LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13389

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 28 June 2018

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13391

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

13392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13393

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

DR CHUI TAK-YI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

13394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, this Council will continue to deal with the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 27 June 2018

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning. I am the first Member to speak on the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") this morning. I have paid particular attention to the wordings of the motion which is mainly related to the alleged substandard construction works carried out at the new platforms of Hung Hom Station and other related matters.

The Secretary is now present. I wonder if he attends the Legislative Council meeting today because he has learnt from the news report this morning that the Legislative Council started discussing this motion moved under the Ordinance yesterday. President, I know that Secretary Frank CHAN has a busy schedule, and I learn that the Secretary only knew about the To Kwa Wan Station incident from the media reports, and he also learnt from the media about the blunders at Exhibition Centre Station. It turns out that this is not the case because the blunders at Exhibition Centre Station were uncovered earlier.

Since the media started to report on the blunders of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") on 30 May, incidents have happened one after another. Earlier in March this year, a problem concerning the connection of steel bars was found at the Hung Hom Tunnel. A tunnel below the funeral parlour in the vicinity of the Hung Hom Station platform was found to have serious water seepage problem. As the problem could not be rectified by various means, the concrete on the surface of the tunnel was removed, revealing the faulty connection of steel bars. Consequently, a 132-metre section of a diaphragm wall had been removed. If I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13395 remember correctly, a few defects were also found. The incident was reported in the press release of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") in March this year.

From yesterday to today, the most special development is that a key person, Mr POON (a member of the Liberal Party) of the China Technology Corporation Limited was exclusively interviewed in an online radio programme last night. For the first time, he talked in detail about what happened to him and such incidents had not―I highlight that they had not―been included in MTRCL's report that I have now in hand. Mr POON specifically pointed out that all his statements had not been included in the report. He further mentioned that he saw more than 17 steel bars being cut short. According to his understanding, the machine used to cut steel bars was not an ordinary machine. Workers have to use a special machine to speed up the cutting of steel bars.

At present, many people have focused their attention on the cutting of steel bars but the selected committee that Dr CHENG Chung-tai requested to set up under the Ordinance will also inquire into other related matters. We will definitely support this motion.

President, you may also notice that there is a similarity between the projects of SCL and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Both projects are carried out under entrustment agreements. The cost overrun of XRL in 2014 had caused project delay, but the Government was informed of the situation at a very late stage. Finally, an expert panel also led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN was set up to conduct an investigation. Many pro-establishment Members and the Government are of the view that this motion is creating duplication. Since the Chief Executive has announced that an independent commission of inquiry ("the Commission of Inquiry") led by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN would be set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86) to investigate the incident, why should an investigation be conducted by the Legislative Council?

First of all, at this moment we do not know the scope of inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry. Under Cap. 86, the Chief Executive in Council shall decide the scope of inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry. Will the scope be appropriate? I believe that it is totally inappropriate to have our hands tied so soon. Moreover, even if the Legislative Council sets up a select committee under the Ordinance, the scope of investigation will be highly flexible and we 13396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 will take the lead. Even if the scope of inquiry for the Government's Commission of Inquiry has been set, I absolutely believe that Legislative Council Members have the wisdom and capability to determine a scope of investigation that can avoid duplication and a waste of resources.

If the Government really conducts an investigation under Cap. 86, I must clarify certain points. I have in hand a diagram showing the intricate relationship, and that is the entire monitoring system of SCL. MTRCL is on one side while the SAR Government is on the other and their relationship is even more complicated than spider webs. There are different reporting levels and an outsourced Monitoring and Verification ("M&V") Consultant. We learnt from the report that there is a consultant firm called Pypun Engineering Consultants Ltd., and there is a M&V consultant and another consultant with functions unknown. They have to meet with some committees, the Government and MTRCL once a month and some meetings are held once a quarter. The relationship between these bodies is really strange. Therefore, if the Legislative Council can set up a select committee under the Ordinance, the monitoring system should definitely be a target of investigation.

I am also very interested in another point, i.e. the entrustment agreement of SCL. I have in hand a copy of MTRCL's Announcement of Audited Results for the year ended 31 December 2017. It is stated on page 14 that the SAR Government has to pay project management fee under the entrustment agreement of SCL. In other words, the SAR Government uses taxpayers' money to entrust MTRCL. MTRCL is not the developer and its duties are similar to those of consultants. Even though the Government has entrusted MTRCL, this does not mean that it has outsourced the responsibility to MTRCL.

Under the entrustment agreement, the Government has to pay MTRCL a consultant or management fee of $7.9 billion. Assuming that the Government has to claim compensation from MTRCL for the losses it incurred, the ceiling is $7.9 billion. I cannot help but ask why the Government can predict that its losses will not exceed $7.9 billion. I think this is an unequal provision; why is the claim limit set at $7.9 billion?

President, I noted that for the year ended 31 December 2017, the annual project management fee revenue of MTRCL was $992 million (it was $979 million in 2016). In other words, despite the mismanagement and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13397 problems at Hung Hom Station now under discussion, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station, the Government still has to pay MTRCL an annual management fee of nearly $1 billion.

I would like to know if the SAR Government has bargained with MTRCL. How is the service attitude of MTRCL? Such kind of service attitude is really unacceptable today. Secretary Frank CHAN, do you intend to keep handing over some $1 billion to MTRCL? Will you continue to pay the management fee despite the poor service of MTRCL? I wish to know how the Bureau concerned takes care of taxpayers' money. If the Secretary has asked MTRCL to take good care of public funds, he should know that MTRCL could not possibly deliver as evident by the serious cost overrun of the XRL project.

If Honourable colleagues have read the Report of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Independent Expert Panel, they should know the answer. President, at that time, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN had pointed out the many absurdities in MTRCL. When writing this report, the Expert Panel had read the two reports submitted by MTRCL. The reports were written by independent directors of MTRCL, which is different from the arrangement requested this time. Nevertheless, as stated in paragraph 3.21 of the Expert Panel report, "the reports lack single-source data or forecasts on completion dates (i.e. the forecasts are based on speculation), and rarely offer any conclusions".

As I said earlier, the intricate relationship diagram mentioned above showed that a number of subsidiary companies of MTRCL have written reports for MTRCL, which then submitted the reports to the Government. In other words, the Government relied heavily on the reports of MTRCL. However, a lot of information contained in the reports of MTRCL has not been independently verified or lacked single-source data.

I find the most apt description in paragraph 3.24: "MTRCL's first IBC Report identifies instances of individuals in key positions failing to communicate what they knew in respect of the significance of delays to XRL. This may be partly due to the culture within MTRCL that apparently discouraged the elevation of bad news without solutions and partly due to unfounded optimism within the Project Team. Either way, this failure in communication left senior officers in MTRCL and Government unsighted as to the true severity of delays".

13398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

These problems are still happening today and I believe the Secretary should be well aware of that; otherwise, why is he still considering, after such a long time, whether the cost overrun should be approved? Second, MTRCL has completely dismissed its responsibility for project delay, claiming that the delay was due to the delayed handing-over of the Wanchai Sport Ground for three months. I am not sure if MTRCL itself has delayed or the Government has delayed in providing the site or there are many other excuses. If another bomb is found, the construction may be delayed for a few more months.

President, all these problems can be included in the scope of our investigation, though we are now discussing Hung Hom Station. The problems at Hung Hom Station can fully reflect that there are no provisions in the entrustment agreement that enables the HKSAR Government to monitor MTRCL. Moreover, MTRCL can only make public appeals, through the airwaves, to companies like Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, urging it to give an account to the public. Even the contractor can do nothing. Regarding these contractual problems, if the Secretary has time, he can read the Expert Panel report which had mentioned all these points.

Last but not least, if the Legislative Council can set up a select committee, we should particularly look at one problem, which is stated in paragraph 6.13 of the Expert Panel report: "as indicated earlier in this report, the Panel is of the view that, for a project of such size and complexity, there were significant failures in oral and written reporting". While there was no evidence of inaccurate reporting, there was evidence of the following shortcomings. Why is there no evidence? President, it is mainly because the Expert Panel is not a task force or a committee of inquiry with statutory power to summon witnesses, collect evidence or request witnesses to hand over documents and related information.

Yet, if the Legislative Council (especially the pro-establishment camp) is willing to invoke the Ordinance to set up a select committee, we can, as I said earlier, determine the scope of investigation. Pro-establishment Members and the pan-democrats absolutely have the ability and wisdom to work together to draw up the scope of investigation and avoid duplication. This will allow us to find out the truth and provide desirable platforms for all those concerned (those who can or cannot be mobilized by MTRCL) to testify and provide documents. The longer the delay, the more dangerous the evidence becomes as people's memory will change or even disappear over time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13399

I hope the pro-establishment camp will support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion; Ms Claudia MO will propose a motion next week and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting may also propose a motion the week after next. I hope that Honourable colleagues will carefully review the development of the whole incident over these few weeks. We should not hand over the power of the Legislative Council to other people.

Thank you, President.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): On behalf of the Neo Democrats, I speak in support of the Legislative Council invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the incident in which the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") is suspected of concealing the construction problem of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL").

Fellow Hong Kong citizens, this coming Sunday, a few days from now, is 1 July, which marks the 21st anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and Chief Executive Carrie LAM has invited the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux to make videos or present the results of their work to show off the achievements of her administration. I wonder how Secretary Frank CHAN will account for the construction problems of SCL. Seeing that the problems are becoming increasingly ugly, how can people not be angry? The theme set by the Civil Human Rights Front for this year's 1 July march is "End one-party dictatorship; Reject the fall of Hong Kong". If Hong Kong people would just look at the concealment of facts and the blunders relating to the SCL construction works, as well as the various irregularities in the construction process, they would realize that it is absolutely necessary for them to participate in the 1 July march. One of the major reasons for "the fall of Hong Kong" is the serious "Mainlandization" of Hong Kong. In the past, "tofu-dreg" projects and cases of top officials concealing or covering up such problems were only found on the Mainland, but now these are also seen in Hong Kong.

Since the revelation of the suspected fraudulent rebar connection works for a platform of Hung Hom Station under the SCL project of MTRCL, what has MTRCL done? MTRCL has been giving conflicting accounts of the incident since it was revealed. What it said at one point could be totally different from what it said one or two days or a period of time later. At first, MTRCL said that the rebar connection problem was discovered during an inspection in December 13400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

2015 and admitted that some steel bars had been cut short, but subsequently, in response to further questions, it revised the time of discovery of the problem to August 2015. It even told a monstrous lie about the number of shortened steel bars. Initially it said that only five steel bars were cut short, but on the next day it readily conceded that the number was actually greater. Recently, a source has alleged that the number of faulty steel bars may be as large as 5 000, which is 1 000 times the number announced by MTRCL. The problem just keeps getting worse.

In the view of the Neo Democrats, the incident points to serious loopholes in the system for supervising major infrastructure projects in Hong Kong. Since the revelation of the incident up to now, MTRCL has made contradictory remarks time and again and has completely failed to explain the details clearly. It has sidestepped important questions and dwelled on trivial matters. Its sole purpose in holding the press conference was to try to bluff its way out of trouble. The Government merely kept waiting for MTRCL's report and completely failed in its duty to supervise MTRCL's work. Subsequent to the cost overruns and delays in the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project, it has again been revealed that the system for supervising major infrastructure projects implemented under the concession approach has serious flaws and is teetering on the brink of collapse. In the end, this scandal of the SCL project causing serious harm to the public interest has erupted.

As far as this scandal is concerned, China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology"), one of the subcontractors for the construction works at Hung Hom Station, has been holding the key to revealing the incident and is considered the whistle-blower. However, China Technology has recently issued a statement saying that the Highways Department ("HyD") has yet to schedule a meeting with it, and that when it testified at a meeting with the representatives of Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") this month at the invitation of MTRCL, the representatives of Leighton interrupted its testimony repeatedly on the grounds that it was overstepping the bounds of the temporary waiver of the confidentiality agreement. China Technology queried whether there was any collusion between MTRCL and Leighton in private afterwards which resulted in a report stating that Leighton strenuously denied the allegations made by China Technology, and the decision to exclude from the report all the testimony given by China Technology.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13401

In theory, the concession approach comes with a multi-level monitoring mechanism. Secretary, it is not redundant. Under this set-up dignified by the name of "multi-level monitoring mechanism", the Government should supervise MTRCL's coordination of the entrusted construction works, and MTRCL should in turn supervise the contractor; furthermore, the Government is to engage an independent third-party consultant to help monitor the works. Nonetheless, the previous scandals about the cost overruns and delays in the XRL project clearly showed that the government officials of HyD just blindly accepted the accounts given by MTRCL's engineering department, and lacked the ability or professional judgment to raise queries or take suitable follow-up actions against any mistakes and suspected concealment of facts.

That was pretty much the same as what has happened in the present case concerning the malpractices in the construction works at Hung Hom Station of SCL. At first, when this scandal broke, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN described the remedial action taken by MTRCL and the contractor as "very responsible", saying there was no problem with it. This was what the Secretary said himself. It was only after more and more details of the scandal had been revealed by the fourth estate (i.e. the media) and the informants that the Secretary woke up to reality and adopted a tougher stance in demanding a report from MTRCL.

In fact, back in September 2017, China Technology had sent the Transport and Housing Bureau a whistle-blowing email trying to alert the Government, but HyD actually stopped following it up and sat on it because MTRCL replied that more information was needed whereas China Technology indicated that it was no longer necessary to follow up the matter without providing relevant information. It is thus clear that the Government and HyD have completely failed to discharge their responsibility to supervise a major infrastructure project implemented under the concession approach, and have been led up the garden path by MTRCL and the contractor citing one specious technical reason after another.

As mentioned by Ms Tanya CHAN just now, Jason POON, the proprietor of China Technology, said in a media interview last night that if the Legislative Council summoned him to account for the incident and disclose more details of it in order to ascertain the truth, he would attend before the Council, but he hoped that he could testify under the protection of the Ordinance. Therefore, today's motion is absolutely important and meaningful, and is not redundant as suggested by the Under Secretary yesterday.

13402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

On 2 June, the Neo Democrats already reported this scandal over suspected fraudulent construction works to the Police Headquarters and asked the Police to commence a criminal investigation, because there were indeed prima facie signs of suspected fraudulent practices and concealment of facts. However, it was not until a good two weeks later, after MTRCL had submitted its report to HyD, that HyD reported the incident to the Police; this was indicative of the low alertness, slow action, late response and sheer passivity of HyD. Subsequently, China Technology also criticized HyD for passing only "hearsay evidence" inadmissible in criminal proceedings to the Police for investigation, leading to suspicions that HyD was trying to protect certain parties. Was HyD not only lax in supervision but also trying to shield MTRCL or even connive with it to conceal the truth, as in the case of dealing with the delays in the XRL project? To ascertain the truth behind the incident, this Council needs to invoke the Ordinance to set up a select Committee to probe into it.

Actually, this is not the first time that MTRCL has concealed construction blunders. Such concealment has even become a norm or its "duty". Some time ago, a geological problem was found at Sai Ying Pun Station of the West Island Line, but the public was not informed of that until half a year before the date of commissioning. The discovery of the extensive cultural remains dating back to the Song-Yuan period at the SCL To Kwa Wan Station construction site a few years back was also first revealed by the media, not to mention the cost overruns and delays in the XRL Hong Kong Section project which are still fresh in the minds of Hong Kong people. All these show a serious lack of transparency in MTRCL's projects. However, when the Government supervises the two costliest large-scale railway projects in the history of Hong Kong, it is like a paper tiger as it always opts to blindly believe the one-sided accounts given by the management of MTRCL. Therefore, the Government and the management of MTRCL can by no means shirk their responsibility for the blunders concerning SCL and a series of other railway projects. Hong Kong people are concerned that an inquiry led by the Government or MTRCL would not look into the issue of accountability of the Government and the management of MTRCL. I am not saying that some people must have their heads roll, but if the relevant people do not learn a lesson or take responsibility, it is definitely possible that such blunders will recur in the future.

The Government and the management of MTRCL simply did not learn a lesson from the cost overruns and delays in the XRL project. In 2014, Frederick MA, now Chairman of MTRCL, was appointed by MTRCL to lead the inquiry by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13403 an independent board committee into the XRL project. The investigation report of the committee, as it turned out, did MTRCL a huge favour by making mild criticisms, covering up the responsibility of the management of MTRCL for the cost overruns and delays in the XRL project and shifting the blame onto Chief Executive Officer Jay WALDER and Projects Director CHEW Tai-chong, who were about to leave their jobs back then. I followed up this matter for a very long time in the previous term of the Council, and it is still fresh in my mind. The two left their jobs after getting handsome gratuities. And this year, serious regulatory negligence was exposed in relation to SCL, which is also a project implemented under the concession approach.

What is more important is that the terms of reference for the investigation committee of MTRCL and the expert panel of the Government did not cover the role and responsibility of the Board of MTRCL regarding the delays in the XRL project. This is proof that the Government and MTRCL did not seriously review the causes of the cost overruns and delays in the XRL project. Consequently, the various regulatory problems arising from the concession approach repeatedly stressed by me have resulted in inadequate regulation of construction works and led to another construction malpractice scandal. The Neo Democrats thus holds that the Legislative Council should by no means let the Government and MTRCL repeat the same mistakes, and must invoke the Ordinance to set up a select committee to intervene and investigate.

The Neo Democrats also takes the view that the terms of reference for the select committee should be expanded to cover the construction works at all SCL stations because, as the public can see clearly, construction problems have arisen successively at various SCL stations. At present, we already know that there are problems with 3 of the 10 stations, and it is absolutely possible that these are just the tip of the iceberg. During the excavation works at Exhibition Centre Station, I-beams for supporting the diaphragm walls were not installed in accordance with the plan, and the contractor for the works is also Leighton. In view of this, we have reason to believe that the Hung Hom Station construction problem is not an isolated case.

Here, I have to particularly criticize MTRCL Chairman Frederick MA, whose thinking and style of work are deplorable. As I pointed out just now, the Government opts to blindly believe the management of MTRCL, but the latter's thinking and style of work are deplorable, especially under the leadership of Frederick MA. All along, it has only safeguarded the profits of MTRCL, kept 13404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 increasing fares and disregarded the safety of passengers. When Frederick MA faced queries from the public and media after a series of debacles related to XRL including a derailment during a trial run, wearing of train wheels, water seepage in a tunnel and suspected flooding on tracks, he simply lost his temper, beat about the bush and mucked the reporters around. In reply to the reporters' questions, he queried whether they could understand the information provided by him and said, "If I tell you it is OK, then it is OK." He had the cheek to make such an arrogant remark. He has been riding roughshod over the masses when earning money from Hong Kong people. He is the person managing the railway project in question, but when fraudulent practices were found in this project planned by him, neither he nor the management of MTRCL notified the Government of the problem at the earliest opportunity. He has even stated that they are powerless to deal with the contractor, and are still in the process of pursuing the truth today. It is precisely because of MTRCL's problems that the SCL project has become so perilous that it can be likened to a "tofu-dreg" project. Frederick MA should be held accountable for this, and yet he refuses to take the blame and step down but continues to shamelessly receive a remuneration of $1.2 million per year.

Therefore, I am in favour of invoking the Ordinance to investigate the construction problems of the entire SCL. That said, I believe Hong Kong people will once again witness a motion under the Ordinance being voted down today by the royalists shielding and defending the Government. I wish to appeal again to the public to take to the streets and participate in the 1 July march this Sunday to join us in denouncing those traitors to Hong Kong who oppress Hong Kong people without regard for our systems and public money, and condemning their evil deeds: their ineffective monitoring and construction blunders have caused numerous scandals. Hong Kong people should keep their eyes peeled and take a good look (The buzzer sounded) … at today's voting.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please stop speaking immediately.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the service of Hong Kong's railway system is one of the best in the world in terms of its reliability or safety. Various infrastructural civil engineering projects in Hong Kong have, despite cost overruns and delays in some projects, also won the confidence of Hong Kong people and the international world in terms of safety and quality. Nevertheless, in recent months, non-compliance of requirements and procedures has been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13405 discovered in some works of MTR's Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project. This has dealt a blow to the two good reputations of Hong Kong mentioned above and even created a confidence crisis.

In less than a month, it has been successively discovered that works at three stations of SCL have not complied with the requirements. The first incident that came to light concerns the expansion works at the platforms of Hung Hom Station, which has the greatest impact on public confidence and passenger safety. Some staff members of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") stationed at the site had, on five occasions during their inspections, detected that some of the steel bars at the platforms had been cut short, but most of these findings had not been recorded in detail and no one had reported the matter to the Board of Directors of MTRCL.

President, public safety is vital and we should not underrate its importance. Thus, it is necessary for MTRCL to entrust an independent and experienced engineer to conduct a loads test at the platforms of Hung Hom Station. I hope that the results can be released and made known to the public as soon as possible so as to allay their concerns and ensure public safety.

Subsequent to the problems discovered at Hung Hom Station, problems were also found at To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station. At To Kwa Wan station, though MTRCL's works supervision personnel found that some of the steel bars of a partition wall were cut and removed, they did not report the matter. After further inquiry, it was found that two other spots of the wall had the same problem. Although the structural safety would not be affected, MTRCL had conducted disciplinary inquiry on the staff members concerned, as such incidents should not have happened. Besides, non-compliant works were also found at Exhibition Centre Station, which includes excavation works had, for reasons unknown, exceeded the allowable depth and a layer of horizontal struts for supporting the wall of the underground pit was missing. Although MTRCL had conducted a test after it became aware of the situation and considered the site safe, shouldn't it adopt a cautious approach by requiring the contractor to immediately stop the works pending the results of the test? Subsequently, mistakes were also found in the drawings, the installation of steel bars and the concreting process at Exhibition Centre station. After MTRCL learnt of the problems, it immediately took remedial actions so that the problems would not affect the progress of works or safety. Nevertheless, this series of events has revealed a host of problems and we cannot treat the matter lightly.

13406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

When I asked an oral question on the incident of the SCL project at the Council meeting last Wednesday, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN said rather angrily that he and his colleagues in the Government only learnt about the construction problems of MTRCL from the television and media reports. He found this situation very disappointing and regrettable. However, I would like to tell the Secretary, after hearing his response, many members of the public and I cannot help but query: How can the SAR Government, responsible for paying (not a small sum of money) and commissioning MTRCL to monitor the SCL project and being the major shareholder of MTRCL, be kept in the dark from the above mentioned incident?

MTRCL has commenced an internal inquiry into the series of construction incidents and submitted some information and reports to the Hong Kong Government. Unfortunately, MTRCL has not fully answered all the questions of the public. Thus, I welcome the Government's decision to set up, pursuant to the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, an independent commission of inquiry ("the Commission of Inquiry") with statutory powers to summon witnesses and immunities from defamation, and expeditiously appoint former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN, who had conducted the inquiry into the incident of cost overrun of the construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, to chair the Commission of Inquiry.

Apart from conducting a thorough inquiry into the works at the platforms of Hung Hom Station, the Commission of Inquiry will find out the facts and which parties should be held liable. At the same time, it will review the systems of supervision of works and notification of the Hong Kong Government and MTRCL, etc. I hope that the Government will expeditiously appoint one more professional with relevant engineering knowledge and experience to join the Commission of Inquiry, so as to increase the efficiency and depth of the inquiry.

Apart from the Commission of Inquiry, the Police have also commenced a criminal investigation into the incident of steel bars at the platforms of Hung Hom Station being cut short. The Commissioner of Police Stephen LO said that an investigation on all fronts would be conducted. The Secretary for Development Michael WONG has recently received a report from Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, the main contractor of works at the platforms of Hung Hom Station. He emphasized that further actions would be taken where necessary and if the situation has become serious, contractors with performance problems would be forbidden from bidding government projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13407

Furthermore, the Board of Directors of MTRCL decided a few days ago to conduct a comprehensive review of the management procedures of the SCL project and an independent consultancy would be commissioned to assist in the review. That is very important because the SCL project has yet to be completed and I believe MTRCL will be involved, to various extents, in other railway development projects in the future. I hope that it will gain experience and learn a lesson from this incident, as well as seriously improve its systems of works management and notification so that it can continue to provide quality railway service for Hong Kong people.

As we will have an independent inquiry to be conducted by a statutory commission; a criminal investigation on all fronts to be conducted by the Police, a consultancy to conduct a comprehensive review and an independent expert to conduct a safety and loads test commissioned by MTRCL; as well as the inquiry and actions to be taken by the Development Bureau against the contractor, there are at least five inquiries and reviews on the SCL project to be conducted concurrently. Is there any urgent need for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance at this time to set up another select committee to inquire into the incident?

Undeniably, the incident of the SCL project involves many technical and complicated issues. Nevertheless, the Commission of Inquiry will have the assistance of legal and engineering experts; the Police have the assistance of experts in criminal investigation; and MTRCL has obtained the assistance of engineering and management experts. Should the Legislative Council consider all the objective circumstances and decide whether it should conduct a separate inquiry after reviewing the relevant inquiries and the report of the Commission of Inquiry?

Therefore, I and the other five members of G6 will not support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion. President, I so submit.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, a series of faulty construction works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") has reminded us that quality and safety must never be compromised. The SCL project of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has already been delayed, as Tai Wai to Hung Hom Section will be commissioned only in the middle of next year (i.e. 2019), and Hung Hom to Admiralty Section will be commissioned in around 2021. On 13408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 the other hand, the construction cost per km of SCL is not inexpensive at all, as every kilometre of this 17-km railway costs some $5.1 billion. The work accomplished is unacceptable to all of us. I am most concerned about residents in Kowloon West. Residents of Kowloon City, To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom have been waiting for SCL since 2013. They have really been waiting and waiting.

I remember that last year, I convened a press conference together with District Councillor Mr NG Po-keung and a group of operators of food establishments in Nam Kok Road, Kowloon City. At the press conference, the operators said that due to the construction of Sung Wong Toi Station, hoardings were erected and the entire street has been sealed off for five years. The shops along the street have been closed down successively, but MTRCL has taken no heed of the situation and refused to offer any compensation, only making some perfunctory efforts for the sake of public relations. Despite the recent series of faults of the SCL project, it should not be further delayed, and MTRCL must give an account to the residents and shop operators. Secretary, the project really cannot be further delayed, and we hope the problems can be resolved as soon as possible.

There have been a series of works delays at various stations of SCL. Steel bars at a platform of Hung Hom Station were cut short, steel bars at a platform of To Kwa Wan Station were shaved thin, and the project at Exhibition Centre Station were not carried out in accordance with the plans with steel bars being misplaced, giving rise to the problem of lateral I-beams providing insufficient support. While it is very important to complete the works as scheduled, quality and safety are the top priorities which cannot be compromised. In response to the series of faulty construction works of the SCL project, I fully endorse the decision of the Chief Executive to set up an independent judge-led commission of inquiry ("the Commission of Inquiry") to conduct a comprehensive, independent and credible investigation. Since the Commission of Inquiry will be set up to conduct an in-depth investigation into the faulty construction works of SCL, I do not think there is a need for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance at this stage to set up a select committee, leading to a duplication of the investigation work. We should focus on the Commission of Inquiry.

President, I will talk about my expectations on the Commission of Inquiry. Some members of the public have relayed to me their concern about the repeated occurrence of faulty construction works of SCL. Public perception is very poor, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13409 and the Government seems to be in the dark about many things. The Government and MTRCL are now chasing for reports, but the contractors are nowhere to be found, and outsourced contractors are making public accusations and disseminating different information. Apart from loopholes in the supervision of construction procedures, whether there are problems with the governing culture of MTRCL should also be ascertained. Therefore, I hope that the Commission of Inquiry will be fair and just, investigate the incident in detail, uncover the root causes of the problems, suit the remedy to the case, and propose recommendations for improvement, so that the procedures in railway construction can be complied with and the level of quality and safety ensured.

The faulty construction works does not only involve steel bars at a platform of Hung Hom Station being cut short or fraudulent reports being made but also blunders at other stations. While MTRCL was aware of the blunders at some of the stations, it failed to report to the major shareholder of its Board of Directors, namely the Secretary. Is this attributable to concealment and blunders on the part of MTRCL, ineffective supervision or the presence of loopholes? At the oral question session of a previous Council meeting, I asked the Secretary whether problems with MTRCL had only occurred under a service concession approach, the Secretary replied that there was still room for improvement. Given the performance of MTRCL under a service concession approach, we really need to examine whether there are any better approaches. As such, I think the Commission of Inquiry must expand its scope of investigation to cover works supervision, notification …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Vincent CHENG, this Council is now debating the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, rather than the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): I get it. I am about to end my exposition.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject now under debate.

13410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): I get it. I am about to finish my speech in this regard. MTRCL should not shift its responsibility for faulty construction works, the Government should not outsource its supervision responsibility, and the various parties should not take follow-up actions only after the Commission of Inquiry has completed its report. MTRCL is duty-bound to adopt an open and transparent approach and make public the details of the blunders in three months' time, and the Government must perform its supervision responsibility with greater prudence in the future. If any blunders on the part of MTRCL are detected, the authorities should, in their capacity as project managers, introduce a penalty mechanism to impose fines or reduce the amount management fees provided by the Government. Given the great significance of this incident, I hope that the Government will expeditiously set up a high-level and independent project supervision team to conduct extensive investigations into the procedures of important projects and verify their plans, so as to restore public confidence in government supervision of railway projects.

President, I so submit. I hope that the independent Commission of Inquiry will commence work as soon as possible, and expeditiously give a clear account to the public as to who should be held accountable and what remedial measures should be taken.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the concealment of a series of problems with the works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). Regarding this incident, apart from the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the contractors which should be held accountable, the Government's role and responsibility are also significant.

I wonder whether members of the public and my colleagues can still recall that the Legislative Council set up in 2016 the Select Committee to Inquire into the Background of and Reasons for the Delay of the Construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("the Select Committee"). According to the report, there was deliberate cover-up of project delays on the part of MTRCL and its senior management staff. After a lapse of two years, has the Government reflected on its acts? Has it enhanced the mechanism to monitor the works of MTRCL? I was then a member of the Select Committee. Some Members from the pro-democracy camp and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13411 pro-establishment camp in the current legislature had also joined the Select Committee. As we all clearly remember, given that the Select Committee was not conferred with the power under the Ordinance, during our investigation, the then Chairman of MTRCL refused to come to the Legislative Council, claiming that he was not in Hong Kong and refusing to provide any dates on which he would be available to attend a meeting.

We must invoke the Ordinance to summon the relevant persons to the Legislative Council, so as to conduct an effective investigation. In the past, we could set up a select committee by way of 20 Members rising to support the request to refer a petition to a select committee. However, with the amendment of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") by the pro-establishment camp, we can no longer do so. When we discussed this amendment to RoP, pro-establishment Members asked us not to worry, saying that when important matters were involved, we could still invoke the Ordinance to set up a select committee, and they would render support. I wonder if this incident is important or serious enough to gain their support.

As regards the role of the Government, each month the Highways Department will, through three committees, monitor the work of MTRCL, review the progress of the project and monitor the procurement activities, post-tender cost control and resolution of contractual claims concerning the project. The monitoring and verification consultant of the Highways Department also assists in the monitoring work and undertakes regular audits, including holding committee meetings regularly, submitting written reports. Even the Government itself will assign supervisors. The system may seem to be desirable, but the devil is in the details. Despite the introduction of a number of mechanisms, the series of faulty construction works of SCL have revealed sloppy government supervision over MTRCL. Does the problem lie with the system or with the implementation that disables the Government to grasp the reality? Should any problems occur, will the Government merely be notified? Is the Government being kept in the dark about the blunders of MTRCL until such blunders are exposed by others? Is the incident serious enough to warrant our invocation of the Ordinance to set up a select committee with summoning power to conduct an investigation?

Though there are representatives of government officials at the Board of Directors of MTRCL, what role do they actually play? As indicated by Secretary Frank CHAN in the Legislative Council, the Highways Department and the Transport and Housing Bureau only learnt about the problems concerning the 13412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 project through media reports. This shows that the Government has failed to play a regulatory role in the entire incident. To put it mildly, the Government is in a very passive position. To put it bluntly, the Government is incompetent or is unwilling to do what it is capable of doing. We have every reason and need to conduct an investigation, so as to answer all the questions raised just now.

This incident once again proves that serious problems have occurred at various levels of the monitoring and notification mechanisms between the Government and MTRCL. The project contractors may even have serious problems with their conducts, including concealment and falsification. They must all be held accountable. The Government now relies on MTRCL to conduct an investigation by peers and then submit a report. It will then simply reveal the report and ends the whole matter. What kind of logic is this? In addition, the Government is the largest shareholder of MTRCL. We in the Legislative Council have a mechanism for declaration of interests, which helps us prevent the scenario of investigations by peers. Under a system of separation of powers, the Legislative Council should exercise its power to monitor the Government by establishing a select committee with summoning power to handle the incident pursuant to the law.

Recently, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited has submitted a report to the Government, but the Government stated that the report would not be made public for the time being. Members of the public have the right to know and there are many media reports, so even if the Government refuses to make public certain information, someone will spill the beans. Given the confusing information, the Legislative Council will be acting irresponsibly if it fails to exercise its power to address the issue and give a true account of the facts. In addition, if the Government is to conduct the investigation, it may probably give various reasons not to make public the report as it did in the past. Even if the Government sets up an independent commission of inquiry, its functions will be very different from those of a select committee set up pursuant to the Ordinance, as evident from the fact that the announced scope of investigation of the commission of inquiry is obviously very narrow.

The Legislative Council is duty-bound to play a role in monitoring the Government. I have listened to the speeches of some pro-establishment Members today, but I believe that they will, as they did in the past, once again veto the motion to invoke the Ordinance to conduct an investigation. As I joined the Legislative Council at a later stage, I have never witnessed the passage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13413 of a motion moved under the Ordinance. The last time the Legislative Council passed a motion moved under the Ordinance was in early 2012, and a select committee was set up to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying. Though pro-establishment Members often claim that the Ordinance will certainly be invoked to conduct investigations on important incidents, the Ordinance has not been invoked over the past six years. Does this mean that over the past six years, there have been no incidents involving major public interests that warrant the invocation of the Ordinance? In the past, we hoped to invoke the Ordinance to conduct investigations on the following incidents: the UGL incident of LEUNG Chun-ying; the failure to grant Hong Kong Television Network Limited a free TV licence; the greedy TONG, or Timothy TONG, incident; the lead-in-water incident; and the incident of the Registration and Electoral Office missing the personal information of more than 3 million voters.

Pro-establishment Members considered that the aforesaid incidents were all insignificant and the Ordinance should not be invoked for investigation, and such incidents could simply be referred to the Government for follow-up actions. That said, had the Government been open and transparent to make public the naked truth? The Government had failed to give a true account of most of the incidents. As for some incidents, such as the Timothy TONG incident, we did set up a select committee with no authorization from the Ordinance for investigation and we were able to discern certain clues. However, the stance of pro-establishment Members was that no investigation should be conducted, and they even amended RoP, so that we could no longer set up a select committee with no authorization from the Ordinance for investigation. Following the amendment of RoP by pro-establishment Members, the Legislative Council has been left with few powers, being relegated to a position where it can only support government initiatives. As such, what can Members do after joining the Legislative Council? Are they supposed to be voting machines?

As reported in the media last night, Mr Jason POON, boss of China Technology Corporation Limited, indicated in a radio interview that if the Legislative Council set up a select committee pursuant to the Ordinance, he would attend its meetings, and at meetings of the select committee authorized under the Ordinance, he could give his explanations more smoothly. I do not quite understand what he actually meant, but for many witnesses, they can reveal the truth if they are protected by law when giving evidence. I believe many people want to reveal certain problems concerning the incident, but due to various 13414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 reasons, including the lack of legal protection, they are not in a position to do so. As long as proper conditions are offered, some witnesses may likely be willing to give evidence.

Mr POON also criticized certain project contractors, without naming them, for being malignant tumours of the construction sector of Hong Kong, and he also pointed out that such firms were not even afraid of the Government. Do Members still think that the incident is not serious after hearing his remarks? How can pro-establishment functional constituency Members, including representatives of the construction sector and the engineering sector, not support the Legislative Council to exercise the power conferred on it by the law? How can they not use their professional knowledge and exercise their powers as Legislative Council Members to investigate an incident involving malignant tumours in their own sectors? If they refuse to do what they are capable of doing, and refuse to exercise the powers they have, why should we still retain functional constituencies? I do not want to accuse them of concealing anything, but such suspicions do arise.

Some Members refuse to support the establishment of a select committee pursuant to the Ordinance, and instead elaborate on their expectations on the Commission of Inquiry established by the Government. As for the various incidents I referred to just now, the persons concerned have refused to take questions. A pro-establishment geographical constituency Member said constantly that members of the public had been waiting and waiting for a certain rail link. He was fearful that his constituents might not know about his concern over this matter. MTRCL and the contractors have made mistakes repeatedly, but pro-establishment Members have continued to let them get off the hook. Stop treating people as fools, thinking that they do not know what has happened. Pro-establishment Members want to create a red herring by urging the Government to conduct an investigation, but this is actually an investigation by peers. Members from the professional sectors also say that no investigation needs to be conducted pursuant to the Ordinance, and that we can reply on the Government for conducting an investigation. I do not want to say that they are protecting their own sectors, but one can hardly explain their act.

If the role of pro-establishment Members in the Legislative Council is merely to oppose the Council's exercising of its entitled power or oppose Members doing what they should do, what is the point of serving as Members? When pro-establishment Members, who take up the seats in the Council, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13415 relinquish the powers conferred on them by RoP and the Basic Law, and stop other Members who want to exercise such powers from doing so, what is the point of retaining the Legislative Council? I urge them not to occupy the seats and allow those who truly want to exercise the powers and monitor the Government to serve as Members.

President, this is all what I want to say, but I believe my speech will have no impact on the voting results. Nevertheless, I hope members of the public will see clearly the current situation in Hong Kong. I do not want to accuse anyone of shielding, but what is wrong with conducting an investigation to reveal the truth of the problems that have arisen? When the Secretary speaks in a moment, he will probably urge Members not to support the establishment of a select committee. As such, the Government had better propose in the future the abolition of the Legislative Council, thus enabling the Government to hoodwink the public. Will this be the best option for Hong Kong? I do not know what else I can say. We know that ultimately a select committee cannot be established and the matter will be left unsettled. I hope members of the public will remember that the recurrence of such an incident today.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Being a Member of the Legislative Council for many years, I seldom speak on such matters as I think they are related to the fundamental question of right and wrong. Yet, something odd has happened this time. I came back to the Legislative Council Complex very early today. While I was having breakfast, I noticed that no Member had pressed the "Request to Speak" button. I am not filibustering now to stall, I only found it strange. However, the Secretary may be happy because many "paparazzi" are waiting outside the Chamber now. Some people may be happy if no Member speaks. Nevertheless, do Members feel indifferent about the incident? Do Members consider it futile to speak because the motion will not be passed even if they speak? Pro-establishment Members, on the other hand, know that they will surely win and they just wish to press the buttons and vote as soon as possible.

I think this kind of culture is really good. Why? President, I support this motion mainly because I want to tell the public what the functions of the Legislative Council are. Mr Charles Peter MOK said that the pro-establishment 13416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 camp is the sure winner in every game; the Legislative Council cannot perform any function and whatever we do will be of no avail. I disagree, Mr MOK. I have been watching the screen very attentively and I found that there is a "lazy pack" on the Legislative Council, telling the public the work of the Legislative Council.

Secretary, please listen. Both Article 73(5) of the Basic Law and the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) ("the Ordinance") provide that the Legislative Council has the power to set up a select committee mainly for Members of the Legislative Council to perform their duties. The Secretary does not know because he is not a Member of the Legislative Council, but as a Member for 10-odd years, I clearly know that we must uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council. We move this motion to tell the public that under Article 73(5) of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council has the function of monitoring the work of the Government. We propose to set up a select committee under the Ordinance not to inquire into an incident involving a private company or an individual, but to inquire into an important matter which concerns the Government because the Government is a major shareholder of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL").

Regarding this incident, I have heard some people say that Members should not inquire into the matter because conducting another inquiry will incur a waste of resources. Nevertheless, do not forget that we must uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council and we must find out whether there are any blunders with the Government in respect of personnel, systems and procedures. Apparently, the blunders disclosed will affect people's livelihood. On my way to the Legislative Council this morning, I listened to a radio programme. An expert, i.e. the friend mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK earlier, said that at present, the only issue was water seepage, and this would not be a problem in the short term. I do not know whether he has inspected the site. He said that the water seepage problem was serious, but no big problem would arise. If the water was pumped away, SCL could be commissioned as scheduled. Nevertheless, what would happen should the problem arise 20 to 30 years later? Simply put, I do not understand the technical issues mentioned by the expert, but he said that the concrete would, after absorbing the water, gradually disintegrate and might collapse. If the concrete construction collapsed some 20 to 30 years later, people would look up the files to see what had happened. Yet, by then, different persons would be in charge of the companies concerned and the Government and the incident would be dismissed lightly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13417

Given that this is a very important issue affecting people's livelihood, does the Legislative Council have the responsibility to monitor the work of the Government by exercising the powers conferred on us by the Basic Law? That is the main reason why I support this motion. According to the "lazy pack", the Legislative Council has set up three select committees since 2004, i.e. the year I became a Member of the Legislative Council. Before that, an inquiry was also conducted into the incident of SARS. I was not a Member at that time, but I had also provided information for the inquiry in another capacity.

Regarding this very important incident, I have heard two main arguments. The first argument is that since the Government will inquire into the incident, the Legislative Council should not conduct an investigation; otherwise the work will be duplicated, incurring a waste of resources. If we adopt this approach, we will be perpetuating the "OK culture" of the Chairman of MTRCL who once said, "If I tell you it is OK, then it is OK". If we adopt such an approach, can the Legislative Council perform any other function? As stated by Mr MOK a moment ago, should the Legislative Council be established to tie in with the Government? Under the present system, the Basic Law confers powers on the Legislative Council to achieve, among others, the purpose of exercising check and balance on the Government by asking questions and expressing views on the operation and actions of the Government. These are the tasks to be undertaken by Members. The actions taken by the Government is not a matter to be concerned by the Legislative Council.

If Madam Carrie sets up an independent Commission of Inquiry led by an independent judge to inquire into the incident independently, we will raise no objection at all. However, I must draw the public's attention to the fact that Dr CHENG Chung-tai moved this motion to exercise the powers and functions of the Legislative Council and to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council. As a Member of the Legislative Council, I disagree with the view that we should not inquire into a matter which the Government will investigate. Certainly, the information I have obtained at this stage is hearsay only, and I have only collated some press reports and the views of some experts. Although I know nothing about engineering―the representative of the Engineering sector is not present now―I understand that serious problems may arise. What exactly are the problems? The question is not simply who should be held accountable and step down, but whether it is necessary to formulate remedial measures now so as to gain the public's confidence in using public facilities in the long term.

13418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

President, the Government is the major shareholder of MTRCL, and the Secretary is well aware of this fact. Has the Government, being the major shareholder, committed any faults in the three areas which I mentioned earlier, namely, systems, procedures and personnel? Are there any monitoring problems? How can we know that there is really no problem? The answers will depend on what actions have been taken by the contractor and the subcontractors; whether any faults have been committed, as well as what practices have been adopted by some people. These are the things which we should clearly inform the public.

When I read martial arts novels in the past, I learnt that there was an interesting move called "two ghosts knocking on the door". At that time, I considered this move very powerful for once this move was made, the opponent would know how formidable we were. It did not matter if we eventually lost, for there was certainly a winner and a loser in every fight. We should adopt the same idea today and inquire into the incident through two channels. The Government, being a shareholder and having to bear responsibility, has to clarify the whole matter and conduct a thorough investigation. The Legislative Council also has to set up a select committee to inquire into the entire matter so as to perform our duties, uphold our dignity and consider the entire matter from another perspective. I disagree with the saying that owing to duplication of work, the Legislative Council or the Government should not conduct an inquiry. If the approach mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK just now is adopted, i.e. "I am OK if you inquire into the matter; I will inquire into the matter only when you are not OK", it implies that when one says there is no problem, then there is no problem. If that is the situation, does it mean that I do not have to do a thing? This approach is similar to the remark made by the Chairman of MTRCL. It seems that even the Chairman of MTRCL dares not make this remark again, because it is not really OK.

Furthermore, at this stage, what will be investigated by the select committee? Will it inquire into the incidents of steel bars being cut short or insufficient steel bars being laid or other problems? In fact, such questions can be sorted out later. Basically, I think at this stage, we should not be bogged down in the details of the inquiry and get our priorities wrong. Such examples include: Will resources be wasted if the Government summons the same company which the Legislative Council has summoned? Or, will resources be wasted if the Legislative Council meets with MTRCL after the Government has met with it? Such questions should really be sorted out later and they are minor details. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13419

Basically, if we say today that we should not conduct an inquiry because the Government will conduct an inquiry, the Legislative Council will be adopting the attitude mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK earlier, i.e. it will suffice if the Government conducts an inquiry and we should let the Government take action first.

Certainly, on the enactment of legislation, the Government should first draft a bill to be passed by the Legislative Council. This procedure is stipulated in the Basic Law, but Members should not forget that the Basic Law also confers powers on Members to propose a Member's bill on people's livelihood to be passed by the Legislative Council. Thus, in handling any matter, the Legislative Council has its statutory basis, functions and powers.

On this occasion, I fail to see any justification to support the argument that after the Secretary has conducted an inquiry―sorry, the Secretary is not qualified to conduct an inquiry―it should be after the Government has conducted an inquiry, the Legislative Council should not conduct any inquiry. If we adopt this argument, will it give people the impression that the Legislative Council is a subsidiary of the Government? The Basic Law confers power on the Legislative Council to exercise check and balance on the Government, how should we exercise this power? In fact, the Secretary should be the subject of the inquiry too. Why? Regarding the whole incident as I mentioned earlier, in terms of any faults committed, the Secretary should take the most blame because he is the representative of MTRCL's major shareholder; in terms of procedures, I do not know if the procedures have been monitored; in terms of the system, how should the incident be handled? The Transport and Housing Bureau is duty-bound to answer these questions. President, we have no intention to inquire into the Transport and Housing Bureau; we only wish to find out whether the Government has properly handled the matter. As the matter concerns people's livelihood, a clear account must be given. At present, the question we should consider is whether any particular problem will arise from the incident in the long term.

President, I cannot give any practical or technical views on the matter. For example, how should steel bars be cut or the advantages or disadvantages of adopting a certain method? I have read many press reports about the incident and from a programme of the Commercial Radio, I have also learnt about the situation as depicted by the subcontractor or the sub-subcontractor. As there are so many questions unanswered, should we take up our due responsibilities as 13420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Members of the Legislative Council to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council and set up a select committee to inquire into the matter from our perspectives?

President, we now propose to set up a select committee in the hope that we can consider the matter from our perspectives. Certainly, a select committee will not be set up as the motion will be vetoed when it is put to vote later. The proposed select committee will not clash with the judge-led Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government. I believe the public will not think we are wasting public money or time because if we conduct an inquiry, it will ease their minds. As I said earlier, if the motion is passed, the move of "two ghosts knocking on the door" will be adopted so that the two inquiries will be simultaneously conducted. If the results of the two inquiries are totally different, it will be quite ridiculous; but if many aspects of their findings coincide, I believe that any faults identified in respect of personnel, systems or procedures, will have to be rectified to prevent the recurrence of any similar incidents.

President, to me, in this motion debate today, we are actually discussing a matter which concerns public education. We have to let the public know that opposition Members or the democrats also have the responsibility to tell the public the kind of work to be undertaken or the role to be played by the Legislative Council in respect of issues involving the fundamental question of right and wrong and the people's livelihood. We are duty-bound to undertake this task. If the motion is vetoed and we cannot set up a select committee, it does not matter. However, after the Government has completed its inquiry―I do not know how long it takes, maybe six months to a year―I do not wish to see that the findings are inadequate, thereby Members have to take up the uncompleted task and conduct another inquiry. If this happens, the Legislative Council will, very unfortunately, be perpetuating the culture of "If you are OK, then I am OK". This situation should definitely not be allowed in the Legislative Council.

President, I so submit and support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to set up a select committee under the Ordinance to inquire into the whole incident.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I speak in support of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to establish a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the incident LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13421 of faulty works at the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). There are three advantages in establishing a select committee under the Ordinance. First, we have the power to summon witness. Second, if a witness gives false evidence (whether written or oral) in a hearing, he/she will be subject to criminal liability. Third, if a witness attends a hearing which is protected by the Ordinance, what he/she says in the hearing will be protected by the Ordinance and will not be used as evidence in any legal proceedings for defamation.

During the six years that I have served in the Legislative Council, I have participated in numerous hearings of the Public Accounts Committee. I clearly understand that each committee of inquiry has its objectives and functions. This incident is really very serious as public safety and ineffective governance are involved. I fail to see any reason why Members of the Legislative Council should oppose the establishment of a select committee.

According to Article 73(3) of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council has the function, power and duty to "approve taxation and public expenditure". SCL, being the most expensive railway link in history, is built with funding approved by the Finance Committee. Article 73(5) stipulates that Members shall "raise questions on the work of the government"; and Article 73(6) also provides that Members shall "debate any issue concerning public interests", etc. These provisions indicate that we have real powers to monitor the Government.

Since 30 May, the press has time and again reported the remarks made by the subcontractor, the sub-subcontractor and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), but members of the public still fail to get a full picture of the whole incident. Certainly, each stakeholder or each investigation committee has a different role, and the Legislative Council definitely has an important role to perform too. Let me analyse the direction of inquiry that can be adopted by the Legislative Council as we do not want to waste resources in doing the same work.

Regarding civil liability, since MTRCL has entered into contracts with the contractor, and the contractor has entered into works contracts and other management contracts with the subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor, each party can make civil claims and seek compensation, etc. according to these contracts. MTRCL can seek compensation from the contractor; the contractor can seek compensation from the subcontractor or the sub-subcontractor. MTRCL may have the right to directly seek compensation from the companies. We think they will handle the issue of civil liability of their own accord.

13422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Regarding criminal liability, it was reported that the Highways Department has reported the matter to the Police and the Police have commenced its investigation. According to the reports, MTRCL has submitted the information obtained from the subcontractor, the sub-subcontractor and other sources to the Independent Commission Against Corruption which will investigate whether anyone has committed an act of corruption or dereliction of duty in this incident. Certainly, criminal investigation may be conducted in different directions. The crimes involved may include making a false document, access to a computer with dishonest intent, corruption or bribery, etc. This kind of investigation certainly takes time.

The Government's independent Commission of Inquiry chaired by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN certainly has its powers and terms of reference. Nevertheless, I do not believe the former Judge will conduct the inquiry in the direction of criminal liability because this task is actually undertaken by some other authorities. What then shall be the direction of inquiry of the select committee to be established by the Legislative Council under the Ordinance and what tasks should it undertake? Certainly, other than Hung Hom Station, there are many other problems, such as the works at Exhibition Centre Station.

Furthermore, leaving aside the questions on criminal liability and civil liability and the direction of inquiry of former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN, MTRCL should also set up a committee to conduct an inquiry. What should be inquired into by that committee? First, Frederick MA said that they should be forward-looking. President, MTRCL cannot merely be forward-looking, it should find out the problems that have arisen in the monitoring process of the works. Certainly, MTRCL may not have the resources or may not be independent enough to conduct the inquiry. It should engage an engineering consultant to review the procedural problems of MTRCL in monitoring the works in the past and at present; and how improvements can be made in the future. MTRCL must address the seeds of trouble sown. MTRCL may also have to engage another external management consultant to review the problems in respect of internal monitoring. If MTRCL engages these consultants, I hope it will submit both reports to the Legislative Council.

What then can be done by the select committee of the Legislative Council? Certainly, after we have established the select committee, its terms of reference and scope of powers will be discussed. Other than issues concerning civil liability, criminal liability or management which we are unable or not in a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13423 position to deal with, there are a number of tasks which can only be undertaken by the select committee but not by other commission of inquiry. First, we can review the systematic problems of the SAR Government in monitoring MTRCL, particularly in monitoring such an important project. We must inquire into the Government's supervision of MTRCL in this incident. Second, we can formulate a remedial proposal at this stage. Members have said that we must find out who have been negligent or who have broken the laws. However, the most urgent task at the moment is actually to formulate a remedial proposal. As Members of the Legislative Council, we have the duty to supervise the formulation and implementation of the remedial proposal. The remedial proposal may involve, as indicated by Mr Michael TIEN, removing the whole platforms and examine each and every steel bar. President, there are a number of ways to remove the platforms. If people think that removing the platforms will destroy the evidence, we can bore through various parts of the platforms with an awl and count among the tens of thousands of steel bars, how many of them have not been screwed into the couplets. At present, some say the number is 25, but it can be 250 or even 25 000. If we do not know how many steel bars have not been screwed into the couplets, how can we ascertain the degree of safety of the platforms? The authorities have conducted some loads tests earlier to see if the platforms are safe. As the serviceable life expectancy of the platforms may be 50, 60 or even 70 years, I do not want to see the sudden collapse of the platforms in 2040 with heavy casualties. Who will be held responsible by then?

What shall the remedial proposal entail? The works definitely cannot proceed as if nothing had happened. MTRCL, the Judge and the Government are conducting their inquiries separately. As it may take 12 months before the completion of the inquiries, what instructions should be given regarding the works at the platforms? Should the works be stopped or suspended; or should the root cause of the faulty works be identified expeditiously? Haven't we mentioned criminal liability and civil liability? We must identify the root cause of the faulty works and formulate a remedial proposal. When can a remedial proposal be formulated? I think the select committee established by the Legislative Council will only seek to achieve two objectives. First, the select committee should identify the Government's problems in its routine monitoring of MTRCL or in monitoring the works of SCL. Second, Members should monitor the remedial proposal put forward by the relevant parties. Certainly, we will not conduct any criminal or civil inquiries because they are irrelevant to us.

13424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

As at today, the Secretary said that a test has been conducted and the Administration has set up a Commission of Inquiry, but what kind of works is MTRCL conducting now? Is it continuing with the works according to its original schedule of progress, or is it conducting an inquiry? How should the inquiry be conducted? The issue under discussion is work safety which concerns the lives and properties of the people. Other issues, such as criminal liability and civil liability, are of minor importance to us. What is the safety level of the works at present? These are the issues that Members and the select committee would like to know. Can the Secretary give us an account in this Chamber? Even if the Government cannot provide such information to us, we would still like to set up a select committee to perform our duties in this regard. Certainly, many Members may not agree with me, even my pan-democratic colleagues may not agree with my proposed terms of reference of the select committee. Nevertheless, as the major shareholder of MTRCL, the Government has the bounden duty to discharge its duties. MTRCL is not only a listed company, but also a public organization operating a mass transit system used by many people every day. Certainly, MTRCL is also an international brand which I must admit, as it has signed contracts with many overseas governments in operating their railway systems. I do not wish to see MTRCL's image, developed at pains over the years, to be tarnished because of its improper management of the incident. MTRCL is a Hong Kong brand. Do you hear that, Secretary?

Thus, I strongly support setting up a select committee by the Legislative Council. Members who join this select committee will have to work very hard in the following months; they may have to attend meetings during the summer break; and the Legislative Council Secretariat may have to deploy additional staff or even recruit more staff to conduct the inquiry. Nevertheless, I think we cannot sacrifice public safety and a well-established Hong Kong brand just because pro-establishment Members are unwilling to establish a select committee.

Two days ago, I chaired a meeting of a Bills Committee. The press reported that I was the only Member who attended the meeting. That is no big deal. I hope that Members who are concerned about the incident now under discussion will join the select committee. Regarding the independent Commission of Inquiry led by the former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN, I hope the Government can provide it with adequate resources and appoint another member to the Commission. I do not know if the Government already has a candidate in mind and what resources will be available to the Commission. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13425

I hope the Secretary can also give us a clear account. Certainly, in terms of resources, when compared with the Government's Commission of Inquiry, the select committee of the Legislative Council will be served by staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat. Members from different functional constituencies (including those of the engineering sector, the surveying sector and the legal sector) as well as Members well experienced in inquiries can provide help. I cannot see any reason why Members of the Legislative Council do not have a role to play in this important incident concerning public safety.

President, I so submit.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the construction safety of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL").

The concerns of Members who spoke on this motion yesterday and earlier today are more or less the same. I will spend some time introducing the background of this incident so that we may have a clear mind to understand why the Legislative Council should inquire into the incident even though the Government has already appointed an independent Commission of Inquiry.

This incident is really a disaster. To the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the Government, it is a public relations disaster. More importantly, it is a time bomb in public transport threatening public safety and may turn into a real traffic disaster anytime. I do not think any colleagues present or any people in Hong Kong will want to see this happen.

Such a serious incident must not be taken lightly, but how did MTRCL, the Secretary and the Government team respond to this incident? Frederick MA, Chairman of MTRCL, put forward the "OK theory": if he said it was OK, then it was OK. He also told us to be forward-looking. If this attitude is adopted in handling every situation, there will simply be no problems at all. No one will have to admit his faults or accept punishment because all we have to do is to look forward. Even if mistakes were made, we should still look forward. What a magnificent motto!

13426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

The Government has somehow adopted this inclination. For most of the time, the Secretary addresses problems with this "forward-looking" mentality. Of course, there is a need to be forward-looking. The Secretary has recently reminded us to look at this incident objectively and scientifically. As a matter of fact, the public is actually crying out loud for a scientific examination. The engineering sector has made a number of suggestions, such as examining the platform slab by chipping out 5% or 10% of concrete. I think these suggestions are feasible and may not be mutually exclusive. However, whenever anyone puts forward a suggestion of this kind, the Government will "play safe" and tell us to look forward and adopt some other methods which are more scientific. It is indeed fine for the Government to say so, but is there a method which is more scientific and effective than testing and examination? I hope the Secretary will later spend some time answering this question.

When this incident was revealed in late May, it had caused a huge uproar. Our prime concerns are how many steel bars are involved and whether structural safety will be affected. In its press conference on 6 June, MTRCL pointed out that five faulty steel bars were found in one of its five inspections and less than five faulty steel bars were found in each of the remaining four inspections, with the total number of faulty steel bars not exceeding 17. However, according to the whistle-blowers―there must be some whistle-blowers as the defective works at a number of MTR stations came to light one after another―5 000 out of 26 000 steel bars may have faulty connection.

President, another problem with this incident is that it is a "Rashomon" affair. While MTRCL submitted an investigation report to the Government on 15 June to make a remedy expeditiously, China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology"), the subcontractor of reinforced concrete works at SCL's Hung Hom Station, made certain allegations. I saw on television that the Managing Director of China Technology voiced his allegations yesterday and today, saying that although the representatives of MTRCL and Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") had met with the representatives of China Technology to hear evidence, MTRCL and Leighton subsequently excluded the evidence given by China Technology in their report to the Government. Of course, he put it in a very polite way. Yet, does "exclusion" imply "deletion and alteration"? That is, the evidence given by China Technology was not taken as evidence, and the report was based solely on the evidence given by Leighton without mentioning the views of the other party.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13427

The practice is uncommon. Most of the investigation reports will seldom be drafted in this way but will include all relevant claims. Although the Government said righteously that certain contents of the report had to be deleted and could not be disclosed as some investigations were underway, China Technology had the courage―subcontractors or sub-subcontractors of government works seldom do so―to come forward and speak out against the Government, saying "we are not sure how and at what levels MTRCL discussed our evidence with Leighton to come up with the conclusion that Leighton strenuously denied the allegations and hence deleted all our evidence from the report". China Technology also said that "we do not know the exact number of faulty steel bars at Hung Hom Station but disagree with the recollection of MTRCL's Projects Director that there were five occasions on which a total of 17 steels bars were found to be faulty, with three of them being missed out in rectification." The assertions of China Technology completely contradict with the government remarks or the report of MTRCL.

President, it took me a few minutes to introduce the background of the incident. The more we know, the more confused we are. This incident involves significant public interest and yet someone seems to be trying to make up a story or has failed to provide sufficient information or disclose the full picture. This situation is highly unsatisfactory.

In view of this, I will now explain why I support Dr CHENG Chung-tai. Firstly, as stated by many Members just now, the affected parts have the risk of structural safety. As MTR is a major passenger carrier with huge daily capacity, the incident will have direct impact on passenger safety, not to mention affecting the load capacity of the East West Corridor's platform. This is the most important reason why we support the motion. In this incident, it is clear that someone has fabricated deliberately with the intent to cover up the construction problems. If these problems end up leading to accidents or fatalities in the future, who should be held responsible?

Furthermore, with more news about this project being exposed, there is a saying that MTRCL and the Secretary might have learnt about this incident long ago. Of course, the Secretary has denied this allegation and claimed that his colleagues have not informed him of this incident. But was the Secretary telling the whole truth? Or did his subordinates tell the whole truth when recounting the words of the works supervisors?

13428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

There is also a saying that some people are actually aware that steel bars have been cut short. I believe the Secretary has watched the news reports. Lately, the Managing Director of China Technology, despite being a small subcontractor, dared to confront the Government. I am afraid that he will be in trouble later. He openly alleged that he witnessed steel bars being cut short and he even deliberately stayed late at the site to see what happened. Why did he do so? He did it for a reason. Although there are now some comments smearing him, I am convinced that it is reasonable for him to do so after listening to his side of story. According to him, in case any construction problems are exposed in the future, the liabilities will fall right on him. As someone is now trying to hush up the matter, when all evidence is gone one day, he will be the one to bear the entire responsibility. In my view, his remarks indicate that he is just trying to protect himself and reasonably explain his present move. Of course, he also said that public safety involved in this incident was one of his considerations.

Apart from the two points mentioned above, I opine that MTRCL has seriously failed to discharge its duties in this incident, not only in respect of works supervision … According to MTRCL, owing to heavy workload, manpower shortage and tonnes of paperwork, their on-site works supervisors actually only spend two hours on on-site supervision each day. For such a large-scale project which is rushing to meet the deadline, can on-site supervision be done properly within one or two hours? Is works supervision simply a formality to MTRCL, as described by China Technology? I think we should inquire into these matters thoroughly instead of making judgment simply based on the information currently disclosed in a "toothpaste squeezing" manner.

What makes us even more dissatisfied is that, as evident by the background of the incident I just described, MTRCL tends to cool down the incident by refusing to disclose a lot of information, or withholding certain evidence on the pretext of various legal reasons. I think this move has seriously undermined the public's right to know and their right to monitor.

If the Legislative Council sets up a select committee to inquire into this incident, the scope of inquiry needs not be limited to the problems concerning Hung Hom Station. Apart from Hung Hom Station, construction problems are also found in To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station of SCL. In my view, the inquiry of the Legislative Council may cover a wider scope to ensure public safety and at the same time, respond to public concerns over the structural safety of these stations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13429

While subcontractor China Technology has provided some evidence, MTRCL gives me the impression that it has an established stance and wants to suppress the voice of China Technology with its large legal team. That is why I have repeatedly praised the Managing Director of China Technology for his courage. I believe that he must be driven by his strong dissatisfaction to openly confront the Government like a moth to a flame. For this incident, as the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance confers powers on Members to inquire into issues of significant public interest, why doesn't the Legislative Council conduct an inquiry concurrently with the Government's inquiry as suggested by some colleagues earlier, so that members of the public can know more information and monitor the incident?

Just now, I heard colleagues from the pro-establishment camp repeat the same reason, that is, as the Government has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry, there is no need for the Legislative Council to form a select committee to inquire into the incident. Personally, I think the two can co-exist at the same time. It is not uncommon for having more than one committee inquiring into the same issue. In addition, pro-establishment colleagues are particularly good at handling such incidents as they often emphasize that "people's livelihood is no trivial matter" and are concerned about livelihood issues. It is a public safety incident which has nothing to do with politics. All Members, regardless of their political affiliation … frankly, I believe all colleagues present, regardless of their political stance, will undoubtedly feel sad should any Hong Kong people get hurt while taking public transportation.

Yet, how come the pro-establishment colleagues have to suppress the Legislative Council today? In the past, when they wished to inquire into certain incidents, no matter how trivial the issue might be, they would insist on conducting an inquiry. However, when problems have successively been identified in a number of stations and the severity of this incident is beyond doubt, why do they think that the incident can be settled by referring to the Government? Though the Government has indicated that it will inquire into this incident, I would like to remind the Government that Secretary Frank CHAN should avoid getting involved, given that he is one of those being accused of in this incident. In view of the limitations or inadequacies of the Government's inquiry, I think it is appropriate for the Legislative Council to set up a select committee at the same time, so that the truth can be further revealed to the public as most of the hearings of the select committee are conducted in public unless 13430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 confidential information is involved. Therefore, it is more desirable for the Legislative Council to set up a select committee than to wait for the report of the independent inquiry.

Lastly, I wish to raise one more point as requested by many people. One of the reasons for us to call for an inquiry is that government departments and MTRCL have made serious mistakes in handling this incident. Apart from worrying about works safety, we also doubt whether they will inquire into or deal with the construction problems in a fair manner. This is a question of credibility, but their credibility has been greatly lost. In the process of report submission, the Government and MTRCL have given people an impression that they were "squeezing toothpaste out of the tube", acting in collusion and being biased. The general public have thus lost confidence in them. As for the Legislative Council, despite the political disputes in normal times, Honourable colleagues as a whole do represent the will of people across the territory. I believe pro-establishment Members will not belittle themselves because, regardless of the number of votes we received or whether we are returned from the functional constituencies, we at least have the mandate of a portion of the population to join the Council. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the Legislative Council to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the truth of the incident.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, in the incident of the alleged corner-cutting scandals of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") discloses information in a "toothpaste squeezing" manner as if it is telling a serial story. Members of the public are thus greatly disappointed and infuriated. As this incident involves significant public interest and public safety, it cannot be handled causally in a slipshod way.

The construction of SCL has cost the public coffers more than $80 billion, and I surely do not want to see more cost overruns. Given the magnitude of this project and the renowned reputation of MTRCL, it is hard to believe that corner-cutting situations have arisen. Worse still, there are no reports, records or punishments! All these are simply outrageous.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13431

Of course, MTRCL has to bear a large part of responsibility, but where is the main contractor, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton")? So far, Leighton has not given the public an account. It just keeps hiding and acts like an ostrich.

Leighton, which undertakes the whole SCL project, has developed a Site Supervision Plan and a Quality Supervision Plan to monitor different aspects, including quality, specifications and drawings, of all relevant works. Before the pouring of concrete, Leighton is required to submit a Request for Inspection and Survey Checks to MTRCL. With all these procedures in place, how come there are still unreported corner-cutting situations? Though China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") (i.e. the subcontractor of reinforced concrete works) has repeatedly reported the cutting of steel bars, how come such incidents have kept recurring? Presently, it is even reported that thousands of steel bars might have been cut in a substandard way. How come these problems could have happened? Who gave these orders? Was there any acquiescence? Are there any major loopholes in the system? These are the questions that members of the public want to ask. Anyone who is incompetent or has neglected or failed to perform his duties should be punished or be held accountable.

I often criticize the outsourcing system. MTRCL used to be owned by the Government. Yet, after the privatization of MTRCL in 2000 and the rail merger in 2007, the Government only handles the business of MTRCL half-remotely through the board of MTRCL and does not always consider that it has to get involved in MTRCL's business. After the Government has granted the service concession to MTRCL, MTRCL in turn contracts out its large-scale works projects to main contractors. The main contractor in this incident is Leighton, which has subcontracted the works involved to different levels of subcontractors. Is the outsourcing of works tantamount to the outsourcing of responsibility? Does it mean that no one will have to take responsibility? With the responsibility being shifted from one level to another, will frontline workers eventually become scapegoats and be blamed for acting arbitrarily? Will this be the final outcome?

To be honest, corner-cutting of such a large scale can hardly be an individual case. I do not think frontline workers will, of their own accord, use heavy machinery to cut the steel bars. I do not believe frontline workers have the guts to do so. There must be some systemic problems that we have to find out.

13432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Of course, while Leighton should bear most of the responsibility and MTRCL should also be held responsible, the Government actually also to take the blame. The Highways Department has been maintaining communication with MTRCL for the implementation of this project, but their communication does not seem to be effective; otherwise, how is it possible that the Government is unaware of the incident? The Secretary even admitted that he learnt about the incident from the press, and the same remark was made by the Director as well. How could that be possible?

There is another issue is rarely mentioned by colleagues, and that is, the responsibility of the consultancy firm. PYPUN-KD & Associates Limited is the monitoring and verification consultant for construction, testing and commissioning of SCL works, charging as much as $200 million for its consultancy services. However, while such consultancy firms are always awarded with lucrative contracts, we fail to see them perform any function of supervision, quality assurance or plugging loopholes to guard against works problems. The public are hence deeply disappointed with their performance.

In my view, this incident lies with the system rather than individuals. The systemic loopholes even tempted the parties in question to try their luck. Why do I say so? If no one had noticed the defects before concreting, they could have muddled through. Even if they failed to muddle through, they would not consider it a big deal as they might just rectify the defects and there would not be any report, record or punishment after rectification. They therefore decided to try their luck.

In view of this, there must be a thorough and objective inquiry to get to the bottom of the incident without fear or favour. Soon after the incident came to light at the end of last month, The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions urged the Government to appoint a judge so as to set up an independent commission of inquiry. Under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86), a commission of inquiry shall have great powers. It may summon witnesses, require the giving of evidence, issue arrest warrants, issue search warrants for the entry and inspection of any premises, so on and so forth. Moreover, such inquiry will be a judicial proceeding and the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry shall have the powers similar to those of a judge. In addition, the Commission of Inquiry is chaired by Mr Michael John HARTMANN, a former Judge. As we all know, he chaired an independent Expert Panel in 2014 to inquire into the delay in the Express Rail Link ("XRL") project. Given his extensive experience in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13433 conducting trials, his work in leading the Expert Panel on XRL and his credibility, I think the public will have confidence in the Commission of Inquiry led by former Judge Mr HARTMANN.

All inquiries, including hearings, should be objective, independent and free from political intervention as far as possible. That is why we always emphasize the importance of judicial independence. If the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") is invoked … the Legislative Council does have this "imperial sword", but when should it be used? It must be used carefully. In what circumstances should it be used? We must also think about it.

The Legislative Council is a political stage. I am not saying that politicization is definitely because, to a certain extent, politicization is the norm of the Council and is unavoidable. However, I find that some colleagues already have a rather strong predetermined position and preconceived views before the commencement of the inquiry. If they have predetermined and presumed, before the inquiry, that certain persons must take responsibility and step down … personally, I think we should investigate first and then consider if someone should take responsibility and step down. We should not have a strong inclination or a predetermined position before the completion of the inquiry, because having a predetermined position may undermine the credibility of the inquiry and the search for truth.

In order to find the persons to be held responsible, I think, at this stage, it is better for the inquiry to be conducted by the independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government than by the Legislative Council. As I said just now, the Legislative Council will inevitably politicize the incident. Furthermore, taking into account the existing resources available to the Legislative Council and the workload of our colleagues, the mere commitment that "we will make our best effort" may not ensure that the inquiry work will be adequately conducted. Meanwhile, the Legislative Council already has a tightly set agenda and we have many more important businesses to deal with.

Since the Government has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry, is it necessary to duplicate the work? Can we wait for the inquiry outcome to see whether it is objective and reasonable before considering the invocation of the Ordinance? Will this be a wiser choice?

13434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

To me, this inquiry should be more transparent and cover a wider scope. Therefore, although I support the Government in setting up a Commission of Inquiry, I hope the Government will consider expanding the scope of inquiry, so that the Commission of Inquiry will not only inquire into the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station, but also the removal of two layers of steel bars from the platform wall at To Kwa Wan Station, the defects of Exhibition Centre Station and the outsourcing system of MTRCL. We do not wish that we cannot see the wood for the trees; we also do not want the inquiry to focus on "beheading" one or two persons to the neglect of the overall systemic problems. We do not wish to see either of these circumstances.

Therefore, while I do not support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's proposal of invoking the Ordinance to conduct an investigation, I urge the Government to expand the scope of inquiry and conduct a more in-depth investigation. In the process of inquiry, the Government should timely inform the public of the progress so as to enhance transparency. Assuming that the inquiry will last six months, the Government must not leave the public in the dark. On the premise of safeguarding the objectivity of the inquiry, I hope the Government will allow the public to access more information by improving the disclosure of documents and relevant information.

Lastly, I wish to repeat one point. MTRCL is one of the renowned brands in Hong Kong. As railway safety and works safety involve significant public interest and public safety, no ambiguity should be allowed. I therefore hope that the independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government will find out the truth to allay public concern. Thank you, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's proposal to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") (Cap. 382) to inquire into the substandard construction works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project and other related matters.

I cannot predict the voting result of the Legislative Council this time, but we all know that there are sufficient votes from Members of the royalist party and pro-establishment camp to defend the Government in this Council, so it is very likely that this motion on the appointment of a select committee will not be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13435 passed and Secretary Frank CHAN can then continue to read newspapers. Instead of being briefed by his subordinates on the ins and outs of a major incident relating to a works scandal of Hong Kong, a principal government official has degenerated to the extent of learning such information from the press. Worse still, instead of initiating to conduct an investigation to identify the culprits of this outraging incident, the Government has delayed the matter until Members from different political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council put forward a request. Finally, a Commission of Inquiry was eventually set up under Cap. 86 of the laws of Hong Kong.

Some people said that although the Legislative Council has the "imperial sword", it cannot be used. Today, Hong Kong has almost degenerated to the same extent as the Mainland where "tofu-dreg" projects are found all over the place. As Hong Kong has been promoted as Asia's world city of a very high standard, such problems should not have existed, yet inferiour projects have been found one after another. All major projects, including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Express Rail Link ("XRL") and SCL, are plagued by scandals and falsification.

In 2014, the Government set up an Independent Expert Panel to investigate the delay of the XRL project. Since both the Highways Department and the senior management of MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") were well aware that there was dereliction of duty on their part as well as inadequacies in many respects back then, there is no reason why the same problem would occur again in 2018 after an investigation was conducted in 2014. And yet, nowadays in Hong Kong, anything could happen no matter how unreasonable it is. As noted by the majority of officials, they need not worry too much about this kind of investigation conducted by the Government. Take the independent Commission of Inquiry chaired by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN as an example. Its scope of inquiry, terms of reference and subsequently scope of recommendation are all decided by the Government. The Government is very smart and Carrie LAM is very cunning too. When it is found that the problems relating to SCL were not only limited to Hung Hom Station, which surely is the most outraging case, but also occurred in Exhibition Centre Station, To Kwa Wan Station and probably 10 more stations along the line, the Government has acted brilliantly to confine the Commission of Inquiry's scope of inquiry to Hung Hom Station, saying that a wide coverage might render the inquiry out of focus. Is it really that easy for the Government to be out of focus? When we asked the 13436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Government to do something, it said that the work might be out of focus. The Government simply wants to use the Commission of Inquiry to get out of the predicament and imposes some limitations on its terms of reference, the scope of inquiry and even the recommendations to be made in the future. Its objective is to procrastinate for six months to one year, because after all, the expenses of the Secretariat of the Commission of Inquiry are financed by the public coffers. To put it rudely, the Government may manipulate the Secretariat. For example, Secretary Frank CHAN and other senior government officials may say that they need more time to carefully study the documents. There is no way we would know. While we did not query in the past, we have lost confidence now given the present political culture and performance of the principal officials.

There is a saying that the Legislative Council is no longer needed, I think it may be right. Members of the pro-establishment camp and royalist party joined the Legislative Council for only two objectives, namely defending the Government and acting as a rubber stamp. Therefore, we should not believe in the words of the Government. For example, Members of the pro-establishment camp just now said that this matter was very important and thorough investigation must be conducted, yet they opposed the appointment of a select committee on the ground that the "imperial sword" of the Legislative Council was involved and it should not be used. They should either withdraw from being Members of this Council or they should follow the advice that Mr WONG Ting-kwong gave yesterday, i.e. no more committee should be set up as there are already too many meetings to attend. In that case, they should not have joined the Legislative Council at the outset. And yet, whenever a select committee is formed, they would take up a number of seats and strive to assume chairmanship with a view to controlling the agenda and defending the Government. This is a fact well known to all.

They criticized pro-democracy Members for having preconceived position, but no matter what their position is, they cannot prevent …

(Mr CHAN Han-pan raised his hand to indicate his wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please hold on. Mr CHAN Han-pan, what is your point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13437

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I want to seek elucidation from Dr KWOK Ka-ki. On that day, Mr WONG Ting-kwong had no intention to contest for the chairmanship of the relevant subcommittee; he hoped that Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung would take up the chairmanship, but Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung was reluctant to take up the chairmanship.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please continue to speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I have no idea what nonsense he was talking, they were irrelevant to my speech.

President, although pro-democracy Members have the mandate of the majority of the public, they are subject to numerous constraints in respect of appointing a select committee or other matters. The select committee is controlled by the pro-establishment camp, not only in respect of the terms of reference, but also the membership and even the chairmanship. Though we are aware of the difficulties involved, we still make an all-out effort to strive for the appointment of a select committee, so as to discharge our duties as Members of the Legislative Council. We absolutely have not belittled the Commission of Inquiry led by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN, or thought that the Commission of Inquiry would not act responsibly. However, there is one fact that even HARTMANN cannot change, i.e. both the terms of reference and scope of inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry are decided by Government. Under the constitutional system of Hong Kong, the functions of the Legislative Council are clearly stated. It is the only institution in Hong Kong that can oversee the Executive Authorities which have enormous power. The present incident does not involve a common falsification. It involves a major concrete wall at Hung Hom Station supporting two stations, and may lead to the collapse of the entire railway, causing serious casualties. Worse still, Hong Kong will become an international laughingstock and scandal. Is this unimportant? Has the Government not said that we should attract Mainland tourists to come to Hong Kong and attract investors from different parts of the world to invest in Hong Kong? Should our rail collapse resulting in serious casualties, will people still come to invest in Hong Kong?

13438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Instead of listening to the nonsense made by the royalist and pro-establishment camps, I think the most pragmatic approach is to put the matter to vote. If they dare to vote in favour of the appointment of a select committee, I will believe they really care about Hong Kong, otherwise they are just two of a kind, shielding the Government from bullets.

As we all know, after the SAR Government, the great Central Government, the royalist party and pro-establishment camp have formed an interest group, more scandals will happen in Hong Kong in the days to come. At present, the cost of this project has already exceeded $500 billion, it is likely that another one thousand billion or several hundred billion dollars will have to be spent in the future. Both the SCL and XRL projects costing more than $100 billion and nearly $90 billion respectively are fat meat, and I am not going to dwell on the considerable costs incurred because only 1% of which would be enough to sustain the living of many people. The enormous interests involved in these projects are indeed the hotbed of corruption and falsification, but the Government has turned a blind eye. The engineering sector has been disgraced because it does not have the courage to step forward and request the appointment of a committee. What is more shameful for Hong Kong is that Members of the pro-establishment camp and royalist party have failed to discharge their duties.

Some people said that the Legislative Council has rarely set up select committees under the Ordinance. Let me tell you, select committees had been set up by the Legislative Council to inquire into the operation of the new airport in 1997, the short-piling of public housing units, the SARS incident, the Lehman Brothers incident and the post-service work of Mr LEUNG Chin-man. The last select committee was set up by the Legislative Council in February 2012 on the involvement of LEUNG Chun-ying (before he became the Chief Executive) as a member of the jury in the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition and related issues. How can you say that no select committee had been set up? Yet, the message we received back then was that Henry TANG but not LEUNG Chun-ying should be supported, but later there was an abrupt change. Consequently, during the period when "689" LEUNG Chun-ying was the Chief Executive, all motions requesting the appointment of select committees under the Ordinance were voted down. The fall of Hong Kong is precisely attributed to these people and government officials. If the truth can be known, I am sure that the select committee will certainly not falsify or fabricate facts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13439

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

The Highways Department has turned a blind eye to the falsification of MTRCL, and has been kept in the dark about the acts of Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") or other major contractors. In fact, apart from Leighton, there are still many other Chinese state enterprises behind the scene. Perhaps some people want to protect these bigwigs and would like to cover rather than expose the dirt under the carpet. Even if there might be serious casualties in the future, they would not be involved. If the railway did collapse one day, all the officials concerned should have retired by then. Members of the royalist party and pro-establishment camp, on the other hand, would have become Executive Council Members one after another or become bigwigs, and they would be represented. Have they done justice to the people of Hong Kong?

Hong Kong people pay for the construction of these "white elephant" infrastructure projects, but all of them are plagued with scandals, corruption and falsifications. Worse still, a mishap might cause serious casualties in the future, and the victims are all Hong Kong people. I really cannot find anything more absurd than the present SAR.

Do members of the public have the right to express their views? If we ask people in the street whether the Legislative Council should set up a select committee to conduct an investigation, all of them will reply in the affirmative. But can this be done? Of course not, because the "rubber stamp party" will vote against the motion later. Therefore, the Government needs not worry as this party will surely rise to defend it. I heard that of the 25 000 steel bars, 5 000 have been cut short. I wonder if this is true. Over the past two days, one of the subcontractors also openly denounced that the matter was utterly unacceptable. He claimed that he witnessed the infiltration of seawater and hence reported to the Government via an email. When the Government notified MTRCL, the latter retorted and asked if this was actually the case. Worse still, when MTRCL came to the Legislative Council to brief Members, the information provided varied each time. This indicates that MTRCL had fabricated figures and dates when presenting information to the Council.

We trust these people because they are all employed by the Government. The Government, being the major shareholder of MTRCL and holds more than 77% of its shares, claims that it has nothing to do with the matter because 13440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MTRCL is a listed company, but the truth is that all the directors are appointed by the Government. When Frederick MA defended the Government, he asked us not to ask but to trust him. This is precisely the government culture. In fact, Frederick MA has the guts to make such a remark because he knows this is the style of the Government. The so-called level of governance of Hong Kong is now exceptionally low.

Although I dare not predict, I know that amidst the present political situation and under the harbouring of the royalist party and the pro-establishment camp, the motion on the appointment of a select committee would not be passed. Nonetheless, I must highlight the truth and the wrongdoings of the Government and the royalist party in this Chamber: they have put Hong Kong at risk and contribute to its fall.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the subject of this motion is that Dr CHENG Chung-tai seeks the consent of this Council to appoint a select committee and empower it to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to, according to Dr CHENG, inquire into the incident about the suspected concealment by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") of the alleged substandard construction works carried out at the new platforms of Hung Hom station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), and other related matters.

Deputy President, many people described the Ordinance as an "imperial sword". An "imperial sword", which symbolizes mighty power, will only be used to inquire into an incident considered by the majority to be involved with significant public interest and hence it is necessary to find out its ins and outs, but in-depth follow-up action cannot be taken in the usual manner. Under such a situation, it will be essential and appropriate to use the "imperial sword". Members of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood ("ADPL") and I are of the view that this is the basic principle that we must strictly adhere to when weighing the pros and cons of using this "imperial sword".

Concerning this motion, a similar request was made by Dr CHENG Chung-tai on the same subject at the meeting of the House Committee held on 8 June, and Members from different parties had already expressed their different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13441 views and positions. The matter was then put to vote and the request was not supported. Thus, the discussion of the matter at the Council meeting today is tantamount to revisiting old issues time and again.

When I spoke at the relevant House Committee meeting, I pointed out that "MTRCL should investigate why the incident occurred and whether there were any problems in its monitoring system … MTRCL had undertaken to submit a report to the Administration in the week after this meeting". I therefore stressed that "if the Administration found the report unsatisfactory, it could set up an independent commission of inquiry to conduct an investigation into the incident." I also advised that it was too early for Members to consider invoking the powers under the Ordinance to inquire into the incident.

There is no doubt that the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station of SCL involves public safety and has aroused widespread public concern. The Legislative Council and the Government have also attached great importance to the incident. On 12 June, Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM decided to establish an independent Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86 of the Laws of Hong Kong) to conduct a comprehensive investigation and appointed former non-permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Mr Michael John HARTMANN to lead the inquiry, which is expected to take six months. The Commission of Inquiry is set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and the inquiry is a judicial proceeding. Also, it has the statutory power to summon witnesses to give evidence or to produce any item or document, and is therefore a genuine "tiger with teeth". Examples of commission of inquiry previously set up include the inquiry into the marine disaster near Lamma Island in 2012 and the lead-in-water incident in 2015.

In 2014, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN was the Chairman of the Independent Expert Panel to inquire into the delays and cost overruns of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project. Being well-versed in railway projects, he is therefore the appropriate person to lead the Commission of Inquiry. I once told the media that members of the Commission of Inquiry should be independent professional engineers who are familiar with the situation and the management of Hong Kong's engineering industry to facilitate the investigation of this engineering incident. Details such as the terms of reference are being drafted by the Administration and will be submitted to the Executive Council for approval later. However, as pointed out by the Chief Executive, the Commission of Inquiry has to examine the cause of the incident and the extent of the impact, as well as 13442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 review MTRCL's supervision system and the Government's mechanism of controlling railway projects in the light of the problems identified, with a view to making recommendations to ensure the quality and safety of works. The Administration hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would focus on the problems of steel bars at Hung Hom Station of SCL, otherwise the inquiry would be out of focus. I also agree that the works problem relating to To Kwa Wan station is different from that of Hung Hom Station, and thus cannot be lumped together.

Deputy President, with regard to the decision of the Government to set up an independent Commission of Inquiry, Legislative Council Members belonging to different political parties and groupings have basically expressed their endorsement and support. I hope that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry can enhance the traceability and risk management of MTRCL's control system and processes.

Furthermore, the matter has also been reported to the Police. Against this background, if Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion is passed and this Council invokes the Ordinance to conduct an investigation at this stage, it may affect the work of the Commission of Inquiry led by the former Judge Mr HARTMANN and the investigation that may be conducted by the Police. What is more, it is not difficult to tell from similar discussions in the past that certain Members may, in the course of discussion, place too much emphasis on the accountability of government officials or the management of MTRCL and take the matter too personal, thereby overlooking the genuine need to tackle the problem. I am afraid that this would only make the investigation too political and complicated.

Deputy President, it is the concern of the public to probe into the truth of the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station and find out if there are any irregularities or even unlawful acts, with a view to affixing responsibilities and learning a lesson from the incident. While it is justified for people to have the right to know about any incident involving public safety, we understand that the problems involved are highly technical and professional in nature and the general public may not be able to grasp easily. After the incident, some members of the public made groundless speculation or accusation based on incomplete information and even hearsay, and then incorrectly relayed erroneous messages. We should therefore leave the matter in the hands of qualified professionals, otherwise it may cause unnecessary panic among the public and seriously undermine the reputation established by the local engineering industry over the years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13443

As a matter of fact, although Hong Kong has launched numerous major infrastructure projects in the past, serious mistakes in design or construction are uncommon. Over the years, our construction industry has already developed a reliable, robust and comprehensive system of design, inspection and material testing. The professional standards and achievements attained are evident to all. The Hong Kong International Airport and Tsing Ma Bridge, for example, have received worldwide recognition and praises.

The basic requirement of engineering design is to take into full consideration the possible changes or inconsistencies that may arise in respect of workmanship and quality specifications of materials during the construction processes. All the construction procedures must be carried out by professional mechanics, and stringent testing procedures have been introduced to ensure that the quality of construction meet the required standard and is consistent. Furthermore, construction materials will be tested both before and after delivery to the site to ensure that they comply with the standard. As for structural materials such as steel bars and concrete, the requirements for testing and tracing are far more stringent so as to ensure public safety. Inspection points must be established for critical procedures and important construction processes, for example, prior to the injection of concrete, it is imperative to confirm that all the materials comply with the standards and have been installed according to the plan. In case defects or errors are identified during the construction process, non-compliance reports will be issued by independent professionals requiring rectification of the irregularities before proceeding to the next step. All irregularities listed in the non-compliance report must be properly dealt with before the project can be formally completed.

How can the authorities improve the entire monitoring structure and enhance the effectiveness and transparency of monitoring by society, thereby minimizing the chance of errors or delays? What should be done to properly deal with the serious blunders or delays and communicate with the general public in a timely manner? These are the issues that the Government and MTRCL have to thoroughly review and consider. However, we should also be mindful not to go to the other extreme and, in response to public views, tighten the control or reporting procedures of MTRCL or even require it to report to the Government on all matters. Those who are familiar with the operation of the industry might consider this over-vigilant, and is nothing more than a formality that would simply create additional workload, slow down the works progress and reduce the flexibility of the operation. It does not provide any concrete assistance in enhancing the safety of the project and quality control.

13444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Deputy President, my colleagues from ADPL and I do not support the proposal to invoke the Ordinance to inquire into the matter at this stage. We think that such a move is unnecessary and inappropriate, nor does it help to resolve the problem.

Deputy President, with these remarks, I oppose Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we are discussing today the motion on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). I have been a Member of the Legislative Council for more than 20 years and I am very experienced. On this subject that has attracted so much social concern, I should be able to present to Hong Kong people my views on the current situation based on my own experience.

I hope that the Government, especially the Chief Executive, will not take the matter lightly this time. It is very easy for the Secretary to step down and he may even do so tomorrow. It is not, as claimed by the Secretary, that he has to work at this moment. Why do I say so? The incident has posed a severe test for the SAR Government, including Chief Executive Carrie LAM. The Chief Executive had all along been working for the Government and had been the Director of different Policy Bureaux, she had overseen the Finance Bureau and had served as the Chief Secretary for Administration. Everyone thinks that she is a "good fighter".

Why do we have to invoke the Ordinance to conduct an investigation? Apart from hoping to present the truth to the community, we would also like to know the Government's political responsibility in this incident. This is a great challenge for the incumbent Chief Executive. Of course, the Chief Executive would not easily step down because of this incident, but it would be easy for the Secretary to step down. If the Central Authorities think that the Secretary fails to perform, they will look for a substitute. In the worst-case scenario, it can be said that the Secretary is unlucky. After his assumption of duty, he has to take over the work of the former Secretary and has to work hard to meet deadlines. Hence he only learnt from the press about the incident. China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") leapfrogged and reported the case to the Secretary's subordinates, but the Secretary said that he had not read the email and hence did not know what had happened. Would his subordinate become the scapegoat?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13445

After the occurrence of such a major incident, China Technology leapfrogged and wanted to discuss with the Secretary about exposing some information. Please do not forget that our society today is different from what it was a few decades ago. Probably because the Secretary used to work in the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, he assumed that the Bureau and the Department still had a lot of power as they did in the past. If someone wanted to expose certain information, he should inform the Bureau or the Department first and should not speak too much in the public. However, our society today is extremely transparent. If someone makes a remark on Facebook, it will be widely circulated. Deputy President, please do not forget that the Government has completely lost its credibility in this incident.

As in the case during the Occupy Movement, the media would, at 4:00 pm each day, ask Mr Michael TIEN whether he had any information to expose. He did have some information to expose each day. For example, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") said that 17 steel bars had been cut short, but he said 5 000 steel bars had been cut short. Does the community believe in the Government, MTRCL, the Secretary, the Chief Executive or Mr Michael TIEN? This is a matter of attitude and lately, a key figure is the Managing Director of China Technology, Mr POON. He made a few crucial points. First, he said that he saw someone cutting steel bars, and the number of steel bars being cut short far exceeded 17 as mentioned by MTRCL. Mr Michael TIEN said that the number was 5 000, but Mr POON had not given the exact number. He added that, a few days ago (on the 13th), when he testified to the independent board to investigate the matter on behalf of MTRCL, he pointed out the number of steel bars being cut short, the location, time, people and the companies he believed were involved. However, his evidence was completely removed from the report submitted by MTRCL to the Government and to be made public. I do not know what the Secretary has done regarding this allegation. Surprisingly, he told the public that they should deal with the incident in a more scientific manner. It would be better if he had not said anything.

The Chief Executive thought that she could hide behind the former Judge, Mr Michael John HARTMANN, saying that he was about to conduct an inquiry, and asking the public to trust him as the findings would be available in a few months. Yet, the community cannot wait for a few months because the Government has completely lost its credibility in this incident. Mr Michael TIEN said that 5 000 steel bars had been cut short, but he could not tell how this was done. Mr POON, being really nice, suggested that the number should be reduced by 10% because he was responsible for the in-between process.

13446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

According to my experience, those who are in the know, especially those who can get hold of the crucial information, are often the interested parties. Their remarks should be highly valued and carefully considered in detail by the community. However, MTRCL placed a statement in the newspapers, stating that one-sided allegations or speculations―I do not know if it is referring to Mr Michael TIEN or Mr POON, probably Mr Michael TIEN―will not help resolve the issue in any way, but will unnecessarily undermine public confidence in MTRCL. Hong Kong used to be proud of MTRCL but now the Chairman of MTRCL asked people to trust him. I think he has departed from his normal behaviour; why has he changed suddenly? Has he been praying less often? Of course, the answer is in the negative. The Government simply wanted to play down the whole incident; the Chief Executive also wanted to play down the incident and has asked the Secretary and Frederick MA to play down the whole incident. She has even asked all staff of MTRCL to do so, and then said that Mr Michael John HARTMANN would find out the truth and we should trust him.

If, without the information provided by Mr POON and Mr Michael TIEN, the community may believe that the Commission of Inquiry led by the former Judge, Mr Michael John HARTMANN, can clear up the doubts. However, please do not forget that there are problems with every station; do not say that this is conspiracy theory. Mr POON is now risking his life and property. He said that he was afraid of having to take the blame. Being a Hong Kong resident, he was also worried about his safety. How will his company be treated by the Government, MTRCL and other people in the future? Up till now, I have to salute to Mr POON. Even though he took actions because of his own interests and for fear of shouldering responsibilities, frankly speaking, many people, though fear of shouldering responsibilities, might chicken out and flee because they do not want to be put behind bars when they are 70 to 80 years old. He is right in saying so because such things do happen. We sometimes rely on people in the know to tell us the facts and the community should seriously follow up on the matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary's attitude is to play down the incident, instead of facing the reality and being honest and transparent. MTRCL is no longer the prudent company that I used to know. I am really saddened.

We once ridiculed the Mainland for its "tofu-dreg" projects and Dr LO Wai-kwok said that Hong Kong has very high standards. I am not saying that the entire engineering sector is cheating, but disregarding the causes of this incident, such as seeking monetary gains, seeking convenience, meeting deadlines or making mistakes, works should be carried out afresh and thorough tests should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13447 be conducted. We should not play down the incident because this cannot possibly be done in our society today. Deputy President, if unfortunately, incidents occur someday, even if the whole incident can now be played down and with the royalists shielding the Government, we cannot invoke the Ordinance to conduct an investigation, the truth of the incident will eventually be exposed.

Deputy President, when major incidents happened in the past, the investigation reports made by the Legislative Council had a certain degree of credibility. It does not matter even if some Members have pinpointed certain people or organizations because Members have their respective political spectrum and the community has been watching or listening. Members may indiscriminately abuse others but who will suffer in the end is still uncertain. As an engineer, he disclosed what he knew. If the Legislative Council can draw a credible conclusion accepted by various parties and groupings (we made such reports in the past), the community will be more willing to accept it. Why do the royalists want to play down the whole incident and refuse to investigate? Are they afraid that they may not be able to play down the whole incident once an investigation is underway, and that they have to accept the investigation result because the evidence given by the witnesses is written in black and white?

Moreover, by then, everyone will disclose the truth for fear of being jailed. Do they dare tell lies? What did Mr POON say? He said that Members could invoke the Ordinance. He has given half of the facts, but he can actually give all the facts. Please do not forget that this is different from the appointment of the engineer, C M WONG, behind closed doors. The fact that MTRCL had deleted certain evidence after the investigation had ruined its credibility. I do not mean to disrespect C M WONG, the engineer, but under this system, the public fail to see that the investigation will be conducted fairly unless Mr Michael John HARTMANN, the former Judge, start the hearing tomorrow. But this is not happening now and the hearing has yet to start.

If I were the person in charge of the Government, I would definitely support the conduct of an investigation by the Legislative Council. As I have done nothing wrong, the Legislative Council can investigate in whatever way it likes. There are only 20 pan-democrats in this Council, how strong will they be? There are more pro-establishment Members. Mr James TO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Michael TIEN can ask whatever questions they like. What can they find out? Have they turned every stone? Are there any more questions? All their questions have been answered. Please do not forget that 13448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 the game we are now playing attaches importance to credibility and transparency, unlike the behind-the-scenes investigation to be conducted by C M WONG who will compile a selective report after the investigation.

Secretary, if a few months ago China Technology leapfrogged and requested to meet with the Government but his request was turned down by your subordinates, then your subordinates, including the Permanent Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the Principle Assistant Secretary (if they chose to turn down his request) would have to bear responsibilities. If they had reported to the Secretary about the incident and the remarks made by China Technology, but the Secretary did not have the political sensitivity and failed to realize that this was a very important incident … The Secretary, who once served as the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services, should know the source of information being disclosed. He should face the reality and pay attention to the truth, instead of asking Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited to solve the problem or make coordinating efforts of its own accord.

In fact, as disclosed by the Secretary, there was a golden opportunity for him to solve the problem a few months ago, but the Government had not taken any action. Now, MTRCL has made one mistake after another, and it even issued a statement. Buddy, the evidence given by Mr POON is clear enough; he only exposed the information after waiting for more than a week and I believe Mr POON has also provided information to Mr Michael TIEN behind the scene. Maybe there are other people who have provided information. What has the Secretary done during that time? How much information has he grasped? Is he still telling people that he only learnt about the incident from the newspapers? Do we need such a Secretary? What is political accountability?

We are not talking about the collapse of a bridge. I am sorry to say that if you were the Minister of Transport 30 years ago, you would have to be held accountable for the incident and step down. But this is not the case now. The Secretary originally could have a few months' time to settle the case, find out the truth, and assume a strong leading role to uncover the incident. He could have asked MTRCL to carry out the relevant works afresh and demanded stringent monitoring of each process. Yet, the Secretary chose to play down the whole incident by pretending that he had not been informed and that he only knew about the incident from the press. Buddy, if that is the case, the problem is not whether the Secretary should step down, but whether the Government has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13449 produced the "tofu-dreg" projects. If so, the Government will be ridiculed for decades and this is also the standard used by the State leaders to access the governance of Hong Kong.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of this motion. This incident is not simply a single engineering project or an individual incident. It is understandable why Mr James TO was so infuriated just now.

Let us look at the statement placed on the newspapers by the MTR Corporation Ltd. ("MTRCL") yesterday. In the fourth paragraph it encourages "anyone with information that proves that illegal activities are involved in the incident should immediately provide the information to the Government or law enforcement agencies. Making one-sided allegations or speculations will not help resolve the issue in any way, but will unnecessarily undermine public confidence in railway infrastructure projects."

Even at this stage, MTRCL could still shamelessly say that the whole incident was merely our speculation and that someone has arbitrarily exposed certain information. MTRCL has maintained this attitude from the outset, claiming that these are not the problems of MTRCL, but the problems of the whistle-blowers. They should not arbitrarily expose the information, disgracing MTRCL as it did not know how to give an account to the public. When a whistle-blower exposed certain information, MTRCL did not address the problem but tried to deal with the whistle-blower instead. If it still handles problems in this manner, will there be any changes in its governance? No. I fail to see any changes.

Now the Government says that it will investigate, but the investigation will only be restricted to Hung Hom Station. The problems do not only relate to Hung Hom Station. For example, even though the supporting I-beams required for the construction of Exhibition Centre Station had not been placed according to the plan, the contractor continued with the excavation works. On 19 June 2018, MTRCL issued a press release, stating that the problem was identified between May and June. Yet, MTRCL did not ask the contractor to stop the works immediately. Let me reiterate, there was no immediate suspension of works. The implication is very serious indeed. MTRCL had only issued two non-compliance reports. What exactly did it mean? If the contractor had not placed sufficient supporting I-beams as required in the plan, the works site might 13450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 collapse. The design of the works and the required number of supporting I-beams as indicated in the plan had been calculated meticulously, involving a series of safety coefficients. Given the insufficient number of supporting I-beams, the works site or even the road surface might have the risk of collapsing, yet MTRCL had only issued non-compliance reports without suspending the works.

Several years ago, such incidents happened in China frequently. The frequent collapses of coal mines had resulted in serious casualties and great tragedies. It seems that presently, such kinds of news have become infrequent in China and the situation has improved. However, it turned out that such incidents have happened in Hong Kong. Workers' safety had been neglected and the incidents had not even been reported to the upper echelon of MTRCL. This is a problem with the system. Under such circumstances, how can we maintain our confidence in MTRCL?

According to the royalists, the Government has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry led by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN. Yet, the Commission of Inquiry will only inquire into the incident concerning Hung Hom Station. How about Exhibition Centre Station? If problems are found at a certain point in a works project, it may still be considered an individual case, but unfortunately, irregularities have been found in Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station. These are the three stations that problems have been identified. Hence, we have stronger justification to inquire into the entire Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), but not Hung Hom Station only.

Besides, in respect of a diaphragm wall at To Kwa Wan Station having been shaved thin and steel bars being removed, at this moment, we still do not know whether that is a one-off falsification, or the contractor has intended to conceal repeatedly. Why do I say so? If someone removed steel bars during construction, he actually bet that his action was not seen. Why did the contractor still take such a risk? Did he think that given the lax and perfunctory supervision, the removal of steel bars would go unnoticed?

Upon the completion of the works, there is the acceptance procedure. Did contractors think that removal of steel bars would not be identified during the acceptance procedure and hence have the guts to take the action. If contractors could go unnoticed when removing the steel bars, how could he be so confident that he would not be caught in the acceptance procedure?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13451

The inspection of steel bars does not need advanced and sophisticated technology. All that is needed is an instrument called a cover meter, which is a little bigger than a mobile phone. When a cover meter is placed on the concrete, it can tell whether the depth of the concrete and steel bars is appropriate, and whether the steel bars are placed in the right position. The testing only takes a few seconds. If testing is carried out during the acceptance procedure, it will definitely reveal how many steel bars are missing in a certain place. In the entire process, has the contractor concerned betted twice, once during the construction stage and the other during the acceptance of works? He dared take such actions because he was confident that he would not be caught. Now we have found problems in at least three places, what will happen next? Will this incident be left unsettled because MTRCL stated that no safety risks were involved as that was not a structural wall? But isn't cutting corners an offence?

Another more serious accusation of cutting corners is the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station, a widely known scandal that first came to light. Deputy President, some colleagues have also mentioned the problem of steel bars being cut short. We must first get one point clear. The SCL project is not financed by MTRCL but by the Government. MTRCL is only the project manager appointed by the Government, and it does not finance the project. After the exposure of the scandal, someone explained that it only took 15 seconds to screw a steel bar into a coupler. Hence he did not understand why people would falsify by cutting steel bars and why steel bars had been cut short. I wonder if he truly did not know what had happened or he deliberately misled the public, Members of this Council and also government officials. He used a small section of a steel bar for demonstration, and certainly he could screw a steel bar into a coupler within 15 seconds. In real situations, once concrete is poured over steel bars with only their tips exposed, the couplers may be damaged and the holes in couplers may be blocked, making it difficult to screw the steel bars into the couplers. Besides, if the positions or levels are not right, it is difficult to screw steel bars into couplers. Hence, under real circumstances in a construction site, it is simply not possible to screw a steel bar into a coupler within 15 seconds.

When the MTRCL representative absurdly claimed, at the press conference, that it took 15 seconds to screw a steel bar into a coupler, and he did not understand why the steel bars had been cut short, I wonder if he was naïve or if he thought that Hong Kong people were ignorant? Deputy President, this is a question about logic. One does not need to have an engineering background to 13452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 understand the situation. However, is Hong Kong society lacking in logical thinking? Does the Government lack logic in its thinking? This kind of falsification is no different from the falsification of short piling.

In the short-piling cases in the past, the contractors involved gave you a so-called "fairy scale" to measure the piles, misleading you into thinking that the piles had been driven to the right depth. If an inspector now takes the measure and finds that the scale has been cut short, what will the inspector do? He will certainly report to the Police and inform his superior about the problems of the works in respect of falsification and cutting corners. MTRCL paid the construction cost, expecting the piles to be driven to the required depth. At present, the problem is not about short piling or blunders in the work process; rather, it is about someone deceiving MTRCL. Yet, MTRCL did not report the case to the Police or to the upper level, but asked the contractor to drive the piles deeper and inspection would be conducted later. What matters most is that the rectification works should be completed before the acceptance of works. Deputy President, can such incidents be handled in this way? Cutting corners is a serious crime, jeopardizes public safety, not to mention wasting public money. More seriously, there is the so-called confidentiality agreement which prevents a whistle-blower from exposing too much information.

Someone finally broke the ice last night. China Technology Corporation Limited had been posting written responses, but last night, its Managing Director Mr Jason POON, gave a personal account of this incident for the first time in a programme of the online station D100. He also received interviews of other radio stations this morning. Let me summarize what I heard. First, Mr POON thought that the number of steel bars being cut short should be more than 17 as claimed by the Government. He could not tell the exact number, but when the host asked him to estimate if the number was a few hundred to 1 000, he said it should be in that range. Mr Michael TIEN had, from sources unknown, claimed that the number was 5 000. Compared to 26 000 steel bars in total, the number was not a small one and the ratio was high. Mr POON did reveal the number of steel bars in his evidence; he even described the method used to cut the steel bars, the company he suspected was involved and why he made such a speculation. He had spilled all the beans.

Yesterday, he also mentioned another issue in the online station D100. He said when he first saw workers cut the steel bars, they used a rather simple and basic tool. But later they found the process too slow and hence they used a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13453 machine to cut the steel bars more quickly. If that is this case, do you still believe that the company went to all the trouble just to cut 17 bars? Mr POON said that owing to the confidentiality agreement that I mentioned before, he could not expose all information. What can we do so that he can speak his mind freely and reveal all the facts? The solution is to provide him with legal protection.

Hence, the Government is right to set up a Commission of Inquiry. The Commission is empowered to summon witnesses and the witnesses are legally protected. The witnesses must tell the truth under oath. This approach is appropriate and there is no problem about it. However, the Commission of Inquiry will only inquire into the incidents related to Hung Hom Station. What about the other stations? Having heard the examples I just cited, do you still believe that only one or two work processes have gone wrong as claimed by MTRCL, and the problems only lie with the contractors and subcontractors? In its initial reply to me, MTRCL only said that the problems lied with the contractors and subcontractors and what mattered most was that the works could reach the standard required when MTRCL accepted the works. That is totally absurd.

Why should the entire construction process be supervised instead of carrying out a final inspection? That is because it is very difficult to remedy the situation for some inadequacies, such as the cutting of steel bars in this incident. After the pouring of concrete, even though a cover meter is used in the final inspection, it can only locate the steel bars but cannot tell if the steel bars have been shortened, unless the concrete is drilled open to reveal the steel bars.

From this we can see that the repeated blunders of MTRCL are the result of the problematic system and its governance mindset. The Chairman of MTRCL even said, "if I tell you it is OK, then it is OK. You must trust MTRCL's untarnished reputation of 39 years." But this untarnished reputation is tarnished by some people and that is why we have to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to set up a select committee, not only to inquire into Hung Hom Station, but the entire SCL to see what blunders have been made and what have gone wrong in the work process, and whether anyone should bear criminal liability. It should not be "if I tell you it is OK, then it is OK".

I so submit.

13454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The revelation of the cutting of steel bars at a platform of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") came as a shock to the community. As more and more time has passed since the incident came to light, the incident has become increasingly complicated and mystifying.

All sectors of the community want to know why MTRCL, having carried out so many construction projects in its long history, still made such mistakes and ran into such problems. Why did MTRCL conceal the construction problems? Does any senior officer of MTRCL or even the Government have to take the blame? Does the construction monitoring system have any problem which made it possible for MTRCL to conceal the construction problems?

Despite incessant calls for an investigation into MTRCL and the relevant government departments, when the question of who should undertake the investigation was raised, some pro-establishment Members who have been chiding MTRCL and the Government for being lax in monitoring immediately clammed up, and said that the Legislative Council should not conduct an investigation as an independent inquiry should be conducted by the Government.

I am grateful to Dr CHENG Chung-tai for moving this motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Even though a relevant proposal from him was vetoed at an earlier House Committee meeting, he still moved this motion at this Council meeting. Had it not been for this debate, perhaps MTRCL would not have published its statement yesterday. What we have to discuss today is whether the Legislative Council should, in parallel with an independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government, also set up a select committee to inquire into MTRCL's alleged concealment of the cutting of steel bars at the platform of Hung Hom Station of SCL.

First of all, I will analyse the shortcomings of only having an independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government, and then I will proceed to talk about how a select committee set up by the Legislative Council can make up for the shortcomings of the Government's independent Commission of Inquiry, so as to prove the point that the Legislative Council must set up a select committee to inquire into this incident.

Previously, the Government had launched independent judge-led inquiries into a number of incidents. In 2014, the Government conducted an independent inquiry into the delay and cost overrun of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13455

Express Rail Link ("XRL") project, and appointed an expert panel to look into the issue. However, even though the Government conducted the independent inquiry led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN (he is going to lead the independent Commission of Inquiry into the SCL Hung Hom Station fiasco), and published a report criticizing a spate of management problems of MTRCL that occurred during the construction of XRL and the lax supervision by the Highways Department ("HyD"), to this day it still fails to prevent serious problems from arising in the construction projects of MTRCL. How come the SCL Hung Hom Station construction problem that we discuss today still arose after the XRL investigation report was published? Actually, this is attributable to the inherent flaws in the Government's independent Commission of Inquiry and the unusual relationship between the Government and MTRCL.

The subject of inquiry by the independent Commission of Inquiry this time is MTRCL, a listed company in which the Government has a 75% stake. Given such a large stake held by the Government and that the Secretary for Transport and Housing is even one of the ex-officio directors of MTRCL, the Government and MTRCL have a close relationship. Although this independent Commission of Inquiry is to be chaired by a judge, its terms of reference will be determined not by the judge but by the Chief Executive in Council. In prescribing the terms of reference for the Commission, the Government can prevent the Commission from holding senior government officials accountable, so as to protect MTRCL's senior officers. In fact, Carrie LAM indicated at a media session on 12 June that the independent Commission of Inquiry would ascertain the cause and extent of the problem with the steel reinforcement fixing works at the platform of Hung Hom Station, and review MTRCL's construction monitoring system as well as the Government's mechanism for monitoring and regulating railway projects, with a view to making recommendations for ensuring construction quality and safety. If these really become the terms of reference for the independent Commission of Inquiry, it means that the Commission will not look into the deeper issue of accountability of the senior officers of the Government and MTRCL for the construction works. For this reason, it is utterly dangerous and ridiculous for the Government, which is closely related to MTRCL, to set up the independent Commission of Inquiry and determine its terms of reference.

In fact, past experience showed that even if the Government launched an independent inquiry, it would not look into the issue of accountability of senior officers. For example, although the Government's Commission of Inquiry into the lead-in-water incident criticized the Water Supplies Department, the Hong 13456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Kong Housing Authority, the contractors, the plumbing subcontractors and the licensed plumbers for dereliction of duty, only the contractors and the plumbing subcontractors were punished in the end. As for the XRL cost overrun debacle, neither the Director of Highways nor the Secretary for Transport and Housing was held politically accountable. Therefore, my conclusion is that if the matter in question is merely dealt with by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government, it will only result in no punishment being meted out to the Director, the Chairman of the statutory body or listed company concerned, or the Secretary. It is clear that no independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government in the past could address the issue of accountability of senior officers and, as consequently, the Government's internal operation and monitoring systems are still riddled with problems which may continue to surface today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. This also explains why, after the Government had spent a substantial amount of public money on the inquiry into the XRL cost overrun debacle, MTRCL, HyD and the Transport and Housing Bureau were still lax in monitoring the SCL project, and eventually a large number of steel bars were cut at the platform of Hung Hom Station. Of course, this incident is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the above analysis, despite the Government's establishment of the independent Commission of Inquiry, the peculiar relationship between the Government and MTRCL will cause the Commission's terms of reference to be limited to such an extent that it may not look into and pursue the accountability of the senior officers of MTRCL and the Transport and Housing Bureau. If the senior management is not held accountable, construction problems similar to that of Hung Hom Station will continue to arise―actually they are constantly arising at other stations; we just do not know when they will be revealed―and tragedies will continue to recur, as MTRCL will maintain the same attitude and continue to gloss over and cover up construction problems. So, in my view, only through the establishment of a select committee by the Legislative Council can we inquire into the Hung Hom Station construction problem and pursue accountability in a more transparent, independent and serious manner.

Firstly, a select committee set up by the Legislative Council has the power to investigate any incident that Members want to investigate. It can definitely invoke the Ordinance to summon government officials and MTRCL's senior officers to testify in the Legislative Council, and direct relevant departments and MTRCL to make public relevant documents. Thus, its power is comparable to that of the Government's independent Commission of Inquiry.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13457

Secondly, a select committee set up by the Legislative Council can inquire into the SCL Hung Hom station construction problem in a more independent manner. As I mentioned just now, the Government is the largest shareholder of MTRCL, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing is an ex-officio director of MTRCL. The Government therefore has every motive for formulating a very narrow set of terms of reference for the independent Commission of Inquiry to ensure that it will not look into the issue of accountability of the senior officers of MTRCL and the Transport and Housing Bureau. Although one Member of this Council is a director of MTRCL, I believe that if this Council sets up a select committee under the Ordinance to inquire into the incident, he will refrain from joining the select committee. As this Council has no particular relationship with MTRCL, this Council can act more independently when formulating the terms of reference for the select committee and conducting the inquiry.

The fact that the Legislative Council can act more independently than the Government in this regard may lead to the positive result that the whistle-blower will be more willing to give the Legislative Council confidential and important information on the construction works at Hung Hom Station. Many Members have mentioned this point today, as if it were the theme of our debate in these two days. Members should remember that the incident came to light because the whistle-blower informed the media about it. How come the whistle-blower did not inform the Government and Frank CHAN, but informed the media? I think this was probably because the whistle-blower did not trust the Government, and considered that the Government and MTRCL were in cahoots with each other and would cover for and shield each other. As the whistle-blower does not trust the Government, the independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government may not be able to reassure the whistle-blower that he can divulge information to it with peace of mind.

The whistle-blower's distrust of MTRCL and the Government is reflected in a recent statement. According to the statement issued by China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") a couple of days ago, the Police have yet to contact it, and HyD has replied to it that there is no timetable for a meeting as more time is needed to make a decision. China Technology has also disclosed that on 13 June, at the invitation of MTRCL, it testified at a meeting with the representatives of Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"). China Technology rebuked the representatives of Leighton for interrupting its testimony repeatedly during the meeting on the grounds that it was overstepping the bounds of the temporary waiver of the confidentiality agreement, though they 13458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 did not object to or contradict its testimony. China Technology queried whether there was any collusion between MTRCL and Leighton in private afterwards which resulted in a report stating that Leighton strenuously denied the allegations made by China Technology, and the arrangement to exclude from the report all the testimony given by China Technology. From this we can see that China Technology, which possesses important information, does not even have enough confidence in the Police, HyD and MTRCL. Thus, the Legislative Council may be the only platform where China Technology can divulge important information with peace of mind.

In addition, the statement issued by MTRCL yesterday may render the whistle-blower even more unwilling to divulge information to the Government's independent Commission of Inquiry. In that statement, MTRCL says, "Just making one-sided allegations or speculations repeatedly will not help resolve the issue in any way, but will unnecessarily undermine public confidence in railway infrastructure projects." This is downright intimidation. As we all know, the majority shareholder of MTRCL is the Government, so from the perspective of the whistle-blower, that statement represents the stance of MTRCL as well as the stance of the Government. Since the Government and MTRCL have taken such a hostile attitude towards the whistle-blower in dealing with the incident, how can the whistle-blower divulge information to the Government and the independent Commission of Inquiry with peace of mind?

What has been revealed over the past two days is spectacular. Mr Jason POON of China Technology said in a television interview that he had personally stayed on the construction site at night and seen with his own eyes some people cutting steel bars on quite a number of occasions. He said he mentioned this problem when giving his testimony, and he did not understand why MTRCL did not include his testimony in the report. Indeed, more and more problems have been uncovered. Mr POON told a newspaper yesterday that if the Legislative Council set up a select committee under the Ordinance, he could disclose to the select committee things that were subject to the restrictions of the confidentiality agreement. Actually, Mr POON is a rather pro-establishment figure who used to have many grudges against the pro-democracy camp, and yet he is in favour of the Legislative Council invoking the Ordinance to set up a select committee.

If the Legislative Council is able to set up a select committee, I believe that not only will there be a more independent and transparent inquiry, but Members of this Council will also inquire into the Hung Hom Station incident in a very LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13459 serious manner. The pro-establishment camp may say that as Members do not have a profound knowledge of railways, it should be up to a judge and some technical experts to conduct an inquiry in order to clearly identify where the problem lies. However, I think Members do not have to belittle themselves. This Council has many professionals, and we have Members from functional constituencies. It is precisely because of situations like this that functional constituencies are here to stay. I may not have the relevant knowledge, but many of them are experts in engineering and other fields. Mr Michael TIEN is an example. Formerly a member of the top management of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, Mr TIEN has a sound knowledge of the regulation of railway projects. If we really set up a select committee, I believe Mr TIEN will join. That said, I have no idea whether he will support this motion today. It seems that he has yet to speak. Dr CHENG Chung-tai may try to convince Mr TIEN, who has recently been expressing his views openly and spilling the beans every day as if he were a storyteller. Now that he has revealed so many things, it would be unjustifiable for him not to grab hold of the power that this Council might be able to exercise.

I believe that apart from Mr TIEN and many other Members with expertise, we, Members, also have a lot of friends who are experts. What is most crucial is that as long as we conduct a transparent and open inquiry and keep allowing the public to witness the progress of the inquiry, all sectors … As everyone knows, the knowledgeable are in the community; all Hong Kong people and the media can see the relevant information provided by the parties concerned every day. I am fully confident that if we can set up a select committee, we will definitely do our best to inquire into the incident in a more effective way.

My conclusion of the above analysis is very simple, Deputy President. As regards MTRCL's concealment of the Hung Hom Station construction problem, if one is to probe into the accountability issue and systemic problems involved, one must deal with MTRCL, which is neither honest nor serious about what it does and has an intricate relationship with the contractor concerned. Given that the Government is the majority shareholder of MTRCL, it is very doubtful whether the Government has a motive for independently inquiring into the accountability issue, systemic problems and its own problems behind the incident. Therefore, only through an inquiry launched by a select committee set up by the Legislative Council can we directly look into the accountability of MTRCL and the Transport and Housing Bureau for the incident.

13460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Should Members, particularly pro-establishment Members, oppose today's motion that a select committee be set up by the Legislative Council to inquire into the incident, they will simply fail to live up to public expectations and show that they are slack about performing their duties as Members; MTRCL will become more overbearing; officials of the Transport and Housing Bureau will definitely become more indolent; and the quality of MTRCL's construction projects will certainly deteriorate. If a more serious incident occurs in the future resulting in casualties, those Members voting against this motion must be held accountable.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the scandal of steel bars being cut short at Hung Hom Station of the Shatin-Central Link ("SCL") is the most serious incident in our construction industry in recent years. We all remember the very serious short-piling incident after the reunification. At that time, the authorities intended to install a lift inside a construction site of the Home Ownership Scheme flats, but the lift could not be successfully installed due to a substandard foundation. At last, the scandal could no longer be concealed, and the short-piling incident was exposed. The persons concerned were criminally prosecuted and the substandard building was demolished.

The scandal at Hung Hom Station and even all stations along SCL is just like a series of bomb explosions. There are problems with Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station. Are there any problems with other stations? Will there be further scandals related to the above stations? Nobody can tell but the situation is extremely pessimistic based on the trend of development. I am worried that the scandal uncovered may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Deputy President, there are many major infrastructure projects in Hong Kong, including SCL, which are related to people's livelihood. Who are responsible for supervising these projects? The Government, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Highways Department are responsible for supervising these projects. There are four official representatives in the Board of Directors of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), including the Secretary for Transport and Housing, the Director of Transport, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury and the Permanent Secretary of the Development Bureau. These officials are members of the Board of Directors of MTRCL and they supervise the operation of the company while MTRCL is responsible for supervising the contractor, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"). There are a number of subcontractors under Leighton, including China LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13461

Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") and Fang Sheung Construction Limited. In theory, each level is being supervised and each level has its respective responsibilities and records. For example, when MTRCL held the first press conference, they brought along a stack of files and told reporters that each steel bar was recorded and signed. They also demonstrated how to screw steel bars onto couplers and someone also tried to twist the steel bars to indicate that they are safely screwed. At that time, I criticized that it was futile for MTRCL to display a large stack of files. Since even very thick steel bars could be cut short for falsification purpose, how could we be certain that the information contained in those files was necessarily true? By common sense, when MTRCL displayed a stack of files but disallowed perusal by reporters, this was a public relations disaster.

The so-called very strict regulatory system has actually collapsed. Not only has the system collapsed, but also the public confidence in MTRCL. The public confidence in the Government has also shaken. Leighton is not worth mentioning. I learnt that Leighton, being a private company, has a very close relationship with UGL and both of them belong to the same group. Leighton has been holing up since the incident. It has not given the public an account, has not held a press conference, has not faced the public and has not issued a press release to respond to relevant queries.

What about MTRCL? Its attitude has been changing constantly. At first, it sternly denounced the media organizations for exposed the problems, and later it admitted some of these problems. However, it made self-contradictory remarks time and again, including when the problems were found. At one time, MTRCL said that the employees had not reported the incident, and at another time, it refused to disclose some important information, including the internal investigations conducted earlier. MTRCL invited the representatives of China Technology to attend a meeting, but surprisingly it also invited the legal representatives of Leighton to sit in. What does that mean? Deputy President, it simply means that people should be careful when they spoke. Secretary, I have never seen such a ridiculous arrangement. The complainant was bold enough to come forward to provide information, but MTRCL invited the lawyers of the party being complaint against to sit in and listen to the complainant's exposition. What does that mean? It means the complainant had better shut up for he might be sued at any time for what he said. Is there a more outrageous arrangement? The objective effect of this arrangement is to deter the complainants from providing information.

13462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

After listening to the versions provided by the responsible persons of the few companies and front-line employees, MTRCL should make public these versions. But that was not the case. After seeking legal advice, it was decided that the version provided by the complainants could not be made public while the version provided by the company being complaint against could be quoted. What were the reasons? Two things can happen in the course of a criminal investigation: either a secret investigation is being conducted or the case has been exposed and there is nothing to hide. Deputy President, the whole incident had been reported on the front page of newspapers and extensively reported by the media. People have destroyed or are in the process of destroying all traces of a crime, and they have already aligned their statements. What made MTRCL unwilling to disclose the information provided by the complainants? Is it that when the information is disclosed, the truth cannot be concealed and a big scandal will be resulted?

Deputy President, so farm MTRCL and Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN have insisted on conducting the so-called loading test to measure the seriousness of the steel bar data falsification incident. Many members of the engineering sector have publicly queried that this practice simply could not accurately determine the seriousness of the falsification, and the loading test could only reveal the loading capacity during the test.

Honourable colleagues, the lifespan of the SCL project is estimated to be more than 120 years. With many trains connecting to the Tuen Mun Line and running on SCL every day, and each train carrying over 1 000 passengers, will the loading capacity remain unchanged or will not deteriorate after years of operation? From the very beginning, Dr Philco WONG, Projects Director of MTRCL, was asked why steel bars had been cut short but he claimed that he did not know the reasons for that.

As I said at the outset, in order to fake that the steel bars had been completely screwed into the couplers, the top part of the bars had to be cut short so as to fake that part of the steel bars had been screwed into the couplers. An engineer who knows a little about front-line operation can also explain why this is done. After faking that the steel bars had been screwed into the couplers, the current loading test will indicate that there is sufficient support, but as the steel bars had not been completely screwed into the couplers, the steel bars will gradually be disconnected from the couplers with continuous loading over a certain period of time. Hence, the whole platform may collapse one day.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13463

The engineering sector and many Legislative Council Members including me have repeatedly asked to break up a certain amount of concrete for sampling inspection. If so, we will have the objective data to identify if the number of problematic steel bars are about 20 based on pro rata calculation as claimed by MTRCL, or 5 000 as stated by some people, or a few hundred to 1 000 as stated by the responsible person of China Technology. These scientific and statistical methods can help us understand the seriousness of the problem. When we are aware of the seriousness of the problem, we can objectively look for remedial measures.

Deputy President, I think this incident is no different from the short-piling incident and it cannot be covered up or concealed. First, the Government must conduct a scientific and representative test to identify how serious the problem is. Second, it must implement comprehensive remedial measures. Third, it must affix responsibilities. Before carrying out these tasks, Dr Philco WONG, Projects Director of MTRCL, must be dismissed because he can no longer be trusted. I hope that MTRCL and the Government would take heed of my appeal because allowing this person to stay will hinder the investigation. Dr Philco WONG is the supporter of Leighton and he has always been sheltering the evil deeds of Leighton, so we must not allow him to continue to be unfettered.

Deputy President, as I said earlier, the lifespan of this project is 120 years. The platform at Hung Hom Station will not collapse today or tomorrow, but I do not know when it will collapse. I would like to tell the Government and all members of the engineering sector, if the platform really collapsed, the future generations would be affected and nobody could shoulder this responsibility. If anybody tries to downplay, cover up or condone this incident, he will also become a sinner in Hong Kong's history.

Deputy President, I support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident. The select committee can work in parallel with the judge-led Commission of Inquiry to find out the truth of the incident. In respect of political accountability, the Legislative Council is duty-bound to monitor the Government. I hope that Honourable colleagues will perform their duties as Legislative Council Members and support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion.

13464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Deputy President, lastly, I would like to point out that various aspects of Hong Kong have deteriorated in recent years. We have seen the abuse of power by those having powers and not having powers, as well as various evil deeds. Theoretically we need to exercise checks and balances under a system but the system itself has a lot of shortcomings. We need more whistle-blowers to expose dark secrets and scandals. MTRCL surprisingly published a statement in the newspapers yesterday, claiming that "making one-sided allegations or speculations repeatedly will not help resolve the issue in any way, but will unnecessarily undermine public confidence in the railway infrastructure project". Who has caused a total lack of confidence in the railway infrastructure project? Those who have done something bad and exercised inadequate supervision have now placed an advertisement to criticize the whistle-blowers. I am sorry. I think Hong Kong conversely needs more whistle-blowers who have the courage to speak out the truth, instead of engaging in black-box and small-circle operations shielding each other's scandals and evil deeds. There are too many such people in Hong Kong. I hope all sectors of the community will uphold principles and become brave whistle-blowers who will speak up when they see problems.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the concealment of the substandard construction works by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL").

In 30 May this year, Apple Daily uncovered the falsification scandal of the Hung Hom Station extension works where steel bars had allegedly been cut short to be fitted into couplers. After this incident came to light, MTRCL maintained its usual practice of not addressing the problem but sparing no effort to attack the person who raised the question. MTRCL has in no way been open and transparent. It has used one lie after another to cover up the truth and has even accused the media of misleading the public. It claimed that its engineering personnel had found the substandard works during their inspection in December 2015 and had already asked the contractor to follow up and rectify the anomalies.

However, Apple Daily subsequently quoted an internal document which pointed out that the concreting work started in July 2015. This was apparently contrary to MTRCL's claim. It has also been revealed that Secretary Frank LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13465

CHAN and the relevant government departments were aware of the incident as early as one year ago. After the scandal was exposed, Secretary Frank CHAN even commended MTRCL for being "very responsible". However, under the pressure of public opinions and having been pursued by Members, MTRCL finally admitted reluctantly that the cutting of steel bars was found in August 2015. In other words, its previous claim that the substandard works was discovered during inspection was untrue. By then Secretary Frank CHAN realized that he had been treated as a fool by MTRCL. As a matter of fact, not only the Secretary, the Government, this Council and even the entire Hong Kong community have all been fooled by MTRCL.

Later, at a press conference, MTRCL did not reveal the number of problematic steel bars. It also did not explain why it had not reported the incident to its Board of Directors and the Government, and had only asked the main contractor Leighton Contractor (Asia) Ltd. ("Leighton") to give an account to the public as soon as possible. Furthermore, it had been reported that a total of 5 000 steel bars had been cut short, which was very serious indeed. The Chief Executive finally announced on 12 June that a Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Michael John HARTMANN, former non-permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, would be formed under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to inquire into the construction works of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). The Chief Executive asked the Commission to submit a report within six months. As this incident involves public safety, and the Government and MTRCL's management of the works has also aroused public concern, I believe the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry can meet public expectations.

Nevertheless, the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry will not completely ease the mind of the public. Since the exposure of the scandal concerning the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station, incidents of cutting corners have also been uncovered one after another at To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre. It was found that steel bars had been removed at To Kwa Wan Station and insufficient supporting I-beams were placed at Exhibition Centre Station. With more and more serious scandals involving SCL being exposed, it is obvious that there are serious systemic loopholes in the management and implementation of the SCL project, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, on the part of the Government, MTRCL and contractors. Let me reiterate, it is precisely due to the systemic loopholes that steel bars had been cut short.

13466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

In recent years, the SAR Government has appointed a number of commissions of inquiry and independent review committees to inquire into serious incidents and issues of public concern. However, as the investigation powers and scope of inquiry of these independent committees are determined by the Government, the final results of the inquiries may be affected. In recent days, government officials have, in response, indicated that scope of inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry should be focused on inquiring into the platform construction works at Hung Hom Station. "Focus" is a dignified expression; to put it more bluntly, the Government has disregarded the other parts of the works that also have problems. In this connection, can the "focused" inquiry truly meet public expectations?

According to Chief Executive Carrie LAM, in order to avoid the inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry getting out of focus, the scope should be limited to Hung Hom Station. As for the construction problems found in other stations of SCL, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Lands Department will be responsible for investigation. However, the problems uncovered so far have been extended to To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station and the problems emerged are only the tip of the iceberg. If the Commission of Inquiry only focuses its inquiry on Hung Hom Station or even on part of the Station, will it be able to identify all the problems involving SCL? Can safety be ensured? To me, these questions are worth discussing. Special attention should be drawn to the fact that some days ago, the Office of Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN was also found to be involved in the scandal. It was reported that the Office had turned a blind eye to the allegations previously made by the subcontractor China Technology Corporation Ltd. ("China Technology"), and hastily closed the case. Besides, the Highways Department ("HyD") under the Bureau should be responsible for monitoring the construction of railways. Yet, the slackness of HyD has led to the present situation. If HyD is responsible for following up the other construction works of SCL, the public will hardly be convinced. They will suspect that HyD evades the important and dwells on the trivial to avoid getting into trouble. Hence, it is necessary for the Legislative Council to set up a select committee under the Ordinance to inquire into the problems involving the management and supervision of the works concerned in this incident.

Moreover, under the infrastructure project of SCL costing hundreds of billions of dollars in total, different contractors have been engaged for the construction of Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13467

Station. Their interests are tightly intertwined. Earlier, China Technology, a subcontractor of SCL issued a statement, accusing MTRCL of "deleting its evidence from the report" after discussing with Leighton. The subcontractor, who acted as a whistle-blower out of his concern for public safety, was subjected to suppression and threats by the main contractor. This may also happen to other subcontractors. Mr Michael TIEN also said that Leighton was such a big company that no one dared to find fault with it. I have confidence in the independent inquiry into Hung Hom Station but I am worried about the conditions of To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station and other construction works of SCL, as well as the practice of relying on MTRCL and the Government to follow up on the problems. Therefore, the Legislative Council should exercise its power vested on it by the Ordinance to set up a select committee to expose the works of SCL under the sun, thereby allowing the public to join in the supervision and rebuild their confidence in SCL.

Nowadays, people like to tease others as being "more arrogant than Frederick MA". Frederick MA is the Chairman of MTRCL. In the SCL incident, he once made an indiscreet remark: "if I tell you it is OK, then it is OK." His remark has caused an uproar among the public. The reason for the public to detest this saying is clear enough. The works of MTRCL concern public interest and the biggest shareholder of MTRCL are the Government and all people of Hong Kong. As the works of MTRCL are financed by the public, they certainly have the right to know what has happened. They believe in the system rather than the Chairman or experts. Hence, people cannot accept the saying that "if I tell you it is OK, then it is OK". The establishment of a select committee by the Legislative Council is to resist such an attitude. We have to strive for a clean and just system and the incident should be laid under the sun for public monitoring. Let us rebuild our confidence in the quality of Hong Kong under the sun.

Finally, I would like to mention one point. Although Leighton submitted a report to the Government on the works problems of Hung Hom Station yesterday, the report has not been made public. Hong Kong people can only hope that the Government will give a further account. However, whatever the Government decides to make public or to conceal, the general public will have no say at all. If the Government continues to adopt this attitude to deal with the problems and expects the people to accept "if the Government tells you it is OK, then it is OK", people will have no say in anything. The various works 13468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 problems exposed in respect of SCL have fully reflected that both the Government and MTRCL have failed to monitor the works effectively, and the entire monitoring system is rife with systemic loopholes.

Therefore, I support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to invoke the Ordinance to set up a select committee to inquire into MTRCL's concealment of the substandard construction works of SCL. I think the independent inquiry commissioned by the Government is necessary but is by no means sufficient. The Legislative Council, being the institution to monitor the Government's governance, must take up this responsibility and performed its due role.

Deputy President, a Member has talked about the value of whistle-blowers. As a matter of fact, a civilized society needs healthy whistle-blowers. A whistle-blower knows the hidden causes of an incident and we should provide them with legal exemptions, so as to create a favourable atmosphere that encourages people to tip the authorities off. However, at present, whistle-blowers can only act in fear and trepidation. A whistle-blower may come forth today and another may come forth tomorrow. But do we care about the pressure, fear and threat they are experiencing? As the Government gets increasingly arrogant and is unable to play a monitoring role, and the Legislative Council has been deprived of its power, I believe that whistle-blowers are the only hope that we have.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to pursue the blunders and concealment relating to the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project.

This morning, I have been listening to the speeches made by a number of Members of the pro-established camp. They stressed that different parties have kicked off investigations into the SCL project, and suggested that the Legislative Council should decide on the action to be taken after the completion of all the investigations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13469

Members may probably find this argument pretty familiar. In the past, when we proposed to invoke the Ordinance to investigate into specific issues, such as the cost overruns of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") or other issues, pro-establishment Members often argued that an investigation by the Legislative Council would only lead to duplication and redundancy as other procedures were being carried out. However, given that the Legislative Council is empowered to monitor the work of the Government, it should conduct investigations into issues of public concern. Have colleagues seriously considered the legislative intent of the Ordinance? Members oppose the setting up of a select committee for just two possible reasons: First, they do not think that the Legislative Council is genuinely vested with power under the Ordinance, and second, they do not think the severity of the matter justifies an independent investigation by the Legislative Council.

Of course, I do not find either of the reasons justifiable. Firstly, if the Ordinance exists only in name, it is simply unnecessary for the Legislative Council to be vested with such power. Secondly, pro-establishment Members may consider that the matter is not important and serious or not serious enough. And yet, it seems that the recent spate of events have refuted this argument. From the cost overruns of XRL to the cost overruns and substandard construction works of SCL, it can be seen that the problem is not confined to one or two incidents but is related to the mentality and culture of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") in the management of railway projects under the hegemony of one railway company. More importantly, the Highways Department ("HyD") will establish supervisory teams for all major construction works. What is the role played by such supervisory teams during the monitoring process? Are they merely responsible for paper works? Will they provide assistance at the sites? Even the conduct of surprise spots checks may act as a kind of check and balance.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed Chair)

If the Government does nothing, it is not surprising that the two Secretaries for Transport and Housing will have the following reactions. In response to a question on the cost overruns and delays of XRL, former Secretary Anthony CHEUNG said "I was shocked by the news"; whereas the incumbent Secretary Frank CHAN said "I learnt about the incident from news reports as I do not have 13470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 first-hand news". If what they said is true, the problem is precisely related to the management system of the entire railway project and the monitoring system of the SAR Government, which is a matter of supervisory ability.

Let us think about what has gone wrong with the construction of Hung Hom Station currently under discussion. One of the important works is the construction of a separate concourse level between two platforms. From what I have learnt from different sources, such works require thorough inspection rather than sample checks. In other words, according to the inspection procedures, after the contractor has inspected the suitability of the couplers for the slurry walls, MTRCL still needs to send its own inspection team to check if the couplers are up to standard. On the other hand, the SAR Government is also required to "check the checker" by appointing its own inspection consultant to carry out inspections. Of course, the most pragmatic approach is to require the Works Supervisor of the Leighton Contractor (Asia) Limited and the Inspector of Works of MTRCL to sign and confirm that the couplers are suitable for the construction works and connect well with steel bars. There must be thorough inspection rather than sample checks. Should there be any omission, the procedures that follow will surely be affected.

Oddly, according to the information provided by MTRCL, rectification was made when problems were detected for the first time in August 2015, and then followed by another rectification. When errors were detected again in December, a warning letter was issued by MTRCL. However, when the same error occurred time and again subsequently in the fourth and fifth inspections, no more warning letter had been issued. And MTRCL had not notified the Transport and Housing Bureau. What kind of mentality is this? Does it imply that there are problems with MTRCL's construction culture?

The Project Director of MTRCL Philco WONG once made a remark which impressed me deeply. He said, "rectifying problems without reporting is a very common culture in the industry." This remark was made by Dr Philco WONG, who just took up the post as the President of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers today. If what he said is true, this kind of culture must be corrected. Is it acceptable for the details of an engineering design to be arbitrarily changed at the site?

As Legislative Council Members, we can hardly absolve ourselves of the blame and it is a dereliction of duty on our part for failing to further examine the current practices and the management culture revealed by the SCL project. As a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13471 matter of fact, the problem has been exposed and it is utterly inappropriate for us to cover it up with various excuses. This is the first point. Secondly, not only are there problems with SCL's Hung Hom Station, but also To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Station, so how far-reaching are the problems? Since the SAR Government vowed that the safety of passengers should not be compromised in any way, our responsibilities would therefore be even greater. At present, in determining the loading capacity of Hung Hom Station, not only the weight of passengers should be taken into account, but also the weight and vibration generated by trains passing the platform. Is the loading test alone sufficient to reflect the vibration to be borne by the platform? I have serious doubts about this.

Both the Government and MTRCL mentioned that the problem could be properly addressed with a scientific attitude. May I ask the Secretary what is meant by a scientific attitude? The essence of a scientific attitude is to fully reveal and disclose the truth of an incident by using a universally accepted method. When Managing Director of China Technology Corporation Limited Mr Jason POON, who exposed the construction works problems, talked about the scientific attitude during a radio interview this morning, he said that as all the steel bars were embedded in the cement paste, it was obvious that the concept of loading alone could hardly reflect the severity of the problem. As I said earlier on, apart from the weight of passengers, the loading capacity of platforms should also take into account the trains passing the platforms day by day. Apparently, even for MTR systems that are operating normally at the moment, problems had arisen back then, including slight deviations of tracks or similar problems from time to time. The management must face up to these day-to-day maintenance matters. But what can MTRCL do as the steel bars have been embedded in the cement paste? If any structural risk is detected in the concrete layer, remedial actions must be taken in a timely manner to ensure safety. If not, will SCL passengers be left in a state of anxiety every day? This is absolutely unacceptable.

The attitude adopted by MTRCL in dealing with the incident is utterly disappointing. According to MTRCL, prosecution would be instituted against the contractor concerned if there was evidence. While an investigation was being conducted by the Police, MTRCL has terminated certain works projects of the whistle-blower. Is this a logical move? Or is this some sort of threat? This is questionable in any case. What is the response of the SAR Government to the incident? The Government set up a Commission of Inquiry under the 13472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and appointed former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN as its Chairman, but the scope of inquiry is very restrictive. Will such restrictive conditions have an impact on the inquiry? As the Government is still selecting members of the Commission of Inquiry, who will be appointed? How is the Government going to identify suitable members to help former Judge Mr HARTMANN? These are matters of significant public interest.

If the proposal to set up a select committee under the Ordinance is endorsed by the Legislative Council, there will be two advantages. Firstly, enabling members of the public to understand that different parties are concerned about the incident and would dig out the truth within their purviews by all means, and secondly, enabling the Government to restore its credibility. While former Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG had openly expressed dismay in response to the cost overruns and delays of XRL in the past, Secretary Frank CHAN responded that his source of information came from the press. Apparently, the responses made by the two Secretaries had undermined the credibility of the entire SAR Government.

So, what is wrong for the Legislative Council to conduct an investigation for the sake of the Government? The greatest disadvantage is perhaps a possible duplication of the evidence given by personnel of MTRCL or HyD. After testifying at the Commission of Inquiry led by former Judge Mr HARTMANN, they may be summoned to attend before the select committee of the Legislative Council. However, in order to restore the credibility of the SAR Government, the cost of testifying repeatedly is probably negligible. Why do we not invoke the Ordinance to reveal the concealed truth? Members should not forget that before amendments were made to the Rules of Procedure, Members of the previous term of the Legislative Council could still present a non-binding petition to request the setting up of a select committee with 20 Members rising in their places. Today, we cannot even set up a non-binding select committee. Members should have made use of this platform of the Legislative Council to turn every stone and piece all the clues together in revealing the truth to the public, but we have already lost such power.

Although this incident is of great public interest, the pro-establishment camp has repeatedly argued that there was no need for the Legislative Council to set up any select committee, but should wait until the Government has completed its inquiry and published various reports. As a matter of fact, these inquiry reports should not have any implication on our investigation. Members of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13473

Legislative Council have their own duties and responsibilities, and conducting an investigation is a way to discharge our duties and restore the credibility of the Government. If our findings happen to coincide with those of the Government, would this not be mutually reinforcing and satisfy both sides? Therefore, I support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion to form a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the problems with the construction works at the platform of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL").

In my view, whether this motion is worth supporting hinges on two issues. Firstly, is this a serious incident? Secondly, should the Legislative Council inquire into this incident? All other Members in fact spoke on these two issues in their discussion, and I will follow their steps to briefly express my views on these two aspects.

Firstly, is this a serious incident? I think the seriousness of this incident is beyond doubt. SCL, which is built at a cost of almost $100 billion, will soon be commissioned. Surprisingly, at certain newly-completed stations, someone cut the steel bars to evade the problem that some couplers had been damaged and could not be used for fixing steel bars. Any reasonable person will, after learning the serious problem, consider it a major incident.

Over the past 8 or 10 years, members of the public have formed an impression which I have mentioned before. In Japan, there is a drama series called The Great White Tower, which tells the story of how medical practitioners pass the buck down the line. In Hong Kong, this great white tower may exist too, but there are certainly two other great towers which have drawn even more public concern and posed significant impact on people's lives. The first one is the great golden tower which represents the financial industry. During the financial tsunami, the fall of Lehman Brothers caused great losses for many investors. At that time, the Legislative Council also stepped in and its subsequent inquiry revealed the lack of regulation in this great golden tower, where plenty of financial products were packaged in a way to cheat investors.

13474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Similarly, the great grey tower which now catches the attention of Hong Kong people is also problematic. What is the great grey tower? It represents the engineering and infrastructure industry. This industry is comparable to the financial industry in terms of size and there is a close tie between them. To me, there are three worrying problems with the great grey tower. First of all, this tower is a big spender. The annual expenditure of the Capital Works Reserve Fund―a fund designated to finance infrastructure projects―stands at $100 billion for the moment but is expected to increase in future. The huge infrastructure expenditure has indeed turned into a big problem which "kidnaps" the finance of Hong Kong. In order to fund an increasing expenditure on infrastructure, the Government has to sell more land; in order to sell more land, the Government has to prop up the market. The huge expenditure on infrastructure has made Hong Kong people furious and helpless as their daily life is haunted by this problem …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please go back to the subject of this debate.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): … A high degree of monopoly is the second problem with this great grey tower. This time, the main contractors Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited and China State Construction have reflected the problem of monopolization. As we all know, whenever the Government rolls out an infrastructure project, it will first commission a consultancy firm. However, there are only three or four prospective firms in the pool. The selected firm can then receive hundreds of millions of consultancy fee from the Government. Construction works are also monopolized by a handful of leading infrastructure construction companies. As time goes by, these companies have become too big to fall and too big to monitor, as in the case with banks. They are so big that even the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the Government are scared of them.

I do not know if the senior management of large construction companies and major consultancy firms have, together with senior government officials and senior management of MTRCL and banks, formed an elite class so detached from reality that they know nothing about the plights of the masses. Otherwise, how come Frederick MA dared to tell us his "OK theory"? And how could Secretary Frank CHAN say that "justice lies in the heart of everyone" when he himself only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13475 learnt about this incident from the newspapers? Apparently, he should have taken responsibility and stepped down; yet he told us that "justice lied in the heart of everyone". What did he mean by that? As reflected from the problem of a high degree of monopoly, the general public have witnessed how people in the upper class are exchanging benefits, using public money to build infrastructure development and, worse still, they falsified. This is the crux of the issue. Infrastructure projects involve massive expenditure. Whenever there is a cost overrun, the Government will seek supplementary provision on the excuse that it is unwise to halt the construction works halfway. While the trade has been monopolized by a handful of companies, it keeps saying that nothing should be done to harm the trade and the number of works projects cannot be reduced, given that the trade has employed 200 000 to 300 000 people. Yet, how dare falsification of works be made by the trade.

The problem of falsification surely does not happen for the first time, and more scandals will be uncovered one after another. The last falsification scandal drawing greater attention was related to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"). Back then, I also urged the Legislative Council to conduct an inquiry. Members will recall the huge repercussions of the falsification of HZMB's concrete test results. If the principal building material of the bridge is of doubtful quality …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I remind you once again that the aforesaid motions moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance in the past are not related to the current motion. Please go back to the subject of this debate.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): When it comes to the incident concerning Hung Hom Station of SCL, the person-in-charge of China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") has indeed told us the crux of the story. Previously, I simply did not understand the explanations given the Government or MTRCL in its press conferences. If it is actually so easy to screw a steel bar into a coupler, as claimed by the Government and MTRCL and demonstrated by a senior staff member of MTRCL, why did they bother to cut the steel bars? While MTRCL said it could not explain why steel bars were cut, the person-in-charge of China Technology gave us a clear explanation. When concrete was poured to build the slab, the couplers were submerged and hence 13476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 could not be connected with the steel bars. The workers therefore had to use hand-held percussive breakers to remove the concrete on top of the couplers. Yet, in the process, at least several thousand couplers among the 20 000 or so couplers had been damaged and were unfit for steel bar connection. Due to the submergence of couplers in concrete, the works were caught in a dilemma. Some other senior staff members of China Technology or the main contractor then ordered the pouring of concrete even though they knew that thousands of couplers had not been connected with the steel bars and some of the steel bars had been cut short.

What is the latest development? According to MTRCL, in response to the public concern over works safety, it may conduct a loading test to see if there are any cracks on the platform to prove its safety. However, the key question―as asked by many colleagues―is how the safety of the platform can be ensured if the concrete structure is not opened up randomly to see which steel bars have been cut short?

I consulted a relevant practitioner about this incident yesterday. According to his explanation, the standards set for building works in Hong Kong are considerably high. For example, while it may be safe for using 10 000 steel bars for construction, our local works standards require the use of 20 000 or even 25 000 steel bars. The high standards currently set for local works projects thus gives room for contractors to cut corners and shirk responsibility. In this case, even if 5 000 steel bars were cut short, the other 20 000 steel bars can give sufficient support to prevent the platform from collapsing. MTRCL now suggests conducting a loading test, but we may not have a full picture of the reasons behind. On the one hand, MTRCL wishes to prove the safety of the platform. On the other hand, it wants to evade the contractor or the main contractor's manipulation of the gap arising from the high safety factors and high standards in Hong Kong to cut corners and shirk responsibility. This situation is so common as if it has become an established practice in the industry. Apart from the SCL project, I am sure all other infrastructure projects have similar situations, i.e. cutting corners and exploiting loopholes in the system to deceive the main contractor, the Government and MTRCL, etc.

The presence of this great grey tower has made the public aware of the seriousness of the problem. However, they also see this incident as an opportunity to teach these people a lesson and expose the problem. From workers, subcontractors, main contractors, MTRCL to the Government, there are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13477 at least six or seven parties in the line. What are they doing? Are they passing the buck to each other by playing a game of words with correspondence, legal procedures or confidentiality agreements? Do they think that everything will be just fine as long as the buck is passed down the line? Is that all they know? Am I right to say so? I think the public would like to grasp this opportunity presented by the SCL incident because someone is bold enough to spill the beans, which is a crucial factor. After exposing the information to the media, the person-in-charge of China Technology is willing to come forward to tell the inside story without fearing that his company would be sanctioned. Hong Kong people are eager to grasp this opportunity.

The next question is: Who should grasp this opportunity? In my view, the Legislative Council does not have to care whether there is another inquiry into this incident. Even if there is another inquiry, it will not concern us. The questions for us are: Do we have the power to conduct an inquiry? Are we obliged to conduct an inquiry? Will our inquiry do any good to the public? The answers to all these three questions are in the affirmative. Therefore, when some Members of this Council keep saying that we should let others do the inquiry first and will only conduct an investigation when we find problems with the inquiry, their only motive is to belittle the Legislative Council. It is not the first time that they belittle the Legislative Council. Even you, President Andrew LEUNG, have done the same before. It is not the first time that they adopt this practice, but please do not repeat the same mistake in this incident. It is simply wrong. Members of the public who elected Members to the Legislative Council do not expect them to belittle the general public and the Legislative Council. Instead, the public hope that Members will crush the great grey tower as it becomes increasingly powerful. After the fall of this great tower, practitioners in the engineering industry can no longer exchange benefits. They will then realize that they should act honestly and be accountable to the people in Hong Kong.

As the answers to the two aforesaid questions are in the affirmative and the incident is of vital importance, the Legislative Council should conduct an inquiry.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's request for the Legislative Council to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the suspected concealment of the alleged substandard 13478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 construction works carried out at the new platforms of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), and other related matters.

President, a number of Members have already spoken on this subject and I surely reckon that the Legislative Council is duty-bound to conduct an independent investigation into the serious incident relating to the SCL project. Some Members of the pro-establishment camp and even the Government opposed the proposed investigation by the Legislative Council for the major reason that the Chief Executive has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to commence an investigation. Hence, the Legislative Council needs not conduct another investigation.

Three years ago, I had also requested the Chief Executive to set up a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the incident of excessive lead in drinking water in public rental housing ("PRH") estates. After observing the work of the Commission of Inquiry, I held that even if the Legislative Council conducted its own investigation, it would not clash or contradict with the work of the Commission of Inquiry and the two investigations could be conducted in parallel.

I think the Legislative Council should set up a select committee to conduct its own investigation because I am a Member of the Legislative Council, in particular, a directly elected Member from Kowloon West. I hope that Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, who are also directly elected Members, will also support me as we should be accountable to our voters. Very unfortunately, problems relating to the SCL project were first found at Hung Hom Station, which belongs to the Kowloon West constituency. Later, problems were also found at To Kwa Wan Station, which also belongs to the Kowloon West constituency. As a matter of fact, a number of stations along the East West Corridor and even the Cross Harbour Section are located within the Kowloon West constituency. As a directly elected Member, I understand that local residents are very eager to know if Ho Man Tin Station, one of the SCL stations which has been commissioned, is safe. The terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Government is rather narrow in scope and the inquiry is only confined to Hung Hom Station. If Members have paid attention to the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai, they would know that he proposes to invoke the Ordinance to inquire into the SCL project and other related matters, but not merely matters related to Hung Hom Station. The scope LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13479 of investigation is thus wider. In other words, if we rely solely on the Government's Commission of Inquiry, we will only obtain the findings concerning Hung Hom Station.

As in the case of the last investigation into the lead-in-water incident, back then, the Chief Executive had also confined the investigation to PRH estates found to have excessive lead in drinking water, thus the Committee of Inquiry had not examined if there was excessive lead in the drinking water of places other than those 11 PRH estates. Likewise, as the current investigation is confined to Hung Hom Station of SCL, engineering staff of To Kwa Wan Station should not be subject to investigation, otherwise it would be out of scope. I consider that the Legislative Council has the bounden duty to conduct an investigation. The Ordinance has given us the power to summon witnesses so that we can conduct an investigation into major matters of public concern or matters affecting public safety.

However, very unfortunately, I am not sure if the pro-establishment camp of this Council intended to shield the Government or any other person, it opposed our request for invoking the Ordinance to investigate into the lead-in-water incident back then, and likewise, they opposed the investigation into the UGL incident or any other matters. Their act is tantamount to amputating a person's both arms. To them, the purpose of becoming Members of the Legislative Council is to weaken the role of Legislative Council Members. Is this the political mission of the pro-establishment Members? Pro-democracy Members, on the other hand, are very eager to invoke the powers conferred by the Ordinance to discharge our duties and to find out, on behalf of the residents of our constituencies and the people of Hong Kong, the ins and outs of the incident. In the past, we were proud to be citizens of Hong Kong. We thought that construction projects in Hong Kong are of a very high standard, and even ridiculed the "tofu-dreg" construction works in the third world countries or in the Mainland. However, we are now being ridiculed for building a "tofu-dreg SCL". It is indeed very pathetic. How come the engineering profession of Hong Kong has degenerate to such a state? Water flowing out from taps do not only contain lead, but also copper and even copper salts.

Since the Legislative Council has to approve a large number of public works projects from time to time, pro-establishment Members often urge us to expeditiously pass the proposals so as not to impede the employment of workers. However, after the approval of the funding proposals, the monitoring work has 13480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 not been properly done. The monitoring work, as stated in the documents, is pretty comprehensive, with the Highways Department ("HyD") and the Transport and Housing Bureau overseeing MTRCL, and the Development Bureau monitoring the list of contractors and their performance. While HyD is responsible for overseeing MTRCL, MTRCL will appoint a contractor to monitor the work, and the contractor of Hung Hom Station is Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"). Since Leighton alone cannot cope with the large number of projects, it has appointed several subcontractors, for example, Fang Sheung Construction Company for overseeing steel bending work and China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") for overseeing concreting procedures. One may not be able to find flaws of the monitoring system as depicted on papers. But if HyD had earnestly conducted on-site supervision; MTRCL had sent engineers to inspect the construction sites and the Chief Engineer of Leighton had overseen the project, irregularities at each level should have been detected. How come the substandard construction work was eventually disclosed by an employee of China Technology in his capacity as an eyewitness?

We learnt that in January 2017, China Technology sent an email to the Operations Manager of Leighton regarding the platform of SCL's East West Corridor, also known as the "Tuen Ma Line", pointing out that there were problems with the connection of steel bars. Surprisingly, the steel bar problem was identified by the party responsible for the concreting work. It was also mentioned in the email that China Technology staff saw, during shift handovers of MTRCL inspectors, some workers wearing the overalls of Leighton, the main contractor, cutting steel bars and pretending that couplers were all safely screwed. Apparently, someone had taken advantage of the monitoring loophole and adopted underhand tactics but was being discovered. Although someone had reported the case, it is not known if any remedial action had been taken afterwards. Not only was the senior management of MTRCL being kept in the dark, but even the Secretary was only aware of the problem after reading the news reports.

Why do problems still arise under the existing multi-layered monitoring mechanism? An investigation is indeed warranted as problems at different levels are involved. With regard to the monitoring problem of the Government, how does HyD conduct its supervision, and how does the Development Bureau oversee the entire project? To me, it is most saddening that while there are Members belonging to the relevant functional constituency in the Legislative Council, they have never tried to understand the general culture of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13481 engineering sector. They have not tried to find out whether the multi-layer subcontracting system and the multi-level supervision system are effective, and why there are so many loopholes.

Therefore, President, we must conduct an investigation in our capacity as Members of the Legislative Council. By so doing, we can decide that the scope of investigation should not be confined to Hung Hom Station of SCL, but also cover other stations such as To Kwa Wan Station. As the contractor of To Kwa Wan Station is not Leighton but Samsung―Hsin Chong Joint Venture ("SHC"), we can conclude that the incident does not only involve one company. Leighton is not the only contractor that has problems, SHC also has its problems. Similarly, when we investigated the lead-in-water incident, we found that the problems did not merely arise in Yau Lee Construction Company Limited and China State Construction International Holdings Limited, but also in the four contractors responsible for the plumbing works. Hence, this incident may not only involve one main contractor or one single station, but may be related to the systemic monitoring loopholes or even the culture of the entire industry where the practitioners are not clean.

President, I insist that Members of the Legislative Council do have an investigative role to play. If we leave the investigation work to the Commission of Inquiry, the Chief Executive will surely appoint one to two Senior Counsels to preside at the meeting. They will, on behalf of the general public and the Government, put questions to the relevant stakeholders, including the Transport and Housing Bureau, HyD, the Development Bureau and the contractors in question. These stakeholders will be summoned to attend before the Commissioner of Inquiry to give evidence. They will engage the most expensive lawyers in town to have a lawsuit with the Government. What are the roles of Members? President, sorry, we have no role to play because we may not be permitted to attend those meetings unless a written request is made and approval is given by Mr Justice HARTMANN. In that case, neither members of the public nor Legislative Council Members will have a role to play.

However, the situation will be completely different if we conduct our own investigation. Recently, a member of the public called to tell me something about SCL. He engages in ground investigation works and is very familiar with the operation process. According to him, the whole industry will adopt the approach of multi-layer subcontracting. Upon completion of a procedure, inspection will be carried out by an engineer to see if there is any problem and the 13482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 engineer will get paid for every visit. After the inspection, the engineer concerned will fill in the information and signed. Later, his supervisor may ask him to provide the relevant Excel file for inputting false information. It will not be a problem to submit false information repeatedly as there is simply no verification. The information will then be passed to MTRCL. Since the senior management of MTRCL and HyD would only glance through the information in a perfunctory manner, they cannot possibly detect any problem. Therefore, although it is stated that inspections should been carried out each time, the truth is that in order to cut cost, not all the inspections are genuine as the engineers will get paid for every visit. As a result, some works have actually been inspected whereas some have been falsely reported. If we simply review the documents, we really cannot find any problem with the works. But is that the real case? Given that the entire industry has degenerated to such a state, should an investigation be conducted?

This is not simply a matter of life and death, but also a matter concerning the credibility of the engineering sector. If Members of the pro-establishment camp still maintain that there is no need to look into the matter, they do really "love" Hong Kong and "care for" members of the public. I hope they will repent and stand on our side to support a thorough investigation into the incident. As a matter of fact, a thorough investigation is also beneficial to pro-establishment Members because they may also use the station when they visit the district. It will be too late to regret when Members are trapped under the collapsed station.

If a decision is made to kick off an investigation, I am sure that Members will receive a lot of phone calls and first-hand reports. The information so provided, whether they are accurate or not, will enable us to have a holistic view of the truth. Therefore, it is imperative for us to conduct an investigation. We can not only decide on the scope of investigation, but also the pace of investigation, i.e. the time spent on the investigation. Furthermore, we can also decide on the depth of the investigation and the persons to be summoned as witnesses. And yet, it is definitely not our intention to find scapegoats. Our well-intentioned and positive objective is to dig the truth up. First of all, how many steel bars had been cut short, 20 or 5 000? This is indeed very scary. Besides, are the loading tests reliable? Or, is it necessary to blast the concrete to find out how serious the falsification data are? These are the questions to be answered, and it is imperative to dig the truth up so as to prevent the recurrence of such shameful incidents.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13483

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak to oppose Dr CHENG Chung-tai's request for the Legislative Council to exercise its powers conferred under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the incident of the works at the new platforms of the Hung Hom station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). I think it is inappropriate to conduct such an inquiry at this stage.

President, all of us are very concerned about the works problems of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") in this incident. Dr Helena WONG was wrong to say that we did not show any concern and only they were concerned about the issue. Every Member of the Legislative Council is concerned about the problems. In future, when members of the public have to go to Hung Hom station every day to take MTR trains, they are even more worried because the structural problems may affect their personal safety.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

We have carefully read MTRCL's report. The contractor points out that although there are changes to the design, the safety of the internal wall and the adjacent staircases and escalators will not be affected. Certainly, we are dissatisfied with the report because it does not explain the causes of the problems, the specific management responsibilities of MTRCL, as well as why the Highways Department has allowed the problems to occur. Thus, Members of the Legislative Council must follow up. The essential question is when the Legislative Council should invoke the "imperial sword" to inquire into the matter.

Since the reunification, the Legislative Council has invoked the Ordinance a couple of times to set up select committees. When we think the Ordinance should be invoked, we would take action. In 1998, we invoked the Ordinance to inquire into a series of problems which occurred when the Hong Kong International Airport commenced operation. In 2011, we inquired into the short-piling problems of a public housing estate. In 2003, we inquired into the handling of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak by the authorities. In 2008, we inquired into the incident of Lehman Brothers-related Minibonds; and the issues arising from the post-service employment of former Director of Housing and Permanent Secretary for Housing with a private enterprise. In 13484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

2012, we even inquired into the possibility of any conflict of interests on the part of the former Convenor of the Executive Council and the Chief Executive-Elect of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Deputy President, every time before we invoke the Ordinance, we will consider whether the Government is incapable or unwilling to inquire into the incident concerned; or whether the Government still fails to give a reasonable account to the public after an inquiry is conducted. It is only when Members find the situation unacceptable that we invoke the Ordinance to use the "imperial sword" as appropriate. Before conducting an inquiry into any matter, we must consider whether the inquiry is timely, reasonable and fair and whether it complies with the established principles.

Regarding this incident, as the employer, the Government has immediately announced the establishment of an independent Commission of Inquiry and invited the reputable and respectable former Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, Mr Michael John HARTMANN, to lead the inquiry into the incident concerning the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom station of SCL. The Commission of Inquiry has the same summoning power as the Legislative Council and it even possesses the power of arrest which the Legislative Council does not have.

Just now, a Member said that someone would be willing to attend before the Legislative Council to give evidence if he/she was protected by the Ordinance. I hope that members of the public will not be misled. Such a witness will have the privilege to tell the truth and produce evidence, but just like any witness in court, if he says something which is not true, actions may be taken against him later. Witnesses are different from Members of the Legislative Council or public officers who are protected under the Ordinance and actions will not be taken against them for what they said. I would like to highlight that Members of the Legislative Council are protected under the Basic Law. Thus, one should definitely not be deceived by the nonsense remark made by some opposition Members.

Deputy President, some Members said earlier that a Mr POON has frequently spilled the beans recently and they highly respected and admired him. However, as I understand it, this Mr POON is also an active member in the political arena. A Member said that Mr POON was a supporter of the pro-establishment camp, but to my knowledge, he often attacks the pro-establishment camp. Mr POON even stood for the District Council election LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13485 in a constituency in Kowloon West and competed against the candidate of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. Does Mr POON support us or which side does he really support? I believe the opposition Members know too well.

Deputy President, I oppose the establishment of a select committee pursuant to the Ordinance by the Legislative Council at this stage. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government will find out the reasons for this incident. It should find out the inadequacies in the monitoring process and whether there is a dereliction of duty on the part of any government department. In the long term, I also think that a review should be conducted on MTRCL's works monitoring system and the mechanism of the Highways Department ("HyD") in monitoring railway projects. My impression of HyD is that it shows no concern about the works once they are contracted out. That is wrong. Works can be contracted out, but not responsibilities. I hope the Commission of Inquiry can submit its report expeditiously in six months as announced by the Chief Executive. I will also find it acceptable if the report is submitted after seven months. The Commission of Inquiry will certainly complete its work faster than the select committee set up by the Legislative Council under the Ordinance. If the Legislative Council sets up a select committee, it will take a few years on average to submit a report. If anyone is found, during the inquiry, to have committed dereliction of duty, I hope that the Government will, in the capacity of an employer, impose severe punishment. If any criminal offence is involved, the matter should be referred by the Department of Justice to the court for sentencing.

Deputy President, I know that at this stage, the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau of the Police is conducting an in-depth investigation into the incident. People who have committed any crime will be brought to justice. Thus, I think the Legislative Council needs not set up a select committee under the Ordinance.

I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the scandal concerning the cutting of steel bars in the works of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has aroused great public concern as public safety is involved. This is certainly a matter of serious public interest. So far, the stations found to have works problems are Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition 13486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Centre Station. Members of the public may wonder if new scandals will be exposed tomorrow or thereafter. As a matter of fact, I have great respect for the whistle-blower who is willing to come forward to expose the relevant information. If he still has some critical information for our consideration … I believe he disclosed the information not because of his political background but because he was genuinely worried about public safety and he was afraid that he might have to bear civil or criminal liabilities in the future. I tend to believe that these are the reasons for his action.

Undoubtedly, the public has lost confidence in the monitoring of works by Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"), MTRCL and even the Government and in the progress of works. We must accept the fact that at present, members of public have reservations about MTRCL. With the exposure of more and more information, we have a feeling of uncertainty as we do not know what may happen tomorrow.

As mentioned by many Members, the Legislative Council had, in the past, invoked the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to set up select committees to investigate various incidents. I am fortunate enough to have participated in three such select committees, including the committee to investigate the Lehman Brothers incident, and the committee to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying's "West Kowloon-gate incident". These two committees were two extremes. While it took us four years to investigate the Lehman Brothers incident, the investigation on the "West Kowloon-gate incident" just took a few months as we had to complete the investigation before the expiry of the Legislative term. Of course, these committees were formed under different backgrounds. I think the extensive powers vested on us by the Ordinance had enabled us to handle the Lehman Brothers incident. The Legislative Council played a significant role in helping 200 000 victims make a settlement with the banks; otherwise the banks might just ignored these victims. As regards the "West Kowloon-gate" incident, the investigation tended to focus more on personal factors as many people might just want to pinpoint Mr LEUNG. Some members of the select committee might have different views on the final report. Owing to insufficient time, the report was hastily written.

In the past, the Legislative Council had discussed the construction works delay of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") and the "Siemens cost overruns incident". In respect of this incident, I think MTRCL should not issue statements again to condemn the whistle-blower. It is shameful for MTRCL to do so. It should not have done so. After the works LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13487 delay of XRL and the "Siemens cost overruns incident", many problems have yet to be unsolved and now there is the incident concerning the cutting of steel bars. MTRCL should learn from the painful experiences and refrain from condemning the whistle-blower, for it will further antagonize the public by this act.

Another problem we need to consider is whether the independent Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government and the select committee of Legislative Council can conduct investigation concurrently. The Government has made a very wise decision this time. In the case of the Lehman Brothers incident, I remember opposition Members first proposed to the Government to exercise its investigation power to set up a commission of inquiry, but the Government refused, leading to a heated discussion in the Legislative Council. The Government has acted efficiently this time and made a right decision to set up a Commission of Inquiry expeditiously. The Commission of Inquiry is empowered to summon witnesses and when the witnesses testify, they must speak the truth. They do not have any privilege if they give false evidence. To testify at meetings of the Commission of Inquiry is tantamount to testifying in court. Telling lies is not allowed. Apart from that, one has immunity if he makes outrageous statements or severe criticisms. Hence, though the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government is not formed under the Ordinance, it also has great summoning power. As the Commission is chaired by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN, I certainly believe that its inquiry will be fairly conducted.

Nevertheless, I wish to tell the Government that the present "bomb" is yet to be defused. While we may not support the establishment of a select committee under the Ordinance at this stage, that does not mean the Government has defused the bomb.

First, I think the scope of the Commission's inquiry should not be confined to the construction works at Hung Hom Station, but the entire system. I still cannot accept the problems of works delay and cost overruns that happened in the past; and such problems are yet to be unresolved. I recall that I once said to Prof Anthony CHEUNG, the then Secretary for Transport and Housing, that we would continue to follow up. Which party should be responsible for compensation, the Government or MTRCL? These issues are still outstanding. The scope of the Commission's inquiry should not be limited to Hung Hom Station, but should also include the entire system, the entire industry, the relationship between MTRCL and the Government, as well as the problems of the Government's monitoring system of MTRCL. I am not a representative of the 13488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 engineering sector and I certainly respect the professional views of colleagues who represent the sector. However, from the perspective of the public, the Government definitely has not monitored MTRCL properly.

Up till today, after so many incidents, has the Government considered how laws can be applied to MTRCL and the constructions firms … For instance, is Leighton very arrogant? If someone from China Technology Corporation Ltd. had not disclosed the incident even at the risk of affecting his career prospect, will we still be kept in the dark, and how much information has MTRCL disclosed to the Government? The public are anxious to know the truth. That is why I said that the Government has not defused the bomb. The Government should not think that it can get off the hook as long as this motion is not passed today. If more relevant information is exposed, I believe the pro-establishment camp or the colleagues will reconsider the issue. My judgment is that this incident is absolutely within the scope to be investigated by the Legislative Council under the Ordinance.

Second, the fact that the Government has appointed a Commission of Inquiry does not mean that the Legislative Council cannot set up a select committee to inquire into the incident. I have to tell the Government, the incident does not end with the voting today. Whether the incident will be an incident of the past will depend on the scope of inquiry announced by the Government and the scope should not be so restrictive that the worries of the public and Members cannot be allayed. The Government must be clear about this point. This incident is linked to the past works delays and cost overruns. However, this incident also involves some new problems, such as, is ineffective monitoring and inferior quality attributed to large number of works projects and insufficient manpower? That is also our concern.

If the Government must choose between public safety on the one hand and works efficiency and commissioning of the Shatin to Central Link on the other, it must give priority to public safety. I would rather the Government slow down the projects to solve the problems first. Frankly, the many constructions works now underway in the Kowloon West geographical constituency that I belong to have caused great nuisance to local residents, and they really hope that the works can be completed soon. But if they have to choose between early completion of the works and public safety … Anyway, the Government must conduct a thorough investigation. Although I do not belong to the relevant functional constituency, I also have a question: does MTRCL need to tear down some of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13489 walls in the worksite concerned to find out what has actually happened? I hope the Government will consider the views of those who have a better understanding of the system than us, so as to allay public concern.

Since the Legislative Council represents public views, I must point out to the Government that at present, people are still giving the Government a chance and they do not wish to see this incident being politicized. Hence, I will not look at Mr POON from a political perspective and speculate whether he sides with the pro-establishment camp or the pan-democratic camp. I will not think in this way. I think he is very brave to tell us what he knows. I truly think so, and I think members of the public will appreciate him for that. At present, people are still giving the Government a chance and that is why for the time being … At present not everyone thinks that the Legislative Council should inquire into this incident immediately like what we did in respect of the Lehman Brothers incident years ago. In the case of the Lehman Brothers incident, when the Government indicated that it would not conduct an investigation or was reluctant to conduct an investigation, the Legislative Council had already formed a subcommittee to conduct an investigation because over 20 000 victims were involved.

We are still giving the Government time but how will the Commission of Inquiry conduct the inquiry? What will be the development of the incident tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or thereafter? I do not think anyone should criticize our colleague. He, as a Legislative Council Member, told the public what he learned from the information he received. How wrong has he done? Why would a statement be issued to condemn him? I do not agree to that statement. Those PR people should have thought this over carefully and should not raise criticisms. In this incident, they did not have the right to condemn anyone. Neither MTRCL nor the Government could criticize anyone. Members belonging to different political parties or groupings criticize MTRCL and the Government today to serve the interests of the public.

I wish to make a point today. The Government must state clearly the scope of the Commission's inquiry, its nature of work and the list of witnesses it intends to summon. Most importantly, the Commission of Inquiry should find out which parties should be held responsible, whether criminal, civil and political liabilities are involved in the incident, as well as what serious problems have arisen in the systems concerned, leading to repeated incidents. We have given the Government many opportunities. The Government must give the public a clear account of the Commission's scope of inquiry. Today, on behalf of the 13490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Kowloon West New Dynamic and in response to the requests of many residents, I will not support the establishment of a select committee at the present stage. As regards the motion, I will abstain from voting.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the series of incidents surrounding the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), it will be disappointing if the allegations are found to be true. The public are worried about safety issues and amazed at the construction quality. So far, we still fail to get a full picture because the party being charged against has not given any response to the allegations. Why doesn't the party being charged against give any response? Is it trying to protect its legal rights? Are there any inside stories? Or does it have nothing to say? What a mystery!

For the sake of public interest, I hope that the Government will conduct an inquiry to uncover the truth and restore public confidence in this works project. This incident may also become a lesson to be learned. However, before the truth is uncovered, we, as legislators, should not make a judgment before the inquiry. Currently, apart from the Police, we learn that the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") will also conduct an investigation. Today, I have been sitting in this Chamber, listening attentively to Members' speeches. Although the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government is yet to carry out the inquiry, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has already made a pre-emptive judgment and has gone so far as to specifically ask someone to step down. At the end of the day, that person may have to step down; but before that, an inquiry must be conducted to obtain evidence. Will the pre-emptive judgment made by the Member, who is a former investigator, do any good to the incident? His comments may undermine the credibility of the Legislative Council.

Some other Members, such as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, queried whether the Commission of Inquiry, formed by a Judge under the rights conferred by the laws of Hong Kong, was forceful enough; and given that the Judge is appointed by the Chief Executive, he may not be fair and just. If this allegation is true, serious problems will arise because many judges in Hong Kong are appointed under this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13491 procedure. Does it mean that we should query the fairness of the laws of Hong Kong? This allegation is therefore unnecessary and will affect Hong Kong people's perception of judicial fairness.

There is also a view suggesting that if we do not set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to conduct an inquiry, no one will have to take responsibility for this incident and step down. We should not forget, though the select committee inquiring into the delay of the construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link did not invoke the powers conferred by the Ordinance, the Chief Executive Officer of the MTR Corporation Limited had to step down consequently. In the car purchase incident, Antony LEUNG also stepped down even though we had not invoked the Ordinance. These examples adequately illustrate that whether someone should take responsibility or step down has nothing to do with the invocation of the Ordinance. I think it is a bit weird to conclude that no one will step down because the incident is now being inquired into by a judge-led Commission of Inquiry.

As regards the problems with Hung Hom Station, today some Members propose that the Legislative Council should invoke the Ordinance for inquiry or else the Legislative Council will have no dignity. I do not understand why the dignity of the Legislative Council is linked to the invocation of the Ordinance. Some Members even consider that Members of the Legislative Council must invoke the Ordinance or else it will be meaningless to serve as Members. Is that the reason to serve as Members? Whether our service as Members is meaningful or not has nothing to do with the invocation of the Ordinance. Being legislators, there are a lot of tasks that we can undertake. Therefore, I do not think Members who make specious arguments to justify the invocation of the Ordinance are credible.

According to the opposition camp, only by invoking the Ordinance can truth be revealed and there is no other way to find out the truth. To me, this view is neither objective nor fair. Yesterday, some Members even said that the inquiry should be conducted under the sun and black-box operation could not be accepted. How can they describe the inquiry conducted by the independent judge-led Commission of Inquiry as black-box operation, and the inquiry conducted by the Legislative Council as an open and transparent inquiry conducted under the sun? If this conclusion is correct, all cases must be 13492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 investigated openly. The Police and ICAC will have to announce in a high-profile manner their investigation progress and the lists of witnesses. Is it very inappropriate for them to conduct a closed-door investigation now?

I think the opposition camp has put forward an absurd argument for the sake of invoking the Ordinance. Today, regarding the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station of SCL, we are not saying that no inquiries should be conducted as claimed by the opposition camp. Instead, we call for the most credible inquiry in Hong Kong, i.e. to conduct an inquiry by invoking the powers conferred by the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86). If we do not adopt this approach but require the Legislative Council to carry out an inquiry under the Ordinance, what will be the differences? According to Mr Charles Peter MOK, if we do not invoke the Ordinance, it means that we do not attach importance to this incident. In fact, this view is seriously wrong. It is precisely because we attach great importance to this incident that we call for a comprehensive, fair and neutral inquiry to uncover the truth. If the inquiry is not fair enough, its outcome will not be in line with the facts. What are the specific differences between an inquiry conducted by a judge-led Commission of Inquiry and an inquiry conducted by a select committee formed by the Legislative Council under the Ordinance? If this question is put to members of the public, they may not be able to give a clear answer. However, if they are asked to compare the fairness of a judge-led inquiry and a legislator-led inquiry, I believe the answer will be crystal clear. Truth, remedies, improvements and safety are what the public want. No compromise must be made in respect of safety. All these are what Hong Kong society needs most today.

Therefore, it is vital to have a neutral and fair inquiry. It will indeed be most desirable for the inquiry to be conducted by an independent judge-led Commission of Inquiry. Let us take the lead-in-water incident as an example. As in the case today, there was a huge dispute over who should be responsible for inquiring into the incident, and likewise the opposition camp also accused the pro-establishment camp of disrespecting the Legislative Council, saying that the Legislative Council would lose its dignity if it did not inquire into the incident. At that time, we consider that safeguarding public interest was the top priority and that an independent judge-led commission of inquiry could uncover the truth in the most efficient manner. The Government subsequently invoked the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to get to the bottom of the lead-in-water incident. Today, the myriad of recommendations on drinking water safety have been implemented one after another. The function of an independent judge-led commission of inquiry has been well demonstrated in this case.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13493

I have been sitting in this Chamber since yesterday, listening carefully to each Member's speech, paying attention to the justifications and matters raised. However, after listening for so long, I am still not convinced by the opposition Members. Since an independent judge-led Commission of Inquiry has been established to inquire into the incident, why should the Legislative Council set up a select committee under the Ordinance? I am not convinced. It will cause a lot of confusion if the two inquiries run in parallel. In my view, having a credible judge-led Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station is an adequate arrangement.

Although Dr CHENG Chung-tai and opposition Members have raised many arguments today, we are not convinced that this motion should get passed. Why does Dr CHENG Chung-tai move this motion again? Members of the public should note that two weeks ago, i.e. the week of 10 June, Dr CHENG proposed to the House Committee the invocation of the Ordinance before the Government's announcement of setting up an independent commission and its appointment of an independent judge-led Commission of Inquiry. On Tuesday of that week, the Chief Executive announced the appointment of Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN to lead the independent Commission of Inquiry. The motion of Dr CHENG was thus voted down at the meeting of the House Committee held on 15 June (Friday).

Today, Dr CHENG moved the same motion to the Legislative Council, urging for the discussion of a subject which was previously voted down. I will not speculate on his motive. However, looking back to the smear tactics of the opposition camp, I think he is likely to tell only the partial truth. What does it mean by "partial truth"? He may tell the public that his proposal to inquire into the cutting of steel bars at Hung Hom Station by invoking the Ordinance was opposed by the pro-establishment camp. Yet, he will not tell the other half of the story, i.e. the independent Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN has already been set up to conduct an inquiry. While the truth is that there is an inquiry underway, he still says that there is no such inquiry. Just now, some opposition Members queried why we did not conduct an inquiry. In their view, if we do not conduct an inquiry, it means we show no concern over the incident. But that is not true. I therefore wish to present the truth to the public. The opposition Members must give a clear account to the people instead of telling the partial truth. In our view, the purpose of an inquiry is to uncover the truth rather than to achieve the other motives of the opposition Members.

13494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

So far, the incident has aroused significant queries among the public as to the quality of works supervision and construction as well as the reputation of Hong Kong's engineering industry. However, we should not jump to the conclusion before the completion of a full inquiry. I therefore hope that there will be a fair inquiry into the incident. Deputy President, I so submit.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai indicated his wish to raise a point)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, do you have a point of order? You will still have time to give a reply after the Secretary gives his speech later.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am not very familiar with construction works, but I do care very much about public safety or the governance of public bodies. The series of scandals concerning the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project are still evolving and it can be said that there are daily updates. The most recent event is that a senior staff member of the China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") has openly exposed some information. It seems that our colleague Mr Michael TIEN has also received a lot of insider information. And, just now I heard some colleagues, including Dr Helena WONG, say that some members of the trade have approached us to disclose certain facts or problems relating to this project.

Deputy President, the matter was discussed at the meeting of the House Committee under your chairmanship, during which Dr CHENG Chung-tai also requested the appointment of a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the matter. As usual, the pro-establishment camp constantly criticized the proposal and advised us to wait for a while. They used strong words when they spoke, but when action was required, they said that we should wait until the Government set LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13495 up a Commission of Inquiry. The Government subsequently announced the appointment of an independent Commission of Inquiry. We welcome the appointment as the incident is of great public interest and its severity also justifies the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry by the Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance.

The appointment of former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN by the Chief Executive is, in our opinion, a positive decision as he had chaired the Independent Expert Panel to inquire into the delays of the Express Rail Link ("XRL") in the past. The relevant report was publicly released three years ago (that is, 2015) and the entire process was pretty transparent. The independent Commission of Inquiry is highly credible, independent, open and transparent. We consider that these factors are of paramount importance.

To our great regret, Deputy President, after the publication of the report, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") continued to be plagued with problems. The present incident involving the SCL project is not the first time that MTRCL was found to have governance problem. Subsequent to the delays of the XRL project, the Government, MTRCL, the engineering sector and various other individuals had given an account of the matter on different occasions. MTRCL and the then Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG had all along denied the problem. The then Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG even said that he was totally shocked when he learnt about the news. However, as disclosed by the media in the aftermath, some internal correspondence and emails between the Bureau and MTRCL showed that the former was well aware of the problem at a very early stage.

It seems that history has repeated itself. In response to the numerous works blunders, false reports and falsification of facts, the Secretary said that he was totally shocked, that he was not informed of the situation and that he only learnt about the situation from the media. However, subsequent reports of the media revealed that the Bureau had received an informant's email long ago and follow-up actions had already been taken by the relevant departments and the Highways Department. But since China Technology later advised that the problem had been dealt with, the incident was thus not pursued.

Frankly speaking, I have no idea how works project would be considered as compliant or non-compliant. I just want to highlight the following points: firstly, I think the incident is undoubtedly of great public interest, and secondly, should the Legislative Council set up a select committee to carry out an 13496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 independent investigation? There are currently different arguments, for example, there is no need for the Legislative Council to duplicate the work as the Government has already kicked off an investigation.

Both the present or past series of incidents involve a number of parties, including the Government which oversees the project and the main contractor MTRCL. There are contractors at different levels and under the main contractor, there are many subcontractors, involving a large number of different and complicated roles and interests. Unfortunately, the incident has caused members of the public to lose faith in them.

From the viewpoint of the Legislative Council, we understand that the Government has responded as the Chief Executive has already undertaken to set up an independent Commission of Inquiry. But does the Legislative Council have any responsibility to take or a role to play? This is the second important question that we would like to ask. The first question, as we all know, is that great public interest is involved in the incident. Therefore, while the Government is duty-bound to conduct an investigation, the Legislative Council is also obliged to show concern for the incident. The question is, does the Legislative Council have any role and responsibility in the course of the Government's investigation?

The Legislative Council is a constitutional body responsible for maintaining checks and balances or monitoring the Government, the Basic Law also provides that the Government has executive powers and the Chief Executive, though being the head of the SAR Government, many of her powers are nonetheless subject to the checks and balances of the Legislative Council. Of course, under the existing framework, executive powers are relatively greater. In other democratic systems, however, the powers of the executive and legislative bodies are more balanced. The case of Hong Kong is therefore pretty extraordinary. Having said that, there are many cases where the Government has to seek the approval of the Legislative Council, for example, the enactment of laws or funding proposals. What is more, the Basic Law also clearly provides that the Government should be accountable to the Legislative Council, which precisely highlights the unique role to be played by the Legislative Council. Is the Legislative Council duty-bound to take follow-up actions and conduct investigations into incidents involving significant public interest and possibly involving wrongdoings and blunders on the part of the Government? I think the answer is crystal clear, and that is, we absolutely have certain responsibility and role. From the legislative prospective, the Ordinance also stipulates that we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13497 have such powers. In fact, powers go with responsibilities. When similar incident occurs, Members of the Legislative Council should ask ourselves if we have the responsibility; if all of us agree that we have the responsibility, then actions should be taken. It is just that simple.

Some people may ask, since the Government has started to conduct an investigation, will it be a duplication of effort or a sort of redundancy if we do the same work? The Government has to undertake a lot of tasks, such as the enactment of laws, and the vast majority of policies and laws affecting members of the public are introduced by the Government. Subject to Article 74 of the Basic Law, Members of the Legislative Council are not allowed to enact any law and this must be done by the Government. The reason why the Legislative Council needs to scrutinize and endorse laws is to maintain checks and balances, which is a duplication of efforts.

With considerable resources, the Government can employ many lawyers to draft legislation, and coupled with the fact that there are numerous government departments, more than 100 000 staff and hundreds of advisory committees, why is it still necessary to refer the legislation to the Legislative Council for further action? Given that the Government can formulate the best policies, enact the best laws, command the best resources and then achieve the best result, so how can it not perform well with so much resources? Judging from this angle, the Legislative Council is indeed redundant. Then why is it still necessary for the Legislative Council to approve funding proposals? Why is there a need for Government policies to be introduced into the Legislative Council for discussion? The logic is simple. It is downright necessary for us to repeat the relevant processes.

Repetition is pretty common under the democratic system as there are checks and balances, and errors are unavoidable in any system. Just as Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN had highlighted in the report concerning XRL, how could the delays go undetected for so long? Why was the Government not informed of the delays when it was known at an early stage that the project was unable to be completed on time? The reasons were that the Government had too much faith in and had over relied on the assurances given by certain senior staff of MTRCL, yet their assurances were not supported by any substantial evidence.

13498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

(THE PRESIDENT resumed chair)

History repeated itself today simply because of structural defects. All the senior staff of MTRCL, including the Directors and Chairman, are appointed by the Government and they are friends of the Government. When your friend said there was no problem, you would surely trust him and this kind of structure will certainly give rise to loopholes. Hence, a mechanism must be put in place for maintaining checks and balances. Our colleagues said that this was unnecessary as the Government could handle on its own. This is nonetheless wrong because the Government cannot possibly deal with the issue for there is a lack of checks and balances and a platform to consider the issue from another angle. As Members of the Legislative Council, we should represent the people of Hong Kong and stand on the side of public interest. I am not saying that the Government has not tried to stand on the side of public interest, but the problem is that the Government has turned blind. This is not what it desires, but the structure and system have made it blind. Has the Government lost faith in Frederick MA? Of course not. As he was once a Director of Bureau, he has been a partner and a buddy of the Government for many years. This is why he asked us not to query and just trust them. This is utterly wrong.

President, there is still another crucial question that I need to respond to. According to the message delivered by MTRCL, it is true that the project was plagued with problems, but safety should be the top priority. So long as safety is ensured, problems relating to concealment, fraud or non-compliance can be dealt with at a later stage as safety is of paramount importance. President, safety is surely our prime consideration and I have no objection to the fact that safety is our gravest concern. But is safety the only consideration? Are we required to only meet the basic safety standard and then turn a blind eye to the confusion, fraud and even bribery that have resulted in the course of construction on the premise that smooth completion and overall safety are maintained? This is nonetheless extremely dangerous. What is more, this is precisely the level of civilization that the Legislative Council must safeguard today. The requirement of Hong Kong is definitely not that low. We require all procedures to be fully complied with; we denounce bribery, corruption and privilege, and we demand an open and transparent system and a clear account to the public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13499

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai moved a motion today pursuant to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, have you put on your microphone?

(Mr Christopher CHEUNG put on his microphone)

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I am now putting on my microphone. President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai moved a motion today pursuant to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to request the establishment of a select committee to inquire into the alleged substandard construction works at the new platforms of Hung Hom Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project. Since this incident involves major public interests, public attention has naturally been drawn. I think the motion today is indeed worthy of our thorough consideration.

This project, which the Government has entrusted the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to undertake, is 17 km long, and its cost has been overrun time and again; the latest cost has surged to nearly $100 billion or, to be accurate, $97 billion. The series of scandals surrounding project supervision and project quality have indeed dampened public confidence, and particularly when the project has a bearing on people's safety, we must not relax our vigilance in any event.

As I said earlier, the performance of MTRCL in undertaking the SCL project is indeed disappointing. Apart from cost overruns, the solemn avowal made earlier that there was no problem with project quality was soon contradicted by the revelation that the steel bars at Hung Hom Station of SCL had been cut short. Later MTRCL offered ambiguous explanations and even delayed the submission of its report to the Government. The report failed to specify the causes of the incident and who should be held accountable. Surprisingly, not a word was mentioned in the report as regards how MTRCL supervised Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"), the contractor. Leighton was even asked to submit a report on the incident to the Government directly. How can members of the public rest assured when such performance is delivered?

13500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

A series of scandals surrounding MTRCL were subsequently disclosed, including steel bars in a wall at To Kwa Wan Station of SCL being shaved thin, and the contractor of Exhibition Centre Station of SCL, which is likewise Leighton, surprisingly ignored the non-conformance report issued by MTRCL and continued with the construction work. Recently, someone who claimed to have insider information indicated that the number of steel bars being cut short at a platform of the Hung Hom Station extension works of SCL far exceeded the reported number of 9 to 17 as disclosed by MTRCL in its report, but accounted for some 20% of the 26 000 problematic couplers/joints in total. In other words, as many as 5 000 steel bars had been cut short, giving rise to serious doubts as regards whether this project undertaken by MTRCL is still safe and reliable.

It is never too late to take remedial action. After submitting a report to the Hong Kong Government on steel bars having been cut short at Hung Hom Station, Chairman Frederick MA immediately convened a special meeting of the Board of Directors and pledged to adopt a series of measures to restore public confidence, including asking the Capital Works Committee under the Board of Directors to conduct a review of the management processes and procedures for the SCL project, and engaging third-party consultants to assist in the review, which would hopefully be concluded within three months. This is the first half of a right job, and the second half that still needs to be done is that MTRCL should handle the incident seriously.

Regarding repeated external queries about the MTRCL's possible concealment of alleged falsification concerning the works at Hung Hom Station, MTRCL placed an advertisement in the press yesterday, but the advertisement gave people an impression of perfunctory. The reason is that they indicated lightly that the contractor had confirmed in writing that the works at Hung Hom Station had been undertaken in accordance with the specifications of the contract and statutory requirements, and that they welcomed the Hong Kong Government's establishment of an independent Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the truths. Is this not tantamount to MTRCL shifting all its responsibility for steel bars cutting and safety?

However, what information did MTRCL actually obtain from the contractor Leighton? Why did MTRCL believe what Leighton said was true? Members of the public seem to have fallen into a large black hole, being kept in the dark about everything. This is similar to the OK remark made by Chairman LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13501

Frederick MA, only that the protagonist now is changed to Leighton. If Leighton says things are OK, MTRCL will admit that things are OK, but to what extent things are OK? MTRCL seems to describe itself as an onlooker, free from any responsibility whatsoever. It even says that it knows not how to deal with Leighton and is unable to exercise control over it. Leighton does not need to face the public to tell the whole story of the incident. As MTRCL adopts such a nonchalant and laissez-faire attitude toward management issues, how can the public have confidence in their remedial measures?

Therefore, I believe members of the public are very much concerned about whether this railway project, which costs hundreds of billions of dollars, will ultimately become a super shoddy project, and they want a thorough investigation to be conducted. In what areas should MTRCL be held accountable? What responsibility should the Chairman and management of MTRCL bear? As such, I can understand why Dr CHENG Chung-tai moves this motion.

That said, the Chief Executive has already appointed Mr Michael John HARTMANN, a retired Judge to lead a Commission of Inquiry with summoning power to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the construction problems with Hung Hom Station of SCL, the range of problematic steel bars, and the mechanism of MTRCL and the Hong Kong Government for supervising railway projects. It is expected that the inquiry takes six months. Furthermore, when inquiring into the project cost overruns of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link years back, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN explicitly pointed out the problems with the Government and MTRCL, criticizing the Highways Department for committing four mistakes in monitoring MTRCL. As he had dealt with the matter in an impartial manner and pointed out the problems, he gave people great confidence and won accolades from the general public.

For this reason, for the time being I think we need not take a superfluous move by having the Legislative Council interfere and conduct an investigation. I hope that the Government can truly draw a lesson and seriously urge MTRCL to properly undertake the SCL project, ensure project quality, and strive to avoid giving people the impression that it disregards public safety. In addition, the remit of the judge-led Commission of Inquiry should not be too narrow, so that it can identify all the problems to be rectified. I believe that the judge-led 13502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Commission of Inquiry will spend a shorter time than that of the Legislative Council, and it will be more efficient and credible than the Legislative Council in the process, so I will not support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion today.

President, I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I basically and in principle support the Legislative Council to invoke its statutory power to monitor the Government. The Legislative Council has the power and privilege to inquire into the problems associated with the actions taken by the Government or relevant organizations. However, the Legislative Council's power must be exercised with caution. Under what circumstances this power should be exercised? Such circumstances have basically been specified but I think three conditions must be met before the Legislative Council can exercise its statutory power.

First, some matters involve huge public interest and will have far-reaching and serious consequences on our society. This is a condition that must be met and investigations should not be conducted on ordinary matters.

Second, the Government must fulfil its governance duties. If the operation of society gets out of control due to the lack of proper supervision by the Government, the Government apparently fails to discharge its duties. In that case, an investigation should be conducted by the Legislative Council.

Third, even if the Government has done something wrong, who has never made mistakes? Has the Government taken corrective or remedial measures within a reasonable time?

We have to take into account these three conditions when considering whether the Legislative Council should exercise the power conferred by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Certainly, the news about the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") has given rise to much discussion and people who are involved in the project have become whistle-blowers or have reported to the Police. In the face of complaints, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") seems to have accepted such complaints, but its attitude remains the same. Such news reports have cause great anxiety in society. How should we form an opinion of the events? I will adopt a more cautious attitude.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13503

I have just given three reasons. On the fact of it, the SCL incident is closely related to public interest, so the first condition is met. Second, the Government has awarded works contracts to MTRCL, and MTRCL, being the principal contractor or supervisor of railway construction, has unshirkable responsibilities. MTRCL cannot, after being awarded the project by the Hong Kong Government, pass the responsibilities to the main contractor and the subcontractor, and refuses to undertake responsibility. The chain of responsibility is interrelated and all parties have to undertake responsibilities.

How did MTRCL handle this incident? We learnt from the news that the Board of Directors of MTRCL had conducted an internal investigation. Are members of the public satisfied with the report? This is still subject to review. However, after the SAR Government has learnt about the incident, it has taken the action that Members have repeatedly requested, i.e. it will not just accept the report of MTRCL but will make a resolute decision to set up an independent Commission of Inquiry with statutory powers, functions and role, and Mr Michael John HARTMANN, a former Judge, will be appointed as the Chairman. The report of the Commission of Inquiry has statutory effects and consequences.

Under such circumstances, regarding the third point on whether the Government has conducted investigations and taken remedial measures in a timely manner, at least I know that the Government has proposed to conduct an investigation. Has the Government not taken other remedial measures? I do not think so. The spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong has always been highly commended and we have a sound system which is not fragmentary. In the past, Hong Kong was commended for having the best civil service in the world. Will the civil service system changed overnight in 1997 and become the worst in the world? Members can make bold criticisms, but as pointed out by the President, the remarks made by Members in the Legislative Council may not necessarily be correct. The freedom of speech may give rise to a free flow of ideas.

What does this mean? Under the existing system, all projects have to be approved by the Legislative Council, followed by administrative work. After a tender has been awarded, the plans have to be approved, the construction has to be supervised and tests have to be conducted. The works will only be accepted upon the production of the tests reports. The whole process is well-established. How many steel bars had actually been cut short: 17, 21, 5 000 or 25 000? 13504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

There are divergent views. I think that it is wrong to even cut one steel bar short because the plans should be followed and any unapproved deviation from the requirements is an offence. Is the current situation very serious and has no remedial measures been taken? That is not the case. The Transport and Housing Bureau, the Highways Department and MTRCL have not been sitting back and waiting for the former Judge, Mr Michael John HARTMANN, to conduct an investigation. They have not withheld other works or remedial measures. I do not think that is the situation. Has the cutting of steel bars jeopardized or dealt a serious blow to the safety of the whole transport system in Hong Kong? Is the incident beyond remedy? How should we deal with this incident? Must we pursue the incident at this moment and do not wait for the findings of the investigation led by Mr HARTMANN? Should the approach described by a Member earlier "two ghosts knocking at the door" be adopted? He is actually saying that a two-pronged approach should be taken, but he has used the terrifying expression of "two ghosts knocking at the door".

Since we have heard a lot of noises in the community, we should deal with the incident but our actions should not be terrifying. Basically, I fully support the Legislative Council in exercising its investigative power. The question is when the power should be exercised? I cannot fully support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion at this moment. The Legislative Council only has some unofficial information and many different opinions are voiced in the community. If we start doing something that meets the three conditions above, which is also something that the Government has been doing, we will be making a pre-emptive move.

When is the right time? If the Commission of Inquiry completes a report within the specified period of six months but the report is devoid of substance or is perfunctorily written with the intent of letting some responsible officials get off the hook, by then, if the Legislative Council is dissatisfied, it can conduct an independent investigation. Therefore, while I think Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion has good intention, but taking into account the three conditions of timing, geographical and human conditions, I think we should not undertake the work right now. Otherwise, we will be taking others job into our hands or making a pre-emptive move. Or it can be said that we will be wasting manpower and resources and making twice the effort for half the effect.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13505

Therefore, I think we should be more patient. After the completion of the report six months later, we can read in detail and look for deficiencies. During this period, the Government is not sitting back and doing nothing. What should be done by the Government? Had 21, 17 or 5 000 steel bars been cut short? Under the well-established monitoring system, the Government has to follow good advice and handle the problem with professionalism. Let me reiterate, I am not asking the Government to cover up its past mistakes. The Government has to find out whether the serious blunders mentioned by the community and the media have actually been made. If so, it should analyse the incident in an open, honest, bold and transparent manner, and support the investigation conducted by the Commission of Inquiry led by Mr HARTMANN. At the same time, it should not impede the progress of the SCL project, so as to ensure that the project can be completed as scheduled. As such, we not only have the strength to follow up on this matter but also the subjective expectation to find out the party which should take the blame, and at the same time, we will not cause the community any alarm in the course of identifying the problem. Let me stress once again, the authorities should not cover up the problem, they must target at the problem, identify the deficiencies and provide solutions.

President, I strongly support that the Legislative Council should exercise the power conferred on us by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance when necessary and at critical moments. However, at present, the time is not ripe to exercise this power, so I will not feel regrettable if I do not support this motion. Yet, I would like to urge Honourable colleagues not to politicize the problem. We have to solve the problem but we should not hurl criticisms at each other in the Chamber. Although I do not support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion today, I appreciate that he has reacted quickly, though he might be reacting a bit too soon.

I so submit, thank you.

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

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai stood up)

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

13506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

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

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Under Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now, various Members spoke on the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai. Among their views, some of them have already been touched on earlier in my opening speech, and therefore, I will not repeat. I will now briefly respond to some of the major viewpoints of Members.

I have heard the divergent views given by Members in their speeches. For Members who are in favour of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion, they generally consider it appropriate to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident. However, as I pointed out in my opening speech, an independent Commission of Inquiry has been set up by the Chief Executive to uncover the truth and the roots of the problems. It is really unnecessary to set up another committee for investigation. I have also noted that a number of Members support this viewpoint when they spoke.

Regarding the scope of inquiry and the nature of work of the Commission of Inquiry mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, we have heard the opinions voiced by Members. Given LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13507 that the scope of inquiry of the Commission of Inquiry is to be decided by the Chief Executive in Council, I am not in a position to make comments here. The Government is now making administrative arrangements for the Commission of Inquiry in areas such as Secretariat and office.

As for the engineering tests mentioned by Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr WU Chi-wai, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") engaged an independent expert on 5 June at the request of the Highways Department ("HyD") to conduct loading tests. The initial projection is that the tests will be completed in three months. HyD has already asked MTRCL to exhaust all possible means to make sure that the tests are reliable and comprehensive. MTRCL is also requested to finish the tests as soon as possible and then submit the test report to HyD, and make public the test results. The Government will, based on the test results and actual needs, consider whether it should request MTRCL to conduct further testing with other methods.

Deputy President, in view of the spate of problems associated with the inferior works quality of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project, as well as MTRCL's unsatisfactory reporting to the Government, HyD has requested MTRCL to improve its deficiencies in project implementation. As a number of Members have indicated their wish to learn about the truth of the incident through an inquiry, the Government also hopes that the Commission of Inquiry set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance will bring us more insights.

With regard to the steel bar incident at the Hung Hom Station platform, we observe that there are two major issues: firstly, the implementation of the monitoring system; and secondly, the communication problems.

In 2008, Lloyd's Register Rail (Asia) Limited ("Lloyd's") recognized in its report that MTRCL had good track record in ensuring the quality of railway works. In order to make optimal use of public resources and avoid overlapping of duties, we accepted Lloyd's recommendations and confirmed that in the implementation of railway projects under the concession approach, the key role of HyD would be to "check the checker", i.e. to monitor and verify the performance of duties by MTRCL under the entrustment agreement, and to verify MTRCL's implementation of its own procedures.

13508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Nevertheless, the report submitted by MTRCL on 15 June indicated that MTRCL, as project manager, was not fully aware of the incidents that happened at the Hung Hom Station platform. Up till today, MTRCL has not said for sure whether it had performed its monitoring duties as required by the mechanism to ensure that the works of contractors at the Hung Hom Station platform were done properly. MTRCL, after being requested by the Government to conduct a holistic review on site supervision, undertook on 21 June that its Capital Works Committee, a standing committee, would review all the works management procedures of SCL with the support of consultants. The review is expected to be completed in three months.

On the other hand, after the incident was reported, MTRCL has failed to ease public worries despite its repeated accounts of the incident. While it had disclosed information to the public, clarification on certain information was required after confirmation was sought from frontline workers. As regards a series of construction problems that occurred at Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station, MTRCL had failed to give timely report. The Government considers this situation totally unacceptable. It reflects that frontline workers had not reported the problems that they encountered on site to the management in a timely manner. In fact, MTRCL is required to report to the Government any cases involving public interest, media concerns or major incidents, but in this incident, MTRCL obviously failed to realize the seriousness of the incident. We are greatly disappointed with MTRCL's performance and hold that the reporting mechanism must be improved.

The Government has already decided to set up a Commission conferred with legal powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to carry out an independent and comprehensive inquiry in an open and fair manner. It is believed that the community will give a fair judgment on the facts revealed in the process. To me, public safety is an overriding issue. MTRCL has commissioned an independent third party to conduct loading tests which are expected to be completed in three or four months, and the safety of the Hung Hom Station platform can then be confirmed. The government team will continue to exercise due diligence in monitoring MTRCL to complete the remaining works of the SCL project so that SCL can be commissioned early without compromising safety and reliability.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13509

Deputy President, the Government does not support Dr CHENG Chung-tai's motion as we do not think it is necessary for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Now that the Government has set up a Commission of Inquiry led by former Judge Mr Michael John HARTMANN under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, there is no need to set up an additional select committee for inquiry.

Deputy President, I must reiterate that the Government attaches great importance to public safety and is following up on the SCL's alleged quality problems and irregularities in a serious manner. We have passed the information so obtained to law enforcement agencies in the hope that they can get to the bottom of the incident and reveal the truth.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Dr CHENG Chung-tai to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when we request to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to inquire into the incident concerning the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), we just want to ensure safety. Safety is the fundamental need of survival for Hong Kong people. We are not talking about the pursuit of freedom and quality of life, and regarding this matter, I totally fail to understand why some Members oppose the invocation of the Ordinance to inquire into the scandal and falsification related to SCL. Two days ago, the representative of China Technology Corporation Limited said for the first time that if the Legislative Council invoked the Ordinance to set up a select committee to conduct an investigation, it would be conducive to understanding the truth of the incident.

As a matter of fact, the truth has already been laid before our eyes. If the Legislative Council invokes the Ordinance to investigate, the organizations and companies involved will have to report truthfully to the public to allay their doubts. Moreover, we do not have to argue whether the investigation conducted by the Government or by the Legislative Council has higher credibility. The 13510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 crux of the problem is the public confidence in Hong Kong's railway system. How can the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") give us confidence in this incident? Despite the occurrence of such a serious incident, the stock price of MTRCL has not been greatly affected. The shareholders of MTRCL are more worried about interest hike in the United States than the falsification involved in the MTRCL construction works. To the general public, MTR is closely related to their clothing, food, accommodation and transport. On average 5.6 million people take the MTR for daily commute.

It is hard for me to imagine that 30 or 40 years later, we will have to move a motion to invoke the Ordinance to inquire into the collapse of an SCL platform. This may sound absurd and no one can foresee the severity of the accident. Should an accident happen in the future, how can we be accountable to each generation of people in Hong Kong? Hence, I hope that Members will vote in favour of the motion to invoke the Ordinance to investigate into the alleged falsification of SCL. I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr CHENG Chung-tai be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13511

(While the division bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

(Ms Starry LEE stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, what is your point?

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I declare that the accounting firm I am working for is the auditor of MTRCL's accounts but I have not participated in the work.

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 James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, 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, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion.

Mr Tony TSE abstained.

13512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the motion.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 19 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion, 12 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect. The motion debate on "Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars".

Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I call upon Dr KWOK Ka-ki to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13513

REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ISSUES RELATING TO BAZAARS

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars …

(Some Members were speaking loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I would like to report on the work of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee was appointed under the House Committee to study issues relating to government policies. Its aim is to study issues relating to bazaars and make recommendations. During its operation between December 2016 and December 2017, the Subcommittee has held a total of 15 meetings with the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, including the Food and Health Bureau, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Home Affairs Department, Housing Department, Lands Department, Fire Services Department and Tourism Commission, to have in-depth discussions on various issues. During eight of the meetings, the Subcommittee also received views from deputations, academics and experts. I will give a brief account of the Subcommittee's deliberations and recommendations on several aspects as follows.

Concerning the social roles and economic benefits of bazaars, the Subcommittee considers that the benefits of bazaars are multi-faceted. Besides promoting the local economy and providing job opportunities for the grass roots and ethnic minorities to earn a living, for young people to foster creativity, and for small scale business start-ups to develop, bazaars also help enhance Hong Kong's culture and characteristics, as well as promote tourism. The Subcommittee recommends the Administration to conduct studies on the economic contributions made by bazaars and provide support for ethnic minorities to establish bazaars.

As regards the Government's policy on bazaars, the Subcommittee considers the present bottom-up approach adopted by the relevant government departments in providing assistance for organizations in the community rather 13514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 passive and is not conducive to the development of bazaars. Some members of the Subcommittee are disappointed about the absence of any bazaar-related policies in the Chief Executive's Policy Address published in October 2017. The Subcommittee recommends the Administration to set up an advisory committee on bazaars to engage various stakeholders in formulating a comprehensive policy on bazaars and support measures for bazaar organizers. It also recommends that the Administration should identify trial sites over the territory for organizations to establish various forms of bazaars on a regular basis in order to achieve "multiple bazaars in a district".

The Subcommittee considers the current application procedures for establishing bazaars complicated and non-transparent, and that the processing of applications often takes a long time. The Subcommittee recommends the Administration to streamline the application procedures and vetting mechanism, develop clear and standardized community consultation procedures, create a designated office such as the Commissioner for Bazaars to coordinate the responsible departments during the application process and provide a one-stop platform for the applicants. The Subcommittee also recommends the Administration to set up a seed fund to provide financial support to non-profit making organizations in organizing bazaars.

Moreover, to help organizers understand the application procedures and details, the Subcommittee recommends that the Administration should develop a comprehensive information guide setting out the application procedures for establishment of bazaars, the roles of various departments involved and their criteria for vetting bazaar proposals, as well as the names and contact details of the officials responsible for handling bazaar applications. At the same time, to assist the people in identifying suitable sites for bazaars, the Subcommittee recommends that the Government …

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please put your mobile phone away.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki put his mobile phone away)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13515

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): The Subcommittee recommends that the Administration should develop a comprehensive information guide setting out the application procedures for establishment of bazaars, the roles of various departments involved and their criteria for vetting bazaar proposals, as well as the names and contact details of the officials responsible for handling bazaar applications. At the same time, to facilitate the public's identification of suitable sites for bazaars, the Subcommittee recommends that the Administration should conduct local consultation in order to compile a list of sites in various districts suitable for establishing bazaars, so as to cater for interested organizations in making applications.

The Subcommittee supports the establishment of Lunar New Year bazaars and recommends the conversion of the sites used for Lunar New Year Fairs into sites for bazaars during the first three days of Lunar New Year. Besides, the Subcommittee supports the establishment of cooked food bazaars and recommends the Administration to allow the use of naked flame in the cooked food bazaars, so that featured snacks that need to be cooked by naked flame on spot can be sold at the bazaars. Subcommittee members consider that with proper crowd control and fire safety measures in place, concerns about public safety can be addressed.

The Subcommittee considers common areas, open spaces and playgrounds in pubic rental housing estates ("PRH") ideal for holding bazaars, but it is concerned that estate offices and frontline staff are not familiar with the bazaar application procedures. It also considers it unreasonable that the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") does not allow cash transactions at bazaars held in PRH estates. Moreover, bazaar organizers find it very difficult to go ahead with bazaar organizing plans as it is required to obtain the consent of other owners such as Link REIT for establishing bazaars in the common areas of PRH estates. In view of that, the Subcommittee recommends that HA should increase its manpower to handle bazaar applications in PRH estates and provide training to its staff regarding the circumstances under which cash transactions will be allowed at bazaars held in PRH estates. HA should also enhance the liaison with District Councils, the Estate Management Advisory Committee and other owners so as to provide assistance to bazaar organizers.

The deliberation and recommendations of the Subcommittee are set out in detail in the report. I urge the Administration to take on board those recommendations. President, the following are my personal views on matters relating to the policy on bazaars.

13516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

To discuss bazaars, one has to mention its ins and outs. Two years ago, during her election campaign for the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM promised to strive for the formulation of a policy on bazaars in Hong Kong and she also met with relevant organizations striving for long-term development of bazaars. However, she failed to show up for meetings twice. The first appointment was originally scheduled on 17 March this year, but the organizations were informed on 16 February that Carrie LAM could not attend the meeting because she was too tired. At a forum of election held later, Chief Executive Carrie LAM said that people would, after reading her manifesto, know that she supported the establishment of bazaars and she had once organized a large scale bazaar in Tin Shui Wai. That is one of the reasons why many organizations have requested us to speak for the establishment of bazaars here.

The Subcommittee has held a total of 15 meetings and I must thank Dr LAU Siu-lai, the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, who chaired 10 of the meetings. I also have to thank deputations, academics and members of the public who attended the eight public hearings. Without their participation, it is not possible for the Subcommittee to make today's achievements. The achievements that I am talking about are not the work undertaken by the Government over the year after the establishment of the Subcommittee. As a matter of fact, we are greatly dissatisfied that the Government had not given any positive response to the participation of deputations, academics and Members and the time and efforts they made.

No one will be unfamiliar with bazaars in Hong Kong. The many successful bazaars of today, such as the ones in Tung Choi Street, Temple Street and Stanley, or the bazaar at Sheung Wan Gala Point which no longer existed but was still well remembered by many Hong Kong people, can clearly present the spirit and features of Hong Kong people. The establishment of bazaars not only serves the local residents but also the tourists visiting Hong Kong by presenting to them the genuine face of Hong Kong. However, after 15 meetings, the requests put forward by the Subcommittee have been totally ignored by the Government. Our request for the formulation of a policy on bazaars has received no response from the Government; our request for the establishment of a committee or the creation of the Commissioner for Bazaars has not been answered by the Government. Just take a look at the officials in attendance today. Only the Under Secretary for Food and Health attended the meeting, while Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN is nowhere to be found. As for other principal officials such as the Secretary for Commerce and Economic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13517

Development, the Secretary for Development and the Financial Secretary, whose ambits of work are closely related to the development of bazaars, they are all absent. In view of this situation, the senior government officials, Carrie LAM in particular, should take the blame.

During the lengthy discussions, the Subcommittee and the deputations attending the meeting all opined that the Government should formulate a policy on bazaars. The present approach, dignified by the name of bottom-up, is essentially total neglect. To organize a bazaar, an organizer must overcome various obstacles and negotiate with each government department on its own. If the bazaar is held in a PRH estate, it must obtain the approval of the Housing Department, the Fire Services Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department; if the bazaar is held on government land, it also needs the approval of the Lands Department; and if land use planning is affected, approval from the Planning Department is also needed. If naked flame is to be used, approval of the Fire Services Department and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department is required. All these government departments do not offer help, but impose restrictions, making it impossible to set up a bazaar.

Bazaars do not merely serve the residents of one district. As we all know, there are many famous bazaars in the world. There are successful bazaars in every city in Taiwan. In the United Kingdom, Holland and many famous cities in Europe, bazaars are a must for tourists. But our Government, being weak, incompetent and short-sighted, has never treated bazaars seriously. The Subcommittee was told at a meeting that the Government would not provide documents for that meeting and would not participate in the discussion because the Chief Executive might put forward a new policy on bazaars in the Policy Address to be delivered in October 2017. At that time we thought Carrie LAM would make changes and take the initiative to do something. But it turned out that we were disillusioned again as the Government lied again. It neither proposed any new policy nor did anything.

The Subcommittee has held 15 meetings and up till today, there is one document the discussion of which is still outstanding, i.e. the Resource Handbook for Bazaar Applications ("the Handbook"). The Subcommittee only discussed the draft Handbook and the Government has yet to provide a finalized Handbook. What has this Government done? Its only response was that the Policy Address proposed to establish a bazaar in the Kai Tak Development Area. We all know 13518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 that this idea is simply impractical as the site is not easily accessible by transport. Besides, the plot of land will be put up for sale. Instead of claiming that the Government wants to do a good job in setting up bazaars, it is more appropriate to say that the Government hopes that bazaars will attract more people to the place. Why do we not set up bazaars in PRH estates, in places near to the residential areas and in places where people want to have bazaars? Why do we have to set up a bazaar in the Kai Tak Development Area? What is this Government trying to do?

I request the officials present to give us a response and I hope that all Members will join in the discussion to find a direction for the policy on bazaars. With these remarks, I move the motion.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council notes the Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary for Food and Health, please speak.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Members, first of all I would like to thank Dr KWOK for moving this motion and I would also like to express my gratitude to members of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") for discussing with the Government the development of bazaars over the past year and for raising valuable views on various issues. In particular, I would like to thank the deputations, academics and experts for attending the many meetings of the Subcommittee and presenting their views, so that the Government has the opportunity to exchange ideas with Members and the public. Here, I would like to respond to the main recommendations made in the report of the Subcommittee.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13519

First, I would like to reiterate the Government's view on the bazaar policy. The Government adopts a positive attitude towards specific bottom-up proposals for organizing bazaars. When suitable sites are identified by the organizations concerned (i.e. the site owners have no in-principle objection to the proposed bazaars being held at their venues at the proposed time slots) and support from local communities and respective District Councils ("DCs") has been obtained, as long as the bazaar proposals would not compromise public order and safety, food safety and environmental hygiene, or cause obstruction to public passageways, the Government would facilitate liaison with other relevant bureaux and departments regarding the use of the sites for holding bazaars.

From our observation, many bottom-up bazaar applications serving different purposes and taking different forms that were supported by DCs have been successfully held in recent years. Bazaars are a neutral platform involving the trading of goods. Their venues are not permanent, and their operation is non-recurrent and of short duration. The specific situation, development, culture and planning are different in each district, and hence different bazaars may vary significantly in their nature and positioning. Some are festival celebrative events for public enjoyment, some for promoting cultural creativity, some for promoting community economy and tourism, and some for providing business start-up opportunities and assistance to the grass roots and for poverty alleviation. Under different themes, bazaars have different forms, such as carnivals, farmers' markets or arts and crafts fairs.

If the bazaar proposals require licences to be granted by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), FEHD will make the best effort to provide assistance.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Government should identify sites in different districts for community groups and organizations to establish various forms of bazaars on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, the operation of bazaars is non-recurrent and of short duration, and their venues are not permanent. Venues held by the Government such as football pitches or stadiums in general have long-term designated uses for serving the public and relevant stakeholders. If these government venues are to be used for establishing bazaars on a regular basis, the relevant departments must carefully assess whether it would run counter to the original designated uses and affect the public and relevant stakeholders served by the venues. We believe that bazaars proponents will consult the relevant DCs before proposing to establish a bazaar in a government venue.

13520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

The Subcommittee has spent a lot of time discussing how the Government can enhance the assistance to bazaar organizers, including the creation of a designated office, such as the Commissioner for Bazaars …

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary, is your mobile phone on your side?

(Under Secretary for Food and Health put his mobile phone away)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under Secretary, please continue with your speech.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Sorry. The Subcommittee has spent a lot of time discussing how the Government can enhance the assistance to bazaar organizers, including the creation of a designated office, such as the Commissioner for Bazaars, to coordinate the responsible departments during the application process. In fact, relevant departments process the bazaar applications in accordance with the long-standing procedures and standards. The application procedures and approving criteria are open and transparent. In general, upon receipt of a specific application, the department in charge of the site will consider the nature, form, operation mode, date and time of the proposed activity to determine whether or not the bazaar is suitable to be held at the site, and whether there are other matters requiring attention in connection with the proposed activity or site. However, different bazaars may need different licences or permissions. For example, a places of public entertainment licence or a temporary places of public entertainment licence is required if the bazaar involves activities defined as "entertainment" under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance (Cap. 172), and a temporary food factory licence under the Food Business Regulation (Cap. 132X) is required if the bazaar activities involve the selling of cooked food.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Administration should develop a comprehensive information guide, setting out the application procedures for the establishment of bazaars, the licences/permits required for various types of bazaar LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13521 activities, the roles of various departments involved and their criteria for vetting bazaar proposals, as well as the names and contact details of the officials responsible for handling bazaar applications. We agree that this proposal will help the applicants have a better grasp of important issues concerning the establishment of bazaars. Hence, we have drawn up a draft Resource Handbook for Bazaar Applications and the draft Handbook was discussed at a meeting of the Subcommittee. Given that the Subcommittee considers that the draft Handbook is only a collection of existing materials relating to bazaars without any new information, we will continue to consolidate information relating to bazaars provided by various departments as required.

Some Members and deputations have indicated their wish of obtaining information on idle government land. We have also provided the Subcommittee with the updated list of vacant land for greening or community uses compiled by the Lands Department ("LandsD"). According to LandsD, if there are unleased or unallocated government lands available and their long-term use is yet to be determined or they are not yet due for implementation, LandsD will try to put these sites to appropriate temporary use, including letting them for temporary use by way of a short term tenancy through tender, or with the support from the relevant bureau, letting them directly to a party outside the Government for temporary use, or allocating them through Temporary Government Land Allocation to a bureau/department for its use. Bazaars with various nature and positioning can be established in different forms.

We consider it more appropriate for the proponents to identify and secure suitable sites for organizing bazaars, taking account of the circumstances, development, culture and planning of the district concerned. The respective departments in charge of the sites will consider and process each application in accordance with their vetting criteria and the specific details of the case.

The Subcommittee has also recommended that the Government should select a Lunar New Year ("LNY") Fair venue and a pedestrian precinct from each of the five major constituencies of Hong Kong for establishing cooked food bazaars during LNY. The Government also maintains a positive attitude towards proposals of LNY Fairs adopting the same bottom-up approach.

A number of LNY Fairs have been successfully held by local organizations in recent years. In the case of Sham Shui Po, LNY cooked food bazaars were organized by different community organizations, which included Maple Street 13522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 cooked food bazaars in the last two years and Tung Chau Street cooked food bazaars last year. These bazaars attracted large numbers of visitors and according to our understanding, the local community responded positively in general. An arts and crafts fair was also organized in Tung Chung in February 2017 for the Spring Lantern Festival on the 15th Day of LNY.

In addition, we understand that organizers wish to sell cooked food in bazaars. In the past, cooked food bazaars were only allowed to reheat food items with electricity, but in mid last year, some licensed temporary food factories operating in bazaars were allowed to use naked flame for reheating pre-cooked food.

President, I have responded briefly to the main recommendations of the Subcommittee. I so submit. I will listen to the speeches of Members and will make supplementary comments as appropriate later on. Thank you.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The official's response is indeed very simple. As a matter of fact, the meetings of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") are really baffling. We have only been talking about a few salient points time and again, but the Government has been beating around the bush. Members have mentioned that setting up bazaars involve more than 10 government departments, including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Leisure and Cultural Services Department, Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Housing Department, and also Highways Department. And do not forget the District Councils mentioned just now.

The Government has mentioned the bottom-up approach, which sounds nice, but it often takes six months to apply for setting up a bazaar, and by the end of six months, even the application form is nowhere to be found. In a nutshell, we just want to know if one-stop service can be provided, but the Government has been evasive and perfunctory, saying that it would depend on the situation. Basically, the Government is very unwilling to undertake the work. When asked whether the post of Commissioner for Bazaars would be created, the Government has not given a definite reply, as in its response on the question concerning the provision of one-stop service. Once again, its reply was that it would depend on the situation, meaning that no specific answer could be given. It is just a waste of time and this is a tiring task. The only thing that can give us a sense of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13523 achievement is our proposal concerning the use of naked flame in bazaars. The current regulation has somewhat been relaxed. In the past, that was a big problem. Foods like curry puffs must be fried on naked flame and now, with permission granted, naked flame can be used for cooking. In that case, is the work of the Subcommittee redundant and a waste of time? My bafflement and confusion does not mean that the Subcommittee should not have been formed because at each meeting we could at least see some part-time or full-time hawkers of various districts expressing grave concerns about the issues relating to bazaars. Some voluntary groups have certainly expressed the same concerns, but the Government has adopted the stalling tactics time and again.

Another point that I wish to mention in passing is that the Mong Kok Market Building ("the Building") has been left vacant for eight years. Last week, I together with the Community March, Democracy Groundwork, the Concerning CSSA and Low Income Alliance, published a survey report. It was pointed out in the report that the Building, with an area of 12 000 sq ft to 13 000 sq ft, had been left vacant for eight years. The Government has never talked about opening the place to the public for setting up bazaars. I presume that the point I am going to say may not be noted by the Under Secretary. Two months ago, Secretary for Food and Health Prof Sophia CHAN said that three sites had been identified for setting up District Health Centres and one of the sites was the Building. Yet, no timetable was given. We have looked up the papers and found that the setting up of a District Health Centre in the vacant Building―which is on Argyle Street, Under Secretary―will depend on the assessment of the District Health Centre in Kwai Chung after its commencement of operation upon the completion of building. According to my understanding of the Government's practice, such kind of assessment will usually be conducted two years after the commissioning. Does it mean a further delay of two years? If there is a further delay of two years, the Building will have been left vacant for 10 years. If the Government will not set up a district health centre in the Building, will it consider opening it up for the public to apply for setting up bazaars? Is water supply and electricity connection available in the Building? I have no idea what the present conditions of the Building. But even there is no water and electricity supply just like many open bazaars, connection can be made and the Government can still consider this proposal. The policy on bazaars should not be perplexing, and the Government should not indulge itself in bureaucratic laziness.

13524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, having heard the response of Under Secretary Dr CHUI Tak-yi. I really doubt if the Under Secretary and I are living in the same time and space. While the world inhabited by the Under Secretary is very exciting, the world inhabited by the community organizations and me is quite pathetic.

As regards today's motion, I think Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee"), would not mind if I first thank the former Member Dr LAU Siu-lai in my speech. Between 6 December 2016 and 14 July 2017, Dr LAU Siu-lai chaired 10 meetings of the Subcommittee. She has been striving for the implementation of a policy on bazaars. During those 10 meetings, she managed to get the Lands Department release 155 pages of information on vacant lands for greening or other community purposes. It was found that the situation was not that "no lands were available" as always claimed by the Government in the past, but "lands available were not put to use". There are actually lands suitable for holding bazaars by community organizations. The Government's lie over the years that holding bazaars in public rental housing ("PRH") estates will breach the land lease has been exposed. Finally, the Housing Department is forced to make public the application form for setting up bazaars in PRH estates and guidelines on the application procedure, and the Hong Kong Housing Authority is forced to make public the application by charity groups/organizations for holding temporary bazaar activities in PRH estates, making it possible for organizations to set up bazaars in PRH estates.

However, the Government has yet to formulate a specific policy on bazaars. In the 10 meetings and public hearings chaired by Dr LAU Siu-lai, Members and deputations attending the public hearings have repeatedly requested the attendance of Dr KO Wing-man, then Secretary for Food and Health, to listen to public views. As known to all, the Secretary was most capable of coordinating various government departments in implementing the policy on bazaars and changing the fragmentary bazaar policy and measures currently adopted by different departments. To our regret, by the time the Subcommittee had completed its work for the session, Dr KO had never shown up but had only assigned the then Under Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN and Principal Assistant Secretary for Food and Health Miss Diane WONG to attend the meetings. After Prof Sophia CHAN became the incumbent Secretary for Food and Health, she still assigned Under Secretary for Food and Health Dr CHUI Tak-yi to attend the meetings. This arrangement has reflected the Bureau's attitude in implementing and improving the policy on bazaars. I find this regrettable and disappointing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13525

At present, the policy on bazaars is still jointly enforced by different departments. Take for example a community organization's application for setting up bazaars in Fu Tung Estate in Tung Chung. The organization conducted a survey three years ago, and found that Tung Chung was not easily accessible by traffic. Most of the shops in the district were either chain stores or managed by the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), and many vacant lands were available. Hence, the community organization wanted to set up bazaars in eight feasible land lots in Yat Tung Estate and Fu Tung Estate. It had to deal with the Housing Department, responsible for managing the two PRH estates; the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") since bazaars were recreational in nature, as well as Link REIT which has control of part of the land. As stated in the report of the Subcommittee, the Government now adopts a bottom-up approach in the development of bazaars. In this connection, I think the so-called bottom-up approach adopted by the Government in respect of bazaars development is even worse than foul language because this bottom-up approach is different from the other bottom-up approach. To put it bluntly, the Government's so-called bottom-up approach in the implementation of the bazaar policy is to pass the buck to community organizations and then kick the organizations around like a ball, making them spend a lot of time on the application procedures. To hold a bazaar, the organization has to apply to the relevant District Council, and then apply to the Housing Department, Lands Department and LCSD for using the idle land for the said purpose. Even though the District Council concerned approved the application in 2016, LCSD turned down the application to set up a bazaar in one of the football pitches for reason that the football pitch had a high usage rate. Even though the community organization promised LCSD that it would not occupy the pitch for a long time, LCSD still did not give approval. Moreover, as lands of the Housing Department are affected by the ownership of Link REIT, approval was not granted. Finally, only the Lands Department granted part of the land along a cycling route to set up a bazaar. The organization has spent one whole year before it could set up a bazaar on that land for 16 Saturdays. The cumbersome procedures have denied residents of a choice.

In fact, at the meetings of the Subcommittee, community organizations, other Members and I have repeatedly asked the Government to streamline the application procedures and set up an inter-departmental task force to standardize the implementation of the policy on bazaars and the processing of applications. During her election campaign, Chief Executive Carrie LAM had explicitly stated in her manifesto that she would study the establishment of bazaars with special 13526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 features in various districts. She was earnest in making the pledge when she ran for the election; but after she was elected, her pledge had vanished into thin airs. In her policy address, nothing was mentioned about any specific policy on bazaars whatsoever.

In Carrie LAM's first policy address and in the Subcommittee's report, the weekend flea market organized by the Energizing Kowloon East Office was mentioned, yet this bazaar measure is still out of touch with reality. In February this year, Dr LAU Siu-lai, community organizations and Prof YIU Chung-yim analysed 10 trial points where bazaars had been held and the site at the end of the runway of the former Kai Tak Airport proposed by the Government, and gave a score to each of the sites according to the environment, accessibility and the density of residential units in the neighbourhood. The sites of bazaars held in the past, such as the open-air theatre in Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate, the open-air theatre in Wong Tai Sin and Kiu Kiang Street in Sham Shui Po were chosen on account of their proximity to shops and residential buildings, the high passenger volumes and also the easiness of bringing in goods and other materials by stall owners.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, Members of the Legislative Council seldom see eye to eye on many issues, but in respect of bazaars and hawkers, it is rare that Members have reached a consensus. They may disagree on the details, but at least they all agree that the Government should make a greater effort in promoting and supporting the development of bazaars.

The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has plenty of experience in organizing bazaars. Towards the end of 2002, FTU joined other organizations in organizing a bazaar named as Dragon Market by the side of Wong Tai Sin Temple with the aim of promoting the local economy and providing employment and business start-up opportunities for those suffering from unemployment, so as to help them remain strong despite the adversities. The Wong Tai Sin Dragon Market could be considered a great success. Other than attracting large numbers of visitors, more importantly, it also encouraged many people to start up a business to get out of unemployment. We seldom find such a success in the cooperation between the public and the Government. Regrettably, this experience could not be repeated and we also fail to see the Government promoting bazaars actively.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13527

The functions of bazaars are universally recognized. Many cities have a culture of successful bazaars, which not only brings economic benefits to the community but also promotes social development. For example, the night markets of Taiwan and bazaars in London are frequented by local residents and foreign visitors alike.

According to a study conducted by the Legislative Council Secretariat, in Taiwan, the hawking trade generated an annual revenue of NT$551 billion (HK$148 billion) in 2013; in London, the annual turnover of the markets was estimated at £360 million (HK$4.6 billion) in 2014. Furthermore, it was estimated that for every £1 (HK$9.8) consumers spent in the market, they spent on average £1.75 (HK$17.2) in other shops in the town centre, which shows that a market has a positive effect on the neighbouring business trade. Traders in the market and shop owners in the neighbourhood can both benefit.

In London, the local government stipulates the development direction of markets under the London Plan. It also sets up various financial subsidy schemes to provide support. Should one plan to set up a temporary market, the procedure is much simpler than ours. The organizer is only required to fill out an application form and hand it to the relevant authorities. He does not have to submit a detailed proposal on the bazaar. On the contrary, our Government keeps saying that it adopts an open attitude towards the establishment of bazaars and a bottom-up approach should be adopted, i.e. as long as the relevant District Councils have a consensus, the Government will facilitate. We also agree that bazaars should be initiated by the community in a bottom-up approach, but that does not mean the Government will only take actions after a consensus has been reached.

In Sydney Australia, a bottom-up approach is also adopted, but the Government has implemented the Markets Policy which provides a clear policy framework governing the assessment of applications for the establishment of new markets. There is also a Markets Guide which provides clear step-by-step guidelines for the applicants to follow. Can our Government make a greater effort in helping the applicants? Providing guidelines and preparing checklists are actually the basic tasks. If the Government sincerely hopes to promote bazaars, why not start by undertaking these basic tasks? Even if the bottom-up approach must be adopted, the Government still has a role to play, such as coordinating or streamlining the procedures and helping all parties concerned to reach a consensus.

13528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Moreover, the Government should take the initiative to provide a favourable environment and policy support. Providing a favourable environment is to provide the land and space for traders. There are many open areas that can be used, such as the space under a bridge. Some time ago, we held a bazaar under a bridge at the waterfront of Kwun Tong and the response was encouraging. To provide policy support is to formulate a clear policy on bazaars and provide administrative support, such as reissuing hawker licences, granting a bazaar licence, standardizing all application procedures and establishing an office to coordinate the work in all aspects. These are all conducive to the development of bazaars.

FTU has always been supportive of the development of bazaars for we believe that bazaars can help promote a diversified economy and diversified employment opportunities. Hong Kong's industries have been over homogeneous. We need a diversified economy to create different kinds of jobs to provide employment and business start-up opportunities for people with different talents. In the past year, markets of different features have mushroomed and attracted many visitors. It shows that people are keenly in need of such activities, only that the Government has not provided policy support or made available sites for the development of bazaars. Hong Kong does have many open spaces which the Government can utilize. This area of work is under the ambit of the Development Bureau. But after all, as we have said time and again, the policy on hawkers straddles various Policy Bureaux, including the Food and Health Bureau, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as well the Development Bureau. To enable the smooth cooperation among these Bureaux, it needs someone of a higher echelon to take the lead.

President, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") for its work in the past year, which include examining the role of bazaars in society and the direction for future development from the perspectives of different policy areas; and making specific recommendations. Bazaars are part of the collective memory of many Hong Kong people and they are very friendly and hospitable places. For example, people still take great delight to talk about the Gala Point and the Yu Lan Ghost Festival Bazaar in the past. Formulating an appropriate policy on bazaars will not only increase economic benefits, but also promote LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13529 social relationships in the community. Nevertheless, with the need for development in society and changes in the demands of consumers and their consumption modes, the existence value of bazaars has changed. The development brings advantages and disadvantages which we must analyse objectively.

In terms of advantages, bazaars can bring opportunities for low-income families and business starters. Over the past 10 years, due to poor land use planning of the Government, the limited number of new shop premises has pushed up the rent. This leaves business starters with lesser room for development. Bazaars, however, can provide business starters with low-cost venues. Traders selling special snacks or handcrafts can have more room for development. From the perspective of consumers, the wide range of affordable goods and shopping options available at bazaars will surely be welcomed. Temporary bazaars set up during holidays and festivals will also increase the number of good places to visit for members of the public.

The tourism sector can also take reference from some landmarks which have incorporated the characteristics of night markets and bazaars in our neighbouring areas such as Thailand and Taiwan, including Shilin Night Market and Asiatique The Riverfront, etc. These markets accommodate not only long-term stalls, but also mobile and temporary street stalls selling affordable products with special features. At weekends, crowds of people will visit these markets, including tourists from various parts of the world who are drawn to the markets by their fame. The Ministry of Finance of Taiwan announced that the annual turnover of the 25 night markets in Taiwan amounted to HK$5 billion. This shows that proper bazaar planning can potentially promote economic development.

Although bazaars are beneficial to the economy and business start-ups, we cannot neglect the possible disadvantages. In terms of the environment, since pavements and roads are narrow in Hong Kong, bazaars often cause heavy visitor flows. If passage obstruction, noise and other problems are not effectively regulated, the daily lives of residents in the districts concerned will be directly affected. Take the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct ("the Precinct") as an example. The Government's original policy intent of establishing the Precinct was to facilitate pedestrian passage and reduce people flow, but the Precinct had attracted a large number of performers instead. As the situation got out of 13530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 control, it affected the residents upstairs and the shops nearby. Eventually, the District Council passed the proposal to "shut down the street" after 18 years of operation. Certainly, we do not want to see such a result and the unsatisfactory conditions in the district.

In terms of management, some temporary markets, e.g. the Kweilin Night Market in Sham Shui Po and the Morning Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai are very popular with residents of the districts. Nevertheless, these local bazaars will attract many unlicensed cooked food hawkers during major festivals and holidays and create chaos or even conflicts with different degrees of severity. Furthermore, if the bazaars are mismanaged and fire precautions are inadequate, there will be potential risks. Members should remember the fire at the hawker stall area in Fa Yuen Street seven years ago. The tragedy not only affected the residents nearby, but also killed nine people and injured 30 others. That is a painful lesson to learn.

Hence, I agree with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. First, the Government should be responsible for preparing a set of clear guidelines for any newly established bazaar, including regulating the total number of stalls in the designated area, the business hours of the bazaar and the rights and responsibilities of the tenants. In addition, the Government should regularly review the Resource Handbook for Bazaar Applications in response to any changes in circumstances; and simplify the application procedures and the approving procedures where appropriate, including adopting one-stop approving procedures as proposed in the Subcommittee's report, in order to make it easier for interested proponents to understand the requirements for obtaining the licences. Second, the Government should identify suitable locations for setting up bazaars; and provide the sites with ancillary facilities such as water and electricity supplies, waste disposal and sewage treatment facilities according to the actual circumstances of the districts and the business-starters, so as to promote the healthy and sustainable development of bazaars.

President, the Government should not only moderately develop bazaars, but also make good planning for traditional night markets with historical value and high reputation and conserve them. For example, the Temple Street Night Market and the Ladies' Market have become famous tourist attractions in Hong Kong, drawing many visitors. However, the presentation and facilities of these tourist attractions have not changed much over the years. The Government should not only strive to maintain the characteristics of these traditional tourist LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13531 attractions but also regularly review and explore possibilities of providing them with ancillary facilities, particularly fire safety equipment and guided tour facilities which will enrich the touring experience.

To promote bazaars, the District Council of each district and the Hong Kong Tourism Board can plan itineraries of visiting a series of traditional night markets and bazaars with special features according to their business times so as to create synergy and enrich the dining and cultural experience for tourists. The relevant government departments can also release the latest news of some mature and established night markets through their websites or the social media. I believe that by establishing a regulated management model for bazaars, a greater number of safe bazaars with special features will emerge to provide more opportunities for business-starters and more options for tourists.

President, I so submit.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in retrospect, this Council started to discuss the subject of bazaars more than 10 years ago. It can be said that I am one of the initiators of bazaars. I moved a Members' motion in this Council urging the Government to revitalize "dai pai dongs" with historical value and deal with market stalls and hawker stalls which have been left vacant for a long time. Subsequently, Members' discussion on the subject focused on how bazaars could complement tourism; how to create special open-air bazaars and to hold morning bazaars for grass-roots people in remote areas, etc.

Today, Chief Executive Carrie LAM stated in her election manifesto that studies would be conducted on establishing more bazaars as a measure to promote the development of district economy. She hoped that bazaars could become platforms where young people could sell their handicrafts at weekends. Thus, bazaars have become closely related to the economic development within the local districts. Certainly, this development is also closely related to the monopolization of Link REIT and chain stores as well as the continual expansion of supermarkets and the uniformity of markets.

Undeniably, the Government's bureaucratic approach of sticking only to the rules has really caused its policy on traders unable to respond to the demands of the times and society. Thus, the Liberal Party supports the authorities in formulating a policy on bazaars which can meet the demands of society.

13532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Nevertheless, Members have to first understand that a policy on bazaars will affect many stakeholders, including residents and business operators near the chosen sites of bazaars. Hence, the authorities have to carefully ensure that the interests of different stakeholders are balanced.

To ensure that bazaars will not create a nuisance to the public, the authorities must do a good job in managing hygiene, regulating visitor flows, providing ancillary transportation services and taking fire precautions. However, if the authorities do not change its established approach, I am afraid that the required standards can only be met if bazaars or markets are held at sites with low visitor flows. In that case, the original objectives of holding bazaars will not be achieved.

Thus, as I often say, the authorities should explore and apply new technologies to introduce the elements of aesthetics, safety, hygiene, environment friendliness and pragmatism into the temporary stalls and ensure that cooking fumes and smells, etc. are effectively controlled. If bazaars do not create nuisances, voices of opposition will be greatly reduced. In that case, I believe District Councils will agree not only to holding bazaars at weekends, but also to refurbishing and re-tendering for stalls and dai pai dongs which have been left vacant for a long time.

Meanwhile, the authorities must ensure that there will be no cut-throat competition between the bazaar traders and the existing business operators. First, Members must understand that goods offered for sale at bazaars may not be cheaper than those at chain stores due to the quantity of goods ordered and the costs of transportation and storage. Thus, to succeed in trading at bazaars, traders should not compete by offering a lower price. Instead, they should strive to include special features in their goods and create a good trade mix so as to provide consumers with more diversified choices. This will enhance the attractiveness of bazaars, achieve synergy and promote healthy competition between bazaar traders and the existing business operators.

To achieve these two objectives, we cannot merely rely on the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to handle the problems of traders from a regulatory perspective. We must also introduce good planning, provide ancillary facilities, utilize the coordinating function of the Home Affairs Department and make effective promotional efforts. There are the measures to tackle the problem at root.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13533

President, the Liberal Party has reservations about the recommendation of "multiple bazaars in a district". We oppose establishing bazaars for the sake of establishing and mandatorily requiring that different types of bazaars should be set up in every district. We should not forget the special feature of bazaars, that is, bazaars are established in response to the needs of the place.

Government officials do not know how to do business at all. The sites identified by them are usually not suitable for holding bazaars. They should consult members of the industry so as to identify sites which are more suitable and appropriate.

In fact, people should not think that if bazaars mushroom, then grass-roots people and traders will benefit. Hong Kong is a small place crowded with people. If bazaars are strenuously promoted in a one-sided manner, it may bring negative results. We should make good use of our land to build retail facilities and markets at suitable sites to provide more opportunities for upward development of small and medium enterprises. That will be a better approach.

Thus, the Liberal Party is more supportive of holding holiday bazaars. Under this approach, it will be easier to balance the interests of various parties as well as meet the people's habit of visiting bazaars during the holidays. Holiday bazaars can also provide chances for people to sell self-made products or for new traders to try out their business ideas on a small scale first. This model is most likely to achieve an all-win situation.

Regarding whether the use of naked flame should be allowed at bazaars, the Liberal Party considers that in principle, stalls shall comply with the licence requirements and fire safety requirement. In fact, at present, if cooked food stalls pass the risk assessment and meet the requirements of their licences, they can use portable cassette cooker.

Certainly, the Liberal Party agrees that the authorities should streamline the application procedures for stall licence at bazaars. However, that does not mean that the authorities can totally relax the requirements and ignore food hygiene and fire safety.

President, I so submit.

13534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I will speak on the Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Report").

President, first, I thank the incumbent Chairman of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") Dr KWOK Ka-ki for accepting at a critical juncture the difficult task of assuming the chairmanship of the Subcommittee. In fact, meetings of the Subcommittee had been dragged on for a long time and the progress was slow. I thank Dr KWOK for speeding things up. Certainly, I must also thank former Chairman Dr LAU Siu-lai for making great efforts and giving much thought to promoting bazaars. I heard Mr Tommy CHEUNG say earlier that he has been advocating the establishment of bazaars for many years; and so I thank him too. Although my views may be slightly different from those of Mr CHEUNG, it seems that we agree on the major direction and we can have further discussions on the details.

President, as the Chinese saying goes, "people assemble to form markets and crowds gather to form bazaars". The establishment of markets and bazaars has been a basic economic activity of the grass-roots people in China since ancient times. People trade and exchange goods in small communities to get what they want. Bazaars not only promote economic activities, but have also developed into a culture of the community. Bazaar promotes social interactions and connections and has even become a carrier of social capital, as the Government often says. The more experienced Members of this Council will surely know that in the 1950s and 1960s of the last century when the population of Hong Kong increased rapidly, bazaar activities thrived and the Government exercised rather lax control over them back then. I believe that is somehow related to the social circumstances of the time.

Nevertheless, as the idea of managerialism began to dominate the Government later, the Government indiscriminately regulated everything. I am not saying that regulation is surely wrong, but a balance must be struck. One problem we have noticed is that the authorities have adopted managerialism as their predominant approach. They prefer a stringent approach to a lenient one. If there is only a 10% or 20% chance that problems may occur in setting up a bazaar, then, despite the 70% or 80% chance of achieving good results, the Government will not give approval in order to avoid causing trouble to the relevant departments. This gives people the impression that the Government's approach is bureaucratic. Since 1970s in the last century, the Government has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13535 promoted campaigns to keep Hong Kong clean and to combat unlicensed hawkers, which are signs of bureaucracy. As a result, we have to revisit the subject of development of bazaars today.

The bureaucratic mindset has prompted various government departments to formulate frameworks or regulations one after another, such that applications are required for everything. Members of the Subcommittee initially thought that applying to hold a bazaar was a very simple matter and the applicant only had to discuss with the Government, but during the process of our deliberation, we personally experienced the prolonged pain and difficulties described by the bazaar applicants. Whenever we put questions to the government departments, they would always respond slowly like "squeezing toothpaste out of a tube".

Why not establish a bottom-up mechanism which can really help residents or small traders, as described by the Government? We have suggested the Government to study the possibility of creating a position of Commissioner for Bazaar or to provide assistance by the relevant Policy Bureau, etc., but the performance of government officials at our meetings was really stunning. It was like watching the World Cup now being held. Each government department would show us its skills in doing "triangle passing", and their performance was dazzling. One department said that the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") under the Home Affairs Bureau was responsible for coordinating issues of bazaars, but HAD disagreed and said that assistance should be sought from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Another department said that as the relevant site was near a park, assistance should be sought from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"). LCSD then told us that since the Housing Department was responsible for managing the site, assistance should be sought from it. We were really shocked to see the wide application of "triangle passing" by these government departments.

At our meetings, we asked the authorities time and again whether they could formulate a one-stop procedure for processing bazaar-related applications. President, as revealed in the Report submitted by the Subcommittee, Members are concerned about various issues, including the roles, functions and benefits of bazaars, policies on bazaars, forms of bazaars, government support, and sites for setting up bazaars, etc. These issues involve a series of procedures and approval is required from various departments. Even after approvals have been obtained at one level after another, the applicant may not be able to hold a bazaar in the end, which is most undesirable.

13536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

We can see from the Report that the Government has refused to give a positive "like" to the contributions of bazaars. As reflected in the responses given by the Government at the meetings, the public officers are most concerned about whether bazaars will affect the cityscape, the environment and public health, etc. They do not attach much importance to the economic benefits that bazaars will bring to Hong Kong or the communities. For this reason, the public officer in attendance today is neither the Chief Secretary nor the Secretary for Home Affairs, but a representative from the Food and Health Bureau, not Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN herself, but the Under Secretary. I think this reflects, to a certain extent, the Government's attitude in promoting bazaars. The approach of "management takes priority and public order matters most" has hindered the development of bazaars. Under this bureaucratic machinery, I think the problem should be tackled at source by streamlining the relevant application procedures.

The Subcommittee passed a motion a year ago, urging the Government to devise a set of clear, standardized and simple procedures for community consultation and bazaar application. Nevertheless, the Government eventually only prepared a set of guidelines which was a compilation of the information available. Though the Government's action is an improvement in that the guidelines inform the public of the number of hurdles to overcome, thus relieving them of the need to find the information themselves; there is still no highway to success, as the applicant cannot fill in a single application form to solve all the problems. In fact, since many government departments have already adopted a one-stop application process in other matters, I do not understand why the same cannot be done with regard to bazaar application.

A number of Members, including Mr Frankie YICK, mentioned earlier that there were many successful bazaars around the world, such as bazaars in Taiwan and Europe. Members may have visited the night markets in Taiwan. There are also successful bazaars with a long history in some European countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Greece. These bazaars attract local consumption and are tourist attractions. Hong Kong certainly shares a similar experience and examples of successful markets in Hong Kong mentioned by Members include the Ladies' Market, Temple Street, Apliu Street in Sham Shui Po and Theatre Steps on Hong Kong Island, etc. They are very similar to bazaars. I think the current approach adopted by government departments is very bureaucratic. An example is the Housing Department. The 78 public housing estates under its purview can actually provide much room for developing bazaars.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13537

President, I hope the Government can make improvements in response to the recommendations of the Report, so as to provide places for members of the public to relax. Bazaars enable people to buy things conveniently, counteract the hegemony of Link REIT, and become tourist attractions which encourage spending, thus creating an all-win situation.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") for submitting its report. As I am very concerned about policies on bazaars, I have read the whole report after I became a Member of the Legislative Council and upon completion of the work of the Subcommittee. I support many of the recommendations of the Subcommittee. I remember that the Chief Executive stated in her election manifesto that "[t]he development of district economy will be promoted, for example through studies on the establishment of bazaars with special features in various districts." In fact, there is still much room for developing bazaars in Hong Kong.

President, in the past three years, I have gained some experience in assisting in organizing bazaars, holding bazaars and participating in them. Many of my friends knew that I once held a Lunar New Year Bazaar in Sham Shui Po in which many people participated. At present, two cooked food bazaars are held each year in Sham Shui Po during the Lunar New Year. One is held in Maple Street and the other in Tung Chau Street. Many organizations will apply to set up stalls each year and after these bazaars have been held for some years, there are now over 10 000 visitor arrivals each year. The bazaars attract people flow and the two bazaars are not incompatible with one another. Apart from holding the cooked food bazaar at Maple Street, we have obtained support from the District Council ("DC") to hold other bazaars too. In recent years, I am most happy that residents of the district can be provided with a great variety of choice and good food during festivals. The bazaars are very popular too.

Speaking of my experience in the Lunar New Year Bazaar at Maple Street, we really hope that some improvements can be made each year. For example, this year we will introduce the element of food trucks; invite some shops with a century-long history to participate in the Bazaar; bring in start-ups by young people, as well as introduce the use of naked flame to a limited extent. There is 13538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 actually a huge room for development of bazaars. We also hope that the bazaars to be held later this year will continue to expand in scale, or more bazaars of a greater variety can be held in Kowloon West or other districts.

Regarding the Government of the last term, I think we have to be fair when making comments. The Food and Health Bureau has been promoting the bottom-up policy on bazaars all along and has participated in the relevant work to a certain extent. According to the policy in the past, the organization had to identify a suitable site for holding bazaars of its own accord, and with the support of the community and DC, the Policy Bureau would help to cut the red tape. According to my past experience, the Food and Health Bureau has provided some support in coordinating various departments, including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), the Fire Services Department ("FSD"), the Home Affairs Department or the Police. The Bureau has also taken an active part in processing licence applications.

Some bazaars in Sham Shui Po have obtained subsidies from the Government, and DC also provides support for the relevant work. Regardless of whether these bazaars are considered as pilot schemes or trial schemes, I think experience can be gained; and it is time to conduct a serious review. After implementing the scheme for a few years, I think there are a few things that the authorities must do. First, formulate a continuous policy on bazaars. Second, establish a mechanism and a set of guidelines on the application for holding bazaars. Third, provide financial support and encouragement. The Subcommittee has recommended the Government to formulate a comprehensive policy on the development of bazaars and devise support measures for bazaar organizers. I strongly agree with these recommendations.

In fact, a bottom-up policy and a top-down policy can be implemented in parallel and developed steadily. President, different kinds of bazaars have all along existed in Hong Kong, many of which are operated in the form of or come under the definition of an open market. The Ladies' Market in Mong Kok, Temple Street in Jordon, the Banyan tree and the stalls in Sham Shui Po are bazaars too. When we mention that many bazaars in Taiwan have become tourist attractions, we should not forget that many streets and bazaars with special features in Hong Kong are also very successful, and we should not belittle our success. The Ladies' Market, Temple Street and the Banyan tree display the characteristics of Hong Kong and they play a certain role in promoting the development of the local economy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13539

In fact, Hong Kong has accumulated some experience in holding regular or short-term bazaars in the community, such as those held during the holidays and weekends. For example, we have a bazaar at the Star Ferry Pier selling organic vegetables, a handicraft bazaar at the Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre in Sham Shui Po, as well as markets selling second-hand books and goods. In fact, various kinds of bazaars are mushrooming in Hong Kong at present.

Regarding whether more bazaars with special features should be held in various districts, as long as bazaars will not affect the residents and the existing traders in the district, I think the positioning of bazaars can be considered. The authorities should formulate a set of policies and guidelines and let DC representatives and the communities participate in the process.

I notice that some overseas cities, such as Sydney, hold short-term or temporary bazaars. These cities will provide a set of guidelines for the activities to be held at bazaars, set out the application procedures and requirements for holding bazaars, and provide streamlined application forms. We knew from our past experience that applicants for holding bazaars in Hong Kong have to submit their own plans. Many grass-roots people or non-governmental organizations may not know what information should be included in their plans or how to prepare their plans. I think the Government should formulate a set of standardized procedures and guidelines for holding bazaars, so as to facilitate different kinds of applicants in making their applications. It will also be best if various government departments, including the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the Housing Department, FEHD and FSD, etc. can provide one-stop service to process applications for temporary licences. Many people who really want to hold bazaars may not know the relevant procedures.

The Chief Executive announced last year that a site will be chosen at the end of the runway at the former airport to hold a weekend flea market. This top-down approach will provide much room for developing bazaars and I hope that such a market will become a prototype of holiday bazaars.

As the summer holidays are approaching, many school buildings and sites will become vacant. Can they be used for holding summer markets? There is much room for development in these places. President, it is important to note that success in holding a bazaar requires the support of the community and DC. Very often, the site chosen for holding a bazaar may be quite close to the residential area. If the roads are narrow or busy, shop operators may be affected. 13540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

We must pay attention to these issues. We do not want to see that after a task has been completed, one group of people is happy, but another group encounters difficulties.

I hope that we can continue to actively promote the development of a policy on bazaars. The Government should also listen more to the voices of the people and the community. I so submit. Thank you, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Dr KWOK Ka-ki for moving this motion in his capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee"). We certainly support this report and, as a member of the Subcommittee, I am also particularly grateful to former Member Dr LAU Siu-lai for leading the Subcommittee all along. I think her devotion and passion for promoting bazaar development can drive the whole discussion and facilitate the formulation of a bazaar policy in Hong Kong in the future, so that bazaars can continue to be developed in Hong Kong to help many grass-roots people. She has made positive contributions in this regard.

I presume not many people will oppose the existence of bazaars because they are basically a kind of organic and natural economic and social activity. Of the existing bazaars, some stalls are fixed while some operate at irregular intervals, of short-term duration or only operate during holidays. Since bazaars have positive implications, the Government should formulate some measures, policies and ideas for the positioning of bazaars and provide support in respect of financial assistance, policies and measures. However, the current bazaar policy is basically a bottom-up policy. This policy is formulated by the Government under the pressure of the Subcommittee as there was no bazaar policy in the past. After the formulation of such a policy, the former Secretary Dr KO Wing-man proposed that the bottom-up approach should be adopted. However, I am worried that the open policy of bottom-up is tantamount to a "free hand" policy. If members of the public want to set up a bazaar, they have to find a site of their own accord. After finding a site, they have to contact the landlord, which may be the Lands Department, the Highways Department, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department or the Housing Department, etc. to get their consent. Next, they have to seek support in the district, i.e. they have to contact the District Council ("DC"). Does DCs have a mechanism for bazaar application? No, and each DC will have its own practice. Members of the public have to get the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13541 support of DC and how can support be secured? We do not know. Do they need the support of a DC member or all DC members? Should a motion be moved or a decision be made? Is there a committee responsible for handling the matter? Each district has its own practices in this respect. With the consent of all parties concerned, an application for setting up bazaars can be lodged. Nevertheless, the application process is very complicated, which includes applying for public entertainment licences, food factory licences, permits for selling foods and licences of fresh provision shops, etc. After obtaining the required licences from various departments, the applicants have to contact the Police and the Fire Services Department. The Fire Services Department will check whether there are sufficient fire extinguishers, whether the stoves are placed properly, as well as whether naked flame is not allowed. How many people have the manpower and resources to complete all the formalities including identifying sites, applying for licences and obtaining the support of DC? Basically, bazaars are small businesses to be run by the grass roots but the application process is so complicated that it requires a lot of manpower, knowledge and money to get things done. Will this promote bazaar development? Definitely not.

Why are there so many barriers to setting up bazaars? The Government also considers that bazaars have positive impacts. While many grass-roots people can run small business to make a living, grass-roots residents can buy more affordable and relatively cheaper commodities at bazaars. Bazaars are also places where people can gather together. Just now, Mr Andrew WAN also mentioned the social capital that the Government put forward by copying a sociological concept of others. Bazaars can create social capital for the community but the Government does not offer any help and it just let the public fend for themselves.

We ask the Government to set up a one-stop platform under the charge of a dedicated commissioner or a department so that people interested to set up a bazaar can apply by submitting the required document and licence application through this platform. Yet, the Government has not done so. We also ask the Government to formulate guidelines but, as pointed out by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, no guidelines have been formulated after a long period of time. Moreover, we ask the Government to provide a list of sites for setting up bazaars. A list has been arbitrarily provided which also includes sites not suitable for setting up bazaars. Consequently, the relevant organizations have to identify sites on their own. In short, the Government does not bother about all matters related to bazaars and it 13542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 just asks the public to apply of their own accord. Nonetheless, for the large piece of land on the fringe of Central, the Government has not allowed the public to apply for its usage, but has granted approval to certain companies to hold food and wine festivals there for high profits. The admission fee for such noble bazaars is a few hundred dollars which is affordable by the middle class and the wealthy families. Problems of noise or environmental hygiene are not matters of concern. As for other bazaars, the public has to deal with such problems by themselves. This is obviously discrimination as some people have been treated differently.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): First of all, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars for spending so much time and effort to prepare this report. It can be seen from this Report that the Government's policy on bazaar can be summed up in two words, i.e. a "bottom-up" approach. However, it is clearly reflected in the Report that the bottom-up approach is a tightening-crown spell for the bazaar policy. Why is it a tightening-crown spell? Since a bottom-up approach is adopted, as indicated by Dr Fernando CHEUNG just now, traders have to fend for themselves. They can continue to operate if they can manage; otherwise they have to quit. For those traders who manage to sustain, they can hold profit-making and high-class bazaars; but for those who failed, they should just quit and should not even hold inferior bazaars. This is inconsistent with the logic of the bazaar policy.

I have talked about the essence of the bazaar policy on many different occasions. If we want to turn bazaars into hawker permitted areas, we naturally have to consider various issues. However, after reading the whole Report, we know that another concept is stated. According to the Report, space should be provided at the appropriate time to those who are interested to become small traders. In Taiwan or foreign countries, the concept is to provide venues at specific time for those who are interested to do business or small trading. Hence, the venue should be managed by the venue providers, but not by some designated organizations.

I would like to tell the Secretary, the concept of designating an organization for management precisely reflects the Government's bureaucratic thinking because it does not have to bear responsibilities. I would also like to tell him, some colleagues mentioned earlier that the Wong Tai Sin Dragon Market was successfully organized by The Hong Kong Federation of Trade LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13543

Unions. When the Government subsequently asked the Hong Kong Playground Association to operate the Wong Tai Sin Dragon Market, does he know how much money was lost in two years? The Tin Sau Bazaar under the operation and management of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals was deplorable. The Government was deceived into holding the Tin Sau Bazaar in a deserted place. How much money has been lost?

In fact, traders should only run businesses that they are familiar with. The essence of bazaars is that some operators who want to do small business want to sell their goods at places with frequent flows of people. For example, an old lady may choose to sell the second-hand goods she collected at the entrance to a footbridge in the early morning for two to three hours. Another example is that some small traders may sell certain products at MTR exits after 10:00 pm. They may sell cooked food or dry goods. That is the operation mode of hawkers.

If the Government wants to turn this mode of operation from turning a blind eye at times to making some arrangements, what should be done? If the Government is serious, it can consider providing venues managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"). In general, these venues are near to the city centre or have high people flow. The Government has stated in the document that traders will have conflicts with the venue users. Does the Government know that in many cities, the designated bazaar period is from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Under this approach, a balance can be struck because basically fewer people will engage in recreational activities during this period and the venue usage rate is low. If this time slot is designated as the bazaar period, we will be able to effectively utilize venue resources. Yet, the authorities are worried that if the traders sell cooked food, very complicated licence application procedures will be involved. Can the authorities consider specifying that only dry goods can be sold? That is also possible.

If we visit the Ladies' Market, we will find that not all the stalls sell cooked food and there are many stalls selling dry goods. Traders selling dry goods do not need to apply for licences; all they need is the provision of some space. Has the SAR Government or the Food and Health Bureau which has made a lot of effort in preparing the document seriously considered the essence of hawkers, bazaars and the bazaar period. According to my observation and as pointed out by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, the Government expects an effective operator to manage the government venues. If the Government thinks so, the activities will certainly be profit making which runs counter to the bazaar policy that the Subcommittee has been discussing.

13544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

President, viewing from another perspective, if the bottom-up policy is not based on the concepts of temporary or short-term operation, there will inevitably be various contradictions, including competition against similar shops in the same district. If the Government consciously wants to realize what it proposes and confirms that bazaars have economic values, it should consider the problems that will be encountered in the process of bazaar development and then try to find solutions, instead of just using the bottom-up approach as an excuse not to implement a bazaar policy.

Therefore, I would like to remind the Secretary that there are many different forms of bazaars. If he is worried, he may actually try to specify certain modes of operation as a starting point in order to solve the problem. For example, regarding the bazaar period I have just mentioned, the Government can choose to set up bazaars at LCSD venues with frequent flows of people or at other suitable venues and require traders to sell dry goods only. A pilot scheme can thus be initiated. Many colleagues have asked if a commissioner will be appointed to take charge but the Secretary once again responded by mentioning the bottom-up approach. I hope the Government will understand that if it does not bear responsibilities, the applications will basically be rejected (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Dr KWOK Ka-ki for moving the motion that this Council notes the Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") supports this motion. The bazaar and hawker industries have a long history in Hong Kong and most hawker stalls are set up at convenient locations where the public can buy daily necessities at very low prices. The community generally thinks that the hawker industry has its traditional characteristics and is a part of the daily life of many Hong Kong people as well as our collective memory.

The Secretary for Food and Health has repeatedly stated in public that the Government has an open attitude towards the bottom-up bazaar proposal. Yet, I would say that the Government has an indifferent attitude towards the bottom-up LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13545 model. Why do I say so? It is because the Bureau has often emphasized a district-led approach. As long as the bazaar proposal does not affect public order and security, does not affect food safety and environmental hygiene, and does not obstruct public passage, the relevant organizations can identify venues for holding bazaars and complete other formalities with the support of the community or the District Council ("DC").

Frankly speaking, difficulties will be encountered when obtaining support in identifying venues and contacting government departments. But in spite of the difficulties, different types of bazaars have been held with the cooperation of a few DCs. Some examples include the Lunar New Year Bazaar in Sham Shui Po, the Kwai Chung Rooftop Bazaar in Kwai Tsing, the WesternDisMarket in the Western District, the Kwun Tong Market in Kwun Tong, and the Wong Tai Sin Market in Wong Tai Sin. However, after chatting with those who organized the bazaars, I learnt that the Government frequently failed to help them solve their problems. In fact, they were very distressed by the application procedures. I know that the Government formulated a set of guiding principles in February 2015 for the further development of the hawker and bazaar policy, but these guidelines have imposed so much pressure on the organizations. Hence problems concerning the difficulties in contacting different departments could not be resolved. As a result, many ideas about holding bazaars were nipped in the bud.

Earlier, I met with some organizations operating bazaars. They told me that they set up bazaars because they wanted to help the grass roots and give them more choices for shopping. In fact, they failed to undertake the work. Their difficulties very often involved communicating with government departments. They had encountered insurmountable difficulties in applying for licences, obtaining district support or implementing the bottom-up approach mentioned earlier.

For example, the application procedures for organizing a public entertainment event are very complicated. The applicants have to obtain a Places of Public Entertainment Licence or a Temporary Places of Public Entertainment Licence. If the bazaar activities involve cooked food, the application procedures are even more complicated as the applicants have to obtain a Food Business Licence under the Food Business Regulation, which is very difficult to get for bazaar operators. Has the Administration put itself in their shoes? The applicants have to deal with different government departments, 13546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 including the Housing Department, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the Lands Department, the Fire Services Department and the Environmental Protection Department, etc. The difficulties they encountered showed that the Government does not have the determination to promote the bazaar policy.

President, bazaars are the products of historical development and have gradually become local characteristics. I think bazaars should be retained and regulated at the same time. DAB highlights the need to communicate with different stakeholders when formulating a territory-wide or long-term bazaar policy. We urge the Government to adopt the district-led approach in the development of bazaars and bazaar activities with the support of DCs and introduce more policies to support the development of the hawker industry, such as designing hawking areas or feature bazaars based on the characteristics of various districts to attract more tourists and people to go there for shopping. Most important of all, we suggest that the Government should introduce a one-stop bazaar application process. The application procedures should be clear, uniform and simple so that various organizations, big or small, can follow the guidelines. Otherwise, the organizations will have to deal with various departments, incurring a waste of time. The biggest problem right now involves the complicated application procedures and the coordination difficulties. Therefore, I hope that the Administration will take note of the problems and remove various restrictions, so that application for organizing bazaars will become more convenient, and organizers will be committed to providing us with bazaar services.

President, we also ask the Government to expeditiously redevelop markets with a high vacancy rate into cooked food centres or bazaars. What matters most is whether the Government has the determination to further improve the existing bazaar policy guidelines so that the whole arrangement can be down to earth, and the organization applicants and interested parties can thus do a better job. Will the Government reconsider issuing "Dai Pai Dong" licences? The Government can learn from the successful experience of the operation of cooked food stalls, bazaars or night bazaars in Taipei, Bangkok or Singapore and actively promote local cuisines so that the bazaar culture will continue to be passed down in Hong Kong. President, I hope that government officials will hear our opinions and give a positive response later.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13547

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I would like to thank Dr KWOK Ka-ki and former Legislative Council Member, Dr LAU Siu-lai, for their efforts to promote the bazaar policy in Hong Kong and for leading the work of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars for a certain period in the past. Mr WU Chi-wai has just talked about the essence of the bazaar policy and I also want to elaborate on this point.

What actually are the problems? In my opinion, the Government protects commercial private property rights and regulates business venues. It also has public powers. For example, personnel from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has the power to arrest hawkers and the Government has the power to stipulate that hawking is not allowed in public housing estates. Through the allocation of resources, the Government helps operators in shopping malls or shops monopolize business opportunities.

Given this reality, what will be the consequences? According to the logic of capitalism, private owners will make every effort to exploit tenants and continue to expand their scale, as in the case of Link REIT and major property developers. Conversely, these private owners will certainly harm the interests of ordinary people. For example, ordinary people running small businesses may be oppressed by private owners and their shops may be monopolized by major consortia. As the largest land owner in Hong Kong, the Government not only owns the streets but also all public housing estates and parks in Hong Kong. Since all these places are owned by the Government, will it impose regulations at these places or carry out redistribution, so as to keep in check the ownership of commercial space under the capitalism system that has gone out of control?

This is the essence of the bazaar policy; will the Government play this role? The Government has the responsibility to carry out redistribution. It should not tell us that Hong Kong is a free market and freedom is the top priority, hence the Government will not interfere with private property rights. This is nonsense because the Government has repeatedly done so since the colonial era, and it has also adopted this practice to deal with public markets. Carrie LAM has also indicated that more public markets should be constructed.

The core principle of public markets is rent control. I am not going to talk about public housing units or Home Ownership Scheme flats. They are the resources managed by the Government―resources entrusted by the public to the Government for management―to slightly regulate the outcome of a society 13548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 where the fittest survive. Coming back to the bazaar issue under discussion, is the Government willing to face up to the essence of the bazaar policy and take the lead to exercise regulation?

As pointed out by many colleagues, the Government has adopted the bottom-up approach to evade this problem. In fact, it will create a bureaucratic maze. All organizations, members of the public and political parties with the intention to break the monopoly of property developers or Link REIT will enter this bureaucratic maze and be manipulated by the Government.

For example, if 50 bazaar events could be held at a certain venue each year, the Government said that only five such events could be held each year. In fact, the Government gave approval because the holding of five bazaar events each year would not cause any harm to Link REIT, but holding 50 events each year was too frequent and hence approval was not granted. We hope that the Government can be more honest. The bazaar policy is actually a system for the Government to redistribute interests using land resources and it is definitely a top-down but not a bottom-up policy.

Secretary, I am sorry that it is useless for you to shift the responsibility onto the District Councils or the bureaucrats because this will only cause public grievances. I do not agree with Mr Wilson OR's remark that bazaars have nothing to do with tradition, culture and collective memory and they are only related to consumer rights. We should not allow property developers to deprive the public of their right to run small business because their rights should be defended.

If the Government continues to adopt this pretentious bottom-up approach to play the bureaucratic maze game, let me tell the Secretary and all colleagues in clear terms: if the Government continues to turn a blind eye to real estate hegemony and hardships of the people, and ignore the public's well-being, public grievances will only continue to intensify. We have just finished debating the Shatin to Central Link "tofu-dreg" project and the situation of bazaars is actually the same. When the Government condones the control of social resources and exploitation of the public by these enormous forces, public grievances will not disappear. If the Government uses a pretentious approach, the public may be deceived in the first year but they will not be deceived again in the second year. When public grievances have accumulated to a certain extent in the third year, they will explode in a bottom-up manner at any time. At that time, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13549

Government should not say that Hong Kong people like to create trouble. There is an opportunity right now for the Government to do its part and implement a bazaar policy that will truly distribute interests for Hong Kong people.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, first, I must thank members of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee"). Under the leadership of former Member Dr LAU Siu-lai and Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the Subcommittee had conducted many meaningful discussions in the past two years. As a member of the Subcommittee, I certainly support the motion on taking note of the Report of the Subcommittee today. However, since there are matters which the Report has not reflected, or accurately reflected, I would like to explain.

One point which the Report has not reflected is the indolence of public officers. In the whole process of our work, the Subcommittee has held many meetings, but I strongly felt that the public officers in attendance did not want to engage in the discussion, and so Members just discussed among themselves. Our indelible experiences include receiving policy papers from public officers which consist of only one page, or even of a shorter length; and some papers may consist of only one to three pages or even two lines. On many occasions, we felt that the public officers responsible for the policy were not committed at all and they had not submitted any meaningful policy paper to explain the Government's stance. What are the rankings of the officers attending these meetings? How many times have the Secretaries or Under Secretaries attended the meetings? The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is one of the major stakeholders, but to what extent had officers from this Policy Bureau participated in our discussions? These experiences gave us a strong feeling that the Government has no intention or commitment in taking forward its policy on bazaars and the authorities are still maintaining a bureaucratic mindset.

As many Members pointed out earlier, the Government only paid lip service to implementing a policy on supporting bazaars and said that bazaars could be promoted with a bottom-up approach. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Members, it is infeasible to promote bazaars with such an approach. In fact, if the Government consults the public before introducing a policy with wide application, or adopts a bottom-up approach before introducing a new law, we would welcome this practice. As we often say, a bottom-up approach should be adopted in pooling public opinions. However, why hasn't the Government adopted a bottom-up approach in handling controversial bills? In enacting a 13550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

National Anthem Law and legislating for Article 23 of the Basic Law, why hasn't the Government first consulted the public in the form of a White Bill with a bottom-up approach? However, in relation to promoting bazaars which a wide consensus has already been reached by society, Members from various camps and groupings as well as different stakeholders in society, the Government has decided to adopt a bottom-up approach. Even though the Government says that it is willing to promote bazaars, it has insisted on not adopting a top-down approach.

Our present concern is the application procedures for holding bazaars. In practically implementing and enforcing the policy on bazaars, the bottom-up approach referred to by the authorities actually means preventing the establishment of bazaars by various hurdles and bureaucratic red tape. The authorities require an applicant to submit 10 licences, 20 documents and obtain approvals from 30 departments―I am certainly exaggerating―but that is the difficulty we have noticed.

After the Subcommittee has completed its study, will improvements be made on the policy on bazaars in our society? This is really something I expect to see. Bazaars that we are referring to are economic activities which represent a culture. Bazaars can promote district economy and encourage grass-roots people to earn their own living. Although people may not work full-time at bazaars, they can at least make more income to support the family. At the same time, as many commodities in our daily lives are being monopolized, bazaars can provide grass-roots people with more choices. Can we let bazaars become a characteristic and a culture of Hong Kong so as to give Hong Kong people a sense of belonging?

Up till now, the Government is still referring to bazaars as a "neutral platform". Upon hearing such a remark, we understand that the Government has no intention to promote bazaars. As the platform is considered "neutral", it means the authorities can take actions where possible, but they should not be held responsible if they fail to do so. How will this remark help in delivering the authorities' verbal claim of supporting and promoting bazaars? The Government has given many excuses, such as bazaars are non-recurrent, of short duration and small in scale, involving different types of activities. Nevertheless, the Government can turn bazaars into recurrent events and provide long-term facilities so that different organizations can continue to hold various types of bazaars. The Government can also take the lead to promote bazaars.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13551

The Government indicated that it has published a set of guidelines on application for holding bazaars. I am impressed by this set of guidelines, which is a compilation of all the application procedures of more than 10 departments. The Government just bundled up the procedures, without making any modification, into a set of guidelines as thick as the palm of a hand. The Government said that people would know how to apply for holding a bazaar after reading the guidelines, but in fact, there are still many hurdles to overcome in the process. In these two years, we have spent a lot of time explaining to the Government, but I think the discussions of the Subcommittee are meaningful. The reason is that we can at least use the Legislative Council as a platform to independently present our aspirations of the policy on bazaars, the benefits of bazaars and our visions of bazaars in the future. We hope the Government will do the outstanding work of formulating a comprehensive policy on bazaars after listening to the experiences of members of the Subcommittee in these two years. The society asks the Government to establish a one-stop and streamlined platform, instead of compiling the administrative procedures of all the departments. A streamlined platform would involve establishing a designated position, a department and a commissioner. In addition, we also ask the Government to set up a consultative committee on bazaars, thereby enabling the extensive involvement of various groups and the civil society, the proposal of trial schemes and the promotion of promote bazaars. The Government should allow the public to see for themselves that the policy has actually been implemented. Finally, we hope that bazaars can be held on a regular basis and the objective of "multiple bazaars in a district" can be achieved, so that the general public can well understand the policy on bazaars. I so submit. Thank you, Mr LEUNG.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, as a member of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee"), I think that in the whole process of the Subcommittee's deliberation, members have put their political stances aside and expressed their views from the perspectives of promoting the economy of Hong Kong, improving people's livelihood and adding more special features for Hong Kong. Thus, I hope the authorities can draw reference from the report submitted by the Subcommittee.

Do Members know how bazaars came about? In the early days, bazaars started to develop as the common masses sought another chance to make a living. People went to work during the day and set up small stalls at night, and this kind 13552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 of hawkers were particularly common in Hong Kong in the early days. What is a "bazaar"? In the past, visiting a bazaar was called "going to a crowded market" in Chinese, suggesting that the place was very busy, "crowded" and delightful. Some people may even call a bazaar "the ordinary people's night club", indicating that bazaars represent the mass culture of the local people and the characteristics of society.

President, I like to visit bazaars or flea markets when I am on holidays. Bazaars held during the day are called flea markets; those held at night are called night markets; and those held at weekends are called Sunday markets. Bazaars are bustling places offering a variety of things which make visitors happy. Certainly, the goods offered are relatively cheap and people will find things which they can afford to buy. I am most impressed by a seaside bazaar in Melbourne of Australia. It is held every Saturday afternoon. The opening hours are not long and it is open for just a few hours. People cheerfully sell all sorts of things at the bazaar, including home-made food, creative toys, homewares, etc. Some people will also play the guitar and sing. Many visitors and locals will go there and stroll along the seaside. I think the bazaar spans 2 km to 3 km long, and there is a lot to see. The place is joyful and worth visiting. I often wonder why Hong Kong cannot hold such a bazaar. Certainly, some stalls were set up earlier at the ferry pier in Tsim Sha Tsui, but the duration was only temporarily. Since there is no regulation, the same services are offered at each stall, such as drawing pictures and taking photographs for visitors. Each stall is identical without any special features. What is the reason for that? That is because no one is responsible for coordinating and regulating the stalls.

In fact, the culture of bazaars in Hong Kong is very famous. At present, there are many streets with different features, e.g. the Ladies' Market, Temple Street, Goldfish Market, Cloth Market, and the very famous Birds Market in Mong Kok where many stalls had been closed down by the authorities recently. Another example is the Flower Market. At present, many locals or even people all over the world like to buy floral products there, such as vegetable seeds characteristic of Hong Kong, i.e. seeds of small Chinese white cabbage. The Flower Market attracts not only tourists, but also locals who like to visit the place on Sundays. I believe Members knew that the former Chief Executive said he often visited the Flower Market. This shows that bazaars are popular among the general public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13553

Take Tin Shui Wai as an example. I think Mr LEUNG Che-cheung will also talk about the Morning Bazaar later. People visit the Morning Bazaar very early in the morning to buy vegetables and other goods sold on the other side of the river. People are happy to visit the bazaar and residents like to go there to buy vegetables. I have also visited the Morning Bazaar. What has gone wrong later? As people get excited in the bustling place, they speak rather loudly, causing disturbance to those who are still sleeping. This problem has arisen because the Bazaar is near to the residential area.

Take the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct as another example. The place could be regarded as a bazaar to a certain extent. Some people sang, while others hawked their goods. What was the problem then? It was the lack of regulation. People used a loudspeaker when they sang, disturbing the residents upstairs. People on the street shouted to draw attention, and passers-by had to cover their ears with their hands. Why had it come to such a pass? The reason was the lack of regulation. Consider the example of Sham Shui Po. Some informal bazaars were held there during the Lunar New Year for two or three days and there were cooked food stalls which used naked flame. What was the problem then? It was the lack of regulation again. Since people cooked with naked flame and used very hot oil, problems might arise if young children passed by the stalls and were scalded.

In conclusion, we consider that bazaars can promote the development of local economy and assist grass-roots people to earn their living. Thus, we think the Government should formalize the holding of bazaars on Saturdays, Sundays or during holidays, at sites which will not affect local residents and business operators of shops nearby, such as in parks or at the waterfronts. In addition, the Government should consider establishing a designated office to process the applications for holding bazaars. At the same time, the Government should introduce trial schemes to formalize the establishment of bazaars at some designated sites and gradually extend them to all of the 18 districts across the territory, so that each district can identify appropriate sites with electricity and water supply and will not affect other people to develop bazaars and promote (The buzzer sounded) … the culture of Hong Kong. I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please stop speaking.

13554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think the motion debate on the Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars ("the Subcommittee") today is very meaningful, for it allows us to review the actual problems arising in the Government's current policy on bazaars. Certainly, I am not denying that bazaars have an important influence on Hong Kong at present. However, when speaking on bazaars, I would like to point out that there are many examples of unsuccessful bazaars with government involvement. A case in point is the Tin Sau Bazaar which has been operating since 2012. Although the bazaar is still in operation, we notice that the venue is not crowded at all, and there are only about 1 000 visitors on Saturdays and Sundays. With such a low visitor flow, the bazaar cannot be regarded as successful in any way. The reason for its failure is that right from the outset, the Government has positioned it as a "welfare" bazaar. In other words, people who are not needy cannot do business in the bazaar; and only the underprivileged recommended by social workers can start their business there. As such, many people with no experience in running a business also operate in the bazaar and the place has practically turned into a "welfare" bazaar. Thus, the failure of the bazaar is caused by some special factors.

How can the initial objectives of bazaars be achieved? Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has stated clearly that bazaars were gradually formed out of economic needs. Hence there is a saying that people went to a crowded market in the past. How come many different kinds of bazaars have emerged in Hong Kong later? For example, the current Ladies' Market was a bazaar in the past, but the Government turned it into an orderly bazaar.

More bazaars have been operating privately. Have Members visited the bazaar at Shek Kong? It was formed naturally. Many stalls were set up by the roadsides selling goods with special features, and many visitors went there for shopping. Later, more and more private bazaars have been held. These include the bazaar at Kam Sheung Road Station of the West Rail Line, which has the longest history. It started to operate every weekend since the commissioning of the West Rail Line and the visitor flow is high.

Why have private bazaars been successful for such a long time? The main reasons are that they are held at special geographical sites by people who know how to do business; the goods offered for sale are attractive; and the sites are easily accessible by transport. Real bazaars are formed as a result.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13555

Are there any bazaars in Tin Shui Wai at present? Dr CHIANG Lai-wan told us earlier that there was the Morning Bazaar in the past. In fact, some bazaars are still held in Tin Shui Wai, although they are illegal. The street vendors keep returning after they have been driven away. The reason is that the residents find it very convenient to buy things on the street; they do not have to wait for the shops to open and they can make their purchases very early in the morning. Although the goods offered for sale (including vegetables, food and simple utensils) are limited in variety, they supplement the commodities that a new town lacks, i.e. the local shops do not sell such commodities or the residents cannot get such commodities from local shops. These are examples of good bazaars.

At present, a bazaar is still held under the flyover in Long Ping, Yuen Long very early in the morning. Why does the bazaar exist even though it is illegal? As I said earlier, bazaars supplement the inadequacies of the existing economic entities; they can improve the financial conditions of underprivileged families and promote the place to more visitors. Residents of Tin Shui Wai take pride in the Morning Bazaar at the riverside because many people know about Tin Shui Wai through the bazaar.

Thus, is there a need for the Government to review its position on bazaars? Certainly, Members have raised various views in the Subcommittee and have argued whether the top-down approach or the bottom-up approach should be adopted. Nevertheless, I think we can adopt both approaches. The current position of the Government is to adopt the bottom-up approach. The Government hopes that after the organizations have identified a suitable site, they will submit their applications to the Government. After the District Councils, the Area Committees and various stakeholders have been consulted, a bazaar will be held at the site. An organization had successfully applied to hold a bazaar at a certain site in Tin Yiu Estate, but since the location was really inconvenient, the bazaar could not sustain due to low people flow.

I think it is actually hard to solve problems by adopting a bottom-up approach. That is because if only one person opposes the proposal, a bazaar cannot be held. Can the Government consider the matter from another perspective? I think the Government should, where possible, identify a site in each district so that grass-roots organizations intending to hold bazaars can apply. This will boost local economy and make up for the current inadequacies. The bazaar at the West Rail Line which I mentioned earlier is successful because of 13556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 the good location. Under the circumstances, will the Government consider identifying some suitable sites in different districts for organizations to apply for holding and operating bazaars, so as to support local economy and ensure the sustainable development of bazaars?

President, I think bazaars are a very good form of community economy. Bazaars need the support of the Government and the protection of the general public for sustainable development.

I so submit.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is reported in the press today that nearly 300 000 people are now living in Tin Shui Wai. There are five markets, one of them is owned by the Housing Department ("HD") and the other four are owned by the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"). After undergoing refurbishment in 2017, the two-storey Tin Chak Market has been changed into one storey. The traders who remained in the Tin Chak Market said that the shop areas were smaller but the rents were much higher after the refurbishment. The rents were increased by 66% when the tenancy was renewed and it was expected that the rents would increase by another 15% next year. One trader said that he originally owned three stalls and the rents were $90,000 but the rents of two stalls have now reached $100,000. We can all see how high the rental increase rate of Link REIT.

In fact, the issues of Link REIT are not only faced by the current-term Government. Carrie LAM has also said that this is one of the big mountains that have to be dealt with. Unfortunately, the two terms of Government, including the current-term Government which has been in office for more than a year, have failed to tackle these issues or find solutions. Link REIT is constantly outsourcing and increasing rents, making it very difficult for traders to do business. Most importantly, traders only have only two ways out. First, increase the sales volumes by lowering the profits; can this be done? This is not easy. Another approach is to include the rental increase in the selling price and increase the selling price, shifting all burdens to the consumers.

President, this phenomenon is obviously found in the present community. This is not only the case with Link REIT but also with other shopping centres. Under the influence of capitalism, shopping malls tend to increase rents LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13557 constantly and all shops tend to be occupied by chain store operators. Therefore, ordinary people and small traders, especially the ethnic minorities, do not have the opportunity to give full play to their strengths or sell the products they made. I think this approach is really inappropriate. So, it can be said that bazaars provide the public with a way out under the capitalistic and monopolistic operation. Although bazaars may not necessarily be able to upset the capitalistic framework, they can at least provide ordinary people with a way out.

Although the Government claimed to be very concerned about the development of bazaars, we have noted that, in the course of the one-year discussion between the Subcommittee and the Government, the Government is not truly concerned about the issue. Government officials just want to do something in order to respond to the community, they have no intention and have made no efforts to implement bazaars. Why do I say so? Many organizations have pointed out time and again that during the entire application process, they found that departments shirked responsibilities onto one another. One department asked them to approach the other department, and the other department asked them to approach another department. Which department should actually be responsible? Since no one knows which department should be responsible, a chicken and egg situation has frequently arisen. If some organizations want to discuss with HD, HD asks then to discuss with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"); yet FEHD asks them to discuss the Lands Department. People are totally at a loss. Although some organizations have constantly asked for one-stop services, the Government is reluctant to provide such services and it is not going to take any actions.

Furthermore, the current guidelines are unclear. For example, some organizations reflect that they must first obtain the support of the District Council ("DC") if they want to set up a bazaar in the district. What is meant by the support of DC? Does it mean the support of DC or the support of one of the committees under DC? Does it mean the support of the DC members in the district concerned? The guidelines are unclear and I do not know the answers even though I am a DC member. Can people organize bazaars in my constituency if they have my support? I really do not know the answer. According to some departments e.g. HD, the answer is in the negative. While approval of DC is required, having the support of DC members will not suffice. Does it mean the support of DC or the support of the committees under DC? No one knows the answer.

13558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

Therefore, the existing guidelines of the Government are very unclear and the procedures are complicated. Some organizations indicated that they have submitted their application for more than a year, but the result is still pending. As we know, it takes time for these organizations to arrange the activity, but the Government has not set any time frame for approving the applications. These organizations can only keep waiting. Does the Government know that it is very inhumane to keep them waiting indefinitely? The problem is that the guidelines have not stipulated the time frame for granting approval. For example, it is not clearly specified how long the Government should reply after these organizations have submitted applications. Can the Government formulate policies afresh and specify that the approval of applications should be completed within a specified time frame after the submission of the applications? Will the Government take this action? If the Government can clearly specify when the results will be available, the applicants will have a time frame in mind. This practice will be more desirable as the current arrangement is very unsatisfactory and it is not known how long the process will take.

In addition, can the Government clearly specify the whole process and procedures, telling the applicants which department they should approach first and what other departments they should approach later? The Government should clearly set out various check points so that the applicants can be informed of the procedures involved. However, this is not the case right now as the applicants are required to contact various departments of their own accord. According to these organizations, the Government should appoint a certain department as the coordinator and deal with all the work or assign the work to other departments so that the applications will be duly processed. Yet, the Government is not willing to do so. I think the Bureau should reconsider these issues.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has just made some points about bazaars. Hawkers are selling goods on footbridges not only in Yuen Long but also in many other places. They start selling goods at around 5:00 am or 6:00 am and some people get up early to buy cheaper commodities there. Unfortunately, FEHD staff mercilessly carry out hawker clearance operations or arrest these hawkers even though hawkers have not obstructed the public or have not caused environmental or noise nuisance or other problems. Moreover, I have handled a few cases where the hawkers were injured during arrest. Is that necessary? These hawkers are not stealing or robbing. They just want to have some humble earnings but they are ruthlessly driven away. That being the case, can the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13559

Bureau reconsider hawker licensing or providing them with definitive and better places for selling goods? Other countries have adopted the same approach and provided hawkers with better places for selling goods on Saturdays and Sundays, providing them with room for survival. Can the authorities do so? I think these proposals (The buzzer sounded) … should be considered by the Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please stop speaking. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, we are discussing today the Report of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars. When we talk about bazaars, we often mention the successful examples of bazaars in foreign countries and we envy them. For example, the Chatuchak Weekend Market in Bangkok is a very big bazaar where almost all goods are sold. There are also many night bazaars in Taiwan selling a variety of gourmet food.

I would also like to draw colleagues' attention to Japan. Bazaars are held in the open areas near big temples in Japan on designated days, not necessarily on the 1st and 15th days of each month according to the Chinese lunar calendar. Traders may sell cultural, artistic, religious or second-hand items. These bazaars are excellent tourist spots.

We have been talking about successful examples in foreign countries; are there successful bazaars in Hong Kong? I believe that the most successful bazaar in Hong Kong is the Lunar New Year Fair and the best Lunar New Year Fair is held in the Victoria Park.

Let us think about how the Lunar New Year Fairs are held in a bottom-up manner? Let us imagine, if no Lunar New Year Fair has ever been held in Hong Kong, I believe it will be very difficult to hold a Lunar New Year Fair in the Victoria Park. The relevant discussions may take two to three years. How can the entire Victoria Park be closed for around 10 days to hold the Lunar New Year Fair? As some Members have remarked today, the bottom-up approach has been used by the Government as an excuse to shirk responsibilities.

13560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018

I would also like to say a few words in fairness about the Food and Health Bureau. When the last-term Government and the last-term Legislative Council were in office, we actually started to discuss the issue of bazaars and we also set up a Subcommittee. The name of the Subcommittee was the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy but not the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars, and I was also a member of the Subcommittee. Why was the Food and Health Bureau responsible? It was because the Food and Health Bureau was responsible for the regulation and licensing of hawkers. I think the Bureau should not take up the sole responsibility for the bazaar policy. The then Secretary for Food and Health might not mind taking up the responsibility, and hence took the lead to set up the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy and attended the relevant meetings at the Legislative Council.

As I have always said, when the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") is responsible for regulation under the lead of the Food and Health Bureau, regulation is conducted to protect the environment and food safety and the concept of development does not exist. In fact, the bazaar policy should be discussed by different bureaux and departments. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau plays an important role in this connection and it absolutely cannot shirk its responsibilities because the Bureau is responsible for our economic development and the holding of bazaars will facilitate many tourism projects. When I attended the meetings of the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars or the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy, the Secretary or the Under Secretary for Food and Health also attended the meetings, but only the assistant secretaries from other Policy Bureaux attended the meetings.

Can we imagine what difference it will make if the bazaar policy is led by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau? How should we determine which Policy Bureau will play a leading role? Such decisions mainly depend on the persons concerned, e.g. the food truck project was handled by Gregory SO, the then Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. The implementation of these policies depends on whether the persons in charge will really participate and offer conscientious help.

I have gone through the papers of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy and learnt that the Government had established some principles on the development of the hawker policy. I do not know if the authorities still adhere to these principles, such as "diversification of the local economy is a worthwhile cause, and hence, hawking should not be prohibited unless it runs counter to other public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13561 policies". However, the paper also contains other principles which are different from the understanding of some colleagues today, i.e. "the promotion of culture and tradition should not be an excuse to justify insulation from market forces. A hawker would still have the primary responsibility to identify a mode of operation and a market niche that can sustain the hawking business in question"; and "we should avoid positioning the hawker trade as a form of social welfare for the disadvantaged or for poverty alleviation. Hawking should be seen as one of the modes of economic transactions".

If the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau or the Food and Health Bureau is to play a leading role in respect of this policy, the hawker industry will definitely not be positioned as a form of social welfare for the disadvantaged or for poverty alleviation. But objectively speaking, if the hawker policy or the bazaar policy can be well developed, it will really have such an effect. Since the threshold for operating stalls is rather low and more flexible, it will really be helpful to those who cannot engage in regular employment for a long period of time.

I would also like to discuss another principle as mentioned by the Government in the above paper of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy: "since the details of a hawking proposition … often affect different stakeholders in the local community differently, we see considerable benefits of a bottom-up approach".

The bottom-up approach was adopted at that time but I hope that the Bureau will not insist on adopting the bottom-up approach in conceiving a bazaar policy in the future. Some policies may sometimes be brewed in a bottom-up manner, and a bottom-up approach means that the Government will not follow the will of senior officials. By the will of senior officials, it means that the officials will draw a circle and require all organizers to operate bazaars within the circle. This is unfeasible because the appearance of bazaars in the communities is a natural development. Nevertheless, the authorities should not do nothing and wait for the communities to develop bazaars in a bottom-up manner. The authorities also should not wait until bazaars have been successfully organized and maturely developed and then provide some assistance and support.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, if the Lunar New Year Fair has not been held in the Victoria Park, how can such a large-scale Fair be organized in a bottom-up manner? The assistance of non-governmental organizations may 13562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 not be required in organizing the Lunar New Year Fair. During the good old days when there was the Urban Council, the Urban Council was responsible for organizing the Lunar New Year Fair and its approach might be more flexible.

We discuss the bazaar policy very often but I think that it is unnecessary to talk too much about this policy for I believe that practical efforts are essential. If bazaars are successfully held, they can naturally be replicated in different communities and, with successful examples, the Government will boldly introduce certain directions of development. It is impractical to say that some appealing policies should first be formulated for the Government to follow.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Bazaars once again for preparing this report and the Members for presenting their views. Let me make a consolidated response to several points raised by Members.

First, over the past few years, we have seen various successful examples of non-permanent or non-recurrent bazaars established under the bottom-up approach, with the assistance provided by District Councils ("DCs") upon discussion. DCs have played an important role in holding bazaars. In the discussion just now, Members including Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr Vincent CHENG and Dr Fernando CHEUNG have presented their observations and views about the roles of DCs. Given DCs' understanding of the local conditions, their discussions can fully reflect the views of various stakeholders in the district. DCs also know which sites are most suitable for holding bazaars. Hence, through their promotion, there have been a number of very successful cases. DCs of other districts can learn from these successful stories and organize bazaars that meet specific local needs.

Moreover, several Members have requested for an information guide, setting out the roles of various departments involved and streamlining the application procedures to facilitate bazaar applications. I agree that more can be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13563 done to streamline the procedures. We have already released the draft Resource Handbook for Bazaar Applications which has consolidated the required procedures of all departments involved. We will continue to listen to different views to improve the Handbook and help potential bazaar organizers to undertake the application procedures more easily.

Third, several Members, including Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Tommy CHEUNG and Mr Vincent CHENG have recommended the establishment of more bazaars with different features to provide young people with more employment opportunities. Let me reiterate, in the Policy Agenda, the Government has proposed to select suitable non-profit-making organizations through the Energizing Kowloon East Office under the Development Bureau to operate a weekend flea market. The work is well underway. The Government will, through the establishment of the weekend flea market, provide opportunities for those who are interested, in particular young people. It is now consulting various non-profit-making organizations on the proposal in the hope of consolidating their experience in organizing bazaars. The Government consulted the Kowloon City DC and the Task Force on Kai Tak Harbourfront Development of the Harbourfront Commission in May 2018 on the weekend flea market and received their support in principle. The Government recommends that weekend flea markets should be operated in the direction of featuring various themes and it plans to invite non-profit-making organizations to submit proposals in the second half of the year.

Fourth, Members including Mr HO Kai-ming and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung have suggested the reissuance of hawker licences. The Government launched the five-year Hawker Assistance Scheme for Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Areas in June 2013 to provide financial incentives to hawkers to surrender their licences, so as to further reduce fire hazards resulted from hawking activities on the streets. Under the Assistance Scheme, hawkers can choose to receive financial assistance for stall reconstruction and continue with their operation, or if they choose to surrender their hawker licences and vacate their stalls, they can receive an ex-gratia payment. Although the Scheme has just concluded and no more applications will be accepted, the reconstruction of stalls is still underway. The Government will consider whether new hawker licences should be reissued for hawkers to take up the reusable vacant stalls in fixed-pitched hawker areas, as well as whether and how to carry out the registration of assistants. In the review, the authorities will consider the conditions of individual hawker areas, 13564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 including fire safety, environmental hygiene, business environment, and the views of relevant departments, the DCs concerned and also residents in the districts.

Fifth, in respect of using naked flame for cooking, from our past experience, many bazaars operators think that reheating food using naked flame will provide the public with more choice. We have adopted more measures to allow certain stalls to reheat cooked food using naked flame when fire safety is ensured. We will continue to keep a close eye on this and review whether using naked flame for cooking should be allowed in individual situations when necessary.

Finally, in respect of holding bazaars in vacant markets, Mr Tommy CHEUNG and Ms Claudia MO have asked whether more studies would be conducted in this respect. We will adopt an open attitude in this area. In particular, if operators intend to sell food in vacant markets, they are required to apply for licences under the Food Business Regulation to ensure public health and safety.

These are my supplementary comments. I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you still have 1 minute 16 seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful to the 15 Members who have spoken on this motion. It is evident to all that the Government does not attach much importance to this subject as all principal officials in charge of the subject have not attended the meeting today. Also, I wonder if the Under Secretary has listened to Members' speeches for he has been repeating the same points. I wonder if he lives in Mars. What we are discussing is the bottom-up approach, but the Government has proposed, for no reason at all, to set up a bazaar in Kai Tak. No one has ever requested for a bazaar in Kai Tak. If the Government wishes to set up a bazaar for the residents in Kowloon East, there are plenty of sites to choose from. There are many public rental housing estates in the Kowloon East District, such as the Choi Hung Estate and Kai Ching Estate but the Government has given no thought to them. There are also many football LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 June 2018 13565 pitches that can be used for holding bazaars on Saturdays and Sundays. The Government has not chosen such sites, but has chosen Kai Tak, which no one has picked, as the site for setting up a bazaar. I am not satisfied with such a "cooling off" tactic while the land is put up for sale. However, as many Members have said, they would not let the Government get off the hook. If the Government insists on its way and has not formulated a better policy on bazaars, we will keep pressing the Government for a new and feasible option expeditiously.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed. 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 motion passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now past 5:00 pm. Since the Council will not be able to complete the handling of the next motion today, having consulted Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, I think it is more appropriate to debate his motion in one go next meeting.

I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 4 July 2018.

Adjourned accordingly at 5:09 pm.