LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9355
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 27 March 2014
The Council continued to meet at half-past Two o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
9356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
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, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9357
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
9358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P.
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, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9359
PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:
MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
9360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council now resumes. We will continue with the debate on the motion on "Properly dealing with problems arising from cross-boundary students". Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please speak.
PROPERLY DEALING WITH PROBLEMS ARISING FROM CROSS-BOUNDARY STUDENTS
Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 26 March 2014
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the original motion and Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment to the motion.
President, as a Member of the New Territories West geographical constituency in the last term of the Legislative Council and as a resident of Tuen Mun, I can see and feel the hardships of cross-boundary students. They are like a flock of ducklings and their carers are also very tiring looking after them. In fact, apart from cross-boundary students, people who cross the boundary to work every morning and cross the boundary to return home at night also have to face various problems and difficulties in their lives, which can hardly be understood by those who are not in the same boat. In fact, cross-boundary problems are not limited to the area of education.
President, under the concepts of "one country, two systems" and "one river, two banks", there are different strengths and attraction of the Mainland and Hong Kong. Some people of both sides have chosen to lead a cross-boundary life due to a variety of factors, including financial reasons, business start-ups, employment, family considerations, accommodation and other aspects of life. As the Chinese saying goes, "Man aims high whilst water flows downstream"; cross-boundary living is a natural phenomenon which is understandable.
However, cross-boundary living has created a lot of difficulties in life which requires the attention and assistance of the Government and community of both places. The Government should not only focus on addressing problems arising from cross-boundary education, it should also consider other aspects of life that follow, for example, further studies, employment, marriage, healthcare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9361 and social welfare. In fact, society as a whole should be concerned about these problems.
President, to assist people of the Mainland and Hong Kong to resolve their practical problems, I think we should work in four areas.
First, we should adopt an understanding and accommodating attitude towards people from the Mainland instead of rejecting them. We should not discriminate them, hurl abuse at them or ridicule them. I do not wish to hear words which will hurt the feelings of the people of Mainland and Hong Kong. I have noticed that some groups (for example, Local Action) provoke China-Hong Kong conflicts and stir up hostility between different communities under different names. They have turned public opinions into actions, instigated the so-called "Anti-locust Campaign" to target shopping malls and tourists and disrupted the social order of Hong Kong. I think such improper behaviour should be condemned. A proper attitude is the first step to resolving any problem.
Second, I think we should vigorously urge the Hong Kong Government and the Mainland authorities to collaborate in tackling the problem by conducting cross-boundary research and allocating additional resources, so as to work out feasible solutions that can turn negative factors into positive ones. Cross-boundary collaboration is very important and we cannot simply rely on one government or one side to take actions.
Third, I think the SAR Government should promote inter-departmental collaboration to resolve the problems. As stated in the heading of the motion, different problems have arisen from cross-boundary education. Hence, the responsibility of resolving the problems should not be shouldered by the Education Bureau alone, various Policy Bureaux and departments should be involved. They should consider that they are duty-bound to resolve the problems, not just resolving the problems that arise in the coming few years, but also considering how to deal with the anticipated problems in future. I hope the Under Secretary would understand that the authorities should liaise and collaborate with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments to handle the problems.
Fourth, I think civil societies and the Government of the two places should endeavor to promote "multi-partite collaboration" to mobilize various factors to deal with problems arising from cross-boundary education. Why do I propose "multi-partite collaboration"? "Multi-partite collaboration" can involve 9362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 government authorities, business organizations and civil societies; it can also involve parents, teachers, education institutions and non-governmental groups, such as clansmen associations, community organizations and welfare organizations or even relevant government departments of Hong Kong and the Mainland. These parties can liaise, exchange ideas and collaborate at different levels to work out feasible solutions.
In order to resolve the livelihood and financial problems arising from cross-boundary students, we cannot rely on the efforts made by a single party and multi-partite collaboration is needed. I hope the Government will seriously consider the four proposals which I have made.
President, regarding Mr Gary FAN's proposal to amend the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, I think that is an impetuous move without careful consideration. The Basic Law seeks to protect the rights of the people of Hong Kong and safeguard the implementation of "one country, two systems". It is a constitution which everyone should comply with. We cannot rashly propose to amend the Basic Law because of some difficulties currently encountered by Hong Kong people. If we amend the Basic Law at will today, the adverse implications may be far reaching. For instance, should problems arise in another area in future, we may have to amend the Basic Law again. In that case, our rights conferred by the Basic Law will not be safeguarded (The buzzer sounded) … and our obligations cannot be fulfilled.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, cross-boundary students is a social phenomenon resulted from frequent China-Hong Kong exchanges. At present, the number of Shenzhen-Hong Kong cross-boundary students has reached 20 000. With an increasing number of cross-boundary students pouring into Hong Kong in recent years, it is estimated that at least 2 800 more children will come to Hong Kong to attend school in 2014. Cross-boundary students have, to a certain extent, adversely affected the education system of Hong Kong. In districts such as North District, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, the supply of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9363 primary school places has become tight and there are even long queues for kindergarten admission forms. These problems have given rise to China-Hong Kong conflicts.
There are two study reports which Members may refer to. One of them is The Learning and Developmental Needs of Cross-Border Students released by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups in February this year; the other is the Study on the Schooling Experience of Cross-Border Students published by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Hong Kong Institute of Education.
From these two reports, we can see that although cross-boundary students are fatigued by long travelling hours to school every day and they have problems of adjustment, most of them are positive about learning in Hong Kong. While they do not live in Hong Kong, the fact that they attend school in Hong Kong gives them a sense of identity as Hong Kong people and thus, they can develop a sense of belonging to Hong Kong. Although the education system of Hong Kong is riddled with problems, owing to the hard work of front-line educators, and under the principle of "educating without discrimination" in this idyllic place, which is just a short distance away from the Mainland, the only difference between cross-boundary students and local students is their place of residence; the identities of cross-boundary students and that of their parents should not hinder their schooling in any way. Over the last few years, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has been fighting for the rights of cross-boundary students such as clearance arrangements, but its proposal of conducting "studies in conjunction with Mainland authorities … on establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen and setting up more schools and classes exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen children" in the motion will give another identity to these children and impede their integration into the society of Hong Kong. The relevant studies also show that "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) students" only account for a small proportion of cross-boundary students. Hence, even if we stop pregnant Mainland women from giving birth in Hong Kong, the number of cross-boundary students will not be substantially reduced in future. Therefore, in handling problems arising from cross-boundary students, emphasis should obviously be placed on how to facilitate these children to attend school in Hong Kong. We should take things as they come and consider how to help these students adjust to different life style in both places and increase the number of primary and secondary school places in districts in the proximity of the boundary.
9364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Recently, the Government has allocated additional resources in education in response to problems arising from new-arrival children, including increasing funding for schools, enhancing after-school support and offering special assistance to these children. However, given the departure times of buses which take cross-boundary students home, the time available for after-school support is obviously insufficient. As a result, most of these classes just exist in name and cannot effectively help students who cannot catch up with the curriculum. Actually, Hong Kong students also have similar problems. Some primary school students attend whole day schools and they have to do homework after school. Worse still, some of them have to spend two to three hours travelling to and from school. How could they cope with the heavy load of homework? These are problems which we should consider, do you agree?
As we all know, the birth rate of Hong Kong dropped a few years ago because women of Hong Kong were unwilling to give birth. As the Education Bureau lacked vision ― that probably has nothing to do with the Under Secretary ― it closed schools instead of implementing small class teaching, and teachers felt insecure in their work. As there were not enough students, schools had to recruit students from the Mainland, giving rise to the current problems related to cross-boundary students. In the final analysis, the Government should bear responsibility for it lacks vision and is shortsighted. For me, it is the children whom we are concerned about. We care about their adjustment in learning, their sense of values and their sense of belonging to Hong Kong; we care about whether they like to study here and whether they are proud to be Hong Kong people. We should take things as they come. I do not agree that we should reject these people. They are Hong Kong people, no matter whether they are singly or doubly non-permanent residents. All of these children are Hong Kong people.
The SAR Government has been ignoring these problems all along. Now that Members are discussing problems arising from cross-boundary students and how to resolve them, the Government will only give a perfunctory response.
The motion today is constructive and I have considered each of the amendments in detail before deciding how to vote.
Basically, I disagree with point (3) of the original motion as mentioned before. That proposal is similar to LEUNG Chun-ying's plan of sending the elderly of Hong Kong to the Mainland, but this may not be the most appropriate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9365 analogy. We hope these children can recognize their identity as Hong Kong people and so I disagree with point (3).
Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment proposes to provide financial support to cross-boundary students, subsidize social welfare organizations and facilitate clearance. These specific proposals are fine, but I will not vote for the amendment because it has not deleted the part on "establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen".
Mr James TIEN's amendment proposes that Hong Kong teachers go to teach in the Mainland. I certainly do not agree to it, buddy. He has ignored problems such as cultural differences, remuneration and overstepping of one's authority, and so I have to object to his amendment. I think the amendment proposed by his brother, Mr Michael TIEN, is better. His proposal to establish schools subsidized by Hong Kong Government in the Mainland for DNR students will avoid the need to change the existing policies on school place allocation and establishment of schools. Although the proposals are easier to implement and safer, the question is that these children will grow up in Mainland under the influence of Mainland culture, and that is contrary to the principle of helping these children identify with the culture of Hong Kong as Hong Kong people and so I will abstain on the amendment.
I think Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment is commendable in that it has taken care of the financial and psychological needs of students, but I will not vote for it because it has not deleted the part on "establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen".
Mr Gary FAN's amendment is even more brilliant in that it proposes to establish a school net for DNR students so that the impact on local students is minimized. However, he has not deleted the part on "establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen", but has encouraged Hong Kong teachers to teach in the Mainland. For these reasons, I object to his amendment.
Dr Helena WONG's amendment is also remarkable. The proposal of reinstating village schools is the quickest way to resolve the tight supply of school places. However, as she has not deleted the part on "establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen", I will not vote for her amendment.
Thank you, President.
9366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr WONG Yuk-man seldom agrees to the motion proposed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), just like I seldom share his viewpoints. However, today he supports our motion and the reason, as he has expounded clearly, is that he has seen what the DAB has done for cross-boundary school children in recent years, which is obvious to all.
The motion proposed by Mr TAM Yiu-chung today includes many specific proposals that we hope the Government will take on board to solve the problems concerning cross-boundary school children. However, as regards Mr WONG Yuk-man's remarks just now that the aim of the DAB's proposal to establish schools for Hong Kong-citizen children in the Mainland is to reshape their identity, I think that is an over-interpretation. We only wish to provide an alternative for Hong Kong-citizen students in the Mainland to attend school so that they need not enrol in schools under the Mainland education system. This proposal allows them to enrol in Hong Kong-style schools so that when they come to attend school in Hong Kong, they can adapt to the local curriculum more easily.
President, as the Chinese saying goes, "Treating with the kindness due to the young in your own family, so that the young in the families of others shall be similarly treated"1, every time I think of these cross-boundary students shuttling between China and Hong Kong every day, I wonder if our community has treated them fairly as they are Hong Kong citizens too. On the other hand, as traditionally there are not many schools in the New Territories North, so when more and more cross-boundary students go to school in the New Territories, it exerts great pressure on schools in the district and affects local students and their parents, is that fair to them? This shows that when the SAR Government planned for school places in the North District, it had not taken into account the trend of many Hong Kong families moving to Shenzhen, giving rise to the problem of cross-boundary students which can hardly be solved at root. It takes a toll on cross-boundary students, as well as on local students and their parents in the New Territories. It also exerts great pressure on the border control points. If this situation continues, all parties will lose.
With the implementation of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme, many Hong Kong-citizen children come to enrol in Hong Kong kindergartens.
1
As they grow older, most of them will attend primary schools in Hong Kong. The number of cross-boundary students is heading towards the peak at the moment because the peak period of "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR)" pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong was between 2008 and 2010. It is envisaged that in 2014-2016, these DNR children will reach the age to enter Primary One and by that time, competition for school places will intensify. Take for example the school year 2013-2014. As many as 1 700 children registered for Central Allocation in the Sheung Shui school net, but there are only 800 school places in that district, meaning that two children have to compete for one place.
When cross-boundary children go to school in Hong Kong, most of them are accompanied by their parents to the Mainland control point, they are then picked up by "nanny vans" or accompanied by a nanny to cross the boundary; once across the boundary, they are carried by school buses to their schools. Most of them cross the boundary at Lo Wu Control Point and we can imagine how crowded Lo Wu is. If they cross the boundary at Lo Wu, they need to apply for Closed Area Permits (CAPs). Just imagine, they get up very early in the morning, carry their school bags and cross the boundary in the midst of hordes of people; the commute is dangerous and lengthy. Besides, they may not be able to obtain CAPs. President, do you still remember that a few years ago we debated in this Council the Security Bureau's plan to reduce the number of CAPs which stirred up an uproar and aroused grave concern? However, as it was the Security Bureau rather than the Education Bureau which had the power to grant CAPs, the problem had dragged on owing to insufficient co-ordination between the two Policy Bureaux. Although the situation has improved in the past one or two years, the number of CAPs granted is still on the decline.
The Government should listen to our views and look into the situation of school bus parking at Lo Wu. If the Under Secretary pays a site visit, he will see how bad and dangerous the situation is as children and school buses compete for space. Someday, accidents which no one wishes to see, may happen. Therefore, the Government has to improve the condition of the parking lot as well as resolve the traffic flow problem at Lo Wu Road. In the long run, to divert the traffic, more parking spaces should be reserved at the Liantang Boundary Control Point for school buses that carry cross-boundary children.
To effectively resolve the problem concerning cross-boundary children, it requires full co-operation of all government departments, the Education Bureau 9368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 and the Security Bureau in particular should take the lead and set up a working group to enhance the co-ordination among various schools. Some primary schools and kindergartens in the North District have proposed staggering school hours. While this idea is good, the problems concerning students attending school every day and CAPs, which I mentioned just now, still need to be addressed. One may be granted a CAP this year but may not get one the next year. This constitutes a great pressure on both the parents and children. Therefore we hope that the Government will further improve the current system and examine if immigration clearance procedure can be streamlined. Someone has proposed to inspect cross-boundary children's entry document in the vehicles, which is a good idea. But will the authorities consider granting the children a special permit or providing a special passage way for them so that their parents need not apply for CAPs every year? They are also Hong Kong citizens, only that they choose to live in Shenzhen.
Finally, I wish to talk about the inevitable impact that cross-boundary students have on school places in the New Territories, especially the New Territories North. At present, even Yuen Long and Tin Shui Wai are under pressure. The fundamental solution is to build new schools. Although the Education Bureau has undertaken to build a new school in Ching Ho Estate in Sheung Shui, the school will be completed in 2016 at the earliest. If the Government can speed up the process, I believe it will help relieve the present shortfall in school places. In the meantime, the authorities should look into ways to accept new students in the new school year, so as to ensure that there are adequate school places for students to study in their home district.
President, I so submit.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the problem concerning cross-boundary students has actually arisen for years.
I remember that about six or seven years ago, I was invited to a seminar jointly organized by the Hong Kong Institute of Education and principals of schools in the North District concerning the problem of cross-boundary students, which was in fact rarely mentioned by many people. According to them, cross-boundary students were at risk when they crossed the boundary because of the heavy flow of people and vehicles at the control point. Besides, the number of Closed Area Permits (CAPs) was also gravely inadequate. The authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9369 only granted a limited number of CAPs. Primary Five and Six students were definitely not granted CAPs while Primary Four and Five students might not necessarily be granted CAPs. The conditions of these passage ways were far from satisfactory. School buses and "nanny buses" were allowed to drive into the closed areas to pick up students, but the traffic was in chaos and the road was very narrow.
Seeing this situation, CHEUNG Man-kwong and I hurriedly met with the District Officer for North District. I also had a site inspection one morning and found that the situation was exactly as described. The Government subsequently undertook to widen the road and grant more CAPs, hoping that the safety of cross-boundary students when crossing the boundary could at least be safeguarded However, to our surprise, the situation has not improved today but has even deteriorated.
At that time, of these cross-boundary students, not many were "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR)" children. Most of them were children of Hong Kong residents living in the Mainland and for various reasons they had to go to school in Hong Kong. But today, the situation is much more complicated. The birth rate DNR children, thanks to the Donald TSANG Government, rose from 620 in 2001 to over 35 000 in the peak in 2011. This is only the number of DNR children born in Hong Kong. In a few years, they will come to Hong Kong. The number of such children coming to Hong Kong has not reached the peak yet. I really do not know how much harm Donald TSANG and his Government had done to Hong Kong. At that time, we strongly pointed out that the arrangement of opening our door wide to encourage Mainland pregnant women whose spouses were not permanent residents of Hong Kong to give birth in Hong Kong had completely disregarded the essential environment under which the children of such families would grow up, as well as the arrangement for a family to stay together.
However, I wonder the officials present here today ― Under Secretary YEUNG was not a member of the governing team then … Many of the officials under the leadership of Donald TSANG who formulated these policies remain in office today. The present problems, such as the acute shortage of school places in the North District which forces cross-boundary children to travel long journeys to school every day, are the result of various policy blunders made by the former Government. Who should be held responsible today? These children are innocent and we are most unhappy to see their hardship. These children, no 9370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 matter they are "singly non-permanent resident" or DNR or children of Hong Kong citizens, were born in Hong Kong and are Hong Kong citizens. We are duty-bound to take care of them. But up till now, we still cannot solve the problem in respect of technical and safety arrangements. We cannot even provide sufficient school places for them. This is our responsibility and we must deal with the problem seriously.
However, if we are to use public funds to establish the so-called "Hong Kong-style" schools in the Mainland for these children, we have great reservation over such an idea because the legal systems, flow of information and education systems are totally different in the two places. If we establish schools in the Mainland with public funds, how are we going to teach the Liberal Studies subject and how do students do their homework? Many school principals and teachers have reflected to us that cross-boundary children cannot do their homework at home because the information that they can get from the Internet is incomplete. They do not have full access to the Internet to search for the information required.
There are indeed many problems, especially those faced by children with special education needs. They encounter many difficulties when crossing the boundary. Some of these children may behave differently as they may be hyperactive or autistic. School buses and "nanny buses" refuse to carry these children, making it even more difficult for them to cross the boundary. In school, supposedly, these children should receive after-school support, such as speech therapy and other assistance, but they cannot stay behind to receive such services as they have to hurry home after school. At present, the special passage way for school children commuting between Shenzhen and Hong Kong is open for a limited time. So these students have to rush home after school, which seriously deprive them of their learning opportunities. This even gives rise to a market in Hong Kong for conducting "cross-boundary student business" and people make a profit by providing hostels for these children. I think the Government should be held responsible for creating such a strange phenomenon. It may have to consider providing extra hostel services in Hong Kong for some of these children, especially those with special education needs.
Such service is important for these students to receive education in Hong Kong. If we provide education services for them with public funds, I think such services should be provided in Hong Kong. If they prefer private schools established by other organizations in the Mainland, it is their choice and there is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9371 no problem about it. But we cannot support the idea of establishing schools in the Mainland with public funds. Thank you, President.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, regarding the issue of cross-boundary students, I would like to share some of my views. According to the Government's estimate, about 160 000 "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children" were born in Hong Kong between 2007 and October 2012. This number is not too big or too small. Take for example the 2013-2014 school year. About 20 000 children cross the boundary every day to attend school in Hong Kong and this number will continue to rise in the next few years. It will certainly exert great pressure on immigration clearance and traffic between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, as well as kindergartens and primary schools in Hong Kong. These children will have great demand for secondary school places later on. Therefore, today's original motion that requests the authorities to properly deal with problems arising from cross-boundary students is, I believe, very appropriate.
However, I wish to point out that it is not easy to conduct good planning and proper data projection concerning cross-boundary students in the long run because it is hard for us to estimate how many of these 160 000 DNR children will come to Hong Kong ultimately and if they come, when they will come to attend school in Hong Kong. It will be very difficult to get an accurate answer. Of course, the authorities can conduct a questionnaire survey on these Mainland families, but how can the authorities locate these families? Even if they are located, the data collected will change with the passage of time and the changing conditions of each family.
Another proposal put forward in the original motion is to establish Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen. Undeniably, it would help to alleviate the pressure exerted by cross-boundary students on the traffic and school places in Hong Kong and I will not oppose it. However, I wish to point out ― actually the President should have a better understanding than I ― to my understanding, education can be divided into three parts. The first is curriculum education, that is, the curriculum followed by students in school. The second is environment education, that is, through communicating with their peers in school, students can learn from one another. The third is cultural exchange through living in the community and integrating the knowledge into the local culture.
9372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
A Hong Kong-style school established in Shenzhen means that the school will adopt the curriculum of Hong Kong but the school is located in Shenzhen. All students attending that school live in the Mainland and the community they belong to is a Mainland community. In other words, the lessons they learn can hardly transcend the classroom.
For example, the primary textbook talks about the Peak Tram but in real life, most students have not been to the Peak, and they have not taken the tram to the Peak. Without practical experience, the ability to absorb knowledge will certainly be affected. Another example is that students are taught in the textbook that they should not touch live poultry so as to prevent the spread of infectious disease, but in the community that the students live, especially if it is a rural village, people love to eat free range chicken, they let chickens, ducks and geese run free, and they also feed the poultry themselves. If the knowledge taught in textbooks does not tally with everyday environment, how are students going to adapt? Therefore, if the curriculum is not compatible with the students' living environment and cannot induce cultural interaction and integration, such a teaching method is not conducive to the students' development.
Besides, the issue concerning Hong Kong teachers teaching in the Mainland is also rather complicated. First of all, I wish to ask whether it is necessary to ascertain if the teachers can maintain their Central Provident Fund accounts when they are away from Hong Kong. Hence, there are certain disadvantages of establishing schools in the Mainland.
Even a layman like me who does not know much about education can observe so many problems as listed above. I have also heard Dr Fernando CHEUNG talk about the problems he noted. Personally, I doubt the efficacy of establishing schools in the Mainland and I wonder if it will be a waste of resources. It will not even get half the result with double efforts, or not even half but only one third of the result. If it only achieves the goal of curriculum education but not environment and cultural education, it will only have the form but not the essence.
I wish to point out that instead of being so short-sighted as to "chop off toes to avoid sand worms", the authorities should tackle this problem from a macroscopic perspective through the population policy. Owing to the low birth rate in Hong Kong, the Government always encourages childbirth. Now that there are 160 000 DNR children, we should try to resolve the problem of DNR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9373 children by looking into ways to encourage them to study and live in Hong Kong, so that they can integrate into our community and become new force. They will be of great help to Hong Kong in the long run.
Regarding DNR children, it does not matter whether their parents are Hong Kong citizens, they are after all Hong Kong citizens and we should not narrow-mindedly reject them. Therefore, I cannot agree to Mr Gary FAN's proposal to abolish the DNR children's right of abode in Hong Kong. Instead, I think we should encourage them to live in Hong Kong by, for example, providing more boarding schools, so that they can go to other schools in Hong Kong instead of schools in the North District alone and vigorously helping them integrate into the Hong Kong society.
In fact, it is more effective to influence the parents through their children. If you wish to change the parents, the best way is through their children. By means of education, children are taught not to spit or jump the queue; they can then influence their parents to adopt the Hong Kong culture, which I think is a more desirable approach.
President, I so submit.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, regarding this subject, we do agree to the objective mentioned by Mr Tommy CHEUNG just now, that is, encourage Mainland students to come early to adapt to the life in Hong Kong and integrate into society. Mr WONG Yuk-man has also raised similar views earlier.
As regards Mr Gary FAN's amendment, I believe the relevant law has no retrospective effect. Even if he proposes to amend the Basic Law, to which the Government may certainly not agree, these students, no matter they are "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children" or "singly non-permanent resident" (SNR) children", are Hong Kong students and they are Hong Kong citizens before the amended law becomes effective.
After assuming office, the LEUNG Chun-ying Government has by administrative means indeed significantly reduced the number of DNR children and SNR children ― I dare not say there are none ― but to solve the problem at 9374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 root, amendment to the Basic Law is a feasible solution worthy of our consideration.
In his amendment, Mr James TIEN has put forward the objective of integration, which we all agree. However, concerning his approach, especially his proposal to encourage teachers in Hong Kong to seek teaching posts across the boundary given that there is a surplus of teachers in Hong Kong, I think even if Hong Kong teachers are allowed to teach in the Mainland, it may not help to encourage students to come to Hong Kong early to adapt to the life here.
When we consider a policy, we have to see what the ultimate objective of the policy is. Since these students are Hong Kong citizens, the main objective is to encourage them to adapt to the life in Hong Kong as early as possible and hence any relevant policies should aim at achieving this objective. Although we have not deleted the proposals concerning establishing Hong Kong-style schools or sending Hong Kong teachers to teach in the Mainland, these proposals can only solve the problems concerning teaching. It seems that attending a Hong Kong-style school in Shenzhen is close to attending school in Hong Kong but it does not help students adapt to the life in Hong Kong. The ultimate solution is, after all, to increase the supply of school places here.
The proposal about increasing the supply put forward in Dr Helena WONG's amendment may not be very thorough but still we hope that the Secretary will respond later to this proposal concerning taking advantage of the abandoned village schools and see if these schools can be redeveloped of converted or whether facilities can be added.
I would like to especially talk about one of the proposals in Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment, which is to provide school coach fee subsidy to poorer families with cross-boundary students. Concerning this point, we do not oppose the literal meaning of it. What do I mean? In our view, all Hong Kong students, whether they are cross-boundary students or Mainland students, should be treated equally. In Hong Kong, the Government has put in place the Student Travel Subsidy Schemes under which the students' travel subsidy is calculated on the basis of their trips that start from the Shenzhen Boundary Control Point. Cross-boundary students enjoy the same right of receiving this subsidy as other students and I consider it appropriate for the subsidy to be calculated on this basis and standard. On what grounds would the Member think that cross-boundary students should get more subsidies? We need to study the issue further. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9375 regards other problems concerning cross-boundary students, the Democratic Party hopes that the Government will seriously resolve them.
Another point which is harder to resolve is the "37th school net" put forward by Mr Gary FAN. I have also brought up this topic during the Democratic Party's discussion. Mr IP Kin-yuen has also mentioned this point and his principle is that the distance should not be too far. Simply put, the trip cannot be too long.
However, we understand that only a few districts are faced with the problem of school place shortage while in some other districts, schools are faced with the problem of under-enrolment. The few districts close to the Lo Wu Control Point have a shortfall of school places because cross-boundary students will attend such schools.
Of course the proposal of "37th school net" put forward by Mr Gary FAN warrants discussion. If cross-boundary students are allocated school places in different districts and DNR students are accorded the lowest priority and are only allocated surplus school places, it seems that they are unfairly treated and it also violates the principle of "schooling within the home district". However, what else can be done about that? I hope the Secretary and the Under Secretary will give due consideration.
Besides, it is regrettable that some schools and districts have problems of under-enrolment of students. How then can adjustment be made so that we can kill two birds with one stone to solve the problem of insufficient students in some districts and oversupply of students in other districts owing to cross-boundary students? However, I do not agree to Mr Gary FAN's proposal to form the "37th school net" and allocate surplus school places to DNR students. I do not consider this approach feasible. However, if some students are willing to travel even further to attend school, and it is operationally feasible and will not go overboard, will this arrangement work? I recall that it was once reported in a television programme that some students spent over an hour to go to school on Lantau Island, which was seemingly unworkable. Are there some moderate solutions which are operationally feasible and, at the same time, can make good use of surplus school places to accommodate cross-boundary students?
We support Dr Helena WONG's amendment.
9376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, as a matter of fact, when Arthur LI was the Secretary for Education and Manpower and Mrs Fanny LAW the Permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower, they had seriously misestimated the far-reaching impact of cross-boundary students on the education system in Hong Kong. At that time, the Government said that owing to the dwindling number of school-age children, classes had to be cut and schools closed. However, the numbers of classes to be reduced and schools to be closed were not determined by the actual situation of various districts; instead the numbers were determined by the overall number of births in Hong Kong and the measures were carried out across the board. In the process, some village schools were closed. Certainly, they could not foresee the problem caused by cross-boundary students in the New Territories North where there is an acute shortage of school places now. Consequently, while class sizes in every grade are shrinking in schools in other districts, the schools in the New Territories North have to admit more students and expand their class size. Some schools even have to install temporary facilities, such as converting containers into temporary classroom for teaching purpose. This is all due to the authorities' failure to anticipate the situation arising from children in Shenzhen crossing the boundary to attend school in Hong Kong.
Actually, the Panel on Education of the Legislative Council has all along followed up and urged the authorities to properly assess the number of students but the authorities have been stalling. Last year, during the admission exercise of kindergartens in the New Territories North, local and Mainland parents frantically scrambled for school places; they queued up for admission forms and they even fought against one another, making the supply of the already insufficient school places even tighter. It was only then that the authorities finally attempted to tackle this problem in a more serious manner. In the face of this long-standing problem, we have to censure all officials formerly responsible for handling this issue.
Apart from kindergarten children, even primary and junior secondary students should be admitted to schools in their home districts, so as to spare them from long journeys to and from school and across the boundary every day. When I lived in Sai Kung, I saw children having to get up at 6 in the morning even during winter time, they were still half asleep when their parents carried them to the school bus and buckled up. Some of these children still slept soundly while travelling. We can see the hardship of cross-district students, not to mention cross-boundary students. Furthermore, if the weather conditions LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9377 suddenly deteriorate and cross-boundary students have to be picked up by their parents from school immediately, the situation will be chaotic and hard to handle.
We support most of Mr TAM Yiu-chung's proposals in the original motion including the support strategies, school place planning, study on the population characteristics of families with cross-boundary students, enhancing the support for cross-boundary students to participate in community activities in Hong Kong and improving the immigration arrangements. However, as regards part (3) of the motion concerning the establishment of Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen, we beg to differ today. Why do I emphasis on disagreeing to the proposal "today"? That is because we supported the proposal in the past but the situation then was different from now. The time that we supported the establishment of schools in Shenzhen in the Mainland was after the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress in 1999. At that time, children born in the Mainland to Hong Kong citizens could not immediately come to Hong Kong for family reunion or attending school. Even after they were granted the Hong Kong citizenship after the interpretation of the Basic Law, they had to wait at least three years or more in the Mainland. Therefore, we proposed to establish schools in areas where there were a high concentration of such children, so that they can attend Hong Kong-style schools while waiting to come to Hong Kong. Hence, when they came to Hong Kong, they could immediately adapt to our curriculum and education system.
Today, however, most of the children born in the Mainland to Hong Kong citizens have already come to Hong Kong. Many families know that if their children are born in Hong Kong, they need not wait in the Mainland; and even if, for whatever reasons, certain Hong Kong families have their children born in the Mainland, the waiting time for their children to come to Hong Kong is not too long, it takes about a year. So long as parents can plan in advance, they do have options and their children need not be cross-boundary students. At that time, children in the Mainland were restricted by law, they had no choice but to attend schools that charged very high tuition fees or cross the boundary to attend schools in Hong Kong. Today, cross-boundary students in question are not restricted by law and they do have a choice. That is a choice made by the family or parents of cross-boundary students.
There are basically two types of cross-boundary students. One is the "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children". The Mainland parents choose to give birth in Hong Kong but their whole family live in the Mainland. 9378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
The other type is children whose parents are Hong Kong citizens. They choose to live in Shenzhen possibly due to their work or due to the high housing expenses in Hong Kong. One of my old colleagues is also in the same situation. He lives and works in Shenzhen and his children have to cross the boundary to go to school in Hong Kong. This is a choice made by the family concerned and they are not restricted by the law. Therefore, we have to consider whether establishing schools in the Mainland can really meet the education objectives and create the education ambience as that in Hong Kong. Although the education ambience in Hong Kong gives much cause for criticism, we cannot rashly support the proposal of establishing schools in the Mainland today.
Ultimately these parents living in the Mainland have to make a specific choice. Sometimes it is impossible to have it both ways and they have to choose either one of the two communities. I hope that the choice they make will be for the greatest benefit of their children. It is truly undesirable to send young children across the boundary to school.
President, as regards the amendments to the motion, we will vote for or against them based on their contents. Regarding the amendment requesting for the regulation of private hostels for cross-boundary students, as such places can easily give rise to the problem of child abuse, we will vote in favour of it.
Thank you, President.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TAM Yiu-chung for proposing this motion. The increasing number of cross-boundary students in recent years has given rise to quite a number of practical problems and has sparked widespread concern in the community. It is really incumbent upon this Council to urge the relevant government departments and all sectors of the community to properly handle the matter.
President, I once went to Shenzhen with my wife. When going through customs, I noticed a girl who was probably in Primary Three or Four bringing a boy who was probably in Primary One to cross the boundary. We praised that girl for taking good care of her younger brother, but she told us that he is not her brother. More surprisingly, we saw them parting and going home in opposite directions after going through customs clearance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9379
At another time, I met a girl who was probably in Primary Five or Six bringing a girl who was probably in Primary Three and a boy in Primary One to go through customs on their way home after school. We again thought that they were brother and sisters. Yet, after chatting with them, we unexpectedly found that the three were not family members. The elder girl was a bit worried at that time, saying that she had to enter secondary school soon and could not take care of the other two kids by then. Yet, the girl in Primary Three immediately told her not to worry, pointing at that boy and saying that she was old enough to take care of him by that time.
The aforesaid two anecdotes painted a heartwarming picture. My wife and I were both deeply touched. Meanwhile, we could not help but sigh: Why did they have to lead a hectic life at such a young age to shuttle between two places for school? What impact would it have on these children? Why is there no better arrangement? How can we adults not be ashamed? How can the Government not be ashamed?
Cross-boundary students are those who travel from Shenzhen to Hong Kong for school every day. They include kindergarten pupils, primary and secondary students. After a careful analysis, it is not difficult to identify the various complicated problems involved. First, the number of cross-boundary students has been on the rise, up from 6 700 in the 2008-2009 school year to 16 000 in the 2012-2013 school year. The rate of increase varied from year to year. For example, there was a significant annual increase of about 28% in the 2012-2013 school year. Second, the schools attended by cross-boundary students are concentrated in several districts near the immigration control points. They include the North District, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun. As a result, it has put a strain on school places in these districts. Third, cross-boundary students come from a wide variety of family backgrounds. They include children of Hong Kong residents living in Shenzhen, "singly non-permanent resident (SNR) children", and "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children". Given their varying family backgrounds, the ancillary support for cross-boundary students should also be adjusted correspondingly.
President, against the aforesaid background, I think it is necessary to take into account various factors in order to properly deal with the various practical problems arising from cross-boundary students. First, the authorities have to roll out short- and medium-term improvement measures to address the urgent needs. As cross-boundary students are relatively concentrated in such regions as 9380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 the North District, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun, the kindergarten and primary school places are inadequate there. The authorities can take some concrete measures, such as improving the procedures for student admission, flexibly making netting arrangements, appropriately raising the number of students in each class, and expanding the Choice of Schools List for Central Allocation specifically for cross-boundary students. They can allocate resources to provide proper assistance and support for schools and parents. Meanwhile, the authorities should further improve the immigration arrangements and transportation for cross-boundary students, such as increasing the quota of cross-boundary school coaches based on actual demand.
Also, the Government must expeditiously conduct a survey on the demographic profile of cross-boundary students, based on which to make long-term planning. Among cross-boundary students, how many of them are children of Hong Kong residents living in Shenzhen, SNR children, and DNR children respectively? What is their age distribution? How do they differ in their population trends? How do they think of staying in Hong Kong for studies and career development? Only by fully getting hold of such basic data and development trends can we minimize the future uncertainties, and make long-term and holistic planning, so as to implement policy measures in an orderly manner and avoid piecemeal solutions.
President, we urge the authorities to properly deal with the various practical problems arising from cross-boundary students, in order to avoid affecting the education opportunities of local students, and in particular, to ensure that local students can be admitted to schools near their residence. Also, we want to relieve the pressure faced by certain schools and allay parents' possible worries or discontent, while showing to cross-boundary students that the Government and the community would not discriminate against them, but would actively help them integrate into the Hong Kong community.
In fact, many cross-boundary students are born to Hong Kong people. Even students whose parents are both non-Hong Kong residents are entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong in accordance with the judgment on the CHONG Fung-yuen case handed down by the Court of Final Appeal in 2001. These students now have to leave early and return late to shuttle between two places for school, rendering them physically and mentally exhausted. They need much concern from the community.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9381
Be it the Government or various sectors of the community, I think they all have to work hard to cultivate a proper environment for these cross-boundary students, so that they would not be discriminated against and can grow up happily and healthily, as in the case of other local students in Hong Kong. That way, they can gradually develop a sense of belonging to Hong Kong and see Hong Kong as their home. We should not regard them as burdens, as their contribution to Hong Kong after achieving academic success may be beyond our imagination. As stated in the consultation document entitled Thoughts for Hong Kong, Hong Kong's ageing population and shrinking labour force have limited the development of all sectors and industries. DNR children may be one of the sources to make up for Hong Kong's shrinking working population.
Therefore, to properly address the various practical problems arising from cross-boundary students, the sole effort of one government department is far from sufficient. It should involve various departments as well as the collaboration between governments of both sides. I think the SAR Government should set up an inter-departmental collaboration mechanism to properly handle this matter.
President, I so submit.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The problems arising from cross-boundary students stemmed from the surge in "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) babies". They have added much uncertainty to Hong Kong's future population estimates. It is really hard to estimate the expenditures on education, housing, healthcare and social welfare. The number of DNR babies increased from 4 000 in 2004 to 9 000 in 2005, and reached a peak of 35 000 in 2011. As they have reached school ages one after another, it has put a strain on kindergarten and primary school places near the boundary.
The Government can hardly predict the number of DNR children who will choose to study or reside in Hong Kong. There are many factors affecting the number of cross-boundary students. They include whether DNR parents would like to let their children receive education in Hong Kong, and whether DNR parents are attracted by the education policy of Hong Kong or that of the Mainland. All these factors are variable. In fact, the Government today also cannot tell and predict whether these DNR children or cross-boundary students will stay in Hong Kong and join the workforce to contribute to our society in the future.
9382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
However, being difficult to project does not mean that we can do nothing. Given the difficulty in making projections, it is even more necessary to handle the problems as soon as possible. That is why many Members pointed out in their speeches today that the Government has been acting too slowly and unresponsively. Let me be fair: can the Government tell us when the Education Bureau came to realize the problems arising from cross-boundary students? When did the term "cross-boundary students" appear in the documents or agendas of the Education Bureau? When were relevant measures and policies put in place to address such problems? Or is it until recent years when problems erupted that the SAR Government finally came to realize them? If this issue was only put on the agenda after problems have erupted, the Government can be described as "completely oblivious". Parents living in the North District in particular were greatly worried and they had to brave the sun and rain to queue outside kindergartens for admission forms. Why did they do so? They just wanted their children to be admitted to a kindergarten near their residence.
However, as the Government has been too late to address the DNR-related problems, even though measures have been taken, which claimed to be enable to pull the plug on Mainland pregnant women giving birth illegally in Hong Kong within a short time, the fact that the number of DNR children reaching 200 000 cannot be changed. It will be impossible to project accurately the demographic situation of Hong Kong for at least the coming eight years. Nor can the Government obtain accurate data as regards how many DNR children will come to Hong Kong to attend school. As Mr IP Kin-yuen pointed out earlier, the Government can hardly obtain accurate data because it involves people of different levels.
In the days to come, primary and secondary schools of all districts have to brace for years the volatility in the number of students. At present, there may be a shortfall in the number of students, but the number may gradually increase and become saturated. However, after reaching a peak level, schools will have to face a shortage of students again. It is impossible for the authorities to be oblivious and ignore the problems without doing anything to seek for solutions. The Government is, after all, inexcusable, as it had turned a blind eye to the problem of DNR pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong for years, leading to the emergence of an obstetrics market where intermediaries could profit millions of dollars. As these DNR children grow up, they will put a strain on Hong Kong's resources. As a result, Hong Kong people's grievances against the Government will increase and China-Hong Kong conflicts will intensify.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9383
Last year, the Education Bureau finally implemented six special temporary measures in Tai Po and the North District to address the problem of inadequate kindergarten places. Consequently, parents need not stand in a long queue to get admission forms, and the aspiration of children in the North District need not attend schools in other districts can be met. The various measures include uploading the application forms online, allowing one student to reserve only one school place, increasing the number of school places, and adhering to the principle of "schooling within the home district". The Education Bureau did roll out some measures and such measures have achieved some effects. However, can such measures adequately solve the problems? The subject of today's motion debate is "properly dealing with …". Can we pool our collective wisdom to properly deal with such problems? In the same year, the Government also signed an agreement with the Shenzhen authorities to allow non-government schools in Shenzhen to admit children born in Hong Kong to Mainland parents, in addition to children of Hong Kong residents living in Shenzhen and "singly non-permanent resident (SNR) children", so as to ease the pressure on school places in Hong Kong.
In addition, the Choice of Schools List for Central Allocation of Primary One Places specifically for cross-boundary students was released earlier. It provides a total of 3 000 school places and cross-boundary students will be admitted to schools in seven districts ranging as near as Tuen Mun, Yuen Long, North District and Tai Po, to as far as Tung Chung, Ma On Shan and Wong Tai Sin. However, parents are very worried as we still cannot get hold of the number of DNR children. Although the problem in Tai Po has been tackled, will it spread to other regions like Ma On Shan and Wong Tai Sin? It remains to be known as we still cannot get hold of the figures.
I would like to point out that cross-boundary students have generated many problems, including unlicensed student hostels. Just a quick search on the Internet and you will find many relevant news. They include unlicensed hostels in the North District vying for cross-boundary students and a hostel in Tuen Mun accommodating 16 cross-boundary students in an apartment. May I ask the Government what it has done in response to the problems arising from cross-boundary students, such as illegal hostels? Has it initiated any prosecution?
Among the various amendments proposed today, Mr Gary FAN suggested amending Article 24 of the Basic Law to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong 9384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 enjoyed by babies born to DNR pregnant women, so as to solve at root the problems arising from cross-boundary students. He considers that this is the way to stamp out the problems. However, the People Power has proposed amending local legislation to tackle the problems of DNR pregnant women. In fact, we can stipulate by local legislation that pregnant women whose spouses are non-permanent Hong Kong residents, that is, DNR pregnant women, must indicate whether they are pregnant when crossing the boundary. If so, they are required to gain approval from the Immigration Department to enter into Hong Kong. Those who deliberately cover up their pregnancy status will be regarded as violating the law. In our view, local problems should be resolved by local legislation. That way, it will be more effective and reliable to tackle the local education problems. After intercepting these women at border control points, we still have to deal with the problems generated over the past years. I hope that the Education Bureau, after listening to Members' views and comments, will take such problems seriously and make improvement.
I so submit.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, at a meeting of the Panel on Education held in the last Legislative Session, we already pointed out that the problem of swelling population had reached a point that it had a bearing on all policies concerning people's life, ageing, illness and death. In the last Legislative Session, Members already clamoured against school closure. I had also repeatedly requested the Education Bureau and the Government to have long-term planning when considering school closure, and avoid telling us that it is necessary to re-hire teachers and re-open the closed schools five years later because of population growth. The primary school I studied in was also closed because of the "school-closure" policy.
Also, I once visited the Southern District Secondary School on Lantau Island. The school was renowned for its teaching of astronomy at that time. Yet, it was also closed. At that time, we already suggested letting schools with fewer students to develop certain characteristics in order to weather through the transitional period of student shortage. That way, it could avoid having inadequate "hardware" and "software" when there were increasing demands for school places. Unfortunately, it now appears that the problems we predicted at that time have all emerged now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9385
In recent years, the number of cross-boundary students has been on the rise. It has reached 17 000 now, and is expected to surge to 50 000 in 2018. It will create huge problems in respect of transportation and education in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. When Members cross the boundary, you will see children of more or less the same height carrying heavy school bags and queuing up for customs clearance to go to school. They have to spend at least four hours on transportation back and forth to school.
President, I note that there are in fact some school sponsoring bodies which have established "schools for Hong Kong children" in the Mainland. I once raised an oral question, proposing to the Government that it was worth promoting some of the "schools for Hong Kong children." At present, there are quite a number of international schools which have been operating very well in the Mainland. They have fully adhered to their visions and characteristics when hiring management and teaching staff. In that case, would the Government consider moving along this direction and further looking into the idea of "schools for Hong Kong children"? I believe that we have to consider it on various fronts. At present, there are two "schools for Hong Kong children" and seven schools providing "classes for Hong Kong-citizen children" in Shenzhen. About 100 Primary Six students of these schools had joined Hong Kong's secondary school place allocation system. However, as the number of "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children" are now surging, these schools can no longer be able to cope with the rapid increase in the demand for school places.
These "schools for Hong Kong children" have to face a lot of problems, including teachers' qualification. We once discussed and looked into this issue. There are many teachers in Hong Kong who, prior to retirement, are high-caliber teachers of quality schools. Would the authorities formulate policies to provide support in areas like accommodation and teaching opportunities to help these retired teachers develop a second career in the "schools for Hong Kong children"? Of course, it may involve various supporting arrangements that need to be explored. In addition, is it possible to transfer quality schools "from south to north"? Some students with good academic performance may want to study in elite schools on Hong Kong Island, instead of schools in the New Territories North. However, they have to spend three to six hours to travel back and forth those schools if no hostel accommodation is available. As such, they can hardly attend those schools.
9386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
At present, I believe we have to examine how to cope with the drastic surge in the number of students. As pointed out by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, they proposed amending local legislation in 2012. However, even if the legislation is amended, there are still hidden worries. It is because Mainland pregnant women can also come to Hong Kong to seek judicial review on our unreasonable policy. Therefore, we have to consider these issues with a holistic approach. Take featured schools as an example. I believe the Government has to provide support in areas of tuition fees, teaching expenditures and land provision. If we really intend to establish "schools for Hong Kong children" in the Mainland, I think land supply and support of local government in its policymaking is very important.
I once visited a secondary school in Zengcheng which had left a deep impression on me. The school was designated for students coming from the poorest villages there and hostel accommodation was provided to students. It was Sunday when we visited the school, but Secondary One and Secondary Two students were all studying very hard that day. History was taught in the school with the full use of visual aids, showing 3D video or film. It was said that 95% of its graduates could get admitted to renowned universities. This shows that village students who are financially poor can also enter university after being groomed at schools.
I believe that our Government can also make a mark with determination. The Hong Kong Government can allocate some resources, and, in particular, with policy support and sufficient promotion, parents residing in the Mainland are confident to join the diversion programme and let their school-age children study in local schools which are linked to Hong Kong's secondary schools. We can even provide more choices of secondary schools for them. In addition, we can look into ways of making integration arrangements at certain schools in Shenzhen. For example, we can introduce some subjects which are specially required in Hong Kong into some traditional schools in Shenzhen. As in the case of law studies, students completing LLP law degree programme in overseas countries only have to take subjects of Constitutional Law and Land Law in Hong Kong for conversion. Can we work on this direction to make use of the existing resources, including the abundant teaching professionals in Hong Kong, to align with the arrangements in the Mainland, so that school-age children can attend school in their home districts?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9387
I understand that what we are doing now is really like putting out a fire with water from afar. On the district level, should we focus on the school net in the New Territories North? As other districts also have the problem of school closure, can those schools facing closure take in a certain number of cross-boundary students?
I hope that the Government will seriously do a good job in this regard. In order to do a good job, the Education Bureau really has to allocate resources and study on the provision of featured schools, as well as how to let such schools operate successfully and encourage teachers, students and parents to opt for a new choice.
Thank you, President. I so submit.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, the problem concerning cross-boundary students has become increasingly aggravated over the past few years, leading to a serious shortage of school places in the North District. What is most troubling is that it has affected local students residing in that district in their chances of admission to schools. It has, of course, triggered discontent among local parents.
Honestly, the Hong Kong Government should be held accountable for the exacerbation of the problem to this state. The Government has failed to timely predict and deal with the social and demographic problems caused by an influx of Mainlanders to Hong Kong to give birth to "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children" and "singly non-permanent resident (SNR) children" years ago. It only came to realize the severity of the issue it after the problem of cross-boundary students has emerged. Let us not forget that such problems will become more and more serious in the coming few years. Besides, children who are entitled to study in Hong Kong are not only limited to those of kindergarten age.
Therefore, I very much agree with the original motion's proposal to set up an inter-departmental task force to study the problems arising from cross-boundary students, including issues like resource allocation, demand and supply of kindergarten places as well as primary, secondary and even post-secondary school places. When formulating policies, the proposed inter-departmental task force should actively collaborate with the Mainland 9388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Government to fully get hold of the figures of cross-boundary students and regularly update the data so as to make timely and proper adjustments. The objective is to make accurate education planning to meet the needs of both local and cross-boundary students, and at the same time, cope with the demands for school sites, facility enhancement, teacher training, and so on.
Besides, we should not rule out the possibility of cross-boundary students deciding to settle in Hong Kong. The Government must work immediately to seriously study and project the long-term and far-reaching consequences of cross-boundary students on Hong Kong's population, healthcare services, housing demand, manpower resources, and so on, and make relevant planning.
President, as cross-boundary students are members of the Hong Kong community, the Hong Kong Government has the responsibility to take care of their education needs. We should consider encouraging them to come to Hong Kong to receive education and integrate into the Hong Kong community as early as possible. However, local education resources are, after all, limited. Besides, it is reasonable for Hong Kong parents to demand that their children be admitted to schools in the vicinity of their residence. As such, we should consider a more balanced approach in tackling the problems, and make proper planning to ease the pressure on school places in the North District.
Therefore, I also agree with the original motion's proposal that the Hong Kong Government should conduct studies in conjunction with Mainland authorities on establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen and setting up more schools to provide voluntary education for Hong Kong-citizen children exclusively. In fact, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has made four proposals to the Shenzhen authorities to help Hong Kong-citizen children stay in Shenzhen for studies. The first proposal is to let children study in schools and classes in Shenzhen exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen children. The second is to set up schools for Hong Kong-citizen children in the border area. The third is to increase the number of schools and classes in Shenzhen exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen children. The fourth is the introduction of concessionary land policies by the Shenzhen authorities to attract school sponsoring bodies in Hong Kong to operate one-stop, Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen, adopting Hong Kong's education model and employing Hong Kong teachers.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9389
I also understand that these initiatives and proposals are not completely without challenges. First, we have to take note of the problem concerning cross-boundary law enforcement. Under the educational co-operation framework between the two places, do Hong Kong officials have the law-enforcement and monitoring authority to regulate and monitor schools exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen children in the Mainland to ensure their quality? If Hong Kong's executive departments do not have the authority to enforce the law across the boundary, parents can hardly be assured of the quality of schools for Hong Kong-citizen children in the Mainland and have confidence in these schools.
Also, the Hong Kong Government should carefully consider how to attract quality teachers in Hong Kong to teach in the Mainland. If higher salaries and better benefits are offered, what public resources will be involved and what are our financial commitments? How will the authorities evaluate the public response to the north relocation of local teachers in Hong Kong?
In addition, parents' stance should not be ignored. To let their children enjoy more choices and receive better education, Mainland parents are willing to spend money and make great effort to give birth in Hong Kong. For them, it is more attractive to let their children study in Hong Kong instead of study in schools exclusively for Hong Kong children in the Mainland. Frankly speaking, there are many quality schools in all districts of Hong Kong. However, local parents still hope that their children will enter those elite schools in Wan Chai, the Central and Western District, Kowloon Tong, and so on. Parents in both places share the same mentality. Therefore, while the Government has to ensure that the education opportunities for children of Hong Kong parents would not be compromised, it should also step up public education to promote inclusiveness and mutual understanding. I understand that it is hard to implement our proposals. Yet, I hope that the Government will thoroughly consider and study them. If this problem cannot be resolved, it will result in far-reaching consequences.
President, I am more worried about the localism campaigns recently initiated by some members of the community and their various tactics to reject Mainlanders, such as the so-called "anti-locust campaign", or calling Mainlanders "zhi-na people"2. Some parents also complained to me, despite the fact that they
2 "zhi-na" (支那) is a slur that has been linked to the Japanese invasion of China. 9390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 have settled in Hong Kong for years and their children were born in Hong Kong, their children were called names such as "locusts" and "zhi-na people", or they were asked to "get back to the Mainland" by their classmates when they were having a fight in school recently. Parents thought that these acts would do serious harm to their children psychologically. It would also make some children unwilling to go to school.
President, I earnestly hope that the Government will, by means of positive social education, join hands with members of the public to build a pluralistic society which is inclusive, understanding, open and discrimination-free. Meanwhile, I also hope that the Government will expeditiously set up a task force to study on how to swiftly tackle the problems arising from cross-boundary students.
President, I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I do not know much about this issue; I learn about it from complaints raised by kaifongs or from the press.
First of all, may I ask the Secretary for Education, is the Secretary present today? Deputy Secretary, please tell the Secretary that I would like to ask him for a "divine book", as I wish to study this issue. Do you have this "divine book"? Since you are in charge of education, and do you have detailed ― a lot of issues have been discussed today ― data or information on historical changes? If not, we will have to stand next to an elephant, touching its tail or trunk. This, I think, is really unfair. Honestly, what qualities and capabilities do we Members possess? We simply have no idea, as the data are in your hands, have you conducted a sand table planning or projection? It sounds scary, with the number of cross-boundary students increasing from 6 000 to the current 200 000. Is this the real figure? If it is, have you made any projection or conducted a sample survey or any follow-up survey? For example, you can keep track on 1 000 selected students for three or five years, be they "singly non-permanent residents" or "doubly non-permanent residents", and observing their changes in mentality or options. If not, it will always be mere discussions between Members and you, and due to incomplete information, each Member can only discuss one part of the issue and the most important objective is to please the voters of their own districts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9391
Yesterday I heard Members say that not only the North District, the situation in Yuen Long is also serious. President, first of all, I feel regretful, "Hulk" and "Slow Beat" ― probably "Slow Beat" was not a Member when Donald TSANG was in power ― I condemned Donald TSANG every day. He wished to save private hospitals, but even if there were no business, he should not have introduced birth planning ― not planned birth, but birth planning ― that is, providing one-stop service. After paying several hundred thousand dollars, they could secretly … not gate-crashing border control points, but secretly got into a car and travel with several pregnant women to Hong Kong and gave birth once they were in hospital. This is not a secret in the Legislative Council. Many Members of the royalist camp knew about it, but they said we showed disrespect to Donald TSANG when we hurled objects at him
President, I said long ago that this would not work, but he did not handle the problem. However, it is hard to say, for he had not much willpower left at that time, and LEUNG Chun-ying is like "a lucky doctor taking over a recovering patient". When people were making exaggerated comments, he said he would handle the issue once he took office. He made such announcement before assuming office, claiming that he would drive all those one-stop DNR pregnant women away. LEUNG Chun-ying now considers that this issue has been settled. President, today he visits Guangdong. At this moment, we are all weeping and wailing, as if the place is going to sink. Actually he has gone to Shantou to understand the living of Hong Kong investors. Buddy, as soon as he arrived at Shenzhen, he paid a visit there. If he had listened to our discussion yesterday, he should at least take two hours off to ask about the issue that we are discussing. What kind of a government is this? I will not blame you. The Chief Executive is like that, he is going further and further away to some distant places. He is no longer at the boundary.
We have wasted a lot of time developing the education industry; Donald TSANG even talked about developing the education industry in his sleep. Now, the education industry has become a "miserable" industry. The Government wants to make business, it allocates land to construct international schools, and I am really mad. I live in a poor district. There is a reputable British school, three-storey high and very beautiful, but the request of a school for building one more storey was rejected. Buddy, this is reversing the facts. Now we allow other people to build reputable schools or international schools on our land, and we even provide subsidies. We have made a big dream called "the lucrative education industry". Nobody cares about this issue now, for we are now 9392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 discussing the "miserable" education industry, a product created by Donald TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying with the support of Mr TAM Yiu-chung.
President, I really do not know how to cure this illness, and I dare not pretend to be a doctor. Please kindly ask the Chief Executive to appoint a Commissioner to study this issue. As "insignificant" Members, we do not know much, yet we still have to discuss with you, but honestly, I really have no idea. I only know that children are innocent, you cannot use the well-being of children to … for example, let me give you an idea, President, do you know about rooftop schools when you were a child? I lived in a new district when I was a child, and when I went to school, I walked up from the second floor to the eighth floor, gasping for breath. The roof-top was very hot and I was deeply tanned. Of course, I will not do it again today.
You must approach each school to convince educators that education is for all people without discrimination, and hence can one more class be provided? If there are not enough teachers ― I have received several cases from the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, saying that teachers are out of work because of school closure advocated by you ― the problem can be solved in a simple way. This is a social process. The Secretary and the Chief Executive have to step forward and explain that education is for all people without discrimination. We must welcome those who have been granted the right of abode. If you do not educate them now, more serious problems will arise when they come to live in Hong Kong in the future. This is a political process. A Chief Executive said that he has done what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr Ronny TONG have said. He has heard and got things done, yet it ends up that nothing has been done.
President, what kind of a government is this? I ask you all ― I am seldom so humble, but I really have no idea, we can only see the trunk and tail of an elephant. Can you please give us a full report, presenting to us the measures you have previously taken?
Moreover, let me reiterate once again, the Chief Executive must appoint a person to handle this issue, which is indeed a big project. Can he do so? Do not simply rely on Mr Eddie NG, for he is "no good", like the pun on his Chinese name. He does not even attend the meeting. If there is a Commissioner, he will be present in this Chamber today. Where has Mr "No good NG" gone? If there is a Commissioner, he will be specifically responsible for giving us an explanation. Is that right, President? Now we are in an urgent situation, yet LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9393
"an emergency case is treated by a slow-reacting doctor". You should immediately address the issue and allocate funds. The Budget has been announced anyway. Do it next year if it is not possible this year.(The buzzer sounded)
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I have no idea why the Secretary is not present in this Chamber. It is often said that the relationship between the executive authorities and the legislature is poor, and the Secretary is not attending the Legislative Council …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, Mr Kevin YEUNG is attending this Council meeting today in the capacity as the Secretary for Education.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I have no idea whether he is the acting Secretary or the so-called Secretary, but meetings in this Chamber have been scheduled a long time ago. Unless the incumbent Secretary has resigned, if not, sending a "substitute" to attend the meeting is a disrespect for this Council in any case. Therefore, I must strongly condemn the incumbent Secretary for not attending today's meeting. I am not disrespecting government officers present today; basically, the executive authorities and the legislature should respect each other. Not attending a scheduled meeting is a phenomenon that absolutely should not be overlooked.
President, the severity of this issue is of grave concern to all Hong Kong people. However, in terms of governance, starting from Donald TSANG ― or even starting from TUNG Chee-hwa ― the Government has little sense of crisis over the years, and it is not until problems have erupted that government officials become suddenly aware of the need to put off the fire. Problems concerning cross-boundary students are in fact traceable when we look at the figures and the current phenomenon. However, it is only until recently when many parents have failed to get primary school places for their children, and when many political parties have initiated marches, demonstrations and protests that the Government has suddenly waken up from its dream and took actions. At first, the Secretary had not properly handled the issue, and it is only after the Chief Secretary, a "good fighter", has joined in to "offer support" and take command that the Government has faced up to the issue.
9394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
President, I would like to point out that the Government should not have acted with confusion when dealing with these problems. There is a process for school place allocation and population development, and through management and stress tests, the work can be done in a better way. In particular, regarding the problem of primary school places, very often the admission situation of kindergarten can enlighten us to perceive the problem in advance. I am a Member of the New Territories West, while "Slow Beat" and "Long Hair" may be more familiar with the situation in the New Territories East. In March, the problem of scrambling for kindergarten places has also emerged in Tin Shui Wai, and probably we have to wait until next month before we can ascertain whether there are enough kindergarten places.
Certainly, the pressure on kindergarten places is definitely not as serious as that of primary school places. Many cross-boundary students may attend kindergarten in the Mainland and only return to Hong Kong to attend primary school. Therefore, the problem of Primary One school places is definitely worse than that of kindergarten places. If problems have already emerged in kindergartens, we can predict that a few years later, the admission problem of Primary One students will be even worse. From the number of kindergarten students, we can project the number of Primary One students three years later, and hence, we should have an idea of how the problem will deteriorate.
However, if we look at the figures ― "Long Hair" also mentioned about some figures earlier ― let us look at the number of babies born in Hong Kong to Mainland parents in the past 10 years, we can then project the problems likely to arise in respect of Primary One admission. If we trace back to six years ago (that is, 2008), 25 000 babies were born in Hong Kong to Mainland women whose spouses are not permanent residents of Hong Kong residents; if we trace back to the peak period in 2011, 35 000-odd babies were born. Of course, the overall figures in Hong Kong reached 95 000-odd in 2011. If the problem of cross-boundary primary students emerged in 2011, then six years later, that is, 2017, it will be the peak period of cross-boundary primary students entering primary school. When compared to the 25 000 babies born six years ago, the number in 2011 is 10 000 more; that is, compared to this year, in 2017 there will be 10 000 more kindergarten students from the Mainland likely to attend primary school in Hong Kong. What is the exact percentage of Mainland students coming to Hong Kong? Yearly projections and forecasts may be more accurate. However, the warning is that 2017 will be the peak period. As regards how we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9395 should face up to this problem, the Government can make assessment and administrative arrangements.
To make administrative arrangements, we must look at the overall distribution of primary school places. Let me use Yuen Long as an example for comparison and analysis, and we will see that there are actually many ways to meet the needs of cross-boundary students. There are 5 900 Primary One school places in Yuen Long this year, and it is estimated that in the next three years, the number of Primary One students in Yuen Long will be 8 000, approximately 2 600 each year, and compared to the current 5 900 Primary One places, there is a surplus of 3 000 places each year. After we have met the needs of local students, there are in fact extra places to meet the needs of cross-boundary students. Therefore, if allocation of school places and transportation arrangement can be done better, the journey time from Shenzhen to Yuen Long is actually shorter than from Shenzhen to Tai Po. In this connection, if the Government can make better deployment, closure of schools would not be necessary. Two years ago, primary schools in Tin Shui Wai were all closed. Therefore, if better deployment is made, a win-win situation will arise. While cross-boundary students can be allocated school places, primary schools in Hong Kong, particularly those in certain districts, need not be closed. In this connection, I hope that the Government can do better in stress testing and expectation management.
Thank you, President.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, several Members have pointed out earlier that every morning, at the crack of dawn, many cross-boundary students, though half asleep, have been pushed onto school buses by their mothers. With seat belts fastened, these students, lying this way and that, sleep soundly in the bus. We feel sad at this scene; why can we not provide opportunities for Hong Kong children in the Mainland to attend local schools?
At present, there are 30 000-odd Hong Kong students living in Shenzhen, and 17 000-odd of them cross the boundary every day to attend school in Hong Kong. Why do these children have to be so exhausted, taking a long journey to school? According to my understanding, it is mainly because some Hong Kong people cannot afford to purchase properties in Hong Kong, nor can they afford to rent private housing, yet they are not eligible for public rental housing, therefore 9396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 they can only purchase properties in Shenzhen. Some years ago, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, they could purchase a flat with three bedrooms, one living room and one dining room. The family can thus settle down and live comfortably. These Hong Kong people may also get a job in Shenzhen; otherwise they also have to cross the boundary to work in Hong Kong.
When their children grow up and have to go to school, they will face a dilemma. They trust the education system in Hong Kong, and naturally they hope that their children can return to Hong Kong for schooling. As we all know, although these children of Hong Kong citizens live in the Mainland, they are not Mainlanders after all, thus it is not easy for them to enrol in government schools in the Mainland. Therefore, they can either arrange their children to attend local schools exclusively for Hong Kong children and pay high tuition fees, or arrange their children to study in local international schools. I believe that if the situation allows, these Hong Kong people actually want their children to attend school in the Mainland or in the vicinity of their residence. This is because if children have to cross districts or cross boundary to attend school, they need to interchange several times and have to go through immigration clearance, taking at least two or three hours back and forth every day.
Therefore, are there any way we can help these children? These two days many Members have indicated that when these children grow up, they may become a dynamic force for Hong Kong's economic development. In that case, for these future masters of Hong Kong, can we offer assistance to resolve the problems and difficulties that they are facing today? In this regard, I opine that we should view the issue from two aspects, firstly, whether we have sufficient school places in Hong Kong, and secondly, whether the Government should establish schools that meet the specifications of Hong Kong in the Mainland.
Regarding the issue of whether we have sufficient school places in Hong Kong, a number of Members have spoken on the issue, and I will not make further comment. However, as there are so many Hong Kong children living in the Mainland and they queue up every day to cross the boundary to Hong Kong to attend school, I believe the first idea that naturally comes to our mind is that why can we not establish schools in the Mainland for these children. As for other issues mentioned by our Honourable colleagues, such as teacher qualifications, portability of Hong Kong's welfare to the Mainland, and so on, I do not think they are that important as such problems can all be resolved. The crux lies in whether or not the Government wants to take action.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9397
If the Government is determined to take action, we will certainly get things done. The point at issue is whether the Government wishes to help these children? Do we regard these children as our future masters? If so, in seeing their hardship, why do we not do something to solve their problem? As for other problems, I believe there will be solutions.
"Long Hair" sometimes speaks with wisdom, but sometimes he talks nonsense. However, I think he speaks with wisdom today. As in the case of international schools established in Hong Kong, such schools are mainly for the cultivation of foreign students, yet the Government offers support by granting sites to such schools at the cost of $1, and the sites are in prime locations with picturesque scenery, facing the sea with the hills for a background. Of course, these international schools can also admit Hong Kong students, but the point at issue is that their major targets are foreign students.
On the contrary, the large number of Hong Kong student is our own people, the future masters of Hong Kong, and all of them are our babies. Why can we not offer them assistance? The Government can certainly help. Why can welfare not be portable? As in the case of elderly people settling down in the Mainland upon retirement, they receive a small amount of "fruit grant" every month, and the Government has ultimately adopted an open policy, so that the elders need not specifically return to Hong Kong once in a while to meet the requirement for receiving the "fruit grant". Therefore, the issue can certainly be settled, not to mention that the two places are under the same country now.
In this connection, I suggest that the Secretary should seriously consider the several options proposed by Mr TAM Yiu-chung today. As a matter of fact, many of the proposals are simply asking the Government to expeditiously conduct studies on various fronts. If no action is taken today, a lot of problems will arise in the future, by then it would be too late.
I shall stop here. Thank you, President.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The crux of the problem of cross-boundary students lies in a long-standing lack of a population policy in Hong Kong, and the failure to adequately address the shortage of school places in the North District. However, today's discussion of this motion only focuses on the shortage of school places, which in fact merely identifies part of the problem. In this connection, I 9398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 opine that the Government must first of all, identify the needs of cross-boundary students in the future from the perspective of a population policy, so as to formulate effective planning. This is similar to the approach adopted when Hong Kong society was faced with changes in birth rate, serious consideration would be made on how to deal with school places.
Of course, the most important premise is that our education policy must ensure that the quality of learning for all students will not be sacrificed, and that the principle of small classes teaching will not be abandoned. Therefore, the most practical solution is to reinstate some schools being closed to provide school places for cross-boundary students.
In our site visits to the North District, the Democratic Party found that three village schools could possibly be reinstated, namely Ku Tung Public Oi Wah School, Kwan Ti Public School and Ping Yeung Public School. The three schools are located in residential areas adjacent to public transport links. The school premises are relatively in good conditions, and in terms of efforts or resources required, it will be cost-effective to carry out renovation works to provide school places. Why does the Education Bureau not take actions to deal with the issue? Why do we allow the situation to aggravate such that cross-boundary students have to scramble for school places with students in the North District or other districts?
I think the Government should tell us why it only implements one measure to deal with the problem arising from cross-boundary students. It merely tries by all means to expand the school net and even include schools in other districts in the net. However, why do the authorities not make good use of some vacant school premises most conveniently located in the North District? If the Government can explicitly explain its direction in population planning or its projection, this is probably a more practical solution.
The Honourable colleagues have proposed various solutions today in the hope of resolving the problem arising from cross-boundary students. Mr James TIEN has proposed that more schools for Hong Kong citizens should be established in Shenzhen or elsewhere in the Mainland, and policies encouraging Hong Kong teachers to teach in the Mainland should be introduced. I have no comment regarding this point, since it enables Hong Kong teachers to have more alternatives, and I think this point warrants our support.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9399
However, another point of view raised by Mr TIEN is that schools in Hong Kong should be encouraged to give priority consideration to recruit teachers who had been teaching in the Mainland for certain years, so that these teachers can return to Hong Kong and enjoy certain advantages. I think this proposal has great implications. Should we introduce this policy which may affect the employment opportunities of teachers staying in Hong Kong? The Democratic Party has much reservation about this proposal, and considers that it has violated our general … we certainly must give more employment opportunities to our teachers, yet we also agree that all teachers should be given equal opportunities to choose the schools they would like to teach in. While international schools may also give priority in employing certain applicants who have extremely valuable experience teaching in other countries, this should not become a prerequisite in the employment policy. Therefore, due to this point, the Democratic Party cannot support Mr James TIEN's amendment.
In addition, Mr TANG Ka-piu has raised an interesting point of view, that is, we should provide concessionary public transport fares for cross-boundary students with financial difficulties. In fact, this proposal will also give rise to some problems. If students in Hong Kong have financial difficulties, they can apply for a variety of support and subsidies, and such subsidies have existed for long, hence should we provide an additional subsidy for a specific group of people? In my opinion, the proposal should be discussed by the community before making a decision. This situation is similar to some parents, who live in the North District, arrange their children to attend school in Kowloon Tong due to certain reasons, and hence, they may also have to bear a relatively heavy transport burden. Yet I fail to see any Government policy providing more assistance or support to these parents because of their choice. Therefore, I think Mr TANG Ka-piu's point of view seems to have deviated from the existing policies, and due to this reason, the Democratic Party cannot support his amendment. We opine that all policies must be consistent, and if special considerations are given at all times due to one or two conditions, the entirety of the policy will be challenged.
In this connection, I hope the Secretary can consider carefully. If we have to deal with the issue of inadequate school places in the North District and the issue of cross-boundary students, the core of the problem will be school places, and the policy of providing school places should adhere to the principle of "admission to school in the vicinity of residence". There is the feasibility and room for implementing this principle in the North District, and why is the 9400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Government not taking any action? I hope the Secretary can give careful consideration from this perspective, and reinstate some suitable village schools in the North District to provide school places for cross-boundary students.
Thank you, President.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, the problem of cross-boundary students has been discussed time and again by the current-term Government, as well by the Governments of the last two terms. Endless criticisms have been made but the problem has still not been effectively solved. I am not sure when this problem will be solved. When the Financial Secretary delivered the Budget this year, I recall that he said Hong Kong people "Believe in opportunity, not fate". I agree with the Financial Secretary that we cannot yield to fate. These cross-boundary students also wish that they need not make a long and arduous journey to attend school in the future. But the reality is, they do not know when such opportunity will arise, and they do not know which government officials can create such opportunity for them, so that they no longer need to cross the boundary to attend school. Even if they still need to cross boundary, the journey will hopefully be more comfortable.
President, the disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong has become increasingly serious and people living in Hong Kong are facing growing pressure. Such pressure does not merely come from employment and accommodation. For the lower middle class and their family, they also have to face great pressure and anxieties in a number of areas, including education for their children. Hong Kong is now a knowledge-based society with intense competition, and acquiring knowledge is one of the effective ways to get rid of poverty. We all agree that knowledge changes fate and helps people get rid of poverty. For this reason, the lower middle class and their family attach great importance to their children's education, hoping that their children's success at school would change their lives and help them get rid of poverty.
However, there is a shortage of primary and secondary school places in Hong Kong. To be honest, in our discussion of cross-boundary students today, most of these students come from lower middle class family, and in fact, they have already lost at the starting line. Unlike wealthy children who can attend international schools or study in overseas countries, children from lower middle-class family are not well off, and they have no other alternatives but to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9401 cross the boundary to attend school. So, they are just like "caged birds". What can the lower middle class do, they can only rely on government assistance.
After the reunification and the integration of China and Hong Kong, cross-boundary students are not just limited to "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) students" or "singly non-permanent resident (SNR) students" as Honourable colleagues have just mentioned. Since many Hong Kong people have returned to the Mainland for employment and career development, they have brought along their family members with them. Thus, cross-boundary students are not just limited to DNR or SNR students. Seizing the business opportunities brought by the China-Hong Kong integration, many Hong Kong people have returned to the Mainland for employment and their children have to cross the boundary to attend school.
Some Honourable colleagues have said that the problem of cross-boundary students can be solved after LEUNG Chun-ying stopped DNR Mainland pregnant woman from coming to Hong Kong to give birth. However, I think this problem has remained unsolved. Unless the integration of China and Hong Kong fails, or we do not encourage Hong Kong people to return to the Mainland for development and employment, or there are no opportunities for development in Guangdong and the Pearl River Delta region; otherwise, people will naturally return to the Mainland for employment, and they will bring their family members along. Since at this moment Hong Kong people still prefer Hong Kong-style education, the problem of cross-boundary students will still exist. Do not think that when there are not no more DNRs, the problem of cross-boundary students can be solved. The problem will still exist and it will even get worse if it is not properly tackled.
I agree with the views of a Member who has just spoken, I forget who the Member is. He proposed setting up a task force and assigned a Commissioner to specifically address this problem, a problem which the government of the past three terms have failed to solve. As a number of Honourable colleagues have mentioned, cross-boundary students have to get up early in the morning every day and travel a long way to school, they are physically and mentally exhausted, they do not have enough sleep and cannot enjoy school life, and their personal safety, especially cross-boundary kindergarten students may also be a matter of concern. Furthermore, it is stated in a government report that there were 16 356 cross-boundary students in the 2012-2013 school year; over 50% of them (7 454 students) were kindergarten students while 6 749 students were secondary 9402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 students. These students need to be taken care of, and it is really difficult for them to travel long distances alone to school as they have to cross the boundary. Therefore, the parents are rather worried about their children's personal safety and they are on tenterhooks.
I agree with Mr TAM Yiu-chung that establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen can partially but not completely solve the problem. A year ago when Mr CHAN Hak-kan proposed a motion on cross-boundary students, I invited Kenneth CHEN, currently the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat, to explore the problem together. He visited my school and we had discussions near the boundary. The idea of establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen is feasible but there are many software and hardware problems, and further enhancement and changes are required before such schools can really become Hong Kong-style schools for Hong Kong children. For instance, Hong Kong students are now learning online; are there problems with online learning by students in Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen? I know that many websites have been blocked in the Mainland. How can Liberal Studies be taught? How can students learn outside the confine of classrooms? As the extra-curricular activities of Hong Kong students are different from that of students in the Mainland, how can we handle the problem? Hence, there are many problems other than teacher qualifications.
Certainly, some short-term measures can be implemented to improve the situation, such as improve the immigration procedures and supervision, increase the bus frequency and the number of buses, thereby reducing the journey time of students. These are in fact hardware problems which can be solved. Problems related to the design of border control points and interchange can also be solved. In the past, I had repeatedly discussed with Kenneth CHEN such problems, which could be solved, depending on how determined the Government was and how much attention it had attached to such problems. While the Government shows concern about the inadequacy of international schools in Hong Kong, I hope it would also attach importance to the problem of cross-boundary students. If the Government adopts the same attitude in addressing the problem of cross-boundary students, I believe a big step forward can be made in solving the problem.
President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9403
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, there is an extraordinary sight in Hong Kong every day, which has been shot by a number of international media: many children are queuing up to cross the boundary at the border control points. There are at present some 16 000 cross-boundary students, and the number will increase in future. These children spend two to three hours each day on their journeys to and from school. Another extraordinary sight is that every year, some parents queue up overnight and scramble for kindergarten admission forms in the North District, Tai Po and Sheung Shui, and recently the areas affected include Tuen Mun and Yuen Long. This is what had happened last year. Those who consider our education system poor and unsatisfactory have never dreamt that people would queue up for days to scramble for kindergarten places. People fight and quarrel, just for getting a kindergarten place.
President, the grassroots with the least bargaining power are hardest hit in these cases. People living in the North District or in remote areas such as Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun do not want to live there. They all want to live in LEUNG Chun-ying's mansion and in the Central District where they can go to school and work conveniently. However, as they are allocated public housing units in these remote areas, they can only live there. Young couples who cannot afford home ownership, are forced by property hegemony and the Government's high land price policy to live in remote areas such as the North District or New Territories West. They have not only failed to get Government's adequate assistance, but also have to suffer tremendously due to the Government's planning blunders. Kindergarten admission is just the beginning of a nightmare, the same nightmare will recur when the children enter primary or even secondary schools. In other words, they have to bear with the lack of neighbourhood shops in their residential area, with only Chinese medicine shops and goldsmith shops, the soaring commodity prices, as well as the lack of opportunities for their children to attend school.
I agree that it is not easy to solve the problem of cross-boundary students and there is no across-the-board solution. At least three types of people are involved; first, the children of Hong Kong citizens living in the Mainland. Many Hong Kong couples are now living in the Mainland, some of my friends also belong to this category. These people live in the Mainland mainly because property prices in Hong Kong are really high, and they also work in the Mainland, and naturally their children stay with them. Second, "singly non-permanent resident (SNR) children". Under the current government policy, 9404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 their mothers are not allowed to come to Hong Kong and those who do not have seven years' residence in Hong Kong can only live at places close to Hong Kong. Third, "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) children".
The Government has in fact taken some actions to solve the problem of DNR children. It has stopped Mainland pregnant women from coming to Hong Kong to give birth. Nevertheless, the problem has not been completely solved. As asked by many Members just now, how should we deal with Hong Kong-citizen children. How about SNR children? They will eventually come to settle in Hong Kong? Therefore, in my view, the Government should consider most proposals stated in Mr TAM Yiu-chung's original motion; in particular, the Government should set up a focus group or an inter-departmental task force, comprising members from the Customs and Excise Department, the Immigration Department and the Transport Department, to identify ways to help these students who must cross the boundary to attend school. A lot of parents are forced to live in the Mainland because they cannot afford the high property prices in Yuen Long or Tin Shui Wai.
Yet, regarding the proposal on establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen, I consider that there are problems. I hope Honourable colleagues have not forgotten about the national education crisis a year or so before. I have asked some Hong Kong people why these children have to take long coach journey to cross the boundary to attend school in Hong Kong. While our education system is unsatisfactory, there are choices after all. With strong opposition of the community, we had rejected the brainwashing national education. We can still enjoy speech of speech; we can talk about the 4 June Incident, the 1 July marches and the Tiananmen incident. We can examine the inadequacies of our country, including official profiteering, the melamine incidents and the deposit of trillions of dollars by senior Mainland officials in the British Virgin Islands. All Chinese people should know these facts. We also have the rights and opportunities to explore the modern history of China, though the space for freedom is getting smaller and smaller. It was reported that Mr Christopher CHUNG said yesterday that we ought to legislate under Article 23 of the Basic Law. I was not present at that time, I only learnt about this from the press. I do not know when the space for freedom will shrink, but we still have freedom today. Thus, even if Hong Kong-style schools are to be established in Shenzhen, I am not sure if there will be any students.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9405
As we all know, even if money is spent on establishing such schools, the students will be taught by Mainland teachers and principals appointed by the Mainland education authorities. I fully respect these teachers, they may be suffering in silence like us. Many Mainland teachers have views on official profiteering and corruption in the Mainland. But can they raise these issues for discussion? They certainly cannot. They will immediately be arrested if they speak up, as we all know. So, we have to respect the fact that Hong Kong remains a free place and members of the public have the rights to choose the kind of education they would like to receive. Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen will never have such freedom. Is there no way out? No, the Government may consider setting up schools near the boundary where students are taught by Hong Kong teachers and principals, and the school is operated in compliance with the Hong Kong education system. These schools resist brainwashing national education, and they accept students living near the boundary control points, so that they need not cross the boundary every day to attend school in Hong Kong. This is an option worth considering. I oppose to educating our next generation in Shenzhen, a closed community which is beyond our control. We hope our next generation would have a bright future and they would have freedom of thought.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, after listening to the speeches of a number of Members, I would like to focus on a specific issue, that is, can the Government set up a Hong Kong-style school in the Mainland? This idea involves complicated matters and I have much reservation, President. If the Government has this idea and makes great effort to implement the idea in the Mainland China with limited time and resources, we may attend to one thing and lose sight of another.
As a parent, I am absolutely concerned about all the issues raised in the original motion. Many members of the public, whether or not they have been affected by the shortage of school places because of cross-boundary students, are eager to know how the Government can properly handle the situation.
9406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
I hate to refer this problem as the problem of cross-boundary students because cross-boundary students themselves are not problems. They simply have education needs, and the Government as well as we Members have the responsibilities to identify suitable ways to meet their needs. Their needs are special because though there are data telling us the number of singly or doubly non-permanent resident children, we do not know when and how they will come to Hong Kong and how they will find school places. So, there are a lot of uncertainties. In the face of such uncertainties, and at a time for school place allocation, if we just keep bickering and urging the Government to handle very complicated issues, such as setting up schools in Shenzhen or other places in the Mainland for Hong Kong-citizen students, I am worried that the Government may attend to one thing and lose sight of another.
If such schools are to be established, how are we going to enforce the law across the boundary? Can Secretary Kevin YEUNG sitting opposite to me enforce the legislation in these schools at any time? Can he handle all kinds of problems in the schools, such as problems related to learning, curricula, discipline or conduct? Can he perform all these tasks? Can the education legislation or Codes of Aid in Hong Kong be extended to cover schools in the Mainland? How can our education authorities work in collaboration with their Mainland counterparts? When the Mainland education authorities collaborate with us, they will become stakeholders, having the rights or responsibilities to take actions. Which party will make the final decision if there are disagreements or contradictions that require a ruling to be made?
If we establish such schools, will they fully adopt Hong Kong-style curricula? Will they be sailing under false colours? Will these schools known as Hong Kong-style schools involve unimaginably complicated problems?
An Honourable colleague has just raised an ideological issue but I do not think we should discuss in such depth. I just want to talk about the curricula, how should the subjects such as Chinese History and Hong Kong History be handled? How can teachers handle current topics in Hong Kong in the course of discussions? Do teachers really have the space, broadmindedness and freedom to properly handle the above issues as if they are in Hong Kong?
A Member has just mentioned the problem of information, saying that the website of the Civic Party cannot be accessed online in the Mainland, and there are difficulties in accessing the Legislative Council website. How can students LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9407 search for information when they have to do homework for the subjects of General Studies or Liberal Studies? Should we carefully consider these restrictions? I certainly believe that government departments are considering these issues. However, I can tell Honourable colleagues that these issues are very complicated and we cannot simply ask members of the public to simply believe without asking questions. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has stated very loudly that the Government must be able to deal with the issues if it wants to. I am sorry that, unlike the times of the Great Leap Forward and the mass steel campaign, we cannot simply achieve what we want to do by rushing into the Mainland, with red flags in hand. After all, these complicated legal and education issues have arisen because we are concerned about our younger generation, the quality of education these children receive and whether there is a Hong Kong-style teaching environment.
There are still so many problems unsettled, yes, we can join hands to examine these problems, but if the Government spends a lot of resources and time on exploring these issues, it will not be desirable. The reason is that at present, many cross-boundary students receive education in Hong Kong. While exploring these issues, the Government really needs to consider that we are facing many problems, and the Member who moves the original motion and Members who propose other amendments have put forward many ideas and sound measures that can really be implemented in Hong Kong. The Government should implement these measures first.
I certainly understand that Hong Kong parents are very concerned or worried about whether there are adequate school places for their children, so that they can attend the school they like. Of course, this is a very important responsibility of the Government and we Members must ensure that the needs of these parents and students are fully catered for. Yet, we do not want to see people proposing some very strange and creative ideas which cannot be implemented. Will this be a waste of government resources or hurt our kind feelings?
President, I would also like to discuss with Secretary Kevin YEUNG some problems we found in our recent visits to some schools. For example, a five-day school week does not apply to cross-boundary students. Just like some Hong Kong parents who arrange their children to attend two kindergartens, some Mainland parents arrange their children to attend two schools. They arrange 9408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 their children to attend school in Hong Kong for a few days in a week because our English classes are of a higher standard; but thinking that our Chinese and Mathematics classes are not of very high standards, they also arranged their children to attend schools in the Mainland. To a certain extent, this is a waste of our education resources. Can the Government provide figures about cross-boundary students concurrently attending two schools?
Simply put, though we are facing problems of education resources arising from cross-boundary students, I also hope that the Government would not adopt some seemingly very attractive ideas, such as establishing Hong Kong-style schools in the Mainland, and then spare no effort in implementing such idea. It is very difficult to implement such ideas, and if the idea is reluctantly implemented, we are just deceiving ourselves and others.
I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung, you can now speak on various amendments.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, six Members have proposed amendments to my motion today; among them, the contents of five amendments are more similar to the ideas and proposals of the DAB. All of us hope that the Government would properly handle the problems or needs of cross-boundary students. May I ask Dr Kenneth CHAN not to be too fastidious in wording because problems and needs are more or less the same. Therefore, we support these five amendments.
However, we oppose Mr Gary FAN's amendment because he said that the Basic Law is the root of the problems. I think he has made a mistake. All along, the DAB does not think that there are problems with the Basic Law, it is thus not necessary to make any amendments. According to the original legislative intent of Article 24 of the Basic Law, babies born to "doubly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9409 non-permanent resident (DNR) pregnant women" are not allowed to enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong. These children born in Hong Kong can lawfully enjoy the right of abode in Hong Kong because of the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in the CHONG Fung-yuen case in 2001. That is our understanding because after the ruling was made, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC Standing Committee) indicated that the CFA ruling was clearly "not consistent" with the interpretation of the NPC Standing Committee of the NG Ka-ling case in 1999. Honourable colleagues may look up the relevant information. After the ruling was made, Members of the Democratic Party considered that the ruling would not cause a large number of DNR pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong. Yet, history has validated that their judgment is wrong. President, Mr Gary FAN proposed amending the Basic Law because he has not correctly understood the Basic Law and the origin of DNR children. Thus, we oppose Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
When some Members discussed my motion just now, they focused on the point of establishing Hong Kong-style schools in Shenzhen in collaboration with the Mainland authorities. They have described this measure very complicated and have given many reasons to justify their view that this idea is not feasible. I think they have been rather conservative and restrictive. In fact, private Hong Kong-style schools have already been established in Shenzhen and there are classes exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen students. Hence, there are relevant experiences. Can we discuss further with the Shenzhen authorities for allocation of sites to Hong Kong? The relevant bodies in Hong Kong would put in resources, employ principals to operate the schools and teachers to teach by adopting the curricula of Hong Kong. That is what our proposal is about. I believe the Shenzhen parties do not consider that there are problems with such arrangement, only the excessively sensitive Legislative Council Members will say that there are problems.
At present, there are schools exclusively for Taiwanese in the Mainland, and I really do not understand why we cannot set up schools for Hong Kong-citizen students. Is that really a big deal? I personally do not think that this proposal should be negatived. Instead, it is worthy of study and it will bring benefits to local students/parents, cross-boundary students/parents or local principals/teachers. As I mentioned yesterday, there would be a multi-win situation.
9410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Hence, I hope that Members would not consider the problems too complicated or politicize the incident. Instead, they should practically consider our proposal. Although I understand that there may still be some technical problems to be resolved in actual implementation, I think they can somehow be solved. Yet, we should also have some new ideas, instead of being so narrow-minded. Much progress has been made in respect of development in the Mainland but we have been too narrow-minded, which is unfavourable to solving the problems faced by Hong Kong.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr TAM Yiu-chung for moving the original motion, the six Members for proposing the amendments and the other Members who spoke yesterday and today for their valuable views.
In my opening remark yesterday, I pointed out that as cross-boundary students are Hong Kong-citizens, we share the views of Dr Kenneth CHAN that we have never considered them problems. The surge in the number of cross-boundary students in the past few years has given rise to a number of problems in various aspects, not just education, but also transportation, boundary crossing, social welfare, and so on. In handling these problems, the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments have co-ordinated in formulating effective strategies, and inter-departmental working groups will be set up when necessary. For example, the boundary crossing and transport arrangements for cross-boundary students involve a number of departments, and the Government has set up an inter-departmental steering committee to effectively handle the relevant matters.
In the past few years, the Government had provided the following special transport arrangements and measures to facilitate the schooling of cross-boundary students: issuing Closed Area Permits to cross-boundary students taking local school coaches (the number of cross-boundary students increased from some 6 000 in the 2011-2012 school year to some 8 100 in the 2013-2014 school year); increasing, with support from the Guangdong Provincial Government, the number of special quotas for cross-boundary school coach services from 62 in the 2011-2012 school year to 140 in the 2013-2014 school year; providing special counters for cross-boundary students before and after school so as to expedite the completion of immigration formalities by cross-boundary students; providing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9411 designated e-Channels for cross-boundary students; implementing simplified clearance procedures for cross-boundary students; as well as providing on-board clearance service for cross-boundary students.
The Government will, in light of the relevant circumstances, negotiate with Mainland authorities each year over the appropriate number of special quotas for cross-boundary school coach services, and examine and approve anew the applications for special quotas for cross-boundary school coach services and Closed Area Permits for cross-boundary students.
Although we have all along made special arrangements whenever feasible for cross-boundary students to facilitate their schooling, the border control points have limited capacity and corresponding boundary crossing and transport facilities are also required in the Mainland. Therefore, we cannot fully meet the needs of all students at individual border control points. In that case, we hope parents can give due consideration and make suitable arrangements for the schooling of their children, and they cannot fully rely on the special measures to facilitate the schooling of cross-boundary students.
Under the Student Travel Subsidy Scheme, the Government has been providing subsidies to families with cross-boundary students having financial difficulties. The amount of subsidy is calculated on the basis of the students' average public transport fares within the boundaries of Hong Kong; and the approval principles are the same as those for local students. A cross-boundary student who passes the means-test can receive subsidy at full rate or half rate. We will review the operation of the Student Travel Subsidy Scheme from time to time to ensure that needy students can receive timely financial assistance.
A number of Members have mentioned the data collected by the Government. The Census and Statistics Department carried out six rounds of survey on babies born in Hong Kong to Mainland women from 2007 to 2012, so as to collect basic information on the socio-economic characteristics of the parents and their intentions about the babies' future living arrangement. The surveys had provided important information for reference and had assisted various Policy Bureaux and departments in formulating and updating their respective policy programmes and action plans concerning our population policies. If necessary, the Education Bureau will also consider collecting other suitable data to better grasp the latest situation.
9412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
The surge in the number of cross-boundary students in recent years is mainly related to the substantial increase in "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) babies". When these children gradually reach the age for kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, some of them who do not live in Hong Kong may choose to cross the boundary from Shenzhen to attend school in Hong Kong every day. Thus, we expect that the number of cross-boundary students would continue to increase in the coming years.
Since 2013, the Government has stringently implemented the "zero delivery quota" policy for DNR pregnant woman giving birth in Hong Kong. It is expected that, beginning from the 2016-2017 school year, the number of cross-boundary K1 students will become considerably smaller, while the total number of cross-boundary students will begin to decrease after a few years' increase.
In estimating the future demands for kindergarten, public primary and secondary school places, we will consider the following factors and make comprehensive planning:
(1) the number of students already attending kindergartens, and public primary and secondary schools (including cross-boundary students);
(2) the latest school-age population projections;
(3) the enrolment ratio of students of different ages in kindergartens, and the primary grades of public and primary and secondary schools and the latest trends; and
(4) the estimated number of cross-boundary students.
Nevertheless, I must point out that the actual number of cross-boundary students attending school in Hong Kong each year is affected by various factors, including the adjustment of the relevant Mainland policies, the residence of Hong Kong-citizen students in Shenzhen, and the parents' choice of schools. Therefore, it is difficult for the Government to accurately project the future number of cross-boundary students, as a few Members have mentioned. Even so, we would continue to adopt effective measures to tackle these problems.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9413
Kindergarten education in Hong Kong is provided by the private sector, with the characteristics of flexibility, diversity, adaptability and vitality. The private sector can respond rapidly to the demands of parents. In respect of admission arrangements, parents can choose suitable kindergartens for their children on the basis of individual needs, and kindergartens will make the decisions on the admission of students. We understand that the general principle is the admission of students to school in the vicinity of their residence.
In view of the concerns of the public and the parents about the admission arrangements of kindergartens in Tai Po and the North District, the Education Bureau has reached a consensus with the kindergartens in these two districts. Special measures will be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year for the admission arrangements of K1 students in the two districts, so that parents can find kindergarten places for their children in a timely manner.
With reference to the experience in Tai Po and the North District, the Education Bureau will adopt the recommendation of the Committee on Free Kindergarten Education and consider extending the relevant measures to kindergartens in other areas from the 2015-2016 school year; we are now consulting various stakeholders. We will expeditiously work out and announce the specific details of the improvement measures for the benefit of all the students concerned.
For primary school places, all along, there have been year to year changes in the supply and demand of Primary One places due to various factors such as the school-age population, the number of newly-arrived children, and the changes in the number of cross-boundary students. The Education Bureau will adopt measures to flexibly increase Primary One places to meet the demand. For instance, we will make use of surplus classrooms and request for school places from the neighbouring school nets. If necessary, we will temporarily increase the class size and provide schools with additional resources so as to maintain the teaching quality and the learning effectiveness of students.
With the implementation of the above measures to flexibly increase Primary One places and coupled with the revised arrangement for the central allocation of Primary One places starting from this year, we believe that we can cater for the needs of students living in Hong Kong and ensure that children living in the Mainland will be allocated public school places, and we can also make full use of the surplus places in individual areas.
9414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Given the revised arrangement for the central allocation of places this year, the mode of school selection by parents of cross-boundary students may differ from that of previous years. We must grasp the data on parents' school choices of this year and review the long-term planning for Primary One places in various school nets/areas. The Education Bureau will make appropriate short-, medium- and long-term plans for Primary One places, so as to ensure that there is sufficient public school places to meet the demands of eligible applicants for Primary One places, including cross-boundary children.
In her amendment, Dr Helena WONG urged the Government to conduct studies on reinstating village schools in the mode of branch campuses of government or subsidized primary schools as an interim measure to increase the number of school places in the North District and Yuen Long District. I hope Members would understand that whether vacant school premises can be used for reinstating schools depends on a number of factors, such as the type of sites on which the school premises are located, whether there is convenient transport, whether the initiative is supported by the community, the area of the school premises, as well as the conditions of facilities available for use in the school premises. At present, most of the vacant premises are former village schools which have been closed down for years and located in remote sites. Owing to the lack of adequate facilities and the land ownership issues, these premises may no longer be suitable for the operation of schools. However, if there are premises with suitable objective conditions, we would be pleased to consider them.
At this stage, we will continue to pay attention to the supply and demand of school places, and adopt more flexible measures as mentioned above to increase school places in individual areas as necessary.
In respect of Secondary One places, according to the current projections, even if the number of Secondary One students rebounds a few years later, there will be sufficient secondary school places in the territory to meet the demand.
To help newly arrived children adapt to the local school learning environment, we provide grants to schools admitting newly arrived children, to provide School-based Support Programmes for cross-boundary students, including tutorial classes, orientation activities, counselling programmes and extra-curricular activities, to help solve their learning difficulties and promote LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9415 personal development. The grant is also applicable to newly arrived cross-boundary students. Moreover, cross-boundary students may also participate in the activities of Integrated Children and Youth Services Centres and Children and Youth Centres to increase their opportunities and experience of participating in community activities in Hong Kong, so as to meet their development needs at various stages of growth.
As regards maintaining the campus culture of harmony and equality, the Education Bureau has asked schools to comply with all laws against discrimination in formulating and reviewing school policies, such as in arranging the curriculum and teaching. Schools must comply with the equal opportunity principle and avoid involvement in any form of discrimination, and establish harmonious culture within schools.
Over the years, the SAR Government has been working with the Shenzhen Bureau of Education in supporting the development of classes for Hong Kong-citizen students in Shenzhen. Last year, we extended the scope of admission of these schools to cover all Hong Kong-citizen students, including DNR children, in order to alleviate the problems arising from cross-boundary students. In the 2013-2014 school year, a total of six private schools in Shenzhen have classes exclusively for Hong Kong-citizen students; about 1 400 Hong Kong-citizen students are admitted. Another private school has also been approved by the education bureaux in both places to participate in the programme in the 2014-2015 school year, and it is expected to provide 100 to 200 additional school places. The schools will determine the number of classes in light of the actual situation and the demand for school places; when necessary, they will adjust the number of students in each class in order to provide more school places for Hong Kong-citizen students.
Members have suggested that the Government should establish Hong Kong-style schools and schools subsidized by the Hong Kong Government in Shenzhen to provide Hong Kong-citizen children with free education. This proposal involves a wide range of policies, including the regulations for the operation of schools in Shenzhen, school management and jurisdiction, the curricula, teacher qualifications and portability of benefits. We must carry out objective analyses and in-depth studies. In any case, it takes several years to establish a school, and this may not be able to immediately alleviate the problems arising from cross-boundary students at the moment. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, the problems arising from cross-boundary students are 9416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 only temporary in nature, and the operation of schools subsidized by the Hong Kong Government in Shenzhen should be implemented under a viable proposal on sustainable development.
Again, I would like to thank Members for their valuable suggestions about attracting more Hong Kong teachers to take up teaching posts in the Mainland. At present, arrangements are made by the Education Bureau for local schools and schools in Shenzhen with classes for Hong Kong-citizen students to become sister schools and appropriate professional support has been provided for these schools. For instance, we introduce to the teachers of the Chinese, English, Mathematics, and General Studies subjects information such as the curriculum development of these subjects, learning and teaching, as well as assessment strategies. We will continue to explore the enhancement measures, and we will also examine the introduction of incentives to attract Hong Kong teachers to teach in classes for Hong Kong-citizen students in the Mainland.
Just now, some Members have expressed concern about cross-boundary students living alone in Hong Kong. I think Members would agree that the lack of parental care will adversely affect the physical and mental development of young cross-boundary students; thus, we do not encourage similar arrangements. In case it is found that people who provide accommodation services to cross-boundary students have violated the laws of Hong Kong, the departments concerned would definitely take legal actions.
Mr Gary FAN has mentioned in his amendment amending the Basic Law to abolish the right of abode in Hong Kong enjoyed by babies born to DNR pregnant women, so as to solve at root the problems arising from cross-boundary students. We consider this inappropriate and we disagree that this method should be adopted to deal with the transitional problems arising from a short-term surge in the number of cross-boundary students.
Cross-boundary students and local children enjoy the same rights, and the Government is committed to providing support, and creating an ideal learning environment for all students. The "zero quota" policy has been implemented since 2013, and it is expected that the total number of cross-boundary students would begin to decrease a few years later. Thus, we will adopt a flexible approach to handling the supply and demand of school places. At the same time, we will closely monitor the demand for classes for Hong Kong-citizen students, and continue to work closely with the Shenzhen Bureau of Education, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9417 and to provide professional support in various aspects such as teacher training and the Secondary School Places Allocation System. Furthermore, in respect of boundary crossing and transport arrangements, various government departments will continue to work closely together to examine the needs of students and provide facilitating measures.
A Member has suggested "simultaneously meeting the education needs of both local and cross-boundary students" and ensuring "admission to school in the vicinity of residence" in dealing with the problems arising from cross-boundary students. Moreover, the Government must ensure that cross-boundary students can attend schools within reasonable coach journey distances. It will also perfect the immigration arrangements and transportation support for cross-boundary students, so that they can cross the boundary safely to attend school. In addition, the Government must ensure that cross-boundary students can attend schools within a reasonable coach journey and will give support in respect of immigration arrangements and transportation arrangement. These are good intentions but I must say that, under the restraints of the objective circumstances (including the capacity of the border crossing points, the operation of school bus operators and the uncertainty concerning the wishes of parents), there may not be any panacea that can fully and simultaneously meet the needs of all parties. I understand that this short-term problem will in fact cause inconvenience to schools and families, but we must make a choice, so as to find a solution that can balance the needs of all parties as far as possible.
Once again, I thank Members who have spoken for their valuable views on how to help cross-boundary students attending school in Hong Kong. We attach great importance to the difficulties encountered by cross-boundary students when they attend school in Hong Kong, and their impacts on Hong Kong. We will continue to improve various policies and measures. In future, I hope that we would continue to get the support of Members, school-sponsoring bodies and the community, and we will work together to solve the challenges brought by cross-boundary students, such that cross-boundary students and local students can have a pleasant school life in Hong Kong. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, you may now move your amendment.
9418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion be amended.
Mr IP Kin-yuen moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add ", given" after "That"; to delete "has given" after "in recent years" and substitute with ", the Administration has nonetheless made poor planning, and has never grasped the basic data on cross-boundary students (such as the ratio of 'singly non-permanent resident students' to 'doubly non-permanent resident students') and properly formulated any long-, medium- and short-term forecasts based on existing data, thus giving"; to delete "pouring into" after "large number of cross-boundary students" and substitute with "travelling to"; to add "immediately" after "(1)"; to add ", which comprises representatives from the Education Bureau, the Social Welfare Department, the Immigration Department and the Transport and Housing Bureau, etc.," after "inter-departmental task force"; to add "education, transport, healthcare, social welfare, housing and" after "impacts of cross-boundary students on"; to add "in dealing with the education problems arising from cross-boundary students, firmly uphold the principles of 'simultaneously meeting the education needs of both local and cross-boundary students' and 'admission to school in the vicinity of residence';" after "(2)"; to add "and consult various stakeholders as early as possible, so as to avoid the dissatisfaction of schools and parents arising from inappropriate school place planning;" after "in various districts,"; to add "at the same time, ensure that cross-boundary students can attend schools within reasonable coach journey distances; (3) alleviate the additional burden on schools arising from the need to cope with cross-boundary students, and provide schools with appropriate assistance and resources, such as offering a recurrent grant for admission of additional number of cross-boundary students and a one-off grant for the additional ancillary services arranged for cross-boundary students, so as to ensure that the existing quality of education will not be significantly affected, and that schools will have sufficient resources to meet the education needs of cross-boundary students;" after "opportunities for attending school;"; to delete the original "(3)" and substitute with "(4)"; to delete the original "(4)" and substitute with "(5)"; to delete the original "(5)" and substitute with "(6)"; to add "allocate additional resources to social welfare organizations to" before "enhance the services"; to add "especially cross-boundary students with special education needs," after LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9419
"and their families,"; to delete "and" after "community activities in Hong Kong;"; to delete the original "(6)" and substitute with "(7)"; to add "including reviewing the quotas of Closed Area Permits for cross-boundary students and cross-boundary school coaches based on actual demand, and permitting more cross-boundary students to undergo on-board clearance," after "services and support for cross-boundary students,"; and to add "; (8) conduct a study on enacting legislation to regulate private hostels for cross-boundary students, so as to ensure the safety of cross-boundary students in Hong Kong; and (9) conduct publicity among the public to disseminate a positive message on accepting cross-boundary students, enabling cross-boundary students to be free from discrimination, grow up healthily and happily, and develop a sense of belonging to Hong Kong" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr IP Kin-yuen to Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr IP Kin-yuen rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
9420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Mrs Regina IP and Mr WONG Yuk-man abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9421
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present and 26 were in favour of the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 26 were in favour of the amendment and two abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Properly dealing with problems arising from cross-boundary students" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
9422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is 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 motion passed.
I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Properly dealing with problems arising from cross-boundary students" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have been informed that as Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment was passed, Mr Gary FAN has withdrawn his amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN, please move your revised amendment now.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr James TIEN moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen: (Translation)
"To add "; and (10) introduce concessionary measures to attract more Hong Kong teachers to teach in the Mainland, so as to assist Hong Kong-citizen children living in the Mainland in familiarizing themselves with the teaching mode adopted in Hong Kong, making parents let their Hong Kong-citizen children stay in the Mainland for attending schools without any worry, thereby alleviating the problems of cross-boundary students; this can also alleviate the problem of surplus teachers in Hong Kong and provide Hong Kong teachers with opportunities to acquire teaching experience in the Mainland; the proposed concessionary measures should include allowing Hong Kong teachers with provident fund accounts to keep their accounts during their periods of teaching in the Mainland, providing special living and transport allowances, and encouraging LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9423
schools in Hong Kong to give priority consideration to recruit teachers who had been teaching in the Mainland for certain years, etc." immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr James TIEN's amendment to Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Helena WONG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall stop now and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven 9424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Charles Peter MOK voted against the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
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 Alan LEONG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
Dr Priscilla LEUNG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment, six against it and five abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 16 were in favour of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9425 amendment, 11 against it and one abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Mr James TIEN's amendment has been passed, Dr Helena WONG has withdrawn her amendment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, as the amendments of Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr James TIEN have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr James TIEN be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr Michael TIEN moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr James TIEN: (Translation)
"To add "; and (11) conduct studies in conjunction with Mainland authorities on establishing schools subsidized by Hong Kong Government in Shenzhen to provide Hong Kong-citizen children with free education, and the schools concerned must operate in accordance with the requirements of the Education Bureau of Hong Kong, recruit qualified Hong Kong teachers and adopt Hong Kong's teaching modes and curriculum, thus facilitating these children to come to Hong Kong to sit for public examinations and pursue further education in the future" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Michael TIEN's amendment to Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr James TIEN be passed.
9426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, 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, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted against the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9427
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Ms Emily LAU, 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 Alan LEONG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Yuk-man abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 26 were in favour of the amendment and one against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment, six against it and one abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TANG Ka-piu, as the amendments of Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr James TIEN and Mr Michael TIEN have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion, as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr James TIEN and Mr Michael TIEN, be further amended by my revised amendment.
9428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Mr TANG Ka-piu moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr James TIEN and Mr Michael TIEN: (Translation)
"To add "; (12) conduct a longitudinal study on the social life and psychological development of cross-boundary students; (13) increase the number of places in the school net exclusively for districts with the largest number of cross-boundary primary students such as Tai Po and the North District, etc., so as to alleviate the pressure faced by parents when applying for school admission for local students; (14) allocate additional resources to non-governmental organizations for cultivating cross-boundary students' social skills and positive psychology; and (15) provide school coach fee subsidy to families with cross-boundary students having financial difficulties" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr TANG Ka-piu's amendment to Mr TAM Yiu-chung's motion, as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr James TIEN and Mr Michael TIEN, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is 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 passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung, you may now reply and you have one minute six seconds.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9429
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, Honourable colleagues have enthusiastically participated in this motion debate, which fully reflected that we all attach great importance to this subject. I call upon Honourable colleagues to continue to support this motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr TAM Yiu-chung, as amended by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr James TIEN, Mr Michael TIEN and Mr TANG Ka-piu, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, 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, Mr Charles Peter 9430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MOK, 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 Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che voted against the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO and Mr IP Kin-yuen abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
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 Alan LEONG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the amendment.
Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 23 were in favour of the motion as amended, one against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion as amended, six against it and five abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9431
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third Member's motion: Safeguarding academic freedom.
Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Dr Kenneth CHAN to speak and move the motion.
SAFEGUARDING ACADEMIC FREEDOM
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
It is the mission of a scholar to think deeply and analyse rigorously, and to speak one's mind to all people honestly and directly, no matter if it is pleasing or otherwise and no matter if an idea is fanciful or practicable. A free, pluralistic and open academic setting is the cradle for brooding new thinking and discovering new knowledge, as well as the soil for nurturing public intellectuals and promoting social reforms. The pre-requisite for defending academic freedom and free thinking, as well as encouraging and promoting the free exchange of thoughts, is that no one shall interfere with academic research and the related activities in any form.
Hong Kong is still a free international city which is open to the outside world. Moreover, we believe in such universal values as freedom, the rule of law, human rights and democracy. However, at the same time, Hong Kong is also at the periphery of a totalitarian regime that is rich and overbearing, so academic freedom is innately deficient. Moreover, the development of local education institutions has all along been hampered by a social atmosphere which is short-sighted and pragmatic. Fortunately, many friends in the academic sector continue to speak up and take actions, rather than withdrawing from the world and leading an easy and comfortable life in ivory towers.
Although the Basic Law stipulates clearly that Hong Kong can have academic freedom and the SAR Government claims since the reunification that it upholds academic freedom and the autonomy of education institutions in Hong Kong, it commits various lowly acts of interference with academic freedom. First, an underling of TUNG Chee-hwa, Andrew LO, exerted pressure on Robert 9432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
CHUNG of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, then the former officials in charge of education, Arthur LI and Fanny LAW, stirred up the furore over the Hong Kong Institute of Education and last year, the Central Policy Unit withdrew the power of vetting applications under the Public Policy Research Funding Scheme from the Research Grants Council, thus making many academics involved in such domains of research as the humanities and social science threaten to stage a boycott. The relationship between the SAR Government and the academic sector is peaceful outward but tense inward. Time and again, it can be seen that the people in power and their lot of followers and advisors regard academic freedom as their natural enemy. Officials, the rich and those in power, who lack the capacity for self-reflection and accepting different views are wont to attributing the bumpiness in administration to intellectuals regarded by them as disobedient, vowing that they would not rest until they have knocked scholars off their pedestal.
This year, during the sessions of the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Hong Kong once again felt a new round of assaults on academic freedom. A member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Committee who is the second generation of a tycoon, Executive Council Members and the Head of the Central Policy Unit were engaged in a relay to criticize and query the public opinion surveys conducted under the Public Opinion Programme. In particular, they directed their criticisms at the popularity rating for the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying. Influenced and nurtured by the communist regime, these powerful and rich people always have a guilty conscience and are panic-stricken. They fabricated the allegation that the Public Opinion Programme is always a thorn in the side at crucial moments ― the so-called fabrication of public opinion for the opposition. They even proposed that the business sector and groups in the pro-establishment camp should pool funds together to set up a new public opinion survey organization, citing the excuse of countering the opposition but in reality, this is an attempt to use money and power to create a public opinion basis favourable to those in power. Such a course of action is absurdity and folly of the first order. The lot of LEUNG's followers and leftist newspapers subsequently mounted totally groundless personal attacks on Robert CHUNG and condemned his public opinion surveys in speech and writing. However, they time and again made low-level mistakes and a fool of themselves in public but they just tried to brazen it out, so it can be said that they have brought disgrace upon themselves.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9433
The Public Opinion Programme has all along been open and transparent, and adhered to international standards in its operation. From the design of questionnaires, through the sampling methods, to the analyses of results and the method of publishing results, they are all conducted with high transparency and can stand up to academic scrutiny. Ironically, who are the service recipients of the so-called government think tank, the Central Policy Unit? They are the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration and government departments. Of the studies and public opinion surveys conducted by them, how many were not made public nor given accounts to the public? How much public money has found its way into organizations considered to be on one's own side, such as the One Country Two Systems Research Institute? How much money has been used to pave the way for policy decisions of the SAR Government not supported by the public? Should the public ask about this? Do the public have the right to know?
Hong Kong is located at the periphery of a totalitarian regime and the powerful and rich here have repeatedly attempted to deal with academics whom they consider to be a thorn in their side according to their personal likes and dislikes, so it is not without reason that a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Committee who is the second generation of a tycoon targeted Robert CHUNG. When the alarm bell is ringing again over academic freedom, which is in jeopardy, the public may not react as swiftly as they do when journalists are harmed but if we look closely, it is absolutely untrue that a war of attack and defense without any smoking gun is being waged in silence. This time around, the University of Hong Kong made a forceful response immediately by issuing an announcement reiterating the protection of academic freedom: "We encourage our academics to actively share with the community their expert opinions and research results, and to participate in social affairs", so that "a more informed society can be built". This timely statement and timely rain is of particular importance.
President and Members, both press freedom and academic freedom are important pillars supporting the core values in Hong Kong, so all Hong Kong people who do not wish to see Hong Kong change into something beyond recognition cannot just mind their own business. It is only when all members in the academia stand united and defend institutional autonomy and the fronts of academic freedom resolutely that the increasingly powerful onslaughts can be repelled. As a member of the academia, today, I move the motion 9434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
"Safeguarding academic freedom" in the Legislative Council and hope that the public can be more concerned about it.
I so submit.
Dr Kenneth CHAN moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council safeguards academic freedom, encourages academics to participate in public affairs for actively promoting social progress and reform, and urges the Administration to ensure that all academic research and activities are free from any forms of interference."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Kenneth CHAN be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Four Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the four amendments.
I will first call upon Mr IP Kin-yuen to speak, to be followed by Mr Martin LIAO, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr Helena WONG respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, today, there are two motions involving the Education Bureau but the Secretary for Education is not present and only the Under Secretary, Mr Kevin YEUNG, is acting on his behalf. Since as many as two motions are involved, I consider it necessary for the Government to explain clearly why Secretary Eddie NG cannot come to the legislature to give his replies to the debate. I hope Secretary Kevin YEUNG can give us some explanation later on.
Both my speech and amendment today support the motion moved by Dr Kenneth CHAN and I also wish to state clearly in the legislature my attitude towards the recent furore over the criticisms directed at the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9435
The motion today is "Safeguarding academic freedom" and who should do so? Last month, Mr Peter LEE criticized Robert CHUNG of the Public Opinion Programme for always publishing results of public opinion surveys unfavourable to the Central Authorities, the SAR Government and the "love the country and Hong Kong" camp to create public opinion bases for the demands of the opposition camp.
Mr LEE is a businessman and of course, he is also entitled to the freedom of speech. However, we have to note that at that time, he was in his role of a standing committee member of the Chinese people's Political Consultative Conference and he chose to make these comments in front of Mr ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, at a meeting held in Beijing. Of course, if, after hearing the remarks, Mr ZHANG Dejiang had said to Mr LEE, "The institutional autonomy and academic freedom of tertiary education institutions are safeguarded by Article 136 of the Basic Law, so it is inappropriate for us to touch on academic research in Hong Kong at this venue", it would not have been necessary for us to discuss this issue today. Or, after the news had spread to Hong Kong, had the Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, come out to say, "Academic freedom is the core value of Hong Kong society, so academic institutions are welcome to continue to conduct rigorous public opinion surveys, so that they can serve as a mirror on the Government's administration", that would have been great and we would not have to discuss this issue in the legislature. However, the actual situation is not like this. In reality, both Mr ZHANG and the Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG, did not respond as such. They did not defend academic freedom, so this onerous burden was saddled on the Hong Kong public and the legislature.
The subject matter of the debate today is "safeguarding academic freedom". Why is it necessary to defend academic freedom in particular? This is very simple. Without academic freedom, it is difficult for society to make progress. The history of academic freedom is a long one and in this long history, several figures are particularly well-known. One of them is COPERNICUS. He proposed heliocentrism, according to which the earth revolves round the sun. This theory was suppressed even after his death. Another even more important figure is GALILEO, known as the father of modern science. Because of his concurrence with the theory advanced by COPERNICUS and his invention of the telescope, which was used to prove that the theory advanced by COPERNICUS was correct, he was subjected to religious persecution, inquisition and house arrest.
9436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Such a painful history shows that when some scholars wanted to be faithful to the truth and embark on a quest for the truth, they had to face various kinds of persecution and difficulties which would deter them from making advancement. In the end, however, they decided to disregard the consequences and as a result, they were subjected to incarceration. Why was the academia willing to face such difficulties? The reason for Europe to be able to shake off the darkness of the Middle Ages and ignorance was that these scholars were fearless in the face of sheer power and that they were willing to step forward bravely. However, we really do not hope that all scholars have to step forward bravely like this and face such dire consequences. Without these scholars, we would still think that the earth is at the centre of the universe and no progress in science could have been made.
Today, our academic world is very different as we now have academic freedom. We can enlarge the scope and as a result, institutions called universities thrive. These institutions enable our academics to conduct research and publish their results in a very different setting. Scholars must be protected by institutional autonomy, the autonomy of publication and research autonomy before they can do their work. Of course, the process is not plain sailing either as various kinds of struggles have occurred.
In 1957, in Sweezy vs New Hampshire, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Mr Justice FRANKFURTER, said in the judgment, "These pages need not be burdened with proof … of the dependence of a free society on free universities. This means the exclusion of governmental intervention in the intellectual life of a university. It matters little whether such intervention occurs avowedly or through action that inevitably tends to check the ardor and fearlessness of scholars, qualities at once so fragile and so indispensable for fruitful academic labour.".
We have to know that behind academic freedom, there is the enthusiasm of a group of academics who are on the quest for truth but this kind of enthusiasm can easily be oppressed within the system and after such oppression, the negative effects on society are inestimable. Therefore, we must safeguard academic freedom by means of the system rather than relying solely on the perseverance of scholars.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9437
Here, I also wish to share with Members what real academic discussion is and what is not. Recently, I heard some friends query why academics cannot be criticized. In fact, this type of people called academics often criticize one another in their circle and we are used to arguments. If there are different views, they should be stated but there is a key to this. Several years ago, I have several friends who wrote an article on academic freedom and here, I wish to cite a viewpoint voiced by them. They said, to this effect, "We think the most important thing at present is to build a civilized public domain for discussion, so that people ― be it intellectuals or the general public ― with different views can express their views clearly and without fear, as well as using sense and reason to convince others. We insist that this domain must be civilized because a domain marked by violence, be it verbal or actual violence, does not allow people without weapons, power or influence to participate, so it could not be a public domain. Moreover, violent behaviour is an insult on human dignity.".
What we have to build is a public discussion domain but most importantly, this domain for discussion has to be civilized and all parties have to present their arguments. When government officials interfere with academics in various ways, they have actually wielded their power, so this is no longer civilized behaviour and they are no longer making use of arguments. Such interference can be direct or indirect. When we see some newspapers expending many pages and passages to mount an organized attack, we believe this is not civilized discussion either.
Since 5 March, after Mr Robert CHUNG had been criticized by Mr Peter LEE, a newspaper published 16 articles at a stretch to criticize Mr Robert CHUNG as well as his articles on public opinion surveys and 31 402 words in total were expended. The following views that can be summarized from these articles. First, Robert CHUNG is involved in pseudo-academic activities by manipulating figures and concepts to deliberately mislead the public; second, he fabricated public opinion for the opposition and supports the Occupy Central movement, so political ends are served and third, he has not announced the sources of funds, so there is suspicion of acceptance of overseas funding and collaboration with foreign forces. Do these discussions represent a quest for the truth, do they respect the facts and is there any scope for civilized behaviour? If the answers are in the negative, we have to defend academic freedom in the legislature steadfastly and ask all members of the public to fight alongside us.
I so submit.
9438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, by proposing the amendment today, I hope that this Council may examine the concept of "academic freedom", and that universities and academics will review their obligations and responsibilities in nurturing talents and their social responsibilities. I have the impression that many people have overlooked the true essence and meaning of "academic freedom", as well as the social responsibilities of academics. Through this amendment of mine, I look forward to the further examination of the myth of pursuing academic freedom maintained by higher education institutions and academics.
The concept of "academic freedom" can be dated back to the Ancient Greek era, where the famous philosopher Socrates said, "Scholars must have the rights to explore a problem no matter which direction the exploration will lead to". Since Socrates, the primary objective for philosophical critical thinking and researches are to differentiate right from wrong. It is particularly so in challenging traditional concepts and identifying the fallacies and blind spots found in these concepts. These challenges seek to deliver society from the yoke of hereditary and steer society towards a better future. Socrates, to hold on to his belief, did not give in to the pressure arising from social traditions. He chose to take poison to end his own life rather than compromising to the urge for him to stop spreading the philosophical thinking which people consider poisonous to the youth. He was the first martyr in Western history to the cause of academic freedom.
However, the blossoming of academic freedom should be credited to the advocacy and interpretation of a group of German scholars, who had not been influenced by the Enlightenment Movement, in the end of the 18th century. Special credits should be accorded to HUMBOLDT, the founder of the Humboldt University in Germany which was hailed as the "Mother of all modern universities". He further developed and promoted this concept, which gradually became one of the core values of universities in Germany in the early 19th century. Hence, the term "academic freedom" is originated from the German "Akademische freiheit". The word "Akademische" is originated from the "Akademy of Plato", which includes a number of meanings like university, institution and academic. Academic freedom was regarded as a statutory right the first time in 1848 in the Frankfurt Constitution Act, in which it was stipulated that "there should be freedom in academic and teaching". This provision was adopted later in 1850 in the Prussian Constitution, which was the earliest enactment of the provision on academic freedom promulgated. Since Germany LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9439 was the leader in the trend of development of universities, a large group of American academics travelled the long distance to study in Germany. The thinking of academic freedom was then introduced into the universities of the United States, and academic freedom was gradually developed into a universal value.
President, according to the concept of HUMBOLDT, "academic freedom" refers to inherent freedom enjoyed by academics in carrying out academic activities, including the freedom to conduct researches, to publish and to disseminate, to search for the truth of matters. To ensure the accuracy and objectivity of knowledge, activities of academics should only be bound by the standard of truth and not being influenced and interfered by any external pressure or interests. In other words, freedom is the prerequisite for the pursuit of truth in academic researches. Academic freedom is mainly realized in three aspects. First, it is the freedom of professors to conduct researches and teach (Lehrfreiheit). Second, it is the freedom of students to learn (Lernfreiheit). Third, it is the autonomy of academic institutions (Freiheit der Wissenschaft). As for the objective of academic activities, it was positioned as purely for "academic purposes", which should have no relation to religion, politics, economic and any other operations in the world. According to the concept of HUMBOLDT, the purpose of conducting researches and learning was not to improve the living standard or social status of individuals, which was purely a process to attain self-perfection through the pursuit of truth. I think this urge to explore knowledge and the truth is the source providing impetus for advancement in society.
However, the definition of "academic freedom" varies in different states. As Albert EINSTEIN said, "By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true." Many countries stipulate the protection for academic freedom through the state constitutions or laws, whereas various academic groups and organizations have made individual declarations on academic freedom, including the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education published in 1988 made by an international education organization, the World University Service.
President, academics and academic institutions certainly enjoy academic freedom, but as the famous American contemporary academic in higher education, Burton R. CLARK, advocates, universities are a place for academics to teach, to do scientific researches and to engage in social services. In other 9440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 words, academics have the social responsibility to serve society, and that academic freedom does not imply absolute freedom in the academic arena, which is not restrained by any responsibilities. Even in the United States, where academic freedom is advocated, the academic freedom of American universities is still constrained by the concept of "politically correct" to date. If the research of a certain academic is inconsistent with the values advocated by the States, the thesis of that academic will hardly win the recognition of authoritative academic journals and the academic may even run the risk of dismissal. The famous philosopher, logician and mathematician RUSSELL was one of the examples. He was criticized for putting forth "immoral and indecent thoughts" involving the forgiveness of extramarital sex and was ruled unsuitable to teach in the New York City University. Moreover, H. B. FRANKLIN, who was employed as the Associate Professor of the English Department of the Stanford University for lifetime, was dismissed by the university in 1972 for leading students to stage protest against the Vietnam War on campus. It is evident that academic freedom is not completely unrestricted. As advocated in the Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, and I quote, "As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise proper restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution." (End of quote)
When we look at Hong Kong today, academic freedom is protected mainly through the Basic Law, including Article 34 of the Basic Law, which safeguards the academic freedom of individuals, and Articles 136 and 137 of the Basic Law, which safeguard the academic freedom and autonomy of educational institutions. As for the university institutions, only The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has included "academic freedom" in the employment contract of teaching staff. Certain institutions have set up a redress mechanism for handling complaints from teaching staff and the mechanism for appraisal, promotion and transfer. However, the functions and details of these mechanisms vary significantly. Definitely and absolutely, there is room for improvement for the protection of academic freedom of relevant institutions, yet with the high degree of freedom of speech and the press enjoyed by Hong Kong, I think the academic freedom in Hong Kong is adequately safeguarded. It is true that over the years in the past, controversies about academic freedom have been aroused in society a number of times, and the researches of certain academics have been subject to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9441 external criticisms. I think the occurrence of these incidents is not surprising and there is no question of intervention of academic freedom. The more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes. For this reason, academics do not have to jump to the conclusion hastily that it is interference in academic freedom because of certain criticisms. After all, everyone has the freedom of speech, which is the origin of freedom and should not be placed below or shadowed by academic freedom.
President, in recent years, local universities have become more commercialized and society has become more politicized. I thus worry that academics may, out of political reasons or personal interests, impose their established views on the public by means of distorted findings and prejudiced conclusion of researches, in order to gain support in society and to raise their positions and influence. Or they may use the researches as a tactic or means to obtain personal interests. Under these circumstances, the basic principles of academic freedom will be abused and eroded. Worse still, the academic circle will lose the ability to criticize and reflect on the established values of society, and it can no longer serve as the driving force for society to move on. We must remember that universities are the halls for imparting knowledge, pursuing the truth, respecting dissident views and facilitating the pursuit of excellence, but not the political asylum for brandishing the banner of "academic freedom". I hope that academics of educational institutions in Hong Kong will devote to the enrichment and advocacy of knowledge, and more so, participate in public affairs selflessly with the attitude of being responsible to society, facilitating the establishment of a free, equal, merciful and just society.
President, I so submit.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, academic freedom is one of the important core values of society treasured in Hong Kong. We believe that academic freedom is not only the bedrock of the success of the higher education sector but also a foundation for institutions to continue nurturing talents for society and facilitating social economic reform and advancement. Hence, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) always support safeguarding academic freedom. We also urge the authorities to protect academic freedom according to the relevant provisions in the Basic Law.
9442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
The DAB considers that the Government should maintain an open and free academic atmosphere that encourages the expression of divergent views, so that institutions and academics can bring their strengths into full play in academic areas such as teaching and researches, and thus fulfilling their missions. We strongly believe that the primary mission of the higher education sector and academics is to strive to seek, explore and disseminate knowledge in areas of their own professions, and to nurture talents with professional skills, knowledge, ethics and independent thinking for society through the imparting of knowledge. At the same time, by the application of knowledge and research findings, they will prompt advancement and reform in society and the economy.
Certainly, academics of universities are not only equipped with professional skills and knowledge, they also enjoy respected social status and credibility, and their remarks have substantial influence. If they are willing to participate directly in public affairs in addition to their teaching and research work, such as joining various advisory organizations to give advice and suggestions, participating in the discussion of various public policies and even making reasonable criticisms on the governance of the Government, this will bring tremendous benefit to society. Such participation should definitely be encouraged and recognized.
We think that academic researches published by academics of universities are rather authoritative, which have a significant influence on social, economic and political development. If the research concerned involves public affairs, it will naturally become part of public issues and will inevitably become the focus of society arousing controversies from various sectors. Hence, the DAB considers that in encouraging academics to participate in public affairs, the legislature should at the same time encourage various sectors in society to discuss these academic researches, facilitating the interaction between the two. In the recent incident relating to the "opinion poll on the popularity of the Chief Executive", despite the strong sense of confrontation, the public have learned quite a lot about opinion polls and the various approaches for presenting statistics. Besides, the opinion poll programme has also published the dataset concerned to enhance transparency.
Actually, when academics participate in public affairs direct, the exchanges between academics and various sectors in society will become more frequent. In the course of interaction, the public will discuss the researches published and the views and positions put forward by academics, and the public may even make LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9443 criticism. If our motive is to draw on collective wisdom, and if we believe that the more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes, we should not easily escalate criticisms expressed against certain academic researches or remarks of academics to the level of interference of academic freedom. Otherwise, this will bring about chilling effect and constrict the room for expression of views in the public domain.
The DAB thinks that academic freedom is held in high esteem by society. Hence, the interference of academic freedom is a very serious accusation, be it against the Government or individuals, for the nature of interference of academic freedom is no different from the interference of freedom of speech. Mr IP Kin-yuen has expressed grave worries in his amendment today. He describes that academic freedom in the SAR is under "severe threat" and the spirit of Articles 22 and 137 of the Basic Law is under "great risk". He has also quoted the criticisms from Mr Peter LEE and certain newspapers against Mr Robert CHUNG to show that academic freedom is being challenged.
President, in October 2008, the Secretary for Education at the time applied for a judicial review to the Court against the conclusion made by the commission of inquiry on the turmoil involving the Hong Kong Institute of Education. In March 2009, Justice Michael John HARTMANN of the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government's case was allowed. He pointed out several important points in his judgment, which are worthy of reference in determining whether interference of academic freedom is involved. First of all, it was pointed out in the judgment that "academic freedom" was a difficult concept to define, and that Article 137 of the Basic Law safeguarded higher education institutions in Hong Kong and their academics to enable education institutions to determine what might be taught, how it should be taught and who might be admitted to study, and to give academics the freedom to pursue the search for knowledge. Moreover, an academic and a government official should have equal enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. Finally, unless the government official had, directly or by implication, given a threat of sanction, the expression of criticisms against the views of the academic did not constitute an interference of academic freedom.
If we draw a comparison between the understandings of Article 137 of the Basic Law, "academic freedom" and "interference" of the Court in the past and the incident mentioned in the amendment, we can easily come to the conclusion that the so-called "challenge" mentioned in the amendment is an exaggeration. 9444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
In fact, Robert CHUNG, one of the subjects of the incident, did not feel that he was under pressure because of Peter LEE's criticisms, even though he strongly disagreed with those criticisms. On the contrary, he welcomed Peter LEE's proposal of setting up a fund for opinion polls.
Today, I do not intend to comment on the right or wrong of the incident. I only wish to bring forth one point through this incident, that is, academics have the right to freely express their academic views or research findings. This is academic freedom enjoyed by academics of universities, which is also their freedom of expression, and these should be respected by all sectors. By the same token, various sectors in society, irrespective of their status or political standpoints, enjoy the freedom of expression under Article 27 of the Basic Law, including the expression of views on speeches or academic researches of academics. These criticisms may be extremely irritating to certain people, yet it does not mean that some people can interpret the law arbitrarily to level the accusation of interfering academic freedom to stifle such comments. If that is the case, it is a challenge to the freedom of expression. Dr Kenneth CHAN mentioned a number of times the halos around the heads of academics, yet I want to point out that the halo is not a representation of absolute truth. On the contrary, people with this halo are expected to be more embracing and undertake greater social responsibility to safeguard the freedom of expression of others.
President, the DAB supports the amendment of Mr Martin LIAO, for the amendment will make the original motion more comprehensive. However, the DAB opposes the amendment of Mr IP Kin-yuen. Though it is mentioned in the amendment that academic exchanges should be conducted "on the basis of facts and rational discussions", no facts is given in the amendment as the basis for stating that academic freedom is under "severe threat" and the spirit of Article 137 of the Basic Law is under "great risk". In the amendment, individual expression of views is escalated and amplified to the level of challenging academic freedom and autonomy of education institutions, which is in no way a rational discussion. For the above reasons, the DAB opposes Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment.
At last, Dr Helena WONG proposes to "opposes the Government or the rich and powerful pressurizing academic institutions and making use of opinion polls as a political tool", which gives people the impression that the Government or someone is imposing or has already imposed pressure on academic institutions LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9445 and is making or has made use of opinion polls as a political tool. However, at present, we do not see any facts or evidence in this respect, so we cannot support Dr WONG's amendment.
President, I so submit.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, according to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations, the enjoyment of academic freedom requires institutional autonomy. The First Global Colloquium of University Presidents has also endorsed the definition of academic freedom and that is, "Academic freedom may be defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead." The Lima Declaration, which is known as the Education Bill of Rights, also mentioned that "The autonomy of institutions of higher education belongs to academic freedom within the institution … academic freedom should be protected from the influence of the interests of state and business sector."
President, what does "academic freedom" means? There are in fact a lot of discussions. We can see that in the United States, protection for academic and research freedom in universities is so strongly emphasized that tenure system for the teaching staff of universities is considered essential to ensure their employment security so that they are brave enough to study any subject, engage in teaching any theories and deliver speeches without fear. Academic freedom should even include the freedom to publicly criticize their own universities, the administration of academic institutions and so on. It also refers to the freedom to make any criticisms or comments in respect of local governments, the state or federal government without fear of reprisal. After hearing so many theories and criteria of academic freedom, I hope that Hong Kong people can seriously consider whether we can uphold academic freedom.
The Research Office of the Legislative Council conducted some comparative studies in 2007, showing that in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, legislation such as Bill of Rights and Education Act were enacted to protect academic freedom as early as the 1980s. But in Hong Kong, apart from the Basic Law, which stipulates that "Educational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom", there is no other local legislation in which provision or definition is laid down with the purpose of 9446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 protecting academic freedom in our system. It is emphasized by the Lima principle that "States are under an obligation not to interfere with the autonomy of institutions of higher education as well as to prevent interference by other forces of society. All states and institutions of higher education shall guarantee a system of stable and secure employment for teachers and researchers. No member of the academic community shall be dismissed without a fair hearing before a democratically elected body of the academic community." Unfortunately, the Under Secretary should know that in Hong Kong, there is absolutely no guarantee for the employment security of teaching staff. In the eight universities and self-financing tertiary institutions, many of their academic staff members are employed on contract terms. They are not sure whether they will be employed again next year upon expiry of their one-year or two-year contracts. I have worked as a contract staff over the past few years. Under Secretary YEUNG, how can we protect academic freedom?
So, I believe that members of the academic community will concentrate on doing research without being urged by Legislative Council Members because they will be dismissed in the coming year if the amount of their research is insufficient. Under such circumstance, can there be any academic freedom at all? As they have spent all their time and efforts in this aspect, academic freedom is already at stake even without political interference. We feel sad at hearing that. So, I hope Members can really take a closer look at whether universities are able to protect academic freedom.
Just now Dr Elizabeth QUAT said she would not support my amendment, and she has reservation about the original motion and other amendments because there is a lack of evidence. If she widens her eyes to look at history, read the newspapers and watch television, then she will know the reality. The work of Robert CHUNG, who is responsible for the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), has been queried and this is nothing new. This happened back in the era of Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa. Did Dr Elizabeth QUAT not notice it? In July 2000, Robert CHUNG wrote an article in a newspaper, pointing out that the then Chief Executive assigned his top aide Andrew LO to request the senior management of the HKU to stop Robert CHUNG from conducting these polls. Eventually, Robert CHUNG was told by a senior personnel of the HKU that no more polls relating to the Chief Executive and the Government should be conducted or else fund for him would be "dried up".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9447
An independent investigation was conducted after the incident had been revealed by Robert CHUNG. Finally, his allegations were substantiated, leading to the departure of CHENG Yiu-chung, the then Vice-Chancellor of the HKU. It happened 14 years ago. Did similar incident occur again during the past 14 years?
Robert CHUNG has recently been bombarded again. Is Dr Elizabeth QUAT unaware of this? Peter LEE, vice chairman of Henderson Development Limited, bombarded Robert CHUNG at the joint meeting of Hong Kong and Macao members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in his capacity as Member of the Standing Committee of the 12th National Committee of the CPPCC. He said that the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU conducted by Robert CHUNG had always published poll results unfavorable to the Central Government, the SAR Government and the patriotic camp as a whole at a critical time, thus providing an objective public opinion basis for the aspirations of opposition camp. These are not general remarks. He was the first one to raise his hand to speak in a high profile manner at a formal meeting, with the intention that Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, ZHANG Dejiang, would listen to his speech.
Peter LEE, who is not a member of academic community, has criticized Robert CHUNG who is in charge of the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU in a high-profile manner in front of the Central Government officials. What he criticized is not academic issues, but because the findings of the polls are not pleasant to the ear. The actual consequence is to exert political pressure on the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU, thereby seriously infringing academic freedom.
Anyone who does not know what has happened can keep his eyes peeled. He went on to say more terrible words. What did he say? He said that in order to reverse the passive situation of public opinion, a public poll fund should be set up. Money of the fund will come from Hong Kong tycoons, the eight major trade associations in Hong Kong, together with the Federation of Guangdong Associations, Federation of Fujian Associations, and so on. These are the so-called the patriotic forces. With money raised by them, the fund will be set up to replace of the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU conducted by Robert CHUNG. He added that he would invite The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and The University of Science and Technology (HKUST) to join as partners. I do not know whether or not the CUHK and the HKUST have responded to his proposal.
9448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Donation of money for research by universities is certainly welcomed purely from the standpoint of academics or academic institutions. But the problem is that if the purpose of the fund is to solicit the assistance of the CUHK and the HKUST in conducting opinion polls in order to create comments in favour of the patriotic forces, this is an infringement of academic freedom. Insofar as public opinion programmes are concerned, the research design of the academic concerned should be respected. You can set the title, but the form of the questionnaire (for example, whether leading questions should be asked), as well as the operation of the research as a whole should be decided by the academic concerned. If the findings are unpleasant to the ear, should it be prevented from release? Or should the right and wrong be reversed? If so, it is an attempt to bribe the universities and their research is used as a political tool. We absolutely oppose such a practice.
I hope that when the rich or somebody else donate money to the universities for conducting research, they should not give instruction as to what questions to be asked and what results to be got. If you want to achieve certain results from a research, it is not an academic research, but a political tool.(The buzzer sounded)
With these remarks, President, I urge Members to support my amendment.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr Kenneth CHAN for his motion and several other Members for their amendments of the motion today. I thank them for giving the Government an opportunity to reiterate its viewpoint regarding academic freedom as well as the autonomy of educational institutions.
Maybe I should first respond to Mr IP Kin-yuen's inquiry about the Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie NG, who is currently leading a delegation to attend the International Summit on the Teaching Profession 2014 in New Zealand. We issued a press release on this yesterday.
Let us return to today's topic. Academic freedom has been one of the core values of Hong Kong and is safeguarded under the Basic Law. Article 137 of the Basic Law stipulates (I quote), "Educational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom. They may continue to recruit staff and use teaching materials from outside the Hong Kong Special LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9449
Administrative Region." (End of quote). Article 34 of the Basic Law also stipulates (I quote), "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom to engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities." (End of quote).
Same as the general public, the SAR Government treasures and attaches great importance to academic freedom because this is a significant element contributing to the success of Hong Kong's higher education sector. This kind of systemic competitive edge has even strengthened the status of Hong Kong as a cosmopolitan city. It is the diverse, free and open academic atmosphere within Hong Kong education circles that attracts world-class scholars and researchers. Here we have an environment for them to develop their full potential in such academic activities as teaching and studies. They can, therefore, fulfil their mission of knowledge pursuit and dissemination through reasonable discussion, continuous exploration and careful argument. Only conducting studies and disseminating knowledge in a worry-free environment can the scholars nurture for Hong Kong society a group of talents who are better behaved and are more likely to be independent and strategic thinkers. These scholars can also make the most contributions to society via the application of their knowledge and research achievements.
The autonomy of educational institutions is an important element in the realization of academic freedom. As clearly stated in the "Notes and Procedures" of University Grants Committee (UGC), institutions of higher education can properly undertake the work expected of them by the community which supports them only if they have freedom of choice and of action. This does not exempt them from public interest and criticism; on the contrary, the institutions themselves as well as others can also continue to express their opinions about the development and policies of the institutions. In the past, there were many different opinions towards the quality of university curriculum, language proficiency of students in addition to the scope and direction of scientific researches, and so on. The universities seriously considered and responded to those opinions, thereby creating a positive and interactive communication mechanism.
Whether in terms of financial sources or background of the sponsoring bodies, the institutions of higher education in Hong Kong enjoy academic freedom as conferred by the relevant regulations. Defining the establishment purpose, governance structure, functions and operation modes, the ordinance or 9450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 articles of association governing these institutions has fulfilled the autonomy of educational institutions. Upon obtaining its own financial resources, each institution of higher education may take up the responsibility to self-decide on how to make the most beneficial use of its resources on teaching and researches. The Administration, the UGC, outside bodies or persons cannot instruct any of the institutions as to how to make internal distribution or use of its resources. Academic accreditation and quality assurance should be carried out by Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications, which has an independent statutory status. Academic accreditation and quality assurance can also be undertaken by self-accrediting operators or relevant quality assurance agencies to ensure that the work will not be subject to undue interference.
Safeguarding academic freedom is a social consensus. This important topic has attracted general discussion from time to time and the Legislative Council has on many occasions moved motions to debate in this regard. I will listen carefully to Members' views on the original motion and amendments and respond later in detail. Thank you, President.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned in my speech about freedom of the press last week, academic freedom is one of the basic rights of Hong Kong people protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. This is the same as the way of life of Hong Kong people which will remain unchanged for 50 years as guaranteed under the Basic Law. In fact, academic freedom has become one of the most important core values in our life.
Recently, I noticed that the opinion polls conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) have sparked controversies in society. In my opinion, such controversies reflect that Hong Kong is a free and open society in which we can enjoy freedom of speech and express our views on various issues. In my opinion, we should not causally come to an erroneous conclusion that the freedom of expression is being attacked or suppressed because there are divergent opinions in society or some people have made certain remarks.
Academics should be highly credible and broad-minded enough to accept others' views. For example, regarding the popularity of the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, we often receive a message that he is not doing well in his LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9451 job and his popularity is below the passing mark. But in fact, there are some extreme views behind the data. There are a small number of extremists who have given zero mark to the Chief Executive, thereby pulling down his popularity rating. But the poll results previously announced are not published along with detailed data, thus giving rise to controversies. So it is necessary to have in-depth and rational discussion. This is just reasonable.
Although some of those who expressed their views are holding public office, I would like to point out that they are not government officials. Nor have they interfered with the university or asked the management of the university to exert pressure on Dr Robert CHUNG, Director of Public Opinion Pragramme, to stop conducting the polls. Rather, they have expressed different views on the data of the polls. We can discuss the issue in a rational and pragmatic manner. We should not attribute everything to conspiracy theory or an ulterior motive behind the issue. Moreover, even Vice-Chancellor Lap-chee TSUI also considers that these are merely "controversies in the academic community" and does not think that academic freedom is under pressure. He said that we should "play by the rules rather than launching personal attacks" when discussing the issue. He considers that everybody plays by the rules now.
President, I also wish to talk about the participation in public affairs by academics. In my opinion, academic research should be conducted in an objective and impartial manner as in news reporting. If academics have overexerted themselves in public affairs, they may be easily influenced by their subjective opinions, thereby adversely affecting the credibility and reliability of their academic research. I do not want to see that some people participate in public affairs in the name of fighting for academic freedom or through peaceful means with an actual intention to actively advocate civil disobedience, illegal activities or occupying financial centre. This will do us no good except undermining our social order. It will go against our core value of pursuing for peace and rationality. We should not encourage or agree with it.
We can see from the recent protest in Taiwan, I believe, that even though the organizers claimed that they would adhere to peaceful principle, they could not ensure that the nature of the activity would not change and end in violence. Once the Occupy Central movement is launched in Hong Kong, it will deal a blow to our economy and the impact is unpredictable.
9452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
So, I absolutely agree with Mr Martin LIAO's amendment that university academics be encouraged to concentrate on conducting academic research, imparting knowledge and pursuing academic excellence. They should also be encouraged to participate in public affairs in a positive and responsible attitude for protecting social order and peace.
With these remarks, President, I support academic freedom. Thank you.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, ever since the current-term SAR Government has commenced office, Hong Kong seems to be entering a Dark Age. Storms whip and batter Hong Kong and the core values which the citizens cherish are under all kinds of attack. Last week this Council discussed a motion about Mr Kevin LAU, the former editor-in-chief of Ming Pao, who was brutally attacked and the purpose of the motion is to defend freedom of the press in Hong Kong. In a special meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting held this his morning, we discussed matters concerning the provision of mobile TV service by Hong Kong Television Network. The purpose of the discussion is to safeguard the freedom of information and the freedom to do business in Hong Kong. Now we have to rise up again and discuss and debate on defending our academic freedom. As Mr Andrew LI, the former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, has said to this effect, Hong Kong people must remain highly vigilant and be prepared to come out and defend the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.
At the beginning of this month, Mr Peter LEE, a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), in a joint meeting of Hong Kong and Macao members of the CPPCC, complained to ZHANG Dejiang, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress who is in charge of Hong Kong affairs. LEE accused the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme of providing a public opinion support for the opposition camp. What happened afterwards? A group of the fans of LEUNG Chun-ying and the leftist newspapers came out and criticized Mr Robert CHUNG, head of the Programme. Recently, there are even leftist newspapers which in their columns accuse Robert CHUNG of liaising with the intelligence people of foreign countries, saying that he is a spy. This is an unfounded accusation. In this way they are condemning the academics and threaten their freedom to conduct academic research.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9453
Among these people, CHEUNG Chi-kong, a member of the Executive Council, has repeatedly made inaccurate accusations on Robert CHUNG with his half-baked knowledge of opinion polls. But his criticisms are simply a laughing stock to those who know the subject; and for those who do not know about it, they will be horrified. Just now Mr Christopher CHEUNG has cited some of CHEUNG's comments. CHEUNG publishes articles in Ming Pao as well. In an article entitled to the effect that "Would Robert CHUNG care to respond and would Andy KWAN Cheuk-chiu clarify?", he picked a few remarks made by Robert CHUNG over the past decade and in a out-of-the-context manner he smeared the credibility of the opinion polls done by the University of Hong Kong. CHEUNG Chi-kong has a smattering of knowledge in social science and his remarks in opinion polls are even ridiculed by Andy KWAN, a former professor of economics at The Chinese University of Hong Kong as puerile and schoolboy. This kind of remarks made by CHEUNG Chi-kong which are devoid of any trace of scholarship will not help at all the regeneration and inspiration of wisdom in the people but on the contrary. Obviously, it aims to drag the opinion surveys conducted by Robert CHUNG into a quagmire and intends to undermine their credibility. This kind of tactic can only be said to be contemptible and inferior.
President, past events are a mirror to things present. The SAR Government has all along been very cautious about the impact produced by opinion polls done by the University of Hong Kong. As far back as 14 years ago, the first shot was fired to meddle with opinion polls. In July 2000, Robert CHUNG wrote in a newspaper and alleged that the then Chief Executive and Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, TUNG Chee-hwa, had exerted pressure on him through the then Vice-Chancellor CHENG Yiu-chung and Pro-Vice-Chancellor WONG Siu-lun. They asked him to stop all opinion surveys on the Chief Executive and the Government, or else his research funding would be discontinued in a secretive manner. At last, the report of the investigation conducted by the University of Hong Kong Senate proved that Robert CHUNG's allegations were substantiated. CHENG Yiu-chung and the then Senior Special Assistant of the Chief Executive's Office Andrew LO were made the scapegoats for TUNG Chee-hwa. And TUNG Chee-hwa, who had persistently low popularity ratings, had to step down on the excuse of having a leg pain.
What does this past event show? It shows that it is obviously not the person Robert CHUNG who is a taboo of the SAR Government or that it is the question of whether or not the opinion polls are scientific enough, but the taboo is 9454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 the true public opinion of Hong Kong. This is the result of accurate opinion polls and the findings cannot be distorted. Public opinion is the greatest enemy to a government which lacks in recognition and it is a mirror showing all the evils of a government. Even if there were people who intended to forge public opinion and make the emperor's new clothes, or even tried to use money to alter the research methodology of social science, these could only produce a harmony in appearance and would not help the Government improve its governance and prolong its rule.
President, as we look back at the time before the Chief Executive election in 2012, Robert CHUNG offered his assistance to conduct a simulated voting among the people so that citizens could indicate their preference. But on the day of the voting, the online ballot system was attacked by hackers and there were millions of hits on the system every second. As a result, the system was paralysed. Despite this, a large number of citizens were willing to go to the ballot stations on that day to use pen and paper to vote to oppose the small-circle Chief Executive election. This proves that no matter how great the suppression is, the people of Hong Kong still attach great importance to freedom.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Academic freedom is therefore a vital cornerstone to the development of society and the freedom to engage in academic research is a basic right guaranteed by the Basic Law for the people of Hong Kong to enjoy. Intellectuals have the responsibility to drive progress and reform in society. I therefore support the motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN on "Safeguarding academic freedom". I hope the silent majority in the community will not have its opinion being distorted and I hope scholars can tell the truth based on data collected from social science research and they can reflect the true opinion of the Hong Kong people.
Deputy President, I so submit.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with respect to the basic principles mentioned in the wording of the original motion from Dr Kenneth CHAN, I am sure most Honourable colleagues in this Council would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9455 not dispute. However, in his speech made earlier, he creates a false impression and says that academic freedom in Hong Kong is being curbed. This is really an unfounded view. I cannot agree to it. It is incumbent for this Council, being a legislative assembly, to defend academic freedom in Hong Kong and the authorities should be urged to ensure that all academic activities will not be subject to interference of any kind. As a matter of fact, this principle has been explicitly protected in the law of Hong Kong. Article 137 of the Basic Law provides that "Educational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom." Therefore, with respect to what Mr IP Kin-yuen says in his amendment that "since the reunification of Hong Kong with China, the severe threat to academic freedom, and the tangible and intangible political interference experienced by higher educational institutions have never ceased", I must say I cannot agree to it either.
Also, with respect to support for academic research in the universities, there is an established system in Hong Kong and considerable resources have been put in it. At present, the principal source of funding available to the eight postsecondary institutions funded by the University Grants Committee is the institutional recurrent or block grant. The educational institutions may also obtain funding for their research projects from other sources, such as research grants managed by the Research Grants Council (RGC). The funding made available to various institutions each year for new research projects is considerable. For example, in the academic year 2012-2013, the funding granted to the eight institutions totals more than $2.5 billion, or a year-on-year increase of 17%. The RGC offers many funding schemes for application by academics in the institutions and there are also subject groups and committees formed to vet and monitor the use of various kinds of research grant funding. The entire system is orderly and rigorous and this can achieve the purpose of ensuring quality in academic research as well as safeguarding public interest. Deputy President, as a matter of fact, I was a member of the RGC for a number of years.
Deputy President, for scholars who work in institutions of higher learning, besides passing on knowledge and training up the young generation, they also engage in academic research, the pursuit of academic excellence and an incessant drive for innovation and progress in society. We should encourage the scholars to go out of their ivory tower and care about the social development in Hong Kong. They should strive to give a full play to their academic edges and take part in public affairs or conduct studies in public policy. It is known that during 9456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 the period from 2005 to 2013, the Administration set aside a sum of $20 million each year for the RGC to promote the engagement of institutions of higher learning in public policy studies. The funded research projects cover a wide spectrum of social topics. There are public policy studies of a general kind, such as those on the educational experience of cross-boundary primary school children, relationship with the family and studies on sense of belonging. There are also public policy studies of a strategic nature, such as those on the building of a retirement protection system in Hong Kong which is sufficiently equitable and affordable.
However, there may be a marked difference between scholars who take part in public affairs and engage in public policy studies and those who engage in the study of an ordinary and purely academic subject. Since public affairs and public policies are involved, all sorts of criticisms and views will appear in society. People do not necessarily agree with the studies undertaken and the conclusions reached by the scholars, which is not strange at all. We should treat these with an ordinary mindset. Deputy President, recently there has been heated discussions in the community on the opinion polls undertaken by the local universities and there are people who put forward their views on the design of questionnaires, data analysis and other technical issues related to opinion polls. I would think that the scholars can try to dispel the misapprehensions of the people by engaging in rational discussions and these can be seen as part of academic exchanges. Otherwise, the parties involved are embroiled in arguments and if they accuse each other, it would be easy for them to fall in further disputes. This would be unfair to all the parties.
In the eyes of the public, the scholars usually give them an impression of reason and fairness. Therefore it is likely for members of the public to believe in the analyses made by the academics and the opinions they hold. I would think that while safeguarding academic freedom, the academics in the process of taking part in public affairs or engaging in public policy studies should strive to maintain a reasonable, equitable and neutral image. Although scholars may have their own personal political beliefs and views, when they write academic articles or comments on social affairs, they should strive to uphold the spirit of science. Deputy President, what is the spirit of science? I admire very much the great scholar HU Shih who wrote these often quoted remarks, "For any remark you make, say only what is grounded in evidence. If you are certain about 10% of a matter, only talk about the 10%. If you are certain about 70% of the matter, only talk about that 70%. Do not talk about 80% and you should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9457 never talk about 100%." Speak on the 10% of the matter if you have 10% of the evidence. This is the scientific spirit which scholars should maintain and this is a pragmatic approach they should take. It will help keep a professional image in the scholars and hence their credibility.
The ancient Chinese poet XIN Qiji has some famous lines which read, "As a young man I had no idea of what melancholy was, and so I loved to climb the stairs and go up the higher floors of a building and indulge myself in a contrived reverie of melancholy as a source of inspiration for my new poems." These lines are well-known to many people. Deputy President, it would be romantic to indulge oneself in a contrived reverie of melancholy to look for inspiration to poetry. But when a person who is preoccupied with political intentions and who indulges himself in an artificial impression that academic freedom in Hong Kong is being curbed and suppressed and who creates a false impression of pathos as a result, it would be nothing but outright shame. It is ironic that people who say in this arbitrary manner that academic freedom in Hong Kong is being curbed and suppressed are people actually enjoying a high degree of academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as the saying goes, "The duck is the first one to know that water in a spring stream is warm." From the beginning of this month up to now, and after the freedom of the press in Hong Kong has been maliciously crushed, many people have sensed that the next target will be academic freedom. It is unfortunate that during the past couple of weeks, those pro-China newspapers and the pro-establishment camp joined hands in their bid to attack Dr Robert CHUNG of the University of Hong Kong. This is indeed worrying.
As we look back, in these 16 years after the reunification, there have been a host of incidents concerning the encroachment of academic freedom in various degrees of seriousness. A number of the more serious ones are incidentally related to Dr Robert CHUNG. The first incident took place in 2000 and it was a row about opinion polls done by the University of Hong Kong and this has been mentioned by a large number of Members earlier. Another incident which is also very serious happened in 2007 at the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd). At the time when Prof LUK Hung-kai was the Acting President of the 9458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
HKIEd, the then Secretary for Education and Manpower asked him to issue a statement to condemn the protest staged by teachers of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union and the HKIEd against school closure and downsizing of classes in schools. When Prof LUK refused to comply, the Secretary for Education and Manpower was alleged to have said, "I'll remember this. You'll pay." Also, the officials of the Bureau asked Prof MORRIS to put Mr IP Kin-yuen, who was at that time a lecturer in HKIEd, into the list for voluntary retirement. The reason was that Mr IP Kin-yuen wrote articles on the newspapers criticizing education policy. There are also some other examples, such as the one about HAO Tiechuan, a ministerial official from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong who in 2012 had repeatedly and openly criticized the survey done by Dr Robert CHUNG on sense of identity in Hong Kong people. The pro-China newspapers attacked scholars SING Ming and CHOY Chi-keung and accused them of opposing China and causing disturbance in Hong Kong by putting up a disguise of academic study. Then starting from two weeks ago, Mr Peter LEE, a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Mr CHEUNG Chi-kong, a member of the Executive Council, and Mr SHIU Sin-por, the Chief Adviser in the Central Policy Unit, all accused Dr Robert CHUNG of issuing opinion poll findings not to the advantage of the SAR Government or the Central Authorities at certain crucial times. They query that these opinion polls are politically motivated and packaged as surveys to promote a certain political inclination or view. So it can be said that these attacks come as a wave and they are well organized.
Deputy President, I do not think it is meaningful to reiterate Article 34 of the Basic Law on the protection of freedom in academic research or stress Article 137 of the Basic Law on autonomy and the enjoyment of academic freedom in the education institutions. This is because throughout these 16 years, as a result of the actions by those in power to trample on the Basic Law, the Basic Law has become nothing more than empty paper. In Hong Kong, which is a self-professed world city, we may as well look at some international practice. In 1988 the World University Service issued the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Learning. In Article 6 of the Declaration, it is provided that "All members of the academic community with research functions have the right to carry out research without any interference, subject to the universal principles and methods of scientific enquiry. They also have the right to communicate the conclusions of their research freely to others and to publish them without censorship." The UNESCO in a paper published in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9459
1997 states: "Higher-education teaching personnel have a right to carry out research work without any interference, or any suppression, in accordance with their professional responsibility and subject to nationally and internationally recognized professional principles …"
In advanced countries like New Zealand, there are measures aimed at safeguarding academic freedom. As for countries without these relevant measures, since they have sufficient protection from democracy, freedom and the rule of law, academic freedom and other kinds of personal freedom are adequately protected. Now in Hong Kong, there is no full-scale democratic universal suffrage and freedoms are constantly being undermined. It can be said that the future of Hong Kong is bleak. The essence of academic research is the pursuit of truth and this quest for truth is not only a common aspiration of mankind but also a force driving progress in society. True words always sound unpleasing to the ears of those in power, but both Chinese and foreign histories warn us that a society which forbids the telling of truth will crumble and fall in a most ignominious manner.
Deputy President, if Hong Kong is to safeguard academic freedom, it must adhere to two aspects. First, the personal academic freedom of scholars in teaching and doing research must be protected. Second, the autonomy of the educational institutions must be maintained. This includes autonomy in internal administration. There are two issues about curbing the encroachment from power. First, there must be checks to the powers of both officials from the Central Government and the SAR Government, and this has to be monitored by the rule of law and a democratic system. Second, all institutions not beneficial to academic freedom must be eliminated. This includes revamping the University Grants Committee, which is a framework for resource allocation in institutions of higher learning in Hong Kong, and abolishing the practice of having the Chief Executive assume the post of the chancellor of a university. The boards of directors in the universities should be made democratic, and an independent redress system across the universities should be set up.
Deputy President, I urge the Government to make reference to the Lima Declaration and legislate to safeguard academic freedom in Hong Kong. I so submit.
9460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on 4 March, Peter LEE, a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), named and criticized Robert CHUNG, Director of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in front of ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the National People's Congress, for frequently releasing public opinion polls which are unfavourable to the establishment and proposed that new surveying organizations be set up to "restore things to order". Peter LEE, being the son of a tycoon, probably knows nothing about the real world and is unaware of the presence of a large number of pro-establishment surveying organizations in Hong Kong, such as the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Centre and the Hong Kong Research Association. What is more, he has no idea that during elections, apart from the exit polls conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU, pro-establishment surveying organizations will also serve as electioneering and mobilizing instrument for pro-establishment candidates. Let me cite a simple example. The annual turnout of protesters on 1 July projected by the public opinion polls conducted by the HKU, which would definitely be lower than the figures released by the Civil Human Rights Front, would be repeatedly quoted by the pro-communist camp, including Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Po, to attack the Civil Human Rights Front for "inflating the figures".
Let me cite another example. The findings of a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Survey Centre of the HKU and commissioned by the Alliance for True Democracy on the degree of support for Occupy Central reveal that the number of people against the idea is obviously greater than the number of those in support of it. Nevertheless, the findings have been reflected by Robert CHUNG faithfully. Furthermore, according to the findings of the public opinion polls conducted during the Chief Executive Election, the popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying the Bandit was way ahead of scandal-plagued Henry TANG. In view of the credibility of the public opinion polls, people were led to believe that "689" had a public opinion basis for ascending to power. So, to put it bluntly, in addition to Ming Pao, Robert CHUNG also had a role to play in assisting "689" in ascending to power. According to the logic of these people, the pan-democrats should bombard the public opinion polls conducted by Robert CHUNG for being biased. There are a lot of such examples that we can cite. In 2007, on the 10th anniversary of the reunification, the findings of a public opinion poll conducted by HKU, which revealed that the trust of Hong Kong people in the Central Government had hit a new height, also appeared on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9461 website "people.cn". Why did it happen that no one attacked the public opinion polls conducted by the HKU at that time for being unscientific?
Some people cited the provision of Article 22 of the Basic Law, which provides that "[n]o department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law" and then criticized Peter LEE, a member of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC, that he should speak from the viewpoint of Hong Kong people instead of making such comments. I am afraid that these people have put their dedication in a wrong place. Members may refer to the Preamble of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China to find out what a CPPCC member should do. I once asked Timothy TONG a question during a public hearing held by the Public Accounts Committee ― since he was a CPPCC member ― if he knew what a CPPCC member should do. He merely gave me a vague answer by saying that he was not as knowledgeable as I was. I told him that it had something to do with collaboration between political parties under the "one-party rule" by the Communist Party, whereas the CPPCC is in charge of united front work, which means "perpetual co-existence, mutual supervision, sharing of honour and disgrace, and loyalty". Have Members heard about all this? Buddy, he is a CPPCC member as well as a member of the Standing Committee. Hence, he must share honour and disgrace with and be loyal to the Communist Party. So, why would he speak in defense of Hong Kong people in front of ZHANG Dejiang? That is yet another extreme.
The controversy over the present constitutional reform, so to speak, is actually a battle for public opinion. The struggle for public opinion is set to take place in the main battlefield between the pro-establishment camp and pan-democracy camp, which will play a decisive role in the voting preference of various parties in the Legislative Council. A newspaper report has quoted pro-establishment members as saying that the Hong Kong communist camp was actually not targeting at Robert CHUNG in bombarding the public opinion polls conducted by HKU and openly declaring that patriotic chambers of commerce and societies in Hong Kong would set up new surveying organizations to conduct public opinion polls. Instead, it was trying to find a face-saver for the moderate pan-democrats to make a U-turn in future in support of constitutional reform. In my opinion, such comments are sensible to a certain extent. Certainly, a new 9462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 surveying organization, even if established, can hardly rival HKU's public opinion polls in the near future.
Today, all Members concur that academic freedom is under threat. Although I do not want to say that Members are slow and unresponsive, academic freedom was already under threat a long time ago. Let us not talk about the past 17 years after the reunification. During the British Hong Kong era, HKU was the only government-funded university in Hong Kong, but it was already the training ground for the colonial government to nurture senior civil servants. Today, HKU is still upholding this tradition as the most important component of the establishment. If not, where did our Administrative Officers come from? Furthermore, the Governors at that time also acted as the chancellors of HKU. Who are the current chancellors of the existing tertiary institutions or HKU? Are they not carrying on the tradition of political interference in academic studies?
While highly educated elites back then had to bow to the colonial government, elites in tertiary institutions, including professors and students, are now compelled to kneel down before the authoritarian government of the SAR. We cannot complain about this because it is already part of the tradition. Hence, I once proposed in a speech delivered in this Council a couple of years ago that the University Grants Committee should preferably be abolished and universities should preferably be allowed to enjoy ample freedom in operating their own programmes because government funding does not imply that the Government may make interference. Currently, who is responsible for appointing university chancellors? The answer is "689". Such being the case, who is responsible for the dismissal and appointment of professors? The answer is that "689" may interfere in an indirect manner. This is really simple. Should this practice remain unchanged, academic freedom will be restrained by political power indefinitely. It is commonsense, is it not?
At present, freedom of the press, academic freedom and freedom of speech in Hong Kong are all facing a crisis. Ming Pao is even more laughable. Following the incident involving the hacking of Kevin LAU, it published an editorial describing Peter LEE's comments as a warfare of words and saying that it was better than a warfare of physical arms. I am really "impressed" by the editorial. There is nothing I can say but express "great admiration". Honourable Members, in a speech given by Dr SUN Yat-sen on the training of revolutionary cadres, it reads, "I would end up being subdued should I fail to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9463 launch a pre-emptive strike. As someone confronted with the danger of death will fight to live, we would rather launch a strike than waiting to be killed". If Hong Kong people refuse to be awakened, if they do not organize themselves to put up a desperate struggle, opinion strongholds will fall into the hands of the enemy one after another. At the end of the day, we can only live in mourning and remain trapped in the mud pool without any prospects of turning around.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the recent campaign launched in Taiwan against the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement, quite a number of university lecturers and professors came forth in support of the students fighting for justice by moving their classrooms to the front line on the streets where many university teachers gave lectures to their students in the democratic universities set up on the streets. I am deeply touched by this scene.
Article 137 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[e]ducational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom", which means that no one is allowed to influence academics in undertaking and publishing research and suppress the freedom of intellectuals to express views and make suggestions. The motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN today on "Safeguarding academic freedom" precisely serves to remind the community of the importance of safeguarding academic freedom and protecting academics in undertaking academic research and participating in public affairs.
Members should recall very clearly that a number of academics were targeted for political interference in the past, with their inclination challenged. Just now, a number of colleagues also mentioned such academics as Prof SING Ming and the campaigners of the recent Occupy Central movement, namely Prof Benny TAI of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and Prof CHAN Kin-man of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, who were attacked by leftist newspapers every day.
Just now, a number of colleagues mentioned the HKU opinion polls incident in 2000. Consequently, Vice-Chancellor of the HKU, Prof CHENG Yiu-chung, pressurized Robert CHUNG and threatened to "dry up" his funding. According to the findings of a public opinion poll conducted by HKU in 2011, Hong Kong people's ethnic identity as "Chinese" had dropped to a 12-year low. In a high-profile manner, HAO Tiechuan, Director-General of the Publicity, Culture and Sports Department of the Liaison Office of the Central People's 9464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Government (LOCPG) criticized the polling method as "unscientific" and "illogical". History has kept repeating itself. A motion moved by Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong on 25 April 2012 on "Defending academic freedom and institutional autonomy" as well as its amendments were all negatived. Let us see if history will repeat itself today.
Regardless of how those in power treat public opinion as "passing clouds", they will invariably adopt the "lose-hit, win-take" attitude towards the findings of opinion polls by raising queries when their popularity ratings are low. As the popularity of LEUNG Chun-ying appeared to have risen a bit recently, he immediately exploited the opportunity to make a fuss by saying that he had secured a pass. What is more, this year is a political year, and there has been continued escalation of political interference in academic freedom. The HKU opinion polls, which are again targeted this year, are facing more serious and politicized accusations. Instead of making interference behind the scene, the Government is now capitalizing the leftists and the media to engage in a war of words as well as approaching Beijing directly for redress.
Just now, Members also mentioned that during a meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference this year, Mr Peter LEE criticized the HKU opinion polls for releasing public opinion findings which were unfavourable to the Central Government, the SAR Government and the whole "love the country and Hong Kong" camp at critical times. Later, CHEUNG Chi-kong, also an Executive Council Member, echoed his view and criticized the opinion polls repeatedly for being politically motivated. Subsequently, extensive personal attacks as well as verbal and written condemnations against Robert CHUNG were found in leftist newspapers over the past few days. In fact, it is a fact cast in iron that the voices against the opposition at critical times were made by these people.
If the findings of opinion polls were favourable to them, they would praise the opinion polls for being professional or at least make use of them. If the popularity of the Government was found to be low, they would swing into action to exert pressure. If they consider the method employed by the HKU opinion polls academically inadequate, they should bring it up for discussion. However, based on the findings of others, they seek to use politically-motivated means and excuses without producing factual evidence to discredit a professional academic who has conducted public opinion polls by legitimate means. This shows that some people are merely exhausting every possible means to paint a rosy picture LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9465 and cover up the public's discontent with the Government, especially LEUNG Chun-ying. Furthermore, members of the public do not necessarily have the patience to understand complicated statistics. The only purpose of using the media as a machinery to fiercely bombard the HKU opinion polls is to deal a blow to its credibility in preparation for doubt cast over the opinion poll findings when constitutional reform is facing a critical moment.
In view of this, I support the proposal of Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment to "support higher educational institutions in safeguarding their independence and autonomy". Safeguarding academic freedom is surely the Government's responsibility. The management of universities should also shoulder a major responsibility in safeguarding academic freedom. Neither the Government nor the higher educational institutions have put in place a system to offer protection to teaching and research staff. When someone makes an attempt to exert political influence on the independence of academics, joint submissions have to be made and statements issued outside universities because universities usually falsify evidences made behind closed doors. In my opinion, the establishment of a system to safeguard academic freedom and to ensure that academics are free from interference and fear is crucial to safeguarding the freedom enjoyed by educational institutions as well as academic freedom.
Mr Martin LIAO's amendment encourages university academics to "concentrate on conducting academic research" and "participate in public affairs with a positive and responsible attitude". While wordings such as "concentrate", "positive" and "responsible" are certainly correct, Mr Martin LIAO gives us the impression that he merely hopes to find some excuses to query that academics participating in public affairs are doing sidelines. As Mr Christopher CHEUNG pointed out very clear just now, he might as well tell academics to bury their head in academic research. While Dr Elizabeth QUAT's amendment appears to have no problems, her speech is problematic. She said that she would encourage the various sectors to engage in more discussions on academic research, but she did not explain what the existing problems were ― no, she was denying the presence of problems directly. She was actually finding excuses to make interference or justify her interference. Dr Helena WONG's amendment emphasizes opposition to political pressure, and this I fully support.
I must reiterate that everyone should be allowed to explore academic issues with a rational attitude, but what we can see clearly now are politically motivated personal attacks against academics. This has already gone beyond the scope of 9466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 general academic discussions. Should the Government continue to say that "any organization and person may express views on different affairs", it is actually giving tacit consent to the Chinese side and LOCPG officials to capitalize leftist newspapers to publish articles full of "verbal violence" to interfere with the right of academics to express views and publish research or even allowing officials or Executive Council Members to take the lead of making interference. As Members and members of the public, we should clearly voice out our resistance and opposition.
We should support academics undertaking research in a professional manner. As the conscience of society, they help us safeguard Hong Kong's principles and values. In the face of cardinal issues of right and wrong, if academics keep their mouths shut (The buzzer sounded) … a loss to Hong Kong.
Thank you, Deputy President.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Brian MULRONEY of the Progressive Conservative Party was elected to serve as Prime Minister of Canada during the period from 1984 to 1993. When he served for a second term, his popularity began to fall and hit the lowest rating of around 11%, probably because he had problems with administration. However, when someone challenged him over his low popularity, he would reply with a great sense of humour, "My approval rating is still higher than inflation."
During the subsequent general election in 1993, his political party was unprecedentedly eliminated with only two parliamentary seats retained, which means that it was nearly wiped out from the Parliament. Nevertheless, this reflects that a democratic society and an undemocratic society such as Hong Kong will react differently to public opinion polls. Leaders in Hong Kong ― including Andrew LO a decade ago and CHEUNG Chi-kong a decade later ― have been evolving around public opinion polls, too. With regard to the discussion on academic freedom today, the most alarming wake-up calls certainly come from the public opinion polls conducted by Robert CHUNG. Just now, several colleagues cited some examples, so I do not wish to repeat them. After all, why should opinion polls be conducted to rate one's performance? One should simply make better efforts. Meanwhile, I think that a democratic society needs … when it comes to academic discussion, people pursuing academic research should not be suppressed by any means.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9467
Just now, a number of colleagues criticized Peter LEE for complaining to the Central Authorities. In my opinion, he is even worse. Why? Hong Kong has been adhering to the principle of "one country, two systems", particularly when dealing with internal affairs under the two systems. To interfere with academic freedom is bad already, and staging a battle in Beijing is even worse. Is Peter LEE, the son of a tycoon, taking the lead in damaging the "one country, two systems"?
I feel very sad because just a month or two ago, we were still debating a motion proposed by Mr Alan LEONG on safeguarding the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this Council. In fact, generally speaking, over the past decades or century, freedom of speech and academic freedom in places around the world have been in progress. Simply put, freedom and openness have been on the rise, regardless of the pace. Even if a comparison is made between Hong Kong and the Mainland ― as we have quite a number of friends in the academic community here today ― even if the Mainland is cited as an example, more academic freedom is enjoyed there when compared with the situation three decades ago. The problem is: Why did we take a U-turn? A decade ago, there was an incident involving Andrew LO. Today, is the act of suppression and bombardment by CHEUNG Chi-kong another means of damaging Hong Kong's "one country, two systems"?
How many times have we debated freedom of speech and freedom of the press in a matter of six months or less? Today, we are debating academic freedom again. In fact, Hong Kong should make more effort in matters related to Hong Kong's economy, people's livelihood, reform and progress. No more mistakes should be made as a consensus should have already been reached on such freedoms. The key lies not in how the democratic camp fights against interference but how those in power treat opinion polls. It is true that they will find the findings unbearable, but in that case, they should have made better efforts. Why did they come out to condemn and suppress others? They should have room for improvement. Furthermore, he is adopting the attitude of a bad loser ― why did CHEUNG Chi-kong not resort to "verbal coercion" and criticize Robert CHUNG when the popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying was higher than that of Henry TANG? Obviously, he was a bad loser. Was he not interfering with academic freedom? This is where the problem lies. It would be another matter had he been talking about these matters or mounting challenges over the past decade.
9468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Deputy President, the components of a democratic society are interwoven. We need freedom of speech to serve as our foundation, but this freedom must be safeguarded by democracy. Today, something happened to the Central and Western District Council. Mr HUI Chi-fung, one of our party members, has apparently been driven out again. Incidents like this are happening. After freedom of speech and academic freedom, we are now talking about police power. I find these topics very boring. These are the things which are already kept inside our pockets, so why should they come out of the pockets again? Is the present situation worse than that during the British Hong Kong era? Apparently, there were no such problems during the British Hong Kong era.
Deputy President, I am very grateful to Dr Kenneth CHAN today for proposing the original motion, but I really hope that we do not need to hold another debate on this topic again three years later. We support the amendments proposed by Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen. Certainly, Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment is very simple for he has only cited the provisions of the Basic Law and expressed hope that the Government can ensure … but what does he mean by "ensure"? The Administration should set an example and prevent cabinet members from taking the lead in damaging academic freedom. LEUNG Chun-ying should exercise control over them rather than asking them to keep their mouths shut after they have already expressed their views. Am I right? Perhaps a high-class approach can be taken by inviting opinion poll experts to conduct academic discussions. Since they are also cabinet members, there should be no problem.
Deputy President, I support the original motion proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN and the amendments proposed by Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen today. Although the amendment proposed by Mr Martin LIAO appears to be nothing special, it is fine so long as the message conveyed is positive because negative messages are no good. What does freedom really mean?(The buzzer sounded)
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the past few weeks or so, we have had a lot of discussion about freedom. Not long ago, we discussed the freedom of speech and now we are discussing academic freedom. It is evident that the present situation in Hong Kong is worrying. We are under the rule of LEUNG Chun-ying, who has started working on various fronts to stifle LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9469 freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom to protest and marches. He has waged a full-scale war.
Today, we will discuss one of these battlefields. Initially, we hope to safeguard academic freedom, hoping that academic freedom will be left intact. Unfortunately, the Government of LEUNG Chun-ying insists on fighting a full-scale war. I do not know if SHIU Sin-por, who is behind LEUNG, has anything to do with this, for I remember he once said that the Central Policy Unit needed to "wage a war on public opinion". How is this "war on public opinion" to be fight? Invasion would be launched from two directions. First, it is to suppress the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, for whoever holds the machinery for publicity will control public opinion. Second, it is to suppress the independence of speech of intellectuals, for they are respected around the world, including in Hong Kong, and they may impose significant influence on public opinion. Therefore, it is obvious that academic freedom is the eyesore to LEUNG Chun-ying or SHIU Sin-por who is behind him.
This eyesore of academic freedom which stings him directly is the opinion poll. That is why Robert CHUNG is always in the "eye of the storm". I recall that Robert CHUNG was involved in the "Andrew LO's incident", and CHENG Yiu-chung eventually yielded to pressure and resigned. Of course, he might not have admitted that, yet we all know that his resignation was related to this incident. We all hope that Hong Kong will be left in peace after the incident, but obviously, the authorities really hate opinion polls.
So, we see the reoccurrence of the incident. This time, Peter LEE, the second generation of a tycoon, took the lead. He mentioned opinion polls alone at the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Certainly, he forecasts that they will conduct opinion poll in future with their own funding. Robert CHUNG is generous. He said that competition was welcomed and he did not mind that. Yet the concern is whether they will suppress the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong led by Robert CHUNG while they fund their own opinion polls. They will obviously do so. For we now see Robert CHUNG being bombarded by criticism from CHEUNG Chi-kong, followed by all the leftist media organizations in Hong Kong. Robert CHUNG has become their "eyesore", for he does not give comments which are pleasant to the ears of the authorities.
9470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Academic freedom and academic autonomy enable a person to publish his or her positions, views and research findings, basing on academic researches but not on the preference of the authorities. Unfortunately, LEUNG Chun-ying obviously considers this approach unacceptable. The fact is that his popularity rating is poor and many of his policies have failed to win the support of the public. Yet he takes his dissatisfaction out on Robert CHUNG. He is the one who is incapable, yet he vents his anger on "reporters" and "whistleblowers", or on Robert CHUNG, who has revealed that LEUNG is out of pace with public opinion and that his popularity rating is low. Therefore, I think Robert CHUNG is now comparable to a thermometer for measuring the situation of academic freedom. Whenever he is subject to suppression, the red alert is on. I believe that following this development, the red alert will be on continuously in Hong Kong.
I do not know how the Education Bureau will safeguard academic freedom. The Secretary will surely make high sounding remarks like the authorities "respect academic freedom", but after saying that, the authorities will use underhand ways to suppress academic freedom. The first point I want to make is that LEUNG Chun-ying is suppressing academics in the political arena.
The second point I want to mention is about an alternative way of suppression: monetary suppression. At present, intellectuals of the younger generation are all contract staff ― Dr Fernando CHEUNG may talk more about this issue later, for he is the "King of contract staff", which means he is employed by contract terms forever. The Government only offers posts in contract terms and does not regard them as permanent staff. In other words, their job security is always under threat. Against this background, how can they enjoy academic freedom? How can they voice their views on academic researches? They fear they may lose their job after they voice out their opinions. Besides, academics engaging in researches have been working so hard that they are almost exhausted, and they can hardly participate in public affairs.
Therefore, I must make it clear that the Labour Party will definitely oppose the amendment of Mr Martin LIAO. He proposes "encouraging university academics to concentrate on conducting academic research, imparting knowledge and pursuing academic excellence." But I do not know why he has to add the subsequent clause "with a positive and responsible attitude". What is positive? Does it mean that criticisms against the Government are not positive, so they cannot criticize the Government? He says that these academics should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9471 accomplish their work before talking about academic freedom. That means they have to devote their life to their job. Members should understand that academic researches cannot be conducted out of the context of society. Academic researches should be closely related to society, or else, it will be meaningless. As such, we should encourage intellectuals to voice out more and conduct more researches for society, and express their independent and autonomous views. Therefore, we oppose the contract system. Thank you, Deputy President.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I may also need to make a declaration. I teach in a university. During the past couple of years my terms of employment have been changed to permanent appointment. After more than 10 years of contract employment, my employment has eventually become permanent. But that does not mean lifelong employment or what is used to be called tenureship. Why do institutions of higher learning have this system of tenureship? I believe the meaning of this is that it is the wish of society that there can be intellectuals working in certain corners of society and as the intellectuals are walking on the cutting edges of thinking and knowledge, universities would like to provide a safe and stable environment for them so that they will not be under the influence of any interests, including commercial interests, as well as political influence. Then they can engage in the pursuit of knowledge from a relatively detached perspective and so revamp our way of thinking. They can explore into the impact caused by different thoughts. Of greater importance is that they can honestly reflect what is happening in society. As members of the academic community we have a responsibility to play the part of a mirror. We should reflect the good things as well as the bad things in society. This is because only by our doing so can there be progress in society. We can then review what we have done and correct things that we have not done so well.
I am sure Mr Martin LIAO is very clear about this point. We in the academic circle have a common understanding and that is, we have three responsibilities: first, teaching; second, research, and the production and dissemination of knowledge; and third, community service. Each of them is indispensable, unlike what Mr Martin LIAO has said in his amendment that priority should be accorded to academic matters and only after these have been taken care of can attention be turned to community service. Nor should it be like the case in our universities now, in which teaching has been relegated into something unimportant. This is because if assessment is to be made on our 9472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 fitness for promotion or our capabilities, what is considered is only the number of articles published in academic journals and nothing else. It does not matter if teaching is good or not. Teaching is considered inferior and trivial and articles published in international periodicals are most valued. This is really going in the wrong track. But anyway, this topic is not our concern today because we are discussing academic freedom.
Recently we can see remarks made by Peter LEE during the meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. They compel me to salute to Robert CHUNG again. Those who are made targets of suppression commend our respect all the more. We can foresee ― actually this is happening now ― that the suppression of Benny TAI and CHAN Kin-man in particular, is getting more and more serious. CHAN is the Director of the Centre for Civil Society at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He used to have a lot of work on the Mainland and he worked with many civilian organizations there. He carried out many studies on the development of civil society on the Mainland. He also visited the related persons there and engaged in academic exchanges. After he has come out and announced that he will initiate the Occupy Central movement, almost all these activities have come to a halt. Now when he goes to the Mainland, he does not have any chance at all to take part in this kind of academic activities. Not only have his chances been deprived, the entire Centre in which he is in charge of and the other Mainland academic institutions to which he is related, have all been affected. This is indeed sad.
Now we see that Robert CHUNG has again become the target of suppression. I wish to talk about an incident related to him back in 2000 and hope that the young people can try to find out what happened at that time. The incident was sensational. At that time Andrew LO, an aide in the Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa's office, paid a visit to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong CHENG Yiu-chung. LO said that Robert CHUNG, a subordinate of CHENG, conducted opinion polls and released findings on the popularity of the Chief Executive and the Government. And these findings showed that the Government had a low popularity and the Chief Executive had even lower ratings. The Chief Executive was unhappy and he hoped that CHENG would stop these things. And to everyone's surprise Robert CHUNG wrote an article and exposed this. This became something very serious. And as a result of opinion expressed by the public, the University set up a committee of three persons with the chairman being a Judge from the Court of Final Appeal. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9473
The hearing was even broadcast live. Andrew LO was also invited to testify. The conclusion reached by the committee was that Robert CHUNG's allegation was substantiated. The Chief Executive's Office had really tried to suppress Robert CHUNG through the Vice-Chancellor CHENG Yiu-chung and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor WONG Siu-lun. The committee had a poor opinion of the character of Andrew LO and said that he was dishonest. In the end, CHENG Yiu-chung and WONG Siu-lun resigned. It can be seen that this was really a traumatic case. A Vice-Chancellor of a university had to step down because he tried to suppress public opinion. But actually he was only a tool. The hands behind the scene are some people in power. A dictator is most afraid of public opinion. When public opinion expresses itself in an organized and most convincing manner, it would be most scary. So when the Government carries out studies and when the Central Policy Unit conducts opinion polls and studies, most of them are not made public. The Government looks for some academic institutions to undertake surveys and studies, but most of them are not allowed to make public after they are completed. The materials to be used have to be approved by the Government and the report to be compiled has to be vetted and approved by it. Where then is academic freedom? What Robert CHUNG carries out are academic studies which are really free. He makes it clear that all the surveys which he is responsible for will all be made public and the sooner the better. Can the Government do so? No one can do this. He does everything in the sun. Then for the coming referendum by citizens (The buzzer sounded) … is an instrument dreaded most by dictators.
Thank you, Deputy President.
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as Dr Fernando CHEUNG said earlier … I must first congratulate him for being employed for a permanent post and he no longer needs to work under contract terms. I have to make a declaration of interest that I have been working in a permanent post in a university for 20 years.
On the discussion of academics, I think I am an academic up to this moment, even though I am wearing the hat of a Member of the Legislative Council today. The question proposed by Dr Kenneth CHAN today on "Safeguarding academic freedom" is an extremely important issue. This has correspondingly brought forth the point that apart from academic freedom, academics also need to participate in public affairs, and they thus have the 9474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 responsibility to promote social reform and progress. As such, all researches conducted, whether or not the findings are favourable or the subject is controversial, should be published in a normal, correct, proper and open manner. This is the focus of the question today. Having listened to the debate for quite some time ― I wonder if I have missed anything ― I notice that the discussion of Members focuses mainly on several incidents, yet the discussion about the definition of academic freedom has not been mentioned in particular.
Perhaps I should change my hat to be an academic. I will try to quote the definition of others to explain what academic freedom is. An academic in the United States published a statement in 1940. In the academic field, whenever academic freedom is discussed, we all know that there was a statement published in 1940. In the statement, explanation of academic freedom was made in a focused manner. It was pointed out firstly that academic freedom meant the entitlement to freedom in teaching, researches and participation in extramural activities. Secondly, it meant that each academic was entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results of such researches. And thirdly, each academic was entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing controversial or even unpopular subjects. Lastly, it was pointed out in the 1940 statement that institutions, be they universities or relevant organizations, could in no way censor the above activities.
In Britain, there is an organization called the "Academics For Academic Freedom" (AFAF), which has also provided a definition to academic freedom. The definition for academic freedom adopted by the AFAF is extremely direct. First, academics have unrestricted liberty to question and test any subject. Second, in the discussion of certain controversial or unpopular subjects, academics should conduct the discussion in a fair and impartial manner. They can certainly state their own views, but they also have the responsibility to state the views for and against the subject to allow students and other people to discuss. Third, which is similar to the 1940 statement mentioned earlier, universities or institutions should never curb the exercise of this freedom by academics.
So far as academic freedom is concerned, I have mentioned the broad definition of academic freedom, which is known by the academic sector. In fact, academic freedom has a "younger brother", which is called "academic justice". What is academic justice? According to the dictionary, when an academic publishes his researches or engages in academic work, he has absolute LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9475 responsibility to remove views which are being suppressed, oppressed or discriminated. He should do that. Even if he discovers that he may be subject to censorship, he should press ahead bravely and should not stop. On the other hand, all institutions should safeguard "academic justice" and should not allow academics to be subject to any oppression.
We have talked about the definition of academic freedom. In fact, during the long discussion, colleagues have brought forth different cases. Why do we need to have academic freedom and academic justice? Deputy President, I try to quote the remarks of John STUART MILL, who is relatively famous in the academic field. He clearly defines why we need to have academic freedom in his book On Liberty. To John, academic free can release human from fossilized and old thoughts. This is the argument holds by John STUART MILL in this book. He points out that academic freedom is the most important for it facilitates the pursuit of truth, which not only ensures us the freedom to search for truth but also the freedom to explain it.
Deputy President, I have spent five minutes to state the importance of academic freedom. Now, I would like to talk about why we should participate in public affairs. In fact, many academics have this question in mind: What is the role to be played by academics when they participate in public affairs? Certain colleagues said earlier, "Academics should not make all the fuss and should hide themselves in universities, doing the researches in their ivory towers!" This is a wrong perspective. We as academics and teachers need not only to undertake the work to teach our students, but also to live out the example of practicing what we preach, which is one of our most important responsibilities. We want to tell the students that academic achievements and research findings need and have the opportunity to be implemented in reality. We should also take the lead in participating in public affairs, for through the participation in public affairs, we can make our students understand that what we study is practicable and not mere empty talk.
At universities, we teach students about the "should-be" scenario, which is the ideal situation that our society should be. However, the concern is that such ideal situation must be practicable as we move on. Take some of the opinion polls conducted by Robert CHUNG at present, as well as the Occupy Central proposed by Benny TAI, as an example. They have merely put forth these ideas which seem to be ideals and try to put them into practice. Therefore, as an academic, I do not see any scenario where the academic freedom in Hong Kong 9476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 will be oppressed and suppressed. Actually, I think if any universities, institutions or the Government adopt any tactics in an attempt to attack or suppress academic freedom, we will fall into the scenario as described by John STUART MILL in his book On Liberty. By then, we will have no way to deliver ourselves but return to the dead alley of fossilization and darkness.
Thank you, Deputy President.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Article 137 of the Basic Law provides that educational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom. We can see that under the "one country, two systems" framework, the enjoyment of academic freedom in Hong Kong has been upgraded to constitutional level, which is not provided for before the reunification. This enables Hong Kong to maintain its competitive edge.
In an expert report, academic freedom is defined as "the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence, without any control of authority except the control of the authority of the rational methods by which truth is established." So, academic freedom can generally be manifested in two aspects, namely the governance of the academic institutions and the resources under the control of academic institutions.
Let us look at the resources or the university funding, which is the greatest concern of the people. The University Grants Committee (UGC) has served as an independent advisory body providing funds to the eight universities in the territory since its establishment in December 1965 to the inception of the SAR. In the past three years, the government funding estimate for the UGC has significantly increased. The amount of funding for 2012-2013 is almost $19 billion, representing 5% of total government expenditure or 25% of the overall education funding. This independent management mechanism ensures that the tertiary education sector will take up a reasonable portion of social resources, thereby enabling ample space for the sustainable development of academic freedom.
Deputy President, the Asia Campus of the University of Chicago Booth School announced earlier that it would move from Singapore to Hong Kong. Some individual scholars believe it is because the University of Chicago has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9477 realized the importance of China to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's advantage in its rapid development of trade and commerce due to its proximity to Mainland China. The fact that Hong Kong has all along attached importance to university autonomy and academic freedom is also an advantage over Singapore. Meanwhile, some universities of Hong Kong run their schools jointly with the Mainland, reflecting Mainland top students' demand for educational services provided by Hong Kong universities. All these indicate that the competitive edge of Hong Kong in respect of a high degree of academic freedom and academic standard has not diminished.
In fact, academic freedom and academic standard are closely related. The three research universities of Hong Kong rank among the top 100 universities in the world in recent years due to their outstanding achievements. The assessment team leader of QS, a higher education publication in the United Kingdom commented (I quote), "The three universities of Hong Kong have hired plenty of famous professors from overseas who excel themselves in research achievements and get high scores in internationalization." (End of quote). In modern societies, there is no national boundaries for the academia. Internet technologies such as Wikipedia and Google Scholar enable globalization of academic exchanges and a greater freedom in this aspect.
Therefore, the internationalization of universities, enrolment of students from countries all around the world and rationalization of funding for university researches are the core principles for building a world-class education system. A greater degree of academic freedom in the research environment will attract talents from various countries to Hong Kong, thereby creating a virtuous circle. Therefore the view that foreign students have taken up a bigger share of the research postgraduate places in Hong Kong should be put into a correct perspective instead of a short-sighted one. Otherwise unwise moves may be resulted.
Deputy President, finally, as academic freedom should be cherished, most of the Members who spoke just now mentioned the use of public funds. Every dollar spent on the academic field should be attached importance by the public and cherished by scholars. The public expect that every scholar will concentrate on teaching and research rather than pursuing political ends and personal gains. Scholars are expected to refrain from politicizing issues in the name of academic purpose or academic freedom. They will not be taken advantage by outsiders, particularly foreign forces. They should not make use of government funds on 9478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 the one hand and claim that they are suppressed by the Government on the other. On the contrary, they should exert themselves in academic research, enhance the education standard so that academic freedom can radiate positive energy and truly serves the community.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): There are a lot of similarities between the so-called "academic freedom" and freedom of the press. Basically, it means telling the truth. Unfortunately, a few days ago, the response of Secretary for Education on the Chief Secretary Mrs Carrie LAM's remark "set the tune with one beat of the gong" is disappointing. When studying in primary school, I learnt the meaning of the idiom "set the tune with one beat of the gong", which means someone has given the final word. But the idiom is being interpreted differently recently. Many people asked the Secretary for Education for this opinion, but he refused to tell the truth. After stating that the idiom meant that the direction of a decision has been determined, he said he had nothing to add. He gave people an impression that he was reluctant to discuss it. What kind of academic freedom is this?
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Many people often think that a university is a fortress. In fact, it operates on its own. Is there academic freedom inside a university? I have also worked as a part-time teacher at a university. When walking in and out of the university, I really feel that the ordinary people will not know the truth. We need some genuine scholars who will voice for academic freedom with a firm stance. What Robert CHUNG did 10 years ago has revealed the truth loudly and clearly. He wrote an article with the Chinese version published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, while the English version was published in the South China Morning Post, enabling Hong Kong people to know the truth. If Robert CHUNG dared not speak out, the people would be kept in the dark. The incident has led to the stepping down of the Vice-chancellor of the university, which is renowned as the top tertiary institution in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9479
Once academic freedom has something to do with government funding, it will become a big issue and we all understand what will happen without saying it. In the Andrew LO incident, Robert CHUNG indicated that someone had threatened in an implicit manner that his funding would be "dried up". If a scholar wants to conduct a research on China-Hong Kong integration, it should be a positive research or else funding will not be provided. Is that sensible? Before the start of the research, the authorities have made it clear that it must be a positive research, implying that China-Hong Kong integration must be a good thing. If the research seeks to prove that such integration is no good, the research should not be conducted. If so, what kind of academic freedom is this?
Even HU Yaobang, who was a great charismatic figure in 4 June incident, had also inspired students of the Beijing University by telling them that regarding freedom of the press, journalists in China should bear in mind that 80% of news should be about positive side of society while only 20% should reveal the dark side of society. Such is not freedom of the press at all.
In his amendment, Mr Martin LIAO proposes that academic research should be conducted with a positive attitude. I really do not know whether we will laugh to death or be scared to death. Some people, who think that Hong Kong is excellent in all aspects, comment that the motion is pointless and query why academic freedom is discussed for no reason. But now there is a person who has suffered the most pressure. He is Robert CHUNG. And this is not the first time he suffered such great pressure. Meanwhile, there are other persons whose names sound familiar to us. They are Prof SING Ming and Prof Ivan CHOY Chi-keung, who is a senior lecturer of a university and always criticized by leftist newspapers. Certainly, scholars who are criticized recently include Prof Benny TAI and Prof CHAN Kin-man, who have proposed the Occupy Central movement. Some people comment that this is political oppression rather than interference with academic freedom and these two concepts should not be confused. But I wish to know how a line can be drawn between them. Even though a scholar is subject to political oppression every day, some people still say that it has nothing to do with academic freedom.
If it is really pointless, then why did Robert CHUNG write a very emotional article which was published in the Media Digest of Radio Television Hong Kong? This should be the last time of the magazine published in printed form. Afterwards, only online edition is available. The tone of Robert CHUNG's article is emotional. Members may read the online version, which is 9480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 entitled "A story inspired by the Emperor's New Clothes". Emperor's New Clothes is a tale by Hans Christian ANDERSEN, which we have heard before. An Emperor who thinks that he has put on a beautiful new suit of clothes is actually tricked into getting nude in a possession. But everyone praises that the new suit of clothes is beautiful and no one dares to tell the truth. Finally when an innocent child blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all, the cry is taken up by others.
Another story told by Robert CHUNG is about GALILEO, who had to fight against the Holy See. Scientists in the past held a misconception that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Through scientific experiments, GALILEO clearly proved that this is not true. Those in power hated to hear his words, and he was persecuted. The conclusion drawn by Robert CHUNG is: "The truth does not sway for the elite".
The last paragraph of his article is most touching. He said, "The Occupy Central movement is in full swing, a series of diatribes against the author ― refers to himself ― will be launched." But in his opinion, as long as there are "courtiers who want to flatter their superiors and swindlers who want to resort to trickery in our society, people will play along with the pretence." So, he will simply ignore it. He said, "We are a mirror for the Emperor to look at his new suit of clothes. Whether the suit of clothes is pretty is not our consideration. The Emperor's wisdom or otherwise depends on whether he believes in the mirror." Thank you.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, recently, someone has openly queried that the opinion polls conducted by Robert CHUNG, Director of the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (the POP), are problematic, thereby giving rise to heated discussion in society. I do not have much understanding of the methodology of the POP, but after listening to the recent controversies in all quarters, I believe many people like me have a lot of questions in their minds. I hope the researchers concerned can give further explanation.
First of all, I wish to point out that freedom is a core value of Hong Kong and academic freedom is a precious asset of Hong Kong. I believe no one will disagree with me. But in my opinion, the incident this time around should not be elevated to such a level that it is regarded as an interference with academic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9481 freedom. In fact, after a scholar has published his academic research, he may be queried or even challenged by other scholars, universities or people in the community. The scholar concerned will defend his research with a view to perfecting his work. Only researches which can withstand challenges will be accepted by the academia and society, and attributable to enhancing the academic level.
Similarly, some people have queried the methodology of Robert CHUNG after publication of the POP results. It is not sensible for us to say that he is subject to interference. The POP will also have to face the public and queries of the non-academic community. This often occurs in the academia. The problem is whether the queries of the non-academic community are justifiable and supported with evidence. If no such evidence can be provided, the researchers can defend their position by submitting their arguments. As long as they can give a clear explanation on how their work is conducted, it will certainly be supported by society. However, if queries are justified, the researchers should also conduct a review.
The controversy rising from the incident this time around is due to the fact that the survey under the POP conducted in March is queried by a person. During the survey, 615 of the 998 respondents have given 50 marks or above to the Chief Executive. In addition, 29 of them have given 100 marks, 383 of them have given 50 marks or below and 91 of them have given zero mark. The one who has queried the findings opines that the Chief Executive's popularity stood at 47.5 according to the POP, but in fact more than 60% of the respondents have given him 50 marks or above. He considers that the methodology of the survey by adopting the average mark cannot accurately reflect the Chief Executive's popularity because too many respondents have given zero mark. It is therefore doubtful that the POP has not published the data in an impartial manner.
I do not understand the methodology of the survey. But as an ordinary citizen, I feel very much puzzled after reading the relevant data. As more than 60% of respondents have given 50 marks or above, why is the Chief Executive's popularity below the passing mark? Certainly, the general public do not understand that the average mark is adopted in the methodology. As the popularity of the Chief Executive is a sensitive issue, and the opinion polls can serve as an important indicator with a substantial impact on society, the person-in-charge of the survey should have a responsibility to make sure that the 9482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 findings are convincing to all. So, when someone has challenged the findings, we cannot say that this is unreasonable.
Robert CHUNG later explained that he has never made 50 marks as the "passing" criterion of popularity. He also said that 50 marks only meant "one half" or "neutral". But those who questioned him have raised examples to refute him, revealing that he did say that 50 was a passing mark. According to the 11th edition of POP Express: "However, as a whole, Chris PATTEN's rating has always stood above 50 (passing mark) throughout the years." Why did Robert CHUNG say something like that? I do not want to give judgment easily. As a citizen who reads newspapers, one may feel very confused. The newspapers often say that the Chief Executive or a particular government official has failed to get a passing mark in his rating. Why have we never heard of any clarification from Robert CHUNG? Why has he all along allowed misinterpretation of what he meant by the newspapers?
Transparency of the opinion polls is another factor which confuses people. The POP has never fully disclosed the original data of ratings. When someone has raised a query, they will post the original data on the website. But special software is needed to open it. Meanwhile, Robert CHUNG said on his website, "This kind of transparency has exceeded general academic and professional requirements. I hope that people from all walks of life can cherish." Honestly speaking, you may talk about business secret in commercial sector. In academic research, however, sufficient evidence or data should be provided to support your research analysis. High transparency is not only a matter of course but also indispensable. The current incident obviously gives us an impression that transparency is very insufficient.
The above is the confusion that I feel. I believe it is also what many people are doubtful about. I hope that the POP can provide us with some convincing explanation to rid us of our queries. All in all, if someone who casts a reasonable doubt while providing certain supporting justification after the announcement of the opinion poll conducted by the POP, I opine that the query should not be regarded as interference. Instead, it should be treated as addressing the issue.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9483
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I am of the view that the purpose of today's debate is to arouse public concern and to alert all of us about the serious situation that Hong Kong is currently facing. President, targeting at academic freedom is the kind of trick that the Communist Party usually adopts. Let us take a look back at the history; we can see that, from the Rectification Movement in the 1940s to the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the so-called movements were all directed against culture or art. From the Wild Lilies by WANG Shiwei to the Hai Rui Dismissed from Office3 in the 1960s, we can see clearly how the Communist Party makes use of artistic and cultural viewpoints to lavishly ignite political struggle nationwide.
The criticisms that Robert CHUNG faces today is, to a certain extent, very similar to the Rectification Movement in the 1940s. At that time, Chairman MAO Zedong consolidated his power through the Rectification Movement. Today, LEUNG Chun-ying tries to consolidate his governance by inflicting a heavy blow on Robert CHUNG, resulting in an autocracy and Communist Party's manipulation. Similar things happened in the 1960s. At that time, YAO Wenyuan published on the newspaper his commentary on Hai Rui Dismissed from Office. Commenting that the book was not any fragrant vanilla but a kind poisonous weed, his writing opened the prelude of a 10-year upheaval in China. Therefore, we should be extremely careful, particularly for those who come from the industrial and commercial sector. If you do not understand the Communist Party's tactics for political struggle, you have to be extremely cautious when dealing with the issue of academic freedom and, hence, cannot disregard the importance of this kind of struggle. This is not just an incident bashing on Robert CHUNG himself. It is about how the Hong Kong Communist Regime silencing all opinions and voices through suppressing academic freedom and targeting scholars. Therefore, my friends, we have to see through the motives behind these series of actions, especially the actions against the University of Hong Kong ever since the era of TUNG Chee-hwa.
President, many people may think that the comment I made just now is exaggerating. I have pointed out more than 10 years ago that the Communist Party's manipulation over Hong Kong was like Monkey King's crown, which would tighten until the free souls of Hong Kong were completely tamed and under control. The question is that whether the suppression of Robert CHUNG's academic research has sounded the death-knell of Hong Kong's academic
3 A theatre play notable for its involvement in Chinese politics during the Cultural Revolution. 9484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 freedom. Will it pave the way for a catastrophe equivalent to the damaging effects of the Cultural Revolution within the next decade? Will Hong Kong, thereafter, never be able to get up after a fall no matter culturally, economically, politically or in terms of social status? It is hard to say for sure. Hence, we cannot afford to take this small academic issue lightly.
Mr CHAN Kin-por has even turned into a political striker a while ago. We have to look very carefully. Those words against Robert CHUNG are not general exchanges of criticism among scholars. They explicitly repudiated him during the 12th National People's Congress (NPC) and the 2nd session of the 12th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). After that, NPC, CPPCC, Executive Council, the strikers of the Hong Kong Communist, Wen Wei Po as well as Ta Kung Pao rose to attack him. It is more than a persecution from the Hong Kong Communist regime. The whole Communist Party of China and the Central Government have set a tone for this suppression. If Hong Kong people or the democratic camp of Hong Kong do not "make a firm stand" to safeguard academic freedom, it will only create domino effect and lead us to step into the shoes of Robert CHUNG. The Cultural Revolution and the Rectification Movement tell us that there would always be corpses lying all over the countryside after series of suppression.
How many people died in the Cultural Revolution? 20 million people died and the economic development of the whole country had stopped for two decades. Would you like to see Hong Kong face the same nightmare? Our death toll perhaps will not be so huge, but it is the political fear and possible deprivation of our freedom of speech that drive Hong Kong people to vote with their feet because Hong Kong people are worried that their livelihood may be affected. The Cultural Revolution occurred in the 1960s when I was a little boy. Every time I walked along Stanley looking out to the sea, I could always see many corpses floating ashore. That was the miserable plight after the people had been deprived of their political rights and freedom of speech.
Why is the freedom of speech and academic freedom so important? The democratic development and technological breakthrough were exactly the product of the Renaissance and the following Age of Enlightenment when theocracy was met with challenges. Hong Kong is the freest and the most open city of China. If Hong Kong is suppressed, the series of problems that surface will only suffocate us and lead us to the darkness. Therefore, if we do not want today to be the beginning that Hong Kong starts walking towards the darkness with China, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9485 we must continue to fight for a bright future with no room for compromise. We must wrestle with the Hong Kong Communist regime and fight through the end to preserve our rights.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I do not know if you have noticed the news about a court case yesterday, the Chinese headline of which reads to mean "Preacher suspected of indecent assault of two Form One students, Judge mistook testicles as the bladder". Initially, another word instead of the word "陰 囊" (testicles) in Cantonese was used at the Court, but the Judge considered the other word was too rude, and the word "陰 囊" (testicles) was used in replacement. The trial judge said that since his schooldays, it had been his understanding that the Chinese term "膀 胱" (bladder) was identical with the term "陰 囊" (testicles), and his reason for the misunderstanding was that he was taught so by his teacher during school. I cite this example to demonstrate why we have to attach importance to education, why we have to strongly oppose national education and why we have to safeguard academic freedom. From issues as minor as a teacher's remark to issues as significant as a report published by academics or universities, more often than not, the public will take them as truth without questioning. This is true even in the case of a judge, let alone the public in general. Once the message is accepted, it will take root in a person which can hardly be changed.
For this reason, we must prevent persons in authority from achieving political purposes on the pretext of education by tampering with the direction of academic researches, or even manipulating the results of academic researches. It is a cardinal sin to exploit public power to do brainwashing exercise on the public. We must be cautious in preventing and precluding such occurrence. Certainly, this is not the first time for this Council to debate on the motion on safeguarding academic freedom. I recalled that in 2012, a former Member of the Legislative Council, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, moved a motion to urge the authorities to legislate for safeguarding academic freedom in response to the incident where HAO Tiechuan, Director-General of the Publicity, Culture and Sports Department of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, had publicly criticized a number of times the public opinion poll on Hong Kong people's ethnic identity under the charge of Robert CHUNG, academic of the University of Hong Kong, as "unscientific" and "illogical", and creating a chilling effect through political interference in academic pursuit. At that time, the Government was urged under 9486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 the motion to legislate for safeguarding academic freedom, and the motion today is a lot milder, which only urges the Administration to ensure academic freedom. Indeed, the word "legislate" used in the previous motion is more determined and powerful.
Back then, Audrey EU and Mr Albert CHAN proposed amendments to that motion. Audrey EU referred to the two declarations of the American Association of University Professors to reiterate the three main elements of academic freedom: first, freedom of inquiry and research; second, freedom of teaching; and third, freedom of extramural utterances and activities. I must quote one of the clauses on the third point, which is worthy of deeper thought, "it is neither possible nor desirable to deprive a college professor of the political rights vouchsafed to every citizen".
This echoes the motion today. Academics, like the average men, are citizens of society who will participate in public affairs, who are entitled to basic rights and who will provide impetus for social progress and reform. In the amendment proposed by "Hulk" on the day, it was pointed out that "after reunification, during TUNG Chee-hwa's era, a furore was caused by Andrew LO exerting influence on the opinion polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong (HKU), resulting in the resignation of the Vice-Chancellor of the HKU". He saw that unfortunate phenomenon prevailing in both the academic arena and the political arena. He said that in this Chamber, there were "political scoundrels" betraying democracy; in the academic sector, there were "academic scoundrels" betraying academic freedom; and on university campuses, there were acts to ingratitude with businessmen and the communists, and the ceremony celebrating the 100th anniversary of a university was reduced to a show to curry favour. All these cannot be denied, for Hong Kong people witness them all. Nonetheless, "Hulk" did say in self-mockery that he was just talking to himself like a fool asking for the moon when he put forth those views, which was particularly true in this Chamber. At that time, he expressed admiration for the spirit of the May Fourth Movement some 90 years ago, hoping students and institutions would come forward to promote the tendency and set the time to bring about far-reaching impacts on society.
Yet when we look at the motion today, are we asking for the moon too? The motion hopes that at least a majority of academics in Hong Kong will actively promote social progress and reform under the prevailing political milieu. In the early years, there was Andrew LO; two years ago, there was HAO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9487
Tiechuan, and this time, there was the rich second generation Peter LEE, Hong Kong Member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Politic Consultative Conference. The names involved had changed two times, but they all have a penchant for "CHUNG" ― a translation of the pun, for the character "鍾" in the Chinese idiom "情有獨鍾" (meaning having a penchant for a person) is the surname of Robert CHUNG. There are many organizations doing opinion poll in the community, but why do they all have a penchant for "CHUNG", Robert CHUNG? Definitely because HKU is a famous university and its opinion polls are influential and have taken roots in the heart of the public. This is incomparable to the so-called opinion polls and study reports published by research centres established arbitrarily via the offering of pecuniary interest to certain people. These opinion polls and study reports have no influence. However, Robert CHUNG may not be astute and perspicacious, for he often publishes opinion polls results contradictory to the views of the Government at critical moments. On the surface, the present incident is targeting at the opinion poll on the popularity of LEUNG Chun-ying, which reflects whether the performance of LEUNG Chun-ying can get a pass. However, Members all know that there was a hidden agenda for such move, just like the story of the Chinese idiom depicting XIANG Zhuang playing the sword dance. In fact, whether LEUNG Chun-ying had got a pass in the opinion poll is not quite relevant. LEUNG's level is higher than Donald TSANG's in a certain sense, for he no longer considers "popularity rating as drifting clouds" but "takes hisses as applause", and he really does not care much about it.
What is the purpose of attacking Robert CHUNG and the opinion poll of HKU this time around? It is for the future, for the constitutional reform and for the "Occupy Central movement". By then, Robert CHUNG will publish the results of another opinion poll ― actually it is reported by the television station today that over 70% of the public support civil nomination. Does the Government have the courage to conduct opinion polls? It may as well commission the City University of Hong Kong to conduct opinion polls, for it seems to prefer this university to others. How about conducting an opinion poll on civil nomination? They may worry that Robert CHUNG will publish results of opinion polls stating that 70% to 80% of the public support civil nomination. By then, the Government will not know how to react. In view of this, they cannot but start working on it now. It starts besmirching him, accusing him of collusion with overseas power and poor standard. Indeed, it does all these out of the concern of the constitutional reform and the Occupy Central movement. Therefore, we must continue to safeguard academic freedom, and to support 9488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Robert CHUNG to remain courageous to speak and act righteously without giving in to the rich and the powerful.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the legislature has been talking about academic freedom frequently, so academic freedom must have fallen ill because this should not have been a question. When we have to discuss it, it surely means that something is being done in the pretext of academic endeavours. Concerning the incident this time around, some people have criticized others for not being up to standard in academic endeavours, rather than saying that there should not be any academic freedom. Now, the person concerned has provided information on the conduct of public opinion surveys for the detractors to look at and it has been pointed out that CHEUNG Chi-kong is wrong. If the latter is really an academic, he should come out and give a response. How possibly can this be an academic issue?
This is just like Andrew LO, who is a heavyweight in zoology. He called himself a "parrot". President, can human beings cross-breed with parrots? He went so far as to say that he was a parrot and I have never heard of such academic endeavour before. The incident at that time was really laughable. In recent years, the SAR Government has become increasingly brazen. I remember that back then, Anson CHAN had not yet left the Government and she said we should forget about the matter but LEUNG Chun-ying said no, insisting that the matter had to be investigated thoroughly, so Andrew LO was handed over and this is tantamount to bringing disgrace upon oneself. However, the situation now is entirely different. The situation now has changed and so have the mass media, so on the face on it, both parties got a sound beating but in reality, this is to totally disregard honour and the sense of shame and morality.
President, since we are talking about academic freedom, let us talk about Mr TAN Zuoren. I do not know if you know him. He has never been here. TAN Zuoren is an associate professor on the Mainland who undertook an investigation into how many children died because of the shoddy construction projects in the earthquake that struck Sichuan and how many schools were shoddy construction projects. This is genuine academic research. Did Chairman MAO not say that without investigation, there could not be any right to speak? Mr TAN Zuoren was really quite stupid because he really believed in the words of Chairman MAO. Only Chairman MAO could carry out investigations and studies, then use the information so obtained to purge people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9489 but TAN Zuoren was doing the same. I have pinned a badge on my chest. LIU Xiaobo is an academic and so is AI Weiwei. These people were arrested merely on account of making some comments. Some have been released but many others have not yet.
President, it can be seen from these examples the deterioration at present. In the past, TUNG Chee-hwa was the master of Andrew LO and "Parrot LO" was the one to come out but now, even the son of a tycoon has come out, so this is quite unsightly. Mates, if he is in the employ of a boss, there is nothing we can say but how can the son of a tycoon be in the employ of a boss? So you can see how great the deterioration is nowadays. In other words, the entourage is already ineffectual, so it was necessary to draw lots to decide who had to come out. I wonder if this is like drawing lots for life or death because when I watched him speak, he was speaking very fast and his voice was very low. From a psychological point of view, speaking very fast in a low voice usually means that even the speaker himself does not believe in what he is saying. After he had made those comments, "LEUNG's fans" then came out to exaggerate them, so is this not all pre-planned?
What we are discussing today is not purely academic issues and we are not comparing who is doing better and who is not. Rather, someone involved in academic research is being attacked. Furthermore, the quality of universities is deteriorating. At present, there are fewer and fewer substantive appointments in universities. President Jasper TSANG, if you were those young scholars, would you have the courage to speak up? Since they are not on substantive appointments, they may lose their jobs after saying a few words and they may not be able to continue to hold their teaching posts after three years. Therefore, nowadays, academics in universities simply stay very quiet. In the City University of Hong Kong, of which LEUNG Chun-ying is the Chairman of the Council, scandals have broken out repeatedly, so what do you think should be done? It would just be a waste of medical costs to inveigh and save him.
President, just now, "Hulk" said in his speech that many similar instances had arisen in our country and that is actually the case. HU Feng was only arguing with Chairman MAO about issues of literature and art but he was reduced to the "HU Feng Anti-Party Group" and after having been released, he went insane. During the Anti-Rightist Movement, Chairman MAO himself put forward the "Double-Hundred Policy" and he even placed the emphasis on the free airing of views in universities but subsequently, he called this an overt plot. 9490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
In addition, there was another matter that was most mystifying and that was more or less like the papal court. He said that the proportion of rightists should probably be about 5%, so the whole country set out to catch rightists because not sufficient numbers of them had been handed out. I am not going to go on to the "Four Clean-ups" Movement. When it comes to the Cultural Revolution, I have given LEUNG Chun-ying the book Hai Rui Dismissed from Office as a present. Its author is WU Han and old MAO did not like this folklore, so he waged a struggle against the author until the latter died. In the Cultural Revolution, all academic freedom was trampled underfoot and people only talked about being "red" but not "professional". What does "red" mean? It means one had to be loyal, that is, everything about Chairman MAO was good.
In fact, the present situation is also the same, only that the price has been reduced. Carrie LAM said that someone had set the tone. Mates, what does setting the tone mean? I believe it is not so; it is only a cur barking at the sun. RAO Geping is the cur barking at the sun. On hearing about civil nomination, he thought that this "sun" was very strong. As we all know, when a dog sees the black spots on the sun, it would go "woof woof". Carrie LAM was the leader and one of the dogs in the pack of dogs. It was said she believed a tone had been set but when asked about it, she said she did not mean it and she was only talking about the speaker. If it was all the speakers whom she referred to, is this not all the more serious? Because it would be proven that that was the barking of a hundred dogs. First, it was RAO Geping who said it, then, Johnny MOK, who is a senior counsel and a member of the Basic Law Committee, did some "shoe-shining". After that, Anthony LEUNG also came out hastily to speak. Mates, this is really one dog barks at a shadow and the pack bark at the noise, so what else can be done?
President, due to the lack of time, I will talk about lessons from history in the future in due course.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, all people are entitled to the freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech from birth. To protect these freedoms, we need to have the freedom of the press, the freedom of publication and academic freedom. These are the core values LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9491 making up this free and open society called Hong Kong. Recently, we find that our academic freedom and press freedom are both in jeopardy. Some time ago, we already had several motion debates on the importance of press freedom and how to defend it. Today, our focus is on academic freedom and the freedom in this regard has also aroused the concern of the entire society.
Academic freedom has to do with such daily activities as the surveys, studies, comments, publications and teaching undertaken by people engaged in academic work. To assess their performance, we should look at whether or not they are independent, scientific and objective and whether or not they have lived up to professional standards. Our attitude of respect for academics is attributable to their courage to seek the truth and the fact that they would never ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful. In an advanced society, the importance of academic freedom lies in the fact that many people have not only the ardour to embark on a quest for the truth but also the courage to speak their minds, even though what they say truthfully may not be accepted by society and is not even tolerated by powerful and influential people.
Just now, Honourable colleagues have cited many examples ranging from COPERNICUS to GALILEO, but does it not also apply to DARWIN, who lived closer to our times? In developing the theory of evolution, DARWIN was subjected to various kinds of suppression in society and could not even keep his teaching post. In a free and open society, we have to accommodate such differences and respect the innovative views of the minority, and more importantly, we have to know that this is the force leading to social progress and people who dare to tell those in power the truth often represent the conscience and force promoting social progress. Unfortunately, these core values of ours have time and again been subjected to challenges because people who want to practice dictatorship and autocracy believe that public opinions and academic endeavours should serve political ends. In particular, on issues of distinct right and wrong and in times of crisis, they believe that the existing powers should not be challenged by academic endeavours.
We can see that since the reunification, without a democratic Government, not only has our scope of freedom been gradually curtailed, we have also been made to feel how the powerful and influential are using their invisible hands to manipulate public opinion. We can see that through the transfer of ownerships, newspapers, radio stations and television stations have fallen under the control of 9492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 soft power. We can see that on the one hand, academic institutions are being suppressed, and on the other hand, they are being influenced by soft power.
A number of Honourable colleagues have talked about the meaning of soft power, which means influencing the administration of universities through fund allocation systems and manipulation of the administration to influence the direction of an entire university in making appointments and conducting research. As regards hard power, several examples have shocked us, including the incident related to the Hong Kong Institute of Education mentioned by Honourable colleagues today and the popularity survey conducted by the Hong Kong Baptist University during the Chief Executive Selection. However, the most remarkable of all is Robert CHUNG of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong. He has been ambushed time and again. As early as 2000, TUNG Chee-hwa made use of his assistant, Andrew LO, in an obvious attempt to pressurize him. In addition, a Director of the Liaison Office, HAO Tiechuan, also named Robert CHUNG publicly in his criticisms. This time around, a person from the affluent second generation went so far as to ingratiate himself by attacking Robert CHUNG with impunity in a session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on the Mainland and even called on property developers in Hong Kong to sponsor universities in conducting separate surveys. It seems he believes that the sponsors can influence the study approach and they can even get the survey results that they wish to see. Such a mentality really strikes fear into our hearts and is outrageous.
If one wants to comment on academic arguments, there is no problem with this. Peter LEE can raise it and so can Mr CHAN Kin-por. All parties can sit down to conduct academic studies, so that the person concerned can give explanations and responses, then academic evaluations can be conducted and the public can even criticize the studies, rather than employing political and high-handed means in the hope of producing a chilling effect and gradually influencing other people involved in academic studies, so that they are aware of the fact that the rich and influential are advancing on them step by step. In the face of the restricted political environment nowadays, the Hong Kong public have to know what the crisis is about and stand united in safeguarding academic freedom.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9493
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, when it comes to academic freedom, I believe no one would voice any objection against it, and everyone would surely support it. Of course, apart from academic freedom, there are also many other types of freedom that require our scrutiny together and by that I mean the freedoms of speech and expression.
I believe part of the background for proposing this motion is that in the sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Mr Peter LEE, a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, made some comments relating to the public opinion surveys conducted by Prof Robert CHUNG. After the former made his comments, I learnt from the press that Mrs Fanny LAW, a Member of the Executive Council, believed that there was nothing wrong with the public opinion surveys conducted by Prof Robert CHUNG but of course, another Member of the Executive Council, Mr CHEUNG Chi-kong, voiced a lot of complaints, pointing out that this or that was wrong with the surveys. However, I think this does not matter because this precisely reflects the preciousness of the freedom of speech. Although both are Members of the Executive Council, their views can be entirely different.
President, I am not acquainted with Mr Peter LEE in any way and do not know what the aim behind his comments is, but I think this is also a valuable aspect of the freedom of speech in Hong Kong. Just now, Mr Albert HO talked about "speaking sincerely and being tolerant to differences". It is also possible that those comments were Mr Peter LEE's sincere words, is it not? Do Members not think that we should show tolerance to his comments? I put forward this point simply because ― we really do not know each other ― I hope Members can look at this issue from different viewpoints and I do not believe that Dr Robert CHUNG would be deterred by this kind of comments. Frankly speaking, in 2000, in the furore over the public opinion surveys of the University of Hong Kong, I believe the pressure borne by Dr Robert CHUNG at that time was greater than any pressure he had been subjected to in his life but still, he managed to pull through all by himself, so do Members think that he will be influenced by this kind of ordinary comments? I believe he definitely will not. Moreover, if anyone thinks that his public opinion surveys are unfair or biased, he may as well approach other universities for the purpose of conducting such surveys. I believe the credibility of The Chinese University of Hong Kong or The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is no less than that of HKU. I believe that if the results of the surveys are different from those of the 9494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 surveys conducted by Prof Robert CHUNG of the University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong public ― we should have confidence in the Hong Kong public ― can analyse on their own to determine which ones are credible, which ones are fabricated and which ones are bought with money.
President, I think that freedom is precious and be it academic freedom or the freedom of speech, we should cherish all of them. However, when someone makes some comments, no matter if the comments expressed are sincere or not, he is entitled to his freedom of expression but after expressing his comments, he is regarded as having suppressed academic freedom, so I think this is somewhat illogical.
Therefore, we support the original motion moved by Dr Kenneth CHAN. As regards Mr IP Kin-yuen's motion, as he thinks that academic freedom is being seriously interfered with by intangible political interference, I think this has deviated too far from the fact and I do not believe that academic freedom in Hong Kong can be affected. In the final analysis, I still have full confidence in all the universities and academics in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, both Dr Elizabeth QUAT's and Mr Martin LIAO's amendments talk about safeguarding academic freedom, so we will support both. In addition, since Dr Helena WONG's amendment, which says, "…opposes the Government or the rich and powerful pressurizing academic institutions and making use of opinion polls as a political tool …", is relatively speaking milder in tone than that of Mr IP Kin-yuen's motion, so we will support it, too.
Thank you, President. I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, you may now reply and you have five minutes.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9495
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Concerning my motion, four Members, namely, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr Helena WONG, have proposed their respective amendments.
I am particularly grateful to Mr IP Kin-yuen and Dr Helena WONG. They have spelt out some of the developments that we could recently see. As I said in my opening speech, there is a reason for my sponsoring this motion debate. The reason is that in the sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, someone who is the second generation of a tycoon ― Mr Peter LEE ― targeted Dr Robert CHUNG and the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong and directed unreasonable allegations, so I was prompted to propose the motion.
In view of this, Mr IP Kin-yuen made a point to remind the public in his amendment that the Government and the public have to pay attention to the relevant stipulations of the Basic Law. Meanwhile, as a responsible Member, on seeing the latest developments, he feels that the situation is dire and academic freedom is under threat.
This is not an isolated incident. Since 2000, we have seen time and again the challenges posed to academic freedom and the unfounded allegations directed at the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, Dr Robert CHUNG and his colleagues. Mr IP has spelt out these facts very clearly.
Mr IP's amendment also mentions how the Head of the Central Policy Unit criticized Dr Robert CHUNG, saying that his public opinion surveys might be capitalized and packaged by people with political inclinations to promote a certain political inclination or viewpoint. In fact, the Head of the Central Policy Unit did say such a thing, so why should one voice objection against this basic fact? He said that this was the fact but did he try to verify it? Therefore, I agree with Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment.
Dr Helena WONG's amendment also voices in particular her opposition against the pressure exerted on academic institutions by the Government or the rich and powerful and the use of public opinion surveys as political tools. It has also given a simple and direct response to a series of comments and criticisms directed at Dr Robert CHUNG by Mr Peter LEE, CHEUNG Chi-kong and SHIU Sin-por.
9496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
President, concerning the amendment moved by Mr Martin LIAO, no matter how I think about it, I am still puzzled. What is meant by "with a positive and responsible attitude"? Concerning scathing criticisms, if what is said is the truth, we should all welcome and embrace it. Does he mean that the rich and powerful do not like to listen to negative comments and for this reason, the academia should be subjected to constraints?
What is even more unfathomable is that he deleted a very important sentence made by me. I say all academic research and activities should be free from the interference of any person or any forms of interference but he deleted this line. This is such a basic fact and the Lima Declaration also says so, President. The Lima Declaration, which is renowned as the Bill of Rights in education, says, "… states are under an obligation not to interfere with the autonomy of institutions of higher education as well as to prevent interference by other forces of society.". For this reason, I am sorry but I must oppose this amendment and I also call on Honourable colleagues to oppose it.
As regards Dr Elizabeth QUAT's amendment, she moved a sentence of mine to the back but added a point to it, "… encourages the various sectors of society to engage in more discussions on academic research …". She is incapable of expressing herself adequately. What she actually means is calling on us to be tolerant to Peter LEE, CHEUNG Chi-kong and SHIU Sin-por. All these are duplicitous amendments, so I call on Honourable colleagues who truly understand what academic freedom is and truly know what core values to defend to cast opposing votes.
President, in today's motion debate, I hope Members will understand clearly the concerns of society and the concerns in the academia, support my original motion and the amendments moved by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Dr Helena WONG, as well as oppose the other amendments. I so submit.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I sincerely thank Members for their valuable input and viewpoints which enable us to reaffirm the importance of academic freedom in Hong Kong. As I pointed out in my first speech, academic freedom is a core value of Hong Kong. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) will resolutely safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9497
I must stress once again that Hong Kong has provided solid protection for academic freedom through legislative and institutional means, with a view to ensuring that such activities as knowledge transmission and academic research can be carried out in a free environment. A number of Members have mentioned earlier the concerns over and discussions on the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) by some individuals and organizations in society recently. Some Members are even concerned that these discussions may amount to academic interference. I must point out that Hong Kong is a pluralistic society where people enjoy the freedom of speech. It is common for members of various sectors in the community to express their opinions on issues of public concern and even comment on each other's views. Particularly in the academic sector, we can often see open debates on individual arguments by academics who hold different academic theories, and this is an effective channel for upgrading academic standards. Most importantly, these discussions will not compromise the freedom and independence of academic research. In fact, over the last two decades or so, since the launch of the POP of HKU, their poll results have for many times aroused extensive attention and discussion in society but the continuity of the POP has not been affected. This shows that the institutional safeguard for academic freedom in Hong Kong can absolutely stand the test of time. In fact, we can see that rational discussion, dialogues and exchanges are conducive to taking forward the development of society. It is indeed unnecessary for us to cast doubts on the determination and achievement of Hong Kong society in persistently and firmly upholding academic freedom and freedom of speech because different sides have expressed different views on certain issues.
Hong Kong has all along been a free, pluralistic and open society where everyone enjoys the freedom conferred by the Basic Law to express views on various affairs, and we must also respect their right to do so. Without the support of substantive evidence, it is inappropriate for anyone to indiscriminately regard comments and opinions as interference with the academia. On the contrary, what is most precious about academic freedom and the freedom of speech is that everyone can speak their minds freely while respecting each other, and through rational discussion and repeated debates and studies, various sides are encouraged to explore knowledge and issues of social concern objectively from a diversity of angles. Let us take opinion polls as an example again. The discussion on the methodology for conducting opinion polls in society has objectively enhanced public concern about and understanding of opinion polls and encouraged thinking by various sides. It has also prompted the organization 9498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 responsible for conducting the opinion polls to release the raw data as well when publishing the poll results in order to further enhance transparency in response to the concerns of the community. From this we can see that rational discussion that allows diversified views and bases arguments on facts can indeed facilitate positive academic development to truly give play to academic freedom.
With regard to Members' concern about participation in public affairs by university staff, I wish to stress that like the general public in Hong Kong, the staff of university are under the protection of law and enjoy the freedoms of speech, of assembly, of religion, and so on. They also have the right to participate in social affairs under the general principle of abiding by the law. Meanwhile, individual University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded institutions have also drawn up guidelines on participation in external activities by their staff. Generally, the institutions encourage their staff to participate in public affairs as a way to repay society with their expertise and facilitate the passing down of knowledge but the first and foremost condition is that they should be responsible to the university and the students. Therefore, the relevant activities absolutely cannot affect their normal teaching and research work. Besides, the staff are required to take part in these activities in a personal capacity, not as staff of the institutions. There must be a clear distinction between their work in the institutions and their external activities. In case any interest is involved, the staff are required to make prior application or declaration to the institution in accordance with the relevant stipulations of the institution for handling matters relating to interests.
In fact, like professionals in other sectors, many university staff have actively participated in public affairs, such as taking up public service in government advisory and statutory bodies, taking part in the charity work of non-profit-making organizations, and even contesting elections to take part in politics. For instance, many Members of the Legislative Council and members of District Councils also work in tertiary institutions. We respect the freedom and right of people from various backgrounds and professions to participate in social affairs in accordance with the law, and their contribution to society should all the more merit our recognition. However, they should not confuse their external activities with their role in teaching and conducting research in the institutions. The community expects the staff to work assiduously in performing their teaching duties, in order to nurture students who are capable of thinking independently and making objective and rational analyses while having professional knowledge and an international vision, and at the same time LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9499 respecting a pluralistic culture and different views, so that they will become good citizens who care for society and abide by the law.
Some Members mentioned the research work of the staff. In fact, the UGC, which has been established for nearly 50 years, has all along played an important role and act as a "buffer" between the Government and UGC-funded institutions. Specifically, matters relating to the distribution of the $15 billion recurrent grant and over $1 billion funding for research projects annually are put under the charge of the UGC and its Research Grants Committee (RGC) with no involvement from the Government. The UGC Notes on Procedure provide that research projects are within the autonomy of the institutions, and the institutions will decide on the types and topics of research to be conducted in accordance with the direction and strategy of their academic development. Of the existing research projects funded by the RGC, apart from the theme-based research projects focusing on themes that are of a more long-term nature and strategically beneficial to the development of Hong Kong, all other projects are not subject to any restriction in respect of the theme of research. In respect of the evaluation of the funded projects, the RGC has all along adopted a peer review system which is recognized in the international academic sector, with the academic quality of the research project being the first and foremost assessment criteria.
Like Members, the SAR Government very much treasures academic freedom. However, it takes more than the legal system or a role played by the Government to defend academic freedom and institutional autonomy. What is equally important is the academic sector and even society as a whole taking actions to put it into practice. For instance, the institutions should practice good governance to enable their staff to fully give play to their talents; scholars should strictly uphold academic ethics and professional integrity while acting impartially in pursuing knowledge and nurturing the next generation; and various sectors of the community should work in concert to create an environment that encourages the expression of a wide spectrum of opinions in academic discussions.
Like Members who have spoken, I support academic freedom but I share the view of some Members who have spoken and cannot agree to the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Dr Helena WONG. Regarding Mr IP's views that academic freedom is under severe threat and that the tangible and intangible political interference experienced by higher educational institutions have never ceased, posing great risk to the spirit of certain articles of the Basic Law, I think these views are unfounded. As I said earlier in my 9500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 speech, the expression of opinions on issues of public concern by different people in society precisely shows that the freedom of speech and academic freedom are brought into play. Despite differences in viewpoints and perspectives, it should not be regarded as one side suppressing the other. Dr Helena WONG mentioned "opposing the Government … pressurizing academic institutions" in her amendment and this is far from being true. I must reiterate that the Government respects academic freedom and institutional autonomy and has never interfered with or attempted to influence the work of any academic institution. Therefore, I call on Members to oppose the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kin-yuen and Dr Helena WONG.
President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, you may now move your amendment.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion be amended.
Mr IP Kin-yuen moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "academic freedom is the cornerstone for promoting social civilization and progress as well as an integral part of the autonomy of educational institutions; yet, since the reunification of Hong Kong with China, the severe threat to academic freedom, and the tangible and intangible political interference experienced by higher educational institutions have never ceased, posing great risk to the spirit of Article 22 of the Basic Law, which provides that '[n]o department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law', and Article 137 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that '[e]ducational institutions of all kinds may retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom'; earlier on, a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference openly criticized the Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong for providing a public opinion basis for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9501
demands of the opposition camp by repeatedly releasing opinion poll results which were unfavourable to the Central Government and the SAR Government; subsequently, the Head of the Central Policy Unit also pointed out that opinion polls might be capitalized and packaged by people with political inclinations to promote a certain political inclination or viewpoint; and recently, leftist newspapers have also published long articles one after another to attack Robert CHUNG Ting-yiu, Director of the Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong; these incidents show that academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions are now facing a new round of challenge; in this connection," after "That"; to delete "safeguards" after "this Council" and substitute with "considers that academic exchanges should be conducted on the basis of facts and rational discussions, without comprising elements of violence or menaces and any forms of political interference, and urges the Government to safeguard"; to delete "encourages" after "academic freedom," and substitute with "encourage"; to delete "and urges the Administration to" after "social progress and reform,"; and to add ", support higher educational institutions in safeguarding their independence and autonomy, and ensure that academics and students can participate in public affairs discussions in an environment free from fear and threat" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr IP Kin-yuen to Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
9502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Mr IP Kin-yuen rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.
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, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Mr POON Siu-ping abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9503
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, six were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and seven 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.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Safeguarding academic freedom" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Albert HO be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
9504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is 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 motion passed.
I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Safeguarding academic freedom" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, you may now move your amendment.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion be amended.
Mr Martin LIAO moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "universities, as the highest academic institutions, shoulder the important responsibilities of expanding the frontier of knowledge and nurturing the next generation;" after "That"; to delete "," after "academic freedom" and substitute with "for encouraging university academics to concentrate on conducting academic research, imparting knowledge and pursuing academic excellence, and"; to add "with a positive and responsible attitude while engaging in academic research and teaching" after "public affairs"; to delete "promoting" after "for actively" and substitute with "assisting in"; to delete ", and" after "social progress and reform" and substitute with "; this Council also"; and to delete "all academic research and activities are free from any forms of interference" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "universities enjoy academic freedom for achieving the above objectives"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Martin LIAO to Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9505
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Kenneth CHAN rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr 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, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment.
9506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment and six 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.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, you may move your amendment.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion be amended.
Dr Elizabeth QUAT moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To delete "encourages academics to participate in public affairs for actively promoting social progress and reform," after "academic freedom,"; and to add "; at the same time, this Council encourages academics to conduct studies on and participate in public affairs, and also encourages the various sectors of society to engage in more discussions on academic research for actively promoting social progress and reform" immediately before the full stop."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9507
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Elizabeth QUAT to Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Dr Helena WONG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr 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, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment.
9508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and six 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.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, you may move your amendment.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion be amended.
Dr Helena WONG moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "opposes the Government or the rich and powerful pressurizing academic institutions and making use of opinion polls as a political tool," after "social progress and reform,"."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9509
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Helena WONG to Dr Kenneth CHAN's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the amendment.
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, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
9510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, 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 WONG Kwok-kin, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and six 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.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, you may now reply and you have seven minutes 36 seconds.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, apart from the four Members who have proposed an amendment, 19 other Members have also spoken tonight. I thank every one of them for actively expressing views on this motion on "Safeguarding academic freedom".
President, what exactly has Robert CHUNG done wrong? I think Robert CHUNG has rightly done many things that consequently set off successive rounds of attacks on him. In 2000 there was the Andrew LO incident. Then there was HAO Tiechuan, and today there are Peter LEE, CHEUNG Chi-kong, and SHIU Sin-por. What he has done is actually just a very simple and direct LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9511 thing that an intellectual or a scholar will do and that is, to speak the truth. With his academic training and his conviction for social reforms, he has actively participated in public affairs and encouraged many more people to focus on the various problems that have emerged in the governance of Hong Kong and to pool collective wisdom, and that is all. But why would this result in such fierce attacks on him especially by people with power and influence? What other reason can there be if it is not the Government failing to understand the meaning of academic freedom?
So, I am sorry to say that even though Kevin YEUNG is acting in the place of the Secretary today, I think he is turning a blind eye to his conscience in making those remarks on behalf of the Government. When the Government or key members of the Government hurled such attacks at Robert CHUNG and the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), he should do some soul searching and conduct a review, rather than shielding these attacks. If he genuinely has the sincerity to discuss academic issues, frankly speaking, when Dr Robert CHUNG's POP held an international conference on the international standards of opinion polls and their applicability in Hong Kong last year, he should have gone there to take a look and participate in the discussion. Why should he choose to hurl attacks only at this time during the plenary session of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference?
President, a number of Members have put forward a lot of specious arguments earlier on, and I must correct and clarify them. For example, Mr NG Leung-sing said, "You people are taking money from the Government". What is he up to? Are you trying to buy scholars off, so that they will clear the way for your interference? You are wrong. Even if we are taking money from the Government, we are actually taking money from taxpayers. Members, do not confuse these two concepts. We are not taking money from LEUNG Chun-ying; nor did we take money from TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG before. We must never ever get it wrong. Under the protection of this system and under the principles of academic autonomy and academic freedom, scholars must find the truth and seek the truth for society and firmly uphold academic principles and positions. So, if anyone in this Chamber should think that some people who take money from the Government are betraying the Government ― what kind of thinking is this? This is feudalistic, conservative and stone-age thinking.
9512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
President, Mr CHAN Kin-por said earlier that one of the areas showed a zero mark. Zero is still a mark. Have you ever got a zero mark in dictation? You probably have not, but many people have got a zero mark before. A zero mark still carries a meaning, Members. Therefore, what is so special for someone engaging in politics, including you and me, to be given a zero mark? A zero mark is still a mark. Could it be that a zero mark should be neglected and only a score of 100 should be given attention? This is calling a stag a horse and confusing black and white. You are not treating public opinions as floating cloud. You are treating public opinions as dirt. How dare you say such a thing!
Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok cited a remark of HU Shi who said to the effect that we should say only what is supported by evidence. But if you look at the attacks hurled by SHIU Sin-por, CHEUNG Chi-kong and Mr Peter LEE on Dr Robert CHUNG, how far did they make their remarks based on evidence? Or if you take a look at the leftist newspapers which alleged over and over again that Robert CHUNG had had close contacts with overseas intelligence personnel, how far did they say this based on evidence? Why did they make these allegations? They even kept on accusing him and urging him to give an explanation. These allegations are made out of trumped-up reasons and are grossly unfounded. This is downright nonsense, and you are telling us to say only what is supported by evidence.
Many Members in this Chamber are worried about Occupy Central. They are worried about public opinions becoming volatile and so, their mindset as reflected is that they are gravely concerned that our scholars will take part in public affairs to uphold justice and the truth and to strive for democracy and freedom and that the scholars will come forth and take actions to fight for democracy, which is what they think they should do in order to have a clear conscience when they face themselves, history, their role in bearing witness to the times, and the next generation. You certainly take exception from what they are doing, thinking that it is best for them to go back to the university, shut the doors and bury their heads in their research work, and that it is best if nobody would be interested in what they have accomplished and they will not care about too many things.
Besides, many Members, especially the pro-establishment Members, have said, "Let Peter LEE, CHEUNG Chi-kong and SHIU Sin-por say whatever they like. Nothing is going happen." Sorry, if what they said are specious LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9513 arguments, we must voice out and what is more, this has happened not only once. From Andrew LO to this incident now, we have seen for many times these people with power and influence being self-opinionated and suppressing academic freedom and academic researches and criticizing scholars without providing facts to support their allegations. These misdeeds are obviously unacceptable, and they cannot get by under false pretenses with your protection through this debate here in this Chamber.
Mr Martin LIAO has used a lot of foreign terms mainly in German to explain his amendment. But I am sorry. We also have the freedom from fear and freedom from interference and so, we cannot accept it.
Lastly, I thank Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. I have also paid attention to the motion debate in April 2012. But you are telling me that under the governance of LEUNG Chun-ying nowadays, you are going to ask him to enact legislation to safeguard academic freedom. Are you kidding? I hope that this is not what you think. I definitely will not think this way. If you ask this Government to safeguard academic freedom, you are fooling yourself and putting your own academic freedom at stake. So, I am sorry. I absolutely have paid attention to the debate back then, and I have particularly paid attention to the fact that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong voted against the motion in the debate back then. Today, God knows everything you do, so do according to your conscience, and let us wait and see whether my motion will be passed today.
With these remarks, President, I appeal to Members to support my original motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Kenneth CHAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
9514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014
Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the motion.
Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the motion.
Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 March 2014 9515
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present, eight were in favour of the motion, nine against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, 11 were in favour of the motion and six 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 motion was negatived.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday, 9 April 2014.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Nine o'clock.