that it is not the end of the world even if we vote down the Bill. Even if we vote down the Bill today, the Government can still bring up the relevant items again for fresh discussion two or three weeks later. Even if the Bill is negatived, we can still follow an established mechanism and procedure for negotiation and discussion. This is precisely a feature in the beautiful design of the deliberation process in a democratic legislature. But many people, including royalist Members, do not understand this.
Of course, the Government has always intimidated us by saying that if the Bill is voted down, we will face a fiscal cliff, and the departments will be unable to operate. In any democratic legislature, if a budget bill is still not passed after genuine discussions, the ruling party and the opposition must conduct LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9399 negotiations again on drawing up new standards or arrangements, or revising certain items in the budget, in a bid to bring forth the passage of the relevant motion later on.
Some have queried that if we vote down those heads involving the estimated expenditures for the salaries of government employees, they will be unable to get any salaries. Actually, the voting down of a motion can be taken as an expression of views. When we think that a motion should not be passed, perhaps we think that the staff members of a department are overloaded, underpaid and insufficient. Every coin has two sides. The voting down of a motion does not necessarily mean that we are dissatisfied with a particular department. The reason can be that we are dissatisfied with the amount of government funding. Here is an example. In the past, we often raised criticism against the rates of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). Surely, because of actual needs, we cannot possibly reject the appropriation request concerning the CSSA. If we have enough votes, however, we can vote down the relevant motions as a means to exert pressure on the Government and compel it to increase the rates of the CSSA.
The procedure concerned … If Members are familiar with our parliamentary procedures, they should be able to express their views through procedural means and force the executive to hold discussions. Members cannot and should not allow the executive to dominate everything by exercising hegemony and tyranny as in the past 18 years. Over the past 18 years, they have been invincible, in the sense that all their motions, proposals and appropriation requests are passed without any amendment. They are not required to offer any explanation or speak in reply. The situation is even more outrageous this year. In the past, the officials concerned would be required by the procedure to speak in reply when a debate proceeded to a certain stage. This year, the Council meetings in three consecutive weeks were forced to adjourn. As a matter of procedure, certain officials must speak in reply. But due to the forced adjournment of the Council meetings, they could get away without having to respond to people's criticisms against them and the dissatisfaction of the legislature.
The 74 heads concerned are relatively controversial, and certain Members have put forth amendments to these 74 heads. Those heads without any amendments were passed earlier on. Therefore, I believe that if those heads are not incorporated into the Schedule … Of course, the chance for this to happen is 9400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 very, very slim. But if this really happens, we will succeed in compelling the Government to respond to people's demands. For example, Dr LAM Tai-fai is concerned about education. Will the Government commence any discussion on the abolition of the Territory-wide System Assessment? Having observed the performance of the EOC Chairperson, does the Government see the need for a replacement? Will the Government allow the Director of Highways to retire in contentment without penalizing him? Will the Government let go of the Airport Authority Hong Kong easily despite its suspected involvement in corruption? Will the Government allow the Information Coordinator to persist in his wilful conduct and significantly increase his salary? I absolutely do not believe that the Government can refuse to respond to this series of questions with an arrogant attitude as before if those heads are not incorporated into the Schedule.
LEUNG Chun-ying wants to invite Members of the Legislative Council to a dinner banquet but we are asked to fill in much information. We wrote a letter to him and today, we receive a reply letter from the CEO. But we utterly have no idea about the identity of the sender. Neither do we know if he is an imposter. I wrote a letter to LEUNG Chun-ying, but he asked whatshisname to reply to me. How can I possibly know who he is? He contacted me and asked me to confirm my identity. Didn't he think that he should confirm his identity as well? Why is the Chief Executive so retarded? Sometimes I really doubt whether he is a human being …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have digressed from the present topic.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): My speech is relevant, because head 21 concerns the CEO. We should not approve the appropriation request concerning the CEO.
I believe the President has already named many faults and crimes. The difference is that we have given more details. But the point I am driving at is that head 21 must not be incorporated into the Schedule. We should not allow the head to be incorporated into the Schedule. If Members can vote down the incorporation of that head into the Schedule, I believe the use of our public money and the performance of the government department under that head can certainly be improved.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9401
As Members all know, if a department head feels that the board of directors in its company is doubtful about the financial provisions for his department, the staff of that particular department will exercise extra caution, hoping that by doing better they can restore the confidence of the board of directors in their department. However, we do not have the slightest confidence in the senior management of the departments under the 74 heads. As we have no confidence, how can we give our support? Many Members have no confidence in the Secretary for Education and "689". Why will they support the incorporation of the relevant heads into the Schedule? They may be schizophrenic, and their conduct is not consistent with their mind. This has become a norm in the legislature but the People Power will definitely persevere to the end and resolutely oppose the incorporation of those 74 heads into the Schedule.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as you said in the first half of the meeting today, after 407 amendments were all voted down, the rest would only be procedural matters. In order to have the sums for these 74 heads stand part of the Schedule, in a time-limited debate and under the voting arrangement, we have already entered into the final seven hours of the countdown. It is not important even if the meeting is aborted due to a lack of quorum, as we can still continue to vote in the following Wednesday morning, and the meal of Members with ZHANG Dejiang will not be affected. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the meeting should be aborted, as only if Members do not speak again, the meeting will enter into the Third Reading and the voting stage. Chairman, I have to highlight, however, that the result of this arrangement is not desirable. In particular, no public officer spoke on a total of 27 heads, 21 heads in the fifth session and six heads in the sixth session, which were involved in the last two joint debate sessions.
Before the meeting was aborted last time, a total of three public officer indicated their wish to speak. After the meeting was aborted, the Chairman skilfully said that he would ask them again whether they needed to speak in this meeting. Of course, the public officer have the right to speak or not. Even in the middle of the speech, they also have the right to stop. However, do they really need to act like that? When they are already prepared to respond to Members in the debate, how can they choose not to respond to Members for the 9402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 sake of losing no time and for the fear of getting into trouble? In fact, during the various joint debate sessions, some public officer, including Secretary Dr KO Wing-man and Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, were very patient in listening to Members' speeches and reading Members' amendments. Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG has even jumped the gun by speaking for the following debate. It is fortunate that he has already spoken, because in the following debate, they might have already negotiated not to speak.
Chairman, this is not the moment for us to debate whether filibustering is to fight actively for the cause or is a move to hinder people from getting their salaries. I have to respond briefly to the few Members who just spoke. Some Members mentioned that the employees were laid off and could not get their salaries. Mr WONG Kwok-hing mentioned that the drop in number of visitors to Hong Kong and the low occupancy rate of hotels in Tsing Yi District were related to our Budget not being able to be passed sooner. Mr CHAN Kam-lam also mentioned that the slump in businesses, the drop in number of visitors and the kicking of visitors' suitcases by Central occupiers were all related to filibustering. Filibustering is really a "master key". For all signs of recession, they can also be related to the fights in the legislature.
Nonetheless, is it beneficial to Hong Kong when Members raise their hands to vote with their eyes closed and without any division, so that the Budget can be passed quickly? I believe that Members will not agree to this. Even Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has sincerely delivered a speech during the Second Reading, as I recall, criticizing the Financial Secretary for his shortcomings. She has just mentioned the issue of being successful in fighting for something. I also hope that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) can be successful in fighting for more. I can even assist the DAB in fighting for something only to DAB's credit. It is fine. Besides, it is not too late. Only if they can stand up and say that they have to reconsider whether to support the motion of having the sums for these heads stand part of the Schedule, and then ask John TSANG to increase CSSA subsidies for one more month, to waive one more month of the rents of public housing tenants, or to loosen the cap on asset and income limits for Old Age Living Allowance, only if they can say any of the above in front of him, only if they stand up and make such a request, I can stand on their side. Can we join hands to ask the Government to do a good deed? It is not possible. They will not fight for this opportunity. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan did not say that the Budget was worthless, but she at least would not give it a high mark, right? As I have heard, Members from the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9403 pro-establishment camp also said that the Financial Secretary only knew how to pay lip service, and had not made any improvement when compared with last year.
In their speeches at this stage, they just re-discuss the matters which we have already explained. In this debate, I have proposed 73 amendments which involve 42 heads. As I highlighted earlier, some of these amendments really seek to abolish certain departments and cut all their funding. Some amendments seek to reprimand certain departments or the highest-ranking officials of these departments for dereliction of duties. Some amendments are put forward due to some public money being truly wasted by certain departments, and I consider after calculation that they are not worth the sums of money. Some amendments seek to cut the funding of certain departments simply because we cannot increase funding to them and thus we have to force the Government for a readjustment of its expenditure.
In regard to my amendments, I mentioned the Government Flying Service (GFS) earlier. I of course do not want to cut its manpower and expenditure. I just find that its existing funding is not sufficient to the effect that even when a GFS officer was injured at work on the day, he still has to be on shift duty the following day.
Besides, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has proposed an amendment to "Head 170 ― Social Welfare Department". If Members just listen to and look at his amendment, they will certainly wrongly accuse him of being regardless of people's livelihood, as it seeks to cut the assistance for patients and their families, and to cut the expenditure on the CSSA and the Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Scheme. They will also accuse him of being cold-blooded, thinking that he even wants to cut the welfare of the grassroots and the underprivileged.
However, we all know that the reason for Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to amend "Head 170 ― Social Welfare Department" is that the funding allocated to the Department has been constantly insufficient. Members did know the reason when they spoke during the Finance Committee meetings. Hence, they should not quote him out of context and bully us when we do not have enough time to speak, as we cannot explain fully in only one or two speeches. Nevertheless, our explanation will be useless as they already have their speeches prepared. Mr CHAN Kam-lam has had his speech written. Despite my earlier explanation on certain issues, he still read out from his speech and accused us for proposing to cut the expenditure on fire services. How would he listen to our explanation? 9404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
I would like to explain for myself. For example, in "Head 173 ―Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency", we know that this Agency has a new function recently, which is to manage the issues concerning Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme. During the Panel meetings and Finance Committee meetings, we have also mentioned the many imperfections of this Scheme. However, we have no chance to discuss them in detail in this Budget debate.
Next, it is "Head 190 ― University Grants Committee". They say that as "Slow Beat" has proposed to cut its annual estimated expenditure, it means that students cannot pursue their studies and poor students cannot study at universities. People should also know that our reason for proposing this amendment is the Government's insufficient investment in the university students or the high education in Hong Kong.
As regards another area, we propose to cut the expenditure of some Policy Bureaux and even the remuneration of some Secretaries. The few severely affected departments include "Head 55 ― Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industries Branch)", "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau", and "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau". Due to limited speaking time, I will speak as much as I can …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are repeating your arguments already expressed when debating on the amendments earlier.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I did not speak on the Education Bureau earlier. I have only spoken once in the fifth and sixth joint debate sessions.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have repeatedly said that your purpose of proposing these amendments is not really to cut the resources concerned.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9405
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am now referring to "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau". Let me briefly explain why I oppose to have this item stand part of the Schedule. Among these few Policy Bureaux, the severely affected department is the Education Bureau and I really want to kill Eddie NG. I would like to respond to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, as she said that if we cut the expenditure, the system and management structure would collapse as the contract had already been signed. I would rather say that the existing structure has really collapsed. For example, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, the Director of Highways and the Secretary for Education are being severely criticized. In addition to the Democratic Party and the opposition camp, the pro-establishment camp also criticizes some of the Heads of Departments, such as the Director-General of Civil Aviation. This can be seen in the Public Accounts Committee meetings, and of course, the Secretary for Education is often being criticized. Nevertheless, we have no mechanism to handle this at all.
One of the policy guidelines under "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" is Programme (7): Policy and Support. In this Programme, for the Matters Requiring Special Attention in 2016-2017, one item is "continue to implement measures and make refinements to enhance the development of Hong Kong as a regional education hub, including planning to introduce the Hong Kong Scholarship for Belt and Road Students … starting from the 2016-2017 academic year". I did not have any opportunity to speak on this part during the last joint debate session. However, a number of Members have proposed amendments to this part. Under this head, I have proposed four amendments, and a total of 18 amendments have been proposed by Members.
A Member said earlier that only one or two Members voted in support of these amendments. However, you might not have paid attention. One of the amendments which got the highest number of supporting votes is the one which seeks to cut the remuneration of Eddie NG, and he is also the reason for our opposition to have the sums for this head stand part of the Schedule. Under the leadership of Eddie NG, the Education Bureau is acting like his nickname "Simon FAN" ― which sounds like "saai1 mai5 faan6" in Cantonese, meaning literally wastage of rice, or resources. I think the amount of money involved in "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" is very close to the amount for the Labour and Welfare Bureau. However, both the public and Members find his personal performance or the performance of the Bureau under his leadership extremely offensive. 9406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
The Chairman, of course, will not allow me to give detailed explanation on each item, such as the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) and the expenses of the "Secretary of Overseas Duty Visits". In fact, it is not necessary for me to explain in detail. Only if each issue is being touched upon, Members will also find it outrageous. For instance, he failed to attend the TSA-related public hearing because he was on overseas vacation. As a matter of fact, even though he was not in Hong Kong, he could have watched the live broadcast of that meeting of the Legislative Council through Internet. When the Financial Secretary was not in Hong Kong, he could still watch Hong Kong's football matches. Nonetheless, the Secretary just did not care. When the Secretary was back to Hong Kong, I asked him a very simple question. I asked the Secretary whether he had watched the video clips of the public hearing which was held from 9 am to 7 pm ― this involved some resources, as the Legislative Council's resources were also the Education Bureau's resources, and the meeting was also attended by some citizens of Hong Kong ― but he said that he did not need to watch. I was really baffled. I have no idea whether he was honest or was stupid. I only asked him whether he had watched some clips. If he had watched the news report on television in which some clips would be shown, he should have said yes to me. In this aspect, he cannot excel LEUNG Chun-ying. Even if LEUNG Chun-ying had not watched it, he would still have said yes. This Secretary reacted otherwise. He has not watched the clips, but he knows all the details.
Besides, concerning overseas duty visits, I am not referring to the overall expenditure on overseas duty visits, on which I am not going in details. What I am concerned are the attitude and approach of the Secretary for Education when answering questions during the special meetings of the Finance Committee. Our question required the written reply to be in the form of a table, giving a breakdown on various items including date of duty visit, destination, number of people in the visit, objective, hotel accommodation expenditure, air ticket expenditure, expenditure on meals and total expenditure of the trip. We asked him to list out the figures to his best. However, he replied in a paragraph of words, like 10 times in 2013-2014, 10 times in 2014-2015 and 13 times in 2015-2016. He just replied in a paragraph of words. He was very co-operative last year, however, as he listed out the details, item by item. During a special meeting of the Finance Committee, I pointed this out. Impatiently, he said that he only had that much of information and had nothing to add. However, it is fortunate that our civil service system is reasonable. With our subsequent questioning, he has finally provided detailed breakdowns of each overseas duty visit. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9407
It is not possible for me to give a full account of the shortcomings of Eddie NG or the Education Bureau. We are now facing these huge sums of expenditure involving public money. At this juncture, you will of course vote in support of having the sums stand part of the Schedule and in support of this Budget. However, your simple logic, to the effect that if the Budget is being voted down, students cannot pursue their studies and the elderly cannot receive CSSA or other allowances, is being distorted. I have to highlight this point and cannot allow the royalists to distort the logic.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we have now entered the Committee stage of the Budget-related Appropriation Bill 2016. I was unable to come back to speak in the past few weeks because I had to stand trial at the court. Moreover, the Council meeting was terminated a few times due to insufficient quorum after repeated quorum calls. The pro-establishment camp should be very happy about this, right?
I remember one day many pro-establishment Members took the opportunity to speak at this round of the debate, and other Members like us, who wished to speak, were unable to do so because we had to let other Members who had not spoken to speak first. They thus took the chance to lash out at the so-called filibustering Members. But there is now nothing worth filibustering for. The debate is near its end. I remember I intended to come back on the following day to help striking back at them, but the Council meeting was adjourned on the previous day and the four hours of meeting scheduled on Friday was thus cancelled. It was unfortunate because I happened to be free on that day and did not need to stand trial.
Therefore, Chairman, if you think that what I am going to say today should have been said in the debate when the Council was in Committee to discuss the amendments and should not be said now, I must clarify here that it is because I did not have the chance to speak at that time. Although the debate now is to discuss whether those heads should stand part of the Schedule and I am against it, I can still talk about what I have prepared. So, would the Chairman please do not stop me.
I remember at the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2013, I proposed a large number of amendments, many of which sought to cut the emoluments of certain public officer, especially the estimated expenditure for the 9408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Chief Executive's Office (CEO). I wanted all his staff to pack their bags and go home. They should not be given any salaries. I cited many justifications at that time. I remember I quoted the words of a Chinese historical figure named WANG Anshi who criticized MENG Changjun that "people who know small tricks always go to your place, real talents will not show up." What WANG means is that MENG is fond of inviting talented guests to stay with him and he already has 3 000 guests, but many of them are only people knowing small tricks. A Chinese idiom actually originated from two of MENG's guests, one of whom knew how to crow like a cock and the other knew how to steal like a dog. The idiom thus refers to people only good at performing small tricks.
I said at that time that the whole Government was like a pile of dog droppings and rubbish, and it was packed with people only knowing small tricks and thus no real talents would join the Government. I still remember Chairman later ridiculed me and asked whether this also applied to my political group. At that time, I just withdrew from People Power. You are indeed difficult to deal with. It is hard to find someone better to replace you. I am now sitting beside a Member from the People Power. I have left People Power for some time …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, what is the relationship between what you said and the subject under discussion now?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): What I wish to say is that the Government is even worse than people only knowing small tricks. This is the point I wish to stress. But I was wrong when I said that "a man destitute of benevolence occupying a high position would only disseminate his wickedness among all below him" and "people who know small tricks always go to your place, real talents will not show up". I was too conservative in using these words to describe the Government, which also left a chance for you to ridicule me. In fact, the Government is worse than people only knowing small tricks.
Let me give an example. Chief Executive C Y LEUNG is a man of despicable character. He is a habitual liar and of no integrity. I questioned him at court for three days and he lied all the time. When I asked him whether and when he knew that I had thrown an object in the Chamber, he answered that he only knew it when he read the news about my prosecution in the newspaper. Buddy, that was one year after the incident. How could he blatantly lie in court? He has no integrity at all. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9409
Recently there was another "sworn brother" named Andrew FUNG. This man, also only capable of playing small tricks, wrote an article. He claimed that an "integrity murder case" took place in the past few years, in which the integrity of C Y LEUNG has been repeatedly "murdered". After giving the article some thought, I find it problematic, not because he is a bootlicker, but because of the fact that C Y LEUNG does not have any integrity. How could his integrity be murdered when it was already dead. How could there be an "integrity murder case"? This despicable man is receiving over $10,000 a day as salary.
I have attended meetings of a Legislative Council committee on reimbursement of operating expenses. I am a member of this committee and Ms Emily LAU is the Chairperson. Over the past few years, we have tried very hard to fight for a more reasonable salary for our assistants because they are poorly paid. As the saying goes, "Even a clever wife cannot cook without rice." The small amount of expense reimbursement is spent on covering all our expenses. Functional Constituency Members, like Mr WONG Ting-kwong, will certainly find the reimbursement more than enough, but it is not enough for us to cover all the expenses. We will have to pay a higher salary if we wish to employ a talented assistant. We thus hope that the committee can consider laying down the entrance qualification for the post of assistant, so that we can set a higher pay for them. It can even consider changing the title of their post to EO, if not AO.
The monthly salaries of the assistants to Legislative Council Members are only about $10,000 or a little more, but the Information Coordinator of the CEO Andrew FUNG, who ignores his proper duties, disrupt social harmony and creates dissension, receives a multiple of $100,000 every month as salary, which averages out at more than $10,000 a day. The staff of our office are very busy. For example, they have to draft these outstanding amendments for us. When I attended meetings, many Members praised the performance of my assistants. Frankly, they deserve to be paid at least a few dozen of thousand dollars a month.
However, Members' assistants are only paid $10,000-odd a month. One-day pay of the monthly salary of Andrew FUNG, the CEO's Information Coordinator, already amounts to one month's salary of a Member's assistant who works with strict prudence and great vigour. How unfair it is! Should we not cut his salary? Do Members not find my words convincing? He has done all evil deeds and therefore I propose to cut the estimated annual expenditure of the 9410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CEO in full under head 21. This point is also applicable to my other related amendments, but unfortunately I did not have a chance to speak then. I finally can express my view today.
The Government today, especially the CEO, is even worse than people only knowing small tricks. I thus have a confession to make. I confess that I was wrong. My comment about the Government in 2013 that "people who know small tricks always go to your place, real talents will not show up" was wrong. You ridiculed me in return, saying that my political group was the same. The Government is even worse than people only knowing small tricks. It is a pile of dog droppings and rubbish. You can find no good people there but a gang of bad people. Hong Kong is doomed!
Of course, the problem also lies in the system, but that is another issue to be discussed. Some people think that Hong Kong will revive if we do away with C Y LEUNG. I thus want to tell you that C Y LEUNG should really go to hell now. Hence, in a Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, I asked on behalf of our voters when he would go to hell. At that time, Mr WONG Kwok-kin challenged my question. He asked the President to rule whether my question offended the Chief Executive. The President was very smart. He said the Chief Executive could answer my question.
Let me come back to "Mr 689". He almost has no integrity. His subordinates have been taking the taxpayers' hard-earned money as their salaries. Our tax money has been used on keeping these swindlers. I declare that the salary I earn here is taxed based on the standard tax rate. Taking my other incomes into calculation, I have to pay a lot of tax, but my tax money has been used on keeping these swindlers. For myself, I must have this amendment passed so as to cut his salary, which is equivalent to sacking him. For the public, or as a Member elected by the public, I need to express my anger towards the Government using taxpayers' money on keeping these incapable people. I thus have to propose amendments to cut the CEO's expenditure, the salary of its Information Coordinator Andrew FUNG and the salary of C Y LEUNG. No matter for me or the public, the justification is more than clear.
Chairman, leaving other people aside, the "big and small evils" alone are bad enough to bring disasters to Hong Kong. Why has localism now become such an irresistible movement in Hong Kong? Who has led to the present situation if we take a look from the Communist Party's perspective? The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9411 pro-establishment Members will only end up in a cul-de-sac if they continue to use patriotism to defend him or continue to say that advocating independence of Hong Kong has no future. It is no use for them to say so because this has already become the trend. But who led to the present situation? If we take the stand of the Communist Party, the "Father of Hong Kong Independence" is C Y LEUNG. The culprit of ethnic divisions in Hong Kong is C Y LEUNG. The cause of our social disharmony is C Y LEUNG. Have I still not made my point clear?
ZHANG Dejiang will be visiting Hong Kong in a few days. You people will dine with him, and "Long Hair" and I are not on the list. It is unreasonable that "Long Hair" is not invited. He was allowed to show up at similar occasions in the past. However, he is not invited this time because he made troubles in past occasions. It is strange to use this as the excuse. Maybe he is very co-operative this time and maybe he will raise the glass and drink with him. Buddy, this reason is untenable. I am the defendant of a court case and the Chief Executive, including Mr WONG Ting-kwong, will take the stand, but this does not mean that I cannot even say hello to Mr WONG Ting-kwong. This is also untenable.
Let us come back to the subject, Chairman. You should know that I have never attended these dinner invitations over the years, no matter whether the dinner invitations were initiated by the President of Legislative Council for the Chief Executive or vice versa. The reason is simple. Two enemies cannot co-exist under the same sky. I remember I attended a dinner hosted by the Legislative Council, but I cannot remember what occasion it was. When I saw him at the dinner, I felt I had been wronged because I would not have attended the dinner if I had known his presence. I would not attend the dinner even if he invited me.
But as a matter of etiquette, if he wishes to invite all Legislative Council Members to dinner, how could "Long Hair", also one of the Legislative Council Members, be excluded just because he might make or had made troubles in the past? The so-called "troubles" are no more than waving placards or shouting a few slogans. Buddy, a real gentleman will not regard "Long Hair" a problem, nor have the need to expel him from the venue. We can see how insecure and cowardly this Administration is. It cannot even accommodate the voices of the opposition. The reason he gave to "Long Hair" and me is ridiculous. From this we can see what kind of person he is.
9412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
That is why I insulted him at the Question and Answer Session. I did it on behalf of many people. Take this recent court case as an example. When the case came to trial, many people treated me like a hero whenever I walked on the street. But on the other hand, he was asked to go to hell when he was still in the courtroom and was booed again when he walked to the exit. These are clear public opinions. I can bet with you that if he and I make a district visit together and he does not have any bodyguard accompanying him, see if he dares to go or not. To date, I go everywhere alone …
Coming back to this debate, I oppose allowing those heads to stand part of the Schedule because the amendments I have proposed seek to cut the estimated annual expenditure of the CEO and the estimated salaries of the CEO's Information Coordinator and the Chief Executive. I can frankly tell you that the amendments I propose are appropriate to the "person", not the "matter". I target at the person, not the matter. These "sworn brothers" are getting worse; they are getting cheaper …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, beware of your choice of words.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … they are getting cheaper, and more degraded, but we have to pay for their salaries! Worse still, we are manipulated by him; society is disrupted by him; and the road to democracy in Hong Kong is hindered by him.
In fact, I have much more to say on this subject. If there is time later on, I will speak on other subjects, that is, the amendments concerning other heads or subheads to stand part of the Schedule. These amendments concern the Secretary for Justice, the Independent Police Complaints Council, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the Food and Health Bureau, land, housing, environment, transport, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Innovation and Technology Bureau, so on and so forth. If I am allowed to speak, I will continue to speak on these subjects.
I oppose letting those heads stand part of the Schedule. My stance is clear. Even if the democratic camp supports the Third Reading of the Budget, I will oppose it because I, as a representative of the people, have the responsibility to speak for the people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9413
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, of course I oppose allowing them to stand part of the Schedule, as all my amendments were crushed by a rubber stamp.
First, I have to make a clarification. An object called WONG Kwok-hing said that the Finance Committee (FC) had passed only a handful of funding proposals so far this year. According to the Government's reply to my enquiry, however, up to now the FC has already approved over $30 billion funding for work projects in total. As such, his blame laid on us earlier was totally outdated. Moreover, he should not have been a Member of the Legislative Council after all. We all know that FC funding items are not counted in terms of their number, but in terms of the amount. Approving 10 items of $100,000 each will allow an aggregate funding of $1 million, while approving an item amounting to $2 million alone will make the funding stand at $2 million. It is meaningless to count the funding by the number of items. Mr WONG Kwok-hing can respond to this if he dares to, but he should not smear others with vicious remarks. This is the first thing.
Second, I demand cutting the salaries of many officials under head 21. The first one is an object called LEUNG Chun-ying. This was mentioned by Mr WONG Yuk-man just now, yet he was not able to point out the issue he brought up. Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying said that I always made trouble at receptions for leaders of the Central Authorities. This is an inaccurate remark. I was present at the receptions for ZENG Qinghong and JIA Qinglin, but these were the only two occasions that I was there. Since then, he played tricks to deny my admission with excuses such as my wearing inappropriate shoes, clothes or a tie to refuse entry. The point of discussion now is the protocol followed by that object called LEUNG Chun-ying. Need he at least state his reasons for screening out two Members from his invitation to all Members of the Legislative Council for the reception? He said I created a disturbance during a banquet in the Government House. Did I create a disturbance by passing him an object to express my views? I did not assault him. Nothing I had done. I merely said, "Chief Executive, you cannot do this. You have to implement universal retirement protection." While I presented my object to him, I was blocked by his guards and was driven out. Sometimes I even lost my shoes during the scuffles.
Chairman, please listen to me first. Most humorously, LEUNG Chun-ying explained that Mr WONG Yuk-man was not invited as he was involved in the same legal case. I want to ask how the Standing Committee of 9414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 the National People's Congress (NPCSC) Chairman ZHANG Dejiang would be involved in the same legal case with Mr WONG Yuk-man. As LEUNG Chun-ying hosts the banquet on behalf of NPCSC Chairman ZHANG Dejiang, why on earth is this related to "an involvement in the same legal case"? He is so lazy that he produces such a justification and applies the same reason which he used in his own family banquet for not inviting somebody. Chairman, please be patient. I am going to talk about Andrew FUNG. Andrew FUNG should be dismissed. At first, he gave detailed reasons for not inviting us to the family banquet. The first reason was our frequent attempts to disturb order in the past although I do not see any justification in it. The second is "involvement in the same legal case". Buddy, with respect to the same thing, they did not offer any reason. They only mention reasons of security and order, and their words are getting more abstract …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have elaborated too much on this example. As you are speaking for the second time, you should not excessively elaborate on a particular example. Please focus on the question that the sum for 74 heads stand part of the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, is it not the case that I will certainly mention Andrew FUNG when I talk about the Chief Executive? How would Andrew FUNG go on existing if the estimated expenditures related to the Chief Executive or his salary were cut?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you can certainly illustrate why you are against the question that the sum for head 21 stand part of the Schedule, but you should not excessively elaborate specifically on a particular example.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, let me illustrate this expeditiously. Taking the luggage incident as an example, Chairman, if one man rises in power, it is beyond question that all his men will come into power too; if one man tells a lie, all his men will lie to cover it up. From the day he gave his daughter a phone call, he has wasted the time of all the departments that work for Hong Kong people, such as the Civil Aviation Department, and so on. The departments are lying to cover this up for him. He is still unable to explain the whole thing clearly by now. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9415
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the views you are conveying have been mentioned by many Members during the debates on amendments. Please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No. I have listened to all of their speeches, yet none of them have said, "If one man tells a lie, all his men will lie to cover it up." I have only heard that if one man rises in power, all his men will come into power too. Chairman, I really have not heard of this remark. Have you heard of it? Has anyone said that if one man tells a lie, all his men will lie to cover it up? This should not be the case … this is not an idiom.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, a Member should not persists in repetition of his own or other Members' arguments. Even if a Member expresses in different wording, the Member should not repeat the same argument. You may mention it briefly if you have to quote these examples. You should illustrate why you reject or support having the sum for a certain head stand part of the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. Chairman, I would like to ask you a question. Is it right that you need longer time to illustrate the history of a dynasty that lasted 800 years? Is it true that the recorded history of a dynasty can be written more briefly if the dynasty ended merely eight months after founding? Therefore, a long-reigning dynasty needs longer historical records …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, we are not writing historical records now. We are debating on the question that the sum for 74 heads stand part of the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Really? Chairman, you do not understand. The royalists here really need to be reminded time and again. Our words have to be earth-shattering to do so. As I am talking to a wall, I must speak a few more times before I can get a response. Buddy, I would not have to 9416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 talk that much if they were listening. So, I do hope to move them. For instance, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is leaving the Chamber now. With regard to my question to him, I am not sure if he will reply later.
Chairman, I am not going to approve any funding to LEUNG Chun-ying. I will not approve any funding to Carrie LAM either, although the funding related to Carrie LAM appears in heads to be dealt with later. Do not stop me, as I have written down the numbers of the related heads this time. Only John TSANG is spared in this debate. Even the Chief Secretary for Administration was like them, going there unnecessarily for hugging a panda. I saw her clumsily holding a panda in her arms, almost letting it fell to its death. Simply considering this point, she was already at fault, Buddy …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you are still straying away from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How am I straying away? She has her own protocol to represent us and go there. Chairman, the money we spent, which amounted to over $10 billion, would have produced results which were more effective if it had been spent on offering relief to the elderly or deployed for the Budget instead. They have such a large surplus of money that their wealth keep flooding Hong Kong, yet we still want to donate more than $10 billion to build Wolong for them, and I do not even bother to mention the secondary school demolished shortly after rebuilding …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please explain which head your speech relates to and whether you support or reject the question that the sum for such head stand part of the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): My speech relates to the Chief Secretary for Administration, that is, head 142. I have checked this already. Have you found it? I have done my homework.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9417
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I cannot see how the contents of your speech relate to the question that the sum for such head stand part of the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is exactly because of the lacklustre performance of the Chief Secretary for Administration that I want to cut her salary and those of her subordinates. What is wrong with that? Shall we increase their salaries instead?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The question under debate is that the sum for various heads stand part of the Schedule, which is unrelated to raising or cutting the salary of a particular official.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I reject having the sum stand part of the Schedule. Funding will be approved if the sum stands part of the Schedule, right? You teach me then. If the sum stands part of the Schedule, funding will be involved. Having spoken against the question, I of course need to argue strongly for this, right? Do not treat me as a fool. I of course need to quote examples to support my arguments. I do not even want to bother about the Chief Secretary for Administration's hugging of panda …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Comrade "Slow Beat", what is up?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount to allow time for Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to re-organize his speech.
9418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue with your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, as Mr WONG Kwok-hing is in the Chamber, I want to talk about the Finance Committee (FC) first. Up to now, the FC ― The guy is going away. He is scared of my words, yet he keeps talking nonsense. This year, the FC has approved a total of 14 items which are related to public works, amounting to $42.64 billion. I want Mr WONG Kwok-hing to eat them all. Go eat his cakes outside! He really talks without sense. The FC is still endorsing many items at the moment. The pro-establishment camp says that we are causing delays, yet the FC passed 61 items last year, which amounted to $86.5 billion in aggregate. According to them, we have blocked the work progress, leading to suspension of projects since the Umbrella Movement because they dare not come back to join the Public Works Subcommittee. However, the truth is out here. The amount last year was $86.5 billion, and this year we have approved more than $40 billion so far. Do they only use their mouths for eating shit?
For those of you who are watching television now, I also know that the pro-establishment camp is planning to stage a demonstration by workers paid by construction and property companies to join. I do know this as they approached me for discussion. I told them it was alright to take part in it. Though we had distributed such a significant amount of money, they opted to retreat from discussion suddenly, just because they were afraid that their scheme would be exposed. This is really despicable. All of them are lying.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9419
Deputy Chairman, one has to be honest, right? As the issues they pointed their fingers at have not arisen, they should apologize by committing suicide. The contents of their remarks …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speech has strayed far away from the question. You are speaking for the second time. If you still do not speak on the question related to the seventh debate, I will stop you from speaking.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Got it. Of course, the word "shit" should not be said here, yet some people genuinely deserve it. Let us go back to Carrie LAM, but I will never describe her with the word "shit", as "shit" is an organic matter. I will instead describe her by using the word "styrofoam", an inorganic substance, so that I will not waste something good.
I mentioned Carrie LAM just now. She is mainly responsible for two tasks, namely population policy and retirement protection. Both areas are LEUNG Chun-ying's highlights. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan did not read the documents last time when she accused me at the FC meeting for hindering the creation of a new post. However, did Dr CHIANG Lai-wan know anything about the post? She joined the discussion after scanning through the papers briefly. In fact, that section was meant to specifically serve the Chief Secretary for Administration. It exactly aimed to collect data on how to implement universal retirement protection and policy on population. She asked me why I had to block the proposal but she did not read the documents. In fact there were five sections in it, one of which is the section that I am speaking of right now. Carrie LAM has to work on two tasks, the first is ― Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is leaving too. She goes away every time when she is struck on the weak spot. Deputy Chairman, regarding universal retirement protection, I told her right at the position where Mr Paul TSE takes up at present. It is a fact that she did not read the papers. The papers are right here. She is just the kind of person who will accuse me while she has not read the documents herself.
I talked to her right at that position last time. She replied that tax hike would be required and asked if we would accept a tax increase for supporting the elderly. Deputy Chairman, I report to you instantly that I have no problem with 9420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 the tax hike. I think Hong Kong people would accept paying higher tax for taking care of the elderly. However, this was not the proposal presented to her at that time, right? This is a downright insult to people of good culture.
Despite her frequent claims that I insult people of good culture, Prof Nelson CHOW ― academically, Carrie LAM is not even qualified to hold his shoes for him ― she asked him to compile a report, yet all of a sudden she demanded a longer projection period although the report did provide a whole set of data to demonstrate that the proposal was feasible. Deputy Chairman, see how cunning she is. Deputy Chairman, do you know how long a projection period she wants? She wants a projection for 50 years. Which government in the world will need to look 50 years into the future? I want to ask which government will predict 50 years from now in order to implement its policies. There should be a system for her to implement the proposal, and she can rectify the details then, right? When it comes to other projects, she does adopt this practice. About the construction of the Express Rail Link, which she wanted to build, when we illustrated that it was not feasible, she said it was fine to build it first and it could be fine-tuned later. As a result, tens of billions of dollars were spent. For the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, a solid $10 billion of funding was passed even though we said that it was not practicable. She conducts business like this. We are always blamed when we keep on lobbying for our demands. However, there is only one thing which I describe as "I only take one ladleful although the water in the running stream is plentiful"; there is only one thing of my gravest concern, that is, whether we can put universal retirement protection put into practice. However, after all these discussions, Carrie LAM has distorted the logic. It seems that nothing can be achieved, so why do we have to pay her any salary?
I want to ask, "Who does not have parents?" The situation at present is even worse, as nine out of ten royalists Members say that it has to be implemented. They have been talking about this since the 1980s. Say, an elderly woman today was in her fifties at that time, but now she is probably in heaven ― but I will go to hell, right? But she is definitely in heaven ― do they not feel ashamed? There is a Member who has been striving for something for four years consecutively, yet they still want to give him a few kicks. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is the most cowardly person of them all. He always boast about himself to the elderly in the community, yet what good is it to give them some trivial benefits? To benefit them pragmatically, we need to give the elderly $3,000 a month.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9421
Deputy Chairman, I therefore propose cutting the salary of Carrie LAM to stop her doing further evil. I do not even have the time to talk about population policy. Yet I wish to point out again that it has been four years since I started filibustering to demand the introduction of Old Age Living Allowance in 2012 but there is no progress at all. Despite the extra funding of $50 billion, the money simply cannot be drawn. I feel ashamed indeed. Do those people on that side in the Chamber, such as Mr WONG Kwok-hing, feel shameful? What they have been doing for the elderly only produce such an outcome. Deputy Chairman, one more thing although I do not have the time to discuss it. In fact, just the cut in funding for the Hospital Authority by $250 million will deserve a negative vote. However, has anyone talked about it here? People here in this Chamber will complain about the long waiting time for elderly healthcare, drawing criticisms on Directors of Bureaux (The buzzer sounded) … then why do we still offer them salaries …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. please stop speaking.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the debate now is on the question that these 74 heads stand part of the Bill. I strongly oppose the part of the proposal that one of the heads, the one for the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the emoluments for the Chief Secretary for Administration, stand part of the Bill. An underlying reason for my opposition is fresh from the oven and I hope Members can take a look at it. This new reason may prompt you to shift your vote from "No" to "Abstain", and from "Abstain" to "Yes", with regard to opposing this head standing part of the Bill. This is about the right and other procedural issues in using the funding for disaster relief.
We all know that a few years ago, Sichuan suffered from an earthquake. The Legislative Council then approved a total of $6 billion funding to the set up the Trust Fund in Support of Reconstruction in the Sichuan Earthquake Stricken Areas. At that time, some Members went for a site visit in the area but I had much reservation with regard to the construction of roads there. First, 9422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 corruption was rampant in the Mainland and it was possible that half of the donation made by Hong Kong people went into the pockets of corrupted officials. How much of this $6 billion eventually went into the pockets of the corrupted officials? We may never know the answer but some may possibly have gone into the offshore companies mentioned in the Panama Papers, right?
The money needed for disaster relief has already been spent. Should the remaining balance be returned to us, for the benefit of the elderly in Hong Kong? The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong or The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) always says that the elderly in Hong Kong are living in misery. FTU also says that the dental service for the aged needs to be improved. We have talked about this topic for many years, for more than a decade. Many Hong Kong people are living in "sub-divided units" miserably. Many others are homeless or living in awful environments. If we have money to spare, should we use it for the care and benefit of Hong Kong people?
Just like my criticism at that time against Stephen LAM, "Eunuch LAM". He is now giving talks in Canada as part of his world tour and I have asked netizens to pose a question to him. Back then when he was a secretary, he visited the disaster stricken pandas in the Mainland but refused to inquire into the status of Hong Kong people who might be struggling for their lives there. The reason he gave for not making the enquiry was that it would be a rude question to ask the Mainland authorities. How can he call himself a disciple of God? These are the disciples of Satan.
Let us come back to the Chief Secretary for Administration. Has she abused her power? Of course, I know absolutely well that this Secretary, who is said to be a "good fighter", must have consulted all necessary legal counsel before making a decision. After the donations have gone to the trust funds, the money is practically under the full control of the relevant persons-in-charge. But the problem is: it was not the original intent of the Legislative Council back then in approving the funding, the $6 billion funding, for the care of the pandas ― and, are the pandas in an emergency right now? The funding was meant for the Trust Fund in Support of Reconstruction in the Sichuan Earthquake Stricken Areas. Of course, you may say that the Wolong pandas are living within the reconstruction area. But then, if we do not give away the funding, the $190 million can be returned to us. The amount now in question is as much as $190 million.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9423
The sum involved was meant for road construction and other relief work. If the remaining balance is to be re-appropriated for other purposes, should this Council be consulted on how to repatriate the money to Hong Kong for the Hong Kong authorities to consider afresh whether additional funding should be approved for the pandas? This is an alternative way to handle the case. Can she take the liberty to do whatever she likes just because she is a "good fighter"? As the saying goes, "A government official with no expectation is always courageous", she is so courageous that she can do whatever she likes and go as far as to spend other people's money. If she likes pandas so much, she can of course donate her own money. As she is so influential, she can certainly raise funds from consortia and donate $190 million to the panda fund. Many Hong Kong people are starving and many elderly people can only live off the scrap paper they collected. With $190 million at hand, why does she not take care of those elderly scrap paper collectors and other elderly people in Hong Kong?
A government official with no expectation is always courageous. The official who bows and smiles sweetly to Mainland officials stays aloof from the underprivileged in Hong Kong. Even the President of the United States drank water which might have been contaminated with lead in a conscious display of selflessness and leadership. When requested to ask government officials to drink lead-contaminated water, she said that the request was an insult to them.
Do we really have to support head 142 standing part of the Bill? Do we have to make sure that the operation of the relevant bureau or department meets the expectation of the people? When Hong Kong officials show their great love and care for the pandas time and again but turn a blind eye to the plight of the Hong Kong people, should we support such officials? Do we really have to donate these sums of money? The officials bow in the Mainland time after time and treat people there with great deference, whereas in Hong Kong they are arrogant and pompous. So, this is Hong Kong, 18 years after the reunification.
Those officials who were fed on the milk of the Hong Kong British have now become lackeys of the Hong Kong Communists. Do we really want to support such a government? Do we really want to support such government officials? Are you sure you want to donate these sums? But it is useless talking to this group of royalists. We had better review the relevant details and sign a different contract.
Deputy Chairman, please do a headcount and summon those lackeys back to the Chamber.
9424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have some information to clarify. Many Members have no idea how problematic power abuse is. We have, during the last few days, read all the funding documents and the relevant legal analyses. The move in question allegedly runs contrary to the original intent of the funding approval at that time. We may probably file for a judicial review. According to the papers, the Legislative Council made two funding approvals for the Sichuan earthquake, the first one in July 2008 and the second one in December 2008, donating $9 billion in total. Coupled with the $1 billion from the Hong Kong Jockey Club, Hong Kong has injected $10 billion into the fund altogether. The funding was clearly aimed at reconstructing the disaster stricken area, including of course helping the post-disaster reconstruction of the Wolong panda reserve.
However, when we read the relevant reports and documents released in 2015, we knew the reconstruction work of the Wolong panda reserve had generally been completed at that time. The document we signed with the Sichuan Government on 10 May this year shows that the primary focus of the project is on facilitating the enhancement and revamp of the research centre, and installation of facilities in relation to the development of eco-tourism in Wolong. You can see the $190 million project is basically not about rebuilding the damaged panda nature reserve. Hence, I find this a blatant case of power abuse.
Moreover, if we examine the case from the perspectives of realpolitik and actual demand, we have no reason to provide financial support for the future well-being of the Sichuan pandas, even when the Hong Kong Government enjoys fiscal surplus. The Mainland is now rather affluent. Just look at how many Mainland people, or members of elite coterie, hold offshore companies as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9425 disclosed in the Panama Papers. A lot of Hong Kong people do hold offshore companies too, but there are even more in the Mainland. If we ask those affluent Mainland people to take a small sum out from their offshore companies, the amount will be big enough to subsidize not only one, but 10 or even 100 Wolong reserves. If the Hong Kong Government is so fond of wild animals and are so cash-rich, they had better rescue the dolphins and finless porpoises in Hong Kong with the $190 million. These mascots of Hong Kong are now disappearing. I went to observe them with some groups a few weeks ago. The dolphins which were seen north of Chek Lap Kok previously can only be found in the waters off Yi O and Fan Lau now, which are miles away from their former habitat.
Just now a Member blasted us for feeding on Hong Kong people's milk, taking Hong Kong people's money. But we harbour no guilt or regret over this, as we have been striving for the rights and benefits for Hong Kong people. Go home and sleep, Mr WONG Kwok-hing! He is only able to flex his muscles under the tutelage of the Communists, the Hong Kong Communists. Without the help from the Communists, he is not going to make it even if he runs 10 times for the seat. How dare you brag about yourself! People nowadays are fond of feeding on the milk of the Communists and yet put on airs in Hong Kong.
Let us return to the question that head 142 stand part of the Schedule. Having observed the recent behaviour of the Chief Secretary for Administration, we find no reason to support this question. Under the agreement, the work focus is on enhancement and revamp of the China Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda, as well as capacity building for ecotourism. None of these functions should come under post-disaster reconstruction.
I also oppose other heads, such as head 137, standing part of the Schedule. I am going to comment on it as the Secretary for the Environment is now present. The Secretary says he has read the letter I wrote for the Letters to Hong Kong programme two weeks ago, in which the separation of refuse at source was discussed thoroughly. The goal of San Francisco is to achieve zero waste by the year 2020. They are going to exhaust the use of all recycled and treated waste. If, in the end, there is still residue left to be destroyed by high temperature, it will be treated on a district basis, but not with some "white elephant" projects which drain public money as in the case of Hong Kong. It is going to cost us a fortune to transport the waste produced in Sha Tau Kok to Shek Kwu Chau for burning. 9426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
If waste has to be burnt, it is a common practice around the world to do it in situ, in a small incinerator put in place in the local district. Thus, we can see the backward development of Hong Kong under the SAR Government, especially in terms of environmental protection.
Secretary, I do not want to discuss plastic bags with you. The Hong Kong Government tops the world's open cities and civilized cities with the amount of plastic bags that it uses. Paris has decided to ban the use of plastic bags. The ban has yet to be effective but in a month's time or so, plastic bags will all be banned there. However, the Hong Kong Government takes the lead in using plastic bags and this is really ridiculous. Dr LAM Tai-fai says I have digressed but I have not. This is related to the question that "Head 137 ― Government Secretariat: Environment Bureau" stand part of the Schedule. I oppose it standing part of the Schedule. One of the reasons is the lack of leadership on the part of the Secretary. The Secretary is sincere but incapable. His concern over environmental conservation is well known to many but he has failed to lead the bureau in pursuing the cause. Hence, we should definitely not support this head standing part of the Schedule. Of course, the problem is also attributable to your colleagues, not only you.
In addition, it is the question about "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau" standing part of the Schedule. I have always held this bureau in low regard. Handling Mainland affairs turns out to mean enabling administrative officers to establish connections in the Mainland so as to take advantages from and pave the way for their future career. Dr LAM Tai-fai asks me which bureau I am satisfied with. I do find some of them satisfactory. Deputy Chairman, some departments and bureaux do not fall under these 74 heads and I do not have strong criticism against them. It is not true that I find all the bureaux unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, Dr LAM Tai-fai may support the question that "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" stand part of the Schedule. I hope he can make a re-consideration, as a lot of expenses budgeted under this head involve exchanges with the Mainland and implementation of the TSA. And those items related to the Belt and Road Initiative should all the more be opposed. Of course, I still have a lot to say but the relevant comments will be added later. Basically, I oppose the question that these 74 heads stand part of the Schedule.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9427
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now Mr Albert CHAN said that he had no objection to the 10 heads without amendments. I think that perhaps he missed something. Actually, I have read that 10 heads and found that there were Members' amendments to eight of them. However, the President eventually ruled that they were frivolous and meaningless and therefore could not be allowed.
In the previous debate session, I spoke on "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau". This morning, when we voted on the amendments concerning the Education Bureau, especially those involving Secretary Eddie NG, Dr LAM Tai-fai was not present. Had he been present, the idea of voting for the amendments might have flashed through his mind. Never mind, when he casts he vote in this session, he may vote against the inclusion of all these heads in the Schedule ― including the heads concerning the Education Bureau.
I want to add one point on "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau". We object to its inclusion in the Schedule, but I am not going to dwell on this or the reason for my amendment to it. I just want to say that the direction of many Hong Kong-Mainland exchange programmes, such as the proposal of the Sister School Scheme, are very worrying. Of course, some people will say that we will oppose anything involving China, including all connections with the Mainland and all student exchange programmes between Hong Kong and Mainland. Honestly, one of our concerns is what we call the export or outsourcing of national education. We are worried that with all these so-called exchange camps or leadership training programmes, Hong Kong students are brought to the Mainland for the nurturing of "patriotism". In fact, real national education should be about turning students into a world citizen. Let us take Germany as an example. Their national education is not about loving their country, but about criticizing the merits and the deficiency of the government. For that reason, the Germans are quite critical of their own government, which is why German children will not think their government is always right. We will see the difference if we look at the Germany during the Second World War and the time of HITLER. They will first learn to be critical of their own state and government, instead of blindly instilling any one-way patriotism.
9428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
The second point is about the Belt and Road scholarship. There were heated debates in the relevant panel and the Finance Committee. Even Members from the pro-establishment camp had reservations about the Belt and Road scholarship scheme. Had I been able to speak in the previous session, I would have read out an article written by Dr LAM Tai-fai in am730. The arguments in this article are really forceful and convincing. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said in the previous session that … we opposed this proposal. But I want to say that this is not exactly the case. I initially wanted to read out that article and let Members guess who wrote it. But now they know that the article is by the Chairman of the Panel on Education, Dr LAM Tai-fai. Members may read that article themselves.
I will leave the Education Bureau aside for the time being, because I do not have much time left. I will oppose the inclusion of "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau", which Mr Albert CHAN mentioned just now without going into any further details. What is the responsibility of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau? I do not intend to talk about Mainland affairs anyway, because they will certainly say that since I am totally against China, I will naturally criticize that it will be a waste of money to set up offices on the Mainland. In my opinion, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau actually has two major functions only. The first is constitutional affairs. But as the issue of constitutional reform has been halted, the Bureau really has nothing to do. When the constitutional reform package was put forward, this Policy Bureau … Even during the constitutional reform exercise, this Policy Bureau did nothing but just cosmetic work. The reform was led by Carrie LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration. Since the vetoing of the constitutional reform proposal, many people have been asking the Government when it will restart consultation on constitutional reform. But the Government has not given any answer. Is it the problem with LEUNG Chun-ying? Or, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau? In fact, both should be held responsible because such a lack of response must be the outcome of their interaction. One thing which is very certain is that many people in fact perceive the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau as a puppet of Beijing that will only follow the state policy. They thus think that the present Government will not restart constitutional reform in its remaining term. Basically, constitutional reform should be the most important task of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, but it is no longer required to do anything in this respect now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9429
Let us look at another issue. This is also something I want to highlight in this debate session, the promotion of human rights in Hong Kong. The promotion of human rights is one of the most important tasks falling within the portfolio of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. One major Programme under head 144 is related to the promotion of human rights. Members all know that the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is included in the head concerning the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Why do I oppose its inclusion in the Schedule? Why do I think that public money should not be used that way and this is not a good way of using public money? The reason is that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has been performing very poorly in the promotion of human rights, especially the rights of sexual minorities. The enactment of legislation on discrimination against them has been delayed again and again. LEUNG Chun-ying mentioned in his first policy address that due to all the controversies over the enactment of legislation, consultation would not be conducted and discrimination issues would be dealt with by education and publicity efforts instead. The Government has been saying so for more than 10 years, even at the meetings of the United Nations. On the surface, they want to pacify sexual minorities, but in fact they are insulting everyone.
Last year, in an MTR compartment, I was discriminated against by two women on grounds of my sexual orientation. This should also be a form of sexual harassment. Members may search on the Internet for the video clip, which has attracted more than 600 000 views. Subsequently, I filed a complaint to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. There is a complaint mechanism under the Bureau. But eventually, they said there was nothing they could do because no law was in place. In fact, I knew that they could do nothing, but I just attempted to see how much I could do under the existing system. Moreover, they said that those two women should first be located and then they might ask them to tender an apology. But the Bureau added that if they refused to do so, they could do nothing at all.
Moreover, it is about the establishment of the Advisory Group on Eliminating Discrimination against Sexual Minorities. In fact, besides me, Mr James TO and Dr Priscilla LEUNG were also members of this advisory group. This advisory group wasted us two and a half years. Our stances on the issue are very different, but even so, if Members ask Dr Priscilla LEUNG, she will also tell them that the performance of this advisory group under the operation 9430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 of the Government, was really very poor. Let me cite a simple example to illustrate that. All members of the advisory group, regardless of their stances, are not satisfied with the final report of the advisory group. The Government simply rushed through the work. On the last day of our tenure, that is, at 4.45 pm on 31 December last year, the report was posted on the Internet. The Government did not notify us beforehand. This has made some sexual minority people and I very dissatisfied.
I remember that in the end, I asked them in a meeting of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau whether they could remove my name from the report. The Under Secretary told me, "What has happened has happened". That answer was really … What he meant was that once we joined the advisory group, we could not even think about leaving, or even removing our names. For that reason, I can still see my name in the report posted on the Internet. Of course Dr Priscilla LEUNG's name is also in the report. In other words, what has already been done cannot be undone, and no change can be made. What concerns me most is that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau may turn in this report to the United Nations as its "homework" and say that after conducting a research for two and a half years, they ― including me, a sexual minority member ― have come up with the conclusion that it is not the right time for enacting legislation, so the Bureau should keep on studying, studying and studying. Therefore, if the representatives of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau go to Geneva next year and submit its "homework", I may spare some time to go there in order to expose the Bureau's irresponsibility towards the work of the advisory group and also its rascally behaviour.
Another cause of disappointment is that the Bureau has achieved nothing but has wasted a lot of money on the issue of human rights. The advisory group operated for two and a half years after its establishment with resources provided by the Administration. It had very little extra resources, and the final report is not quite so satisfactory in my eyes. There are admittedly some administrative recommendations on enhancing existing measures, strengthen personnel training and introducing certain dedicated services, and so on. But, honestly speaking, even if we present this report to the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, will his bureau draw up any solid improvement measures because of this report? I think it is highly unlikely. They will only give a perfunctory response. The Social Welfare Department (SWD) will probably think that it has many more important tasks to deal with. You know, in the case of the working group on domestic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9431 violence, we all asked for the addition of a representative of sexual minorities in its membership. Even Miss CHAN Yuen-han agreed to this, but the SWD simply made up various excuses. In the end, it refused to add in even one such member.
In the special meetings of the Finance Committee this year, I asked the Government through a written question whether it would allocate additional resources despite its refusal to conduct any consultation on anti-discrimination legislation. The reply was that the necessary resources had been included in the recurrent expenditure of the Bureau, and there would be no separate funding for the purpose. In a word, it simply has no intention to deal with this issue.
Constitutional reform and human rights have not been tackled. Constitutional reform is a political issue, and much must depend on Beijing. But the issue of human rights is non-political. It is about people's life, a universal issue. Just now, I have learnt from the news that an education institute on the Mainland lost a lawsuit and was ordered by the court to pay compensation to an employee, who was not offered a renewal of contract on the grounds that he had contracted AIDS. Although the compensation was just several thousand Renminbi, the case can show that such cases can be dealt with under existing legal principles.
Furthermore, there is a Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Unit (GISOU) under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for managing and monitoring the Equal Opportunities (Sexual Orientation) Funding Scheme and maintaining a hotline for enquiries and complaints. But I think GISOU is another thing of little value or interest. GISOU only has two people: One is an Executive Officer and the other is an Executive Officer II. The staff expenditures almost account for the total expenditure, amounting to $1.18 million. Although the Bureau would allocate $3.58 to GISOU, only about $2 million would be left after deducting staff expenditure.
There is one more thing that should be put under the expenditure account of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. I propose to cut head 144, which is related to the new Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), Prof Alfred CHAN. Not long ago, Members took the opportunity to criticize the Alfred CHAN case. The reason why we put this under the 9432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 expenditure account of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau is that the post is under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Although the EOC is an independent statutory body, it is still at the disposal of Raymond TAM. Dr York CHOW was not offered a contract renewal or he could not get reappointment after contract expiry. He re-applied for the post, but he failed. Actually, everyone knows that a refusal to offer contract renewal and the conduct of open recruitment actually means saying goodbye. But Dr York CHOW still re-applied for the post. Now, we can all see how the new Chairperson is like. He knows nothing. He knows nothing about the anti-discrimination laws. He cannot distinguish between gender identity and sexual orientation. And, he has even said words that are insulting to homosexual people. I do not want to talk about all these anymore. I really hope the Bureau will not regard the issue of human rights as such a thorny issue, as something that is to be shunned as much as possible, or as a matter that is to be tackled only half-heartedly when total avoidance is not possible.
Let me give one more example. The Code of Practice against Discrimination in Employment on the Ground of Sexual Orientation has been put in place for 10 years and it can be found in the website of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Its objective is to promote the equal rights and opportunities of sexual minorities among the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, this code of practice is not legally binding. Not even one single publicly-funded social welfare organization is willing to adhere to this code of practice. With the urging of the advisory group, the number of participating organizations has increased to 179 this year, 14 more than the figure last year. But as I said just now, even publicly-funded organizations have not signed up for supporting the code of practice, and the Government does not actively request their participation. In other words, the code of practice is just an embellishment.
The Registration and Electoral Office (REO) is also under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. We have proposed an amendment to "Head 163 ― Registration and Electoral Office". Do Members know the annual expenditure of the REO? In 2016-2017 its total annual expenditure was $1,113,685,000. We proposed to cut the expenditure, but some people criticized that this was tantamount to abolishing all elections, meaning that we can be Legislative Council Members for forever and ever. This is a distorted argument. When we approve such a huge sum of public money, should we consider its value-for-money, and examine whether there have been any problems with its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9433 work? Due to the time constraint in this debate session, I will speak later and add my points to why we oppose the inclusion of "Head 163 ― Registration and Electoral Office" in the Schedule.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have to talk about the Department of Health, of course.
This Budget has a very prominent feature, and I am not sure whether this is due to effect of the Financial Secretary's "0-1-1" savings plan. He called upon every Policy Bureau to reserve some money by cutting the amount of expenditure by 1% in the second year and another 1% in the third year. I have no idea why he made this decision at that time. He might think that in the long run, there would not be enough money to construct infrastructure facilities, so he asked all departments to save some money for the rainy days.
As the Deputy Chairman is also aware, due to the serious outbreak of influenza after the Lunar New Year, many people needed to wait for treatment in the accident and emergency departments of hospitals. In fact, the majority of them were elderly people belonging to the high-risk group. I wonder if the Members sitting here are aware that the Budget this year proposes to cut the expenditure of the Hospital Authority by $250 million. This is totally unreasonable.
In fact, if the Deputy Chairman's memory is not that bad, he will remember that apart from advocating the provision of universal retirement protection and a cash handout of $10,000 or $6,000 (We have asked for this many times and do not know why there is no response this year), we have also said that there should also be a dental clinic for the elderly in every district of Hong Kong. We also assert that elderly people must not be required to wait until they are 80 years old before they can be eligible for free dental services. Members should note that the age of eligibility is 80. I cannot tell whether I myself can live to be 80 to enjoy this kind of dental services for all elderly people in Hong Kong. The Government will expectedly say that there are now Elderly Health Care Vouchers, with which the elderly can use for getting dental services. Deputy Chairman, do you know how expensive dental services are? Only dental extraction is not a big problem. However, if a tooth is not replaced after its extraction … Dentists also tell people that a tooth needs to be replaced after its 9434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 extraction, otherwise other teeth will come off. Deputy Chairman, as result, how can we agree to accept the inclusion of such an outrageous expenditure head?
The Government keeps claiming that the existing healthcare expenditure is not small already. I have repeatedly stated my views in response to this claim here and I am not repeating them now. I do not dispute the Government's saying that the percentage of healthcare expenditure in the Government's Budget has seen year-on-year increases. But I must still point out that the increase of healthcare expenditure has always failed to catch up with the growth rate of Hong Kong's GDP. This is a problem that the Budget must deal with.
The precise purpose of presenting the Budget so solemnly in the form of a bill to the Legislative Council is to empower us to scrutinize and approve the Budget, right? My Honourable colleagues, if this is not the purpose, why is the Budget presented to us? In the case of the policy addresses of LEUNG Chun-ying, Members do not see any problems with ignoring them and refusing to approve them. Why? Deputy Chairman, this Council is very strange. Everyone in this Chamber will not hesitate to voice objection in cases where opposition will be of no use and have no meaning. For nine consecutive years, the Legislative Council has refused to approve the annual policy address and pass the Motion of Thanks. However, such disapproval is completely useless. In contrast, every amendment I am presenting to you now seeks to cut government expenditure and make the Government feel the pain. It is only in this way that the Government will listen to us.
What is Financial Secretary's justification for cutting the expenditure of the HA? I have once heard him talk about the justification: since the HA has reserves, it can use the reserves even if it has no funding. But it is basically a waste of time to listen to such a reason. If the Government is really working for the elderly, why does it require the HA to use its reserves? Deputy Chairman, let us look at this Budget. It contains an item of expenditure that has bypassed the scrutiny of the Legislative Council: the construction of the third airport runway by the Airport Authority Hong Kong. Each year in the Budget, the Financial Secretary will ask us to agree to the deduction of departmental expenditure in the amount of several billion dollars. Look at this Budget. Actually, how much surplus is there this year? The answer is $30 billion. The Financial Secretary says that he has already used up the surplus. After using LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9435
$30 billion in tax and rates concessions for the middle class, he has also used another $3 billion for assisting the poor. He wonders why people are still not satisfied.
By the way, when I was watching the debate upstairs just now, someone rang me up and asked, "'Long Hair', when will you stop filibustering? CSSA recipients like us are very miserable. Please do not filibuster any more." I replied that I knew what he meant, but I also told him that no filibuster could still be possible now. He then said that this could rid him of worries, and asked me to raise a question for him: why is there no "double payment" but only "single payment" this year? Frankly speaking, I did not know the answer. I thus told him to ask John TSANG.
This Government is very rich as it has a surplus of $30 billion, in addition to the $45 billion secretly allocated to the Housing Reserve last year. That means we have a surplus of $75 billion this year. The Government has a surplus of $75 billion ― deducting the $3 billion used for assisting the poor and $30 billion for benefiting the rich people ― the Government still has $40 billion. Why doesn't use this money to help the elderly redress their difficulties in seeking healthcare services and dental services?
Deputy Chairman, I have been very attentive. Why were there so many hindrances to the meetings of our Public Works Subcommittee? I always ask the Government whether it is possible to set up an elderly dental clinic in each district. The response of the Government is that there is no place. Deputy Chairman, under the crazy policy of LEUNG Chun-ying now, East Kowloon and West Kowloon will be developed in order to tackle the shortage of Grades A and B offices. In short, the Government wants to develop many places in order to provide land for the construction of Grades A and B offices. I do not know what justifications he has. However, when the occupancy rate of hotels is very low at present, he still wants to reserve land for building hotels. I am not going to discuss this issue here. He has totally failed to implement the measures concerned ― Dr Priscilla LEUNG is coming back ― the Government Offices that the Government built at West Kowloon have six storeys and can provide a total floor area of several ten thousand square meter. However, all the floor area is to be used for storing the library collections of the Central Library and no area is reserved for an elderly clinic or elderly dental clinic.
9436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Deputy Chairman, on this question, how can I help voicing my views? How can I let the Government cut the expenditure of the HA by $250 million? Besides, the Government has bypassed the Legislative Council on the $145 billion for constructing the third runway. We are supposed to scrutinize the Budget every year, but we are not even allowed to ask a question on this expenditure. We have a surplus of $75 billion, but we only use a very small sum on improving healthcare services.
We know that a pregnant nurse has been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Two days ago, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and I tried to have some first-hand experience. She and I, each wearing a fake belly, took blood pressure readings for people and changed diapers. It was really very tiring. The question is very simple: why did a pregnant nurse need to work night shift? It was because of manpower shortage.
Manpower shortage manpower is a deep-rooted problem. When Donald TSANG promoted the industrialization of healthcare services back then, all the trained personnel were pushed to the private market, thus creating a vicious cycle. For those working in the public sector, they receive low salaries and have to work overtime. I will skip these factors at the moment. However, the authorities should change the situation now. At present, "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" are no longer allowed to give birth in Hong Kong. This means that we have an opportunity to change the situation. Nonetheless, the Government has not stepped up its efforts to readjust the healthcare policy to meet the needs of the elderly.
Whenever we ask the Government to implement universal retirement protection, the Government will say, "It is not as simple as giving out $3,000. We still have lots of work to do for the elderly. Their healthcare services are a kind of cost. We have to use money to provide healthcare services so that they can be taken care of. Hence, it is more than an issue of $3,000." This is just rubbish.
To be honest, should we endorse the funding? By the way, our opposition to allow the sums to stand part of the Schedule is also related to the Labour and Welfare Bureau. There are now two choices open to him: universal retirement protection or giving a sum of $10,000 or $6,000 to each resident.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9437
Deputy Chairman, in regard to giving out $6,000, only some $30 billion was used last time in giving out money to all permanent residents. It means that if the Financial Secretary had not allocated $45 billion to the so-called Housing Reserve, we can give out money to the residents immediately.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing from the pro-establishment camp talked about fried dace with salted black beans and luncheon meat. Does he know what kind of help can this $6,000 offer to the grassroots? I asked him to choose freely among coffee, tea, or coffee with tea. But he did not give any response.
I have already expressed my views on the Department of Health. I now want to talk about the Labour and Welfare Bureau. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare is just the same. Has he got any measure to help the elderly? Deputy Chairman, in 2012 when we were elected to the Legislative Council, he introduced the Old Age Living Allowance, but many of the details did not undergo any consultation. When we filibustered here on that day, he asked the Legislative Council to pass the motion first, and said that they would make adjustments gradually in the future.
Deputy Chairman, four years have already passed, but there is no relaxation whether in assets limit or in age criterion. In accordance with the election manifesto of LEUNG Chun-ying, a fund would be set up for the retired elderly in Hong Kong in the long run. However, this has never happened. The fund that we can see is the "brick fund" of John TSANG which has some $290 billion. Members, he owes us a debt. On 7 December that year, Mr Tommy CHEUNG took advantage of the chaotic situation. The Government cheated us by briefly showing us a document. I did not know what happened. He said that we had to discuss another document and asked us whether we would pass the motion. The issues which we opposed and supported were put to the vote together. Anyway, the motion was passed finally. I immediately apologized on that day. I lost. Honourable Members and colleagues, I really lost, but can you help Hong Kong people strive for it?
We have been discussing this in the Council for four years. At Panel meetings, Members all spoke angrily and were almost burst into tears particularly in front of the camera. Now, the Government submits the Budget and our 9438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 endorsement is necessary before it can get the funding. We therefore ask it to do things we want first as a condition. What is wrong with that? I have to ask whether I have done anything wrong. Hence, I must ask to cut the remuneration of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare.
Another issue concerns standard working hours, which LEUNG Chun-ying has also said he would deal with. Deputy Chairman, there are only two assumptions now. First, Matthew CHEUNG is evil. Second, LEUNG Chun-ying is evil. The conclusion is that both Matthew CHEUNG and LEUNG Chun-ying are evil and they conspire with each other. Since I ask to cut the remuneration of LEUNG Chun-ying, I of course also ask to cut the remuneration of Matthew CHEUNG, to be fair.
What is wrong with them? After handling the issue of standard working hours for such a long time, they have turned the subject into contractual working hours? What are these? Contractual working hours are to rationalize the existing system which is already riddled with problems.
Honourable Members, the reason for my advocacy of standard working hours is very simple. Many people say, "'Long Hair', please stop." But I must say that if you work overtime, you should get overtime pay. Under the existing situation with no standard working hours, how will there be overtime pay for those working overtime? Has the Government thought of this question?
Secondly, if there are standard working hours, there will surely be legislation on death from overwork. It is because even though I was given overtime pay or immediate compensation, in the long run, the accumulated working hours can also be a testimony of complaint about my injury or death due to long working hours.
Honourable Members, have those who show their concern for labour rights or those who always scold us ever thought of all this? They have not, and they are totally indifferent.
Deputy Chairman, even with 10 000 years, I cannot finish my discussion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9439
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, one of the relevant amendments seeks to cut the estimated annual expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office. When I last spoke, I mentioned the Chief Executive and one member of his Office ― the Information Coordinator. I would now wish to discuss in greater detail.
What are the duties of the Information Coordinator? First, to formulate the media and public relations strategy for the introduction of major policies and programmes; second, to co-ordinate the timetable of the introduction of major policies and programmes; third, to closely liaise with the Director of Information Services and Principal Officials' Press Secretaries to ensure effective implementation of media and public relations strategy or major policies, and monitor public and media feedback; fourth, to plan and implement programme of public functions for the Chief Executive, including speaking engagements, overseas visits, community visits, meetings with editors and correspondents, and press conferences on an on-going basis; fifth, to liaise with local and international media on behalf of the Chief Executive; sixth, to act as Spokesman for the Chief Executive, as and when required; and seventh, to manage the Press Office in the Chief Executive's Office.
The Information Coordinator earns more than $10,000 daily and he is required to carry out the aforesaid duties. Yet, he has been ignoring his proper duties. What does he do most of the time? Mainly stirring up disputes. Let me cite a simple example. He enjoys criticizing the opposition camp openly, including the pan-democratic camp, in total disregard for his capacity as the Information Coordinator and neglecting his duties. With the duties I cited earlier, his role is very important and should be the spin doctor of the top government leadership. His work will affect the image of the Government. However, his performance simply runs contrary to what he is expected to do. LEUNG Chun-ying alone has already destroyed the image of this Government. This, coupled with Andrew FUNG, the Information Coordinator, who earns $10,000-odd per day, has worsened the image of the Government even more. He likes to write articles on the social media to openly criticize Members of the Legislative Council, especially those from the opposition camp.
Last July, after Dr Helena WONG disclosed the lead-in-water incident at public housing estates, Andrew FUNG shared the same article three times in a row on his Facebook page. He queried why Dr Helena WONG delayed the disclosure of excessive lead in drinking water. He also queried why she had withheld the information for two months if she was really concerned about the 9440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 health of the people and asked her to explain. This is really weird of him. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure the safety of drinking water. What has it got to do with Dr Helena WONG? Why did he ask her to explain? How does he go about doing publicity and public relations work for the Government? He said if Members fought for democracy, they should fight for the good of the people. He asked if they were doing that by withholding the information for two months before disclosure. He sounds convincing but in fact he is despicable.
Then, he escalated his accusation by saying that the Democratic Party dared not face the public and the journalists to give an explanation. The Member tested the drinking water in response to public demand and then disclosed the findings. I always say that Members' responsibility is to unveil problems, not to resolve them. It is the Government's responsibility to address problems. Is this not crystal clear? Yet, this Information Coordinator, who earns $10,000-odd per day, is only good at showing off his sports car and girlfriends. Fine, this is after all his private life. However, buddy, he criticized the Member on Facebook for disclosing the lead-in-water incident and asked her to explain why she had to wait for two months before disclosing the information. He even started a war of words with netizens. This is what the Government's spin doctor who earns $10,000-odd daily does.
Last October, Joshua WONG and Martin LEE attended the human rights conference in Washington. Andrew FUNG expressed his opinion in his column in Headline Daily. Actually, the Information Coordinator should not write newspaper columns. He said Joshua WONG used to wear T-shirts in Hong Kong but this time round, he wore a suit to show respect for American officials and recognition for protocol and etiquette. He asked why Joshua WONG did not respect his own country, national flag, national anthem and officials appointed by the country in Hong Kong. He said people remembered that at the National Day flag-raising ceremony last year, Joshua WONG turned his back on the five-starred red flag in protest. He asked why he favoured the United States more than his own country. Buddy, how could he have made such exaggerated comments? But he actually did so. Being the Information Coordinator, he is the public relation personnel of the Government. It is in fact wrong for him to say that these two people collude with foreign forces. Is it a sin for Joshua WONG to wear T-shirts in Hong Kong and suits in the United States? What has this to do with him?
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9441
Therefore, President TSANG, please do not put on what you are wearing again. Otherwise, Andrew FUNG will say that you show no respect for the country. Although I also have similar clothes …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, it is not worth spending so much of your precious speaking time on one person. Furthermore, this is not the first time you speak. Please focus your speech on the subject concerned.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I have only made a casual comment. Please show some tolerance.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please speak on the subject.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): How can Andrew FUNG say that one does not show any respect for one country's if one wears suits in the United States but T-shirts in Hong Kong? According to his reasoning, Chairman, you are also wrong. You should wear a suit.
Last October, Andrew FUNG resumed writing articles on Ming Pao Daily News. Chairman, you have also been writing articles recently in an attempt to advantage of various topics almost on a daily basis, but the articles he has written have outnumbered yours. He criticized an article on Ming Pao Daily News written by Brian FONG, Assistant Professor in the Department of Asian and Policy Studies of The Hong Kong Institute of Education, for misinterpreting the source of Hong Kong's autonomy. Brian FONG responded on Facebook on the same day, stating that his viewpoint in the article was based on the latest studies done by historians and jurists. Forty minutes later, Andrew FUNG left a message. Saying that Brian FONG referred to his own country as a strong economic power nearby, he queried if Brian FONG was alienating himself from the Mainland, denying his own country and indirectly promoting "Hong Kong independence". How come he has so much time to write articles and respond to the views of others? He is earning $10,000-odd a day and should be responsible for propagating government policies and orders. Why is he always doing such things instead? Moreover, as we all know, LEUNG Chun-ying's Facebook account is managed by Andrew FUNG. Chairman, I oppose the inclusion of the 9442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
74 heads concerned in the Schedule. One of the most important reasons is that I oppose the estimated annual expenditure for the entire Chief Executive's Office. I may have talked too much about Andrew FUNG as I have a particular "liking" for him. My comments on him stop here. I will now discuss the Executive Council.
Of all Executive Council Members, Arthur LI is the most disgusting. When Johannes CHAN was not appointed as nominated last year, Arthur LI criticized the whistle-blower, Billy FUNG, President of The Hong Kong University Students' Union (HKUSU), and called him a liar. He said Billy FUNG breached the confidentiality undertaking. However, Mencius said, "The great man does not think beforehand of his words that they may be sincere, nor of his actions that they may be resolute ― he simply speaks and does what is right." So, even if Billy FUNG spilt the beans, his act is in line with Mencius' teaching. What these words of Mencius mean is that spilling the beans is no big deal if it is for the sake of justice.
I remember when I was teaching, a confidential document which was handed over to the The New York Times jeopardized national security as it was about the Pentagon. The United States Government therefore applied for an injunction against its publication by The New York Times and the case finally reached the Supreme Court. With a vote of 6:3, the nine judges ruled that The New York Times had the right to publish that confidential document. Thus, Arthur LI was standing on the opposite side of justice when he crticized Billy FUNG for dishonesty and lying.
Despite all the criticisms against Arthur LI, LEUNG Chun-ying still went against the people of Hong Kong and appointed him as the Chairman of the Council of the Hong Kong University (HKU). Before his appointment, the HKUSU held a referendum in October on whether Arthur LI was unsuitable to assume any position within the governing structure of the HKU. As a result, there were 4 850 affirmative votes, 170 negative votes and 353 abstentions, overwhelmingly affirming that Arthur LI was unsuitable to assume any position within the governing structure of the HKU. However, LEUNG Chun-ying eventually appointed him as the Chairman of the Council.
Arthur LI had said on a television programme that if a small group of vocal persons could decide who could take up a position and who could not, Hong Kong would be thrown into a state of anarchy. He had also referred to this as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9443
"mob rule". This is blatant political intervention in university. The HKU is a tertiary education institution with a history of over a century. With this Executive Council Member who embraces authoritarianism becoming the person in charge of the top management, the HKU and society as a whole face a very serious threat.
On 28 January, Arthur LI described the students who had besieged the Council meeting as persons who appeared to have taken drugs, and the Civic Party was responsible for drugging them. He is an Executive Council Member and plays a part in decision-making. How could he have said something like this? How could he still have the face to apologize to Hong Kong people on behalf of HKU students? Deep down in his heart, he looks down upon students. How can he represent HKU students? He is an Executive Council Member. In other words, we are paying him with public money. Chairman, how can he continue to receive his salary? How can I support the inclusion of the expenditure for the Executive Council in the Schedule? Furthermore, Arthur LI's criticisms of Johannes CHAN are extremely anti-intellectual. The newspapers have reported on this. I need not repeat.
Another person I must discuss is CHEUNG Chi-kong. His remarks are extremely leftist. This makes him highly unsuitable to be an Executive Council Member. On the Arthur LI incident, CHEUNG Chi-kong went so far as to write in an article: "People are all very familiar with the movie scene in which YIP Man, played by Donnie YEN, warded off a whole bunch of attackers. Facing the confrontation of a hundred or so students (possibly with quite a number of outsiders among them), as well as the attack by some politicians and a few HKU teachers who are sympathetic with the students, Prof Arthur LI could still remain calm and be his normal self … Donnie YEN warded off his enemies with his excellent Chinese martial arts while Prof Arthur LI relied on a much simpler weapon which can be summarized in one word ― reasonableness. His reasonableness is no profound knowledge. Even a man on the street can understand. That is just human." Buddy, he even defended Arthur LI's evil deeds. Both of them are Executive Council Members. Why should taxpayers pay their salaries?
Talking about CHEUNG Chi-kong, what did he say about the TSA? He said the abolition of the TSA had become a hyped-up subject. The controversy over national education a few years back had cost the pro-establishment camp 9444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 votes. This time round during the District Council elections, someone "restaged the national education episode to snatch a large number of votes!" He also blamed the parents. He said people should not think that primary students would be spared any drilling if the TSA was abolished. "Primary students studying in some prestigious schools have as many as 12 assignments every day. With or without the TSA, students will be subject to drilling … How much money do parents spend each year on supplementary exercises for their beloved children … Even if the TSA is abolished, schools which cherish the value of drills will still have heaps of other topics to drill their students". He is distorting the fact, isn't he? He is an Executive Council Member. He knows very well that that is the Government's education policy, and that schools have to drill their students.
There is still Fanny LAW to talk about. However, as my speaking time is up, I will first take a break here.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to incorporating the emoluments for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare into the Budget. The reasons for my opposition are of course many, but today I would like to focus on the well-being of children.
We have been criticizing the serious shortage of community care and residential care services for the elderly and people with disabilities. The incumbent Secretary has been in charge of the work related to labour and welfare for almost 10 years, but I frankly cannot see what exactly he has done so far. Recently, there is a case that really breaks my heart.
The case is about a five-year-old boy with Down Syndrome as well as mental and physical disabilities. The death inquest held in March this year shows that he was killed by a drug commonly known as "ice". The level of "ice" in his body was seven times the level of poisoning in other cases of drug death. The problem of this little boy was not unnoticed. The social worker of the special child care centre that the boy went to once reported that the boy had unusual wounds on his body. Consequently, a multi-disciplinary case conference was held to look into the matter. After further probing, it was found that the boy came from a single-parent family. The records showed that his mother was a drug abuser, and the several children born to her were not under her LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9445 care. Her boyfriend also took drugs. The multi-disciplinary case conference unanimously held that it was not suitable for the boy to live with his family, and his mother was not in a position to take care of him. It even considered applying for a writ of habeas corpus for the boy. But how come nothing was done in the end? It was because none of the residential care centres had a place for this little boy with mental disabilities. At that time, there were two residential care homes for children like him. Yet one of them was full, while the other had suspended admission due to flu concern, and emergency placement would be provided only two months later …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you can cite examples to explain your opposition to incorporating a certain sum into the Schedule. But you should not spend too much time on elaborating the details.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, there is a reason for me to do so. The multi-disciplinary conference made the professional judgment that the boy was in a dangerous situation. But our systems have problems. Chairman, this kind of children, say children with a mild degree of mental disability, must wait 12.4 months on average for a place in a small group home in 2012-2013. In 2013-2014, the situation was even worse, they had to wait 18.8 months. Last year, some improvement was seen as the Government called on other small group homes to admit more mildly mentally handicapped children. But such children must still wait 9.7 months.
Chairman, this problem was brought to light only when the Budget was examined recently. Such mentally disabled children come from families that are not in a position to take care of them. Projected on the basis of the waiting time last year, the average waiting time of such children will be 10 months. What kind of service is this? How can this possibly happen? Having probed into the case, the multi-disciplinary case conference held that the boy should be admitted to a residential care home. However, as none of the residential homes could offer a place to him, he still had to live with his mother, and he died one month later. In fact, the couple were long-term "ice" abusers. They used modified feeding bottles as a tool to take drugs. They were taking drugs while feeding the boy with milk. Why are our systems unable to help these children?
9446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Chairman, some doctors, social workers and members of the public who have concern for children's rights approached the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council recently to reflect the problem, which I think deserve our attention. They were deeply agonized and infuriated to see that no protection is provided to these children due to the shortage of services. The nine cases reported in the previous three years cited by them ― I would not go into detail here ― are all about the poisoning, physical abuses, serious bodily harm, or even death of children resulting from the drug-taking of their carers or parents.
They indicated that according to the survey conducted in two hospitals last year, 2% of pregnant women admitted that they were once drug takers. Chairman, we have 40 000 newborns every year. The survey conducted by the Hospital Authority shows that 2% of pregnant women admitted that they were habitual drug-takers. What kind of support would be provided to the children born to these families? Currently, all the places offered under the residential care and foster care systems have been filled. The Government says there are emergency places. But a few days earlier, the South China Morning Post reported that of all the 107 places in Hong Kong, 106 have been used. The places we now have are absolutely inadequate. As I pointed out just now, all applications for these places will be put on a waiting list. This problem has existed for years, and it did not crop out just yesterday. What exactly has Matthew CHEUNG done? Why does the Social Welfare Department turn a blind eye to the problem?
These professionals have told us that the advice given by the multi-disciplinary case conference may not necessarily be followed up, and whether anyone would follow up the case is unknown. At the end, who will speak up for such children? The five-year-old YEUNG Chi-wai died so miserably. No one could speak for him. Hong Kong's systems failed to help him. Who killed YEUNG Chi-wai? In this series of cases, the children were very helpless due to the irresponsibility of their carers. But even if our systems can reach them, their cases are put aside or not followed up because of the shortage of services. We are unable to protect them from suffering or being hurt. We have no child policy at all. We neither have a mandatory report system nor a set of child health policy.
The Hong Kong Paediatric Society (HKPS) compiled a detailed and voluminous submission on child health policy to the Government some time earlier. The HKPS hoped the Government would adopt the policy proposal, care LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9447 about the future development of our children, and address the various needs arising from their physical and psychological development. Hong Kong needs a set of comprehensive child policy. The HKPS has produced a draft, but the Government just puts it aside and makes no response. This is what the HKPS has told us, not made up by me. The HKPS is a professional group with enthusiasm. They has done the work for the Government in the light of its inaction. But the Government is still reluctant to take any action.
I have twice moved a motion calling for the Government to set up a commission on children as a platform of focusing on the well-being of children, and to ensure that children's voices are represented and their perspectives will be fully taken into account in the process of formulating public policies, allocation of resources, drafting laws, and designing the format and arrangement of services. But the Government just listened and made no response at all. Have we ever really taken into account the well-being of children in our policy making? Over all these years, why have our officials been so indifferent to the basic needs and helplessness of such children? Why have we not set up a better mechanism or platform to address the problem? If we do not even have any of the above, having a set of comprehensive law to protect the children would be a dream. We have nothing at all. When we see that other countries have time and again revised their laws on the protection of children, Hong Kong, in comparison, is terribly backward.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you are not supposed to conduct an in-depth discussion on government policies in this debate. The issue you talked about in your speech just now can be the subject matter of a separate and long debate. Please focus on whether the sum of the relevant head should stand part of the Schedule.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
9448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. But please avoid in-depth discussion on any particular public policy.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am speaking on Amendment No 282 raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, which seeks to cut the annual emoluments for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare in 2016-2017. We are talking about whether the relevant head should be incorporated into the Schedule.
Just now I said the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has failed to discharge his duties. In addition, I cited a case to highlight the deficiency of our systems. Such deficiency is not a new phenomenon, nor is it caused by the accidental oversight of any individuals. Rather, the deficiency is systemic, but the Secretary has turned a blind eye to it. The case tells the tragic story about a mentally disabled small boy with special needs. He was in a dangerous situation. Even though our systems could reach him and understand his difficulties, and a multi-disciplinary case conference was held to look into his case, he was still left in that dangerous environment due to inadequate residential care places and services. Eventually the boy passed away one month later and no one needs to take the responsibility for his death. While later on there were clear evidences showing serious negligence in care on the part of the boy's mother and her boyfriend, but no one was prosecuted finally as there was no definite conclusion on who should be held responsible. The experts who attended the case conference are spared the responsibility although they did not take any further actions after agreeing unanimously that something should be done to help the boy. The Secretary, who is responsible for formulating the relevant policies, and the officials of the Social Welfare Department, who implement these policies, do need to assume any responsibility either. How can we allow an innocent boy to pass away silently? Why do our systems completely overlook these underprivileged people?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9449
Chairman, I hope you can see my point. I do not mean to talk about any particular case in detail, but any one of these cases is enough to highlight the loophole in the entire system and the lukewarm attitude of the Government. This is exactly opposite to how this kind of cases is handled overseas. For example, in Britain, even a single case of child abuse would prompt them to review all the relevant laws and services … Once they spot any high risk cases, such as those relating to drug abuse, sex violence, family violence, and so on, they will actively review the entire system. In Hong Kong, the Government does not bother to do anything despite the hard work of the community groups. Moreover, it has time and again turned a blind eye to the cases reported. Just now I mentioned a shocking figure ― 2% of the pregnant women admitted that they were once drug takers. There are 40 000 newborns in Hong Kong every year. We urgently need to follow up the difficulties faced by the babies born to a drug-taking mother. Yet we do not even have a platform to discuss the issue at this stage.
Chairman, I hope you can understand that this is a matter of life and death for the underprivileged children who are unable to speak for themselves. We should not leave them in a dangerous environment. The Secretary is duty-bound to come up with a solution and accord top priority to the issue. This is not the outcry from me alone. Many paediatric doctors and a number of professional groups that have concern for children's rights have been calling on the Government to follow up these cases, but unsuccessful.
Putting aside other issues, just on children's welfare alone, particular the protection for the children at risk, the Secretary has certainly failed to do his job. Hence I oppose incorporating his emoluments into the Budget.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate has now come to a close.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the sums for heads 21 to 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 42, 44 to 49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 100, 106, 112, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 135, 137 to 144, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 181, 186, 188, 190 and 194 stand part of the Schedule. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
9450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the motion.
Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016 9451
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 38 Members present, 33 were in favour of the motion and four against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Schedule stands part of the Bill. In accordance with Rule 68(4) of the Rules of Procedure, this question shall be put without amendment or debate. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss CHAN 9452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 12 May 2016
Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 42 Members present, 35 were in favour of the motion and six against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7.49 pm.