LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14421
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, 13 July 2015
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
14422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14423
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
14424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14425
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
MR LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL (DESIGNATE)
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
14426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
BILLS
Third Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. Council will now proceed to the Third Reading of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2015.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the
Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2015 has passed through the Committee stage without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14427
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2015.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, please do a headcount.
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)
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2015
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 April 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the above Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bills Committee), I now report to this Council and give a brief account on the major deliberations of the Bills Committee. The Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill) aims at amending the relevant 14428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 electoral legislation in order to introduce technical amendments concerning the electorate of functional constituencies (FCs), the name of an FC, counting procedures, and so on, for the 2016 Legislation Council Election.
The Bills Committee has held three meetings with the Administration and received views from deputations as well as members of the public. Some members have been concerned that individual bodies had made requests to the Government previously for inclusion in FCs, but had not received definite replies so far. These members have sought an explanation from the Government regarding the procedures for handling the relevant requests, as well as the criteria adopted in considering such requests. The Administration has stated that in keeping with the established practice, the relevant bureaux and departments will be consulted before each Legislative Council general election to review whether the delineation of the electorate of FCs under the Legislative Council Ordinance needs to be adjusted. According to the explanation given by the Government, proposals in the Bill are drawn up after considering the views of relevant bureaux and departments. In line with past practice, the Administration will inform the relevant bodies of the outcome of their requests for inclusion in specific FCs after completion of the relevant legislative exercise.
Separately, some members have cited a case about an association in the printing industry (the Association) being restricted to be only eligible for registration as an elector of the Insurance FC. They consider the case unreasonable. The Government has explained that since the Association is an association of underwriters approved by the Insurance Authority under the Insurance Companies Ordinance to carry on insurance business, it fulfils the eligibility to be registered as an elector of the Insurance FC under the Legislative Council Ordinance. In accordance with the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Association can only be registered for the Insurance FC and not for another FC.
In addition, a member has taken the view that institutions falling within the definition of electors of the Education FC under the Legislative Council Ordinance have seemingly different interpretations to the term "full-time academic staff engaged in teaching or research and administrative staff of equivalent rank" as stated in the relevant provision. That member has requested the Government to provide a list of all the eligible ranks of staff falling within the said definition in each institution for members' reference. Nonetheless, the Administration has explained that the institutions concerned are required to, in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14429 accordance with the relevant requirements under the Legislative Council Ordinance, compile lists of staff that are eligible for registration and provide such lists to the Registration and Electoral Office (REO), so as to facilitate the REO to verify particulars of registered electors in the register, in order to confirm their eligibility for registration in the Education FC. The provision also stipulates that information obtained may only be used for the purpose of preparing a register or in specified occasions or legal proceedings. The REO is thus not in a position to disclose the requested information. The Administration has further explained that given their different staffing structures, the institutions concerned should draw up their respective lists of eligible staff for registration in the Education FC in accordance with the relevant provisions in the light of their actual circumstances. Individual staff members who are dissatisfied with the decisions made by the relevant institutions can lodge claims with the authorities concerned, which would be dealt with through the established channel.
In addition, regarding the proposal of renaming the Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC as the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape FC under the Bill to better reflect the current composition of the FC, members have no objection to it.
President, the above is the work report of the Bills Committee. Now, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), I will briefly state our views on the Bill.
The DAB supports the amendments proposed under the Bill. The Bill aims at introducing technical amendments concerning the electorate of FCs, the name of an FC, counting procedures, and so on for the 2016 Legislative Council Election. As the content of the Bill is not controversial and given the time critical element pertaining to the arrangements for the 2016 Legislative Council Election, the Bills Committee accepted the Bill and completed its scrutiny work after holding only three meetings.
Nonetheless, in the course of scrutinizing the Bill, the Bills Committee has indeed found some baffling cases. For instance, after individual bodies had made requests to the Government for inclusion in FCs, it took the Government years to give replies. Notwithstanding the Government's explanation regarding the relevant arrangements, the DAB still hopes that it can review these problems and enhance the transparency and efficiency of the said arrangements, so that the 14430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 bodies making the application can be informed of the decision. In this regard, the Government should adopt a more proactive attitude towards the bodies aspiring to be included in the FCs, so as to ensure smoother implementation of the Bill or the amended legislation.
President, I so submit. The DAB supports the Bill. Thank you.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): I speak to oppose the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Government has been acting outrageously. Notwithstanding its previous indication that it would only handle the election of Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020 after completion of the constitutional reform to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 ― of course, we did not support the fake universal suffrage proposal for the Chief Executive election put forward by the Government, and the proposal only received eight supporting votes in the Legislative Council ― why does the Government not make more amendments to the Legislative Council election to make it comply with the requirement of "gradual and orderly progress" as stated in Article 68 of the Basic Law? President, no matter how far we stretch our imagination, the piece-meal amendments proposed by the Government presently can hardly be described as making "gradual and orderly progress" and hence, they are in breach of the Basic Law.
Separately, the SAR Government has also neglected its duty by claiming that as substantial amendments had been made in 2012, no substantial amendments would be made in the present legislative amendment exercise. But is this the requirement laid down in the Basic Law? As the principle of "gradual and orderly progress" has already been stipulated in the Basic Law, the Government is absolutely duty-bound to make relatively substantial amendments even for the election in 2016, so that when the time comes to elect all Members by universal suffrage, all functional constituencies (FCs) will be abolished. President, of course I know that your camp has no such determination, and some even suggest that the "one person, one vote" model or the universal suffrage model should be adopted for FCs. Hence, no changes will be made to FCs so long as your camp exists. How can we say that the requirements of the Basic Law as well as the undertaking made by the Central Government to Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14431 people have been met? Hence, the whole thing is a mess, and we honestly cannot further discuss these piece-meal amendments. But notwithstanding the piece-meal nature of the amendments, Mr IP Kwok-him also mentioned a moment ago that it was absurd to include an association in the printing industry in the Insurance FC. Mr MA Fung-kwok certainly wants to gain one more vote and hence, requests to include that association in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC. But the Government refuses to do so, saying that there are only four special FCs. As a matter of fact, FCs are small in coverage but the coverage of the four special FCs is even smaller. Insurance is of course one of the four special FCs, and the others include Heung Yee Kuk and Transport. I think the requirement is really ridiculous because if a person is eligible to be registered as an elector in one of the four special FCs, he cannot be registered as an elector in another FC unless he is eligible for registration in the District Council (First) FC.
If we really want to achieve universal suffrage, I think the Government must show its determination by abolishing these four tiny FCs in the first place, or if they are allowed to remain, their electorate must be expanded. But the Government is not willing to take any action. When members of the Information Technology industry attended our meeting, they requested to be included in the relevant FCs, but LAU Kong-wah who was present said that no discussion could be held on the matter. His really has an easy job. Citing the excuse that prior consultation had to be held with the relevant FCs, he did not need to do anything and no discussion could be held. Requests for joining certain FCs cannot be discussed, and request from bodies wrongly included in other FCs for getting registered in another FC also could not be discussed. How can we say that this approach is in line with the principle of "gradual and orderly progress" and can take Hong Kong towards universal suffrage? This is all very infuriating indeed.
When the Government submitted its report on the election of the Chief Executive to the Central Authorities, all its proposals were rejected by the Central Authorities. As a result, the 31 August Decision was made, causing great indignation in society. Although the Government said that the 31 August Decision was well supported, only eight Members voted for the proposal in the Legislative Council and 28 voted against it. Regarding the 2016 Legislative Council Election, the Government even suggested that no amendment was required. I think the executive authorities have betrayed Hong Kong people. 14432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Hong Kong people want to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage as soon as possible, to be followed by the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. But the Government has acted against the aspiration of Hong Kong people; it even refuses to introduce piece-meal amendments to these small circles and insists on adopting this crap approach. How can Hong Kong people accept it?
Nonetheless, as we can see, many young people in the professional sectors have come forward to express their utmost dissatisfaction towards the Government's policies and practices. If possible, I hope they can start a revolution in FCs, so that Members now present in the Chamber will no longer feel relaxed, especially those self-proclaimed professionals elected by "one person, one vote". I hope the professionals in Hong Kong can come forward and drive out those Members whom they consider as not representing public opinion. Regarding the "slip" incident, I learn from different sources that many people might have to be "axed". But no matter how many people are to be "axed", we only want to have a democratic system so that Hong Kong people can have a genuine choice and can elect our representatives through "one person, one vote". It does not matter whether the person elected is pro-Beijing, pro-Communist Party, pro-business, pro-democracy or whatever, so long as the electoral system is fair and just and allows Hong Kong people to make choice, it meets their needs. Nobody knows how long we still have to wait, but if we only count on this term of Government and the royalist Members sitting on the opposite side, I think Hong Kong people's wishes will definitely fall through.
Hence, President, we oppose this Bill. It is our hope that Hong Kong people's aspiration of electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage will come true one day. We must all work hard to realize our wish.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill) and welcome the Government's acceptance of my suggestion to rename the current Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency (FC) as the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape FC, so as to better reflect the existing composition of the FC which I represent, that is, it includes architects, surveyors, planners and landscape architects.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14433
History of the past three decades shows that changes have been made to both the composition and nomenclature of the Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC which I represent. The Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape FC was one of the first 12 FCs created for the Legislative Council election in 1985. The FC was formerly called Engineering, Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC, with electors including architects, surveyors, planners and engineers. Given the wide scope of professions and the large number of professionals covered under the FC, the engineering profession became a separate FC in 1991, while the original Engineering, Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC was renamed as the existing Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC. With the passage of the Landscape Architects Registration Ordinance by the Legislative Council in May 1997, the electorate of the Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC had been expanded to include professional landscape architects.
I have been seeking the Government's agreement to change the nomenclature of the existing FC through different channels so as to better reflect the four professions currently covered under the FC, including the submission on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2016 presented to the Government on 30 April 2014, as well as the submission on the Consultation Document on Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage dated 6 March 2015. Both submissions clearly stated that it was the general consensus of the Architectural, Surveying and Planning sectors that the Government should actively consider including the reference to "landscape" in the nomenclature of the existing FC in order to better reflect the coverage of the professions concerned. Hence, the relevant amendment presently proposed is supported by the professions.
With these remarks, President, I support the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, although the constitutional reform proposal has been vetoed, we must still deal with the detailed arrangements in relation to the Legislative Council election. The Government had conducted two rounds of consultation on constitutional reform respectively. I can still recall that during the first round consultation, I had written to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to express my views on the electoral base of the Information Technology Functional Constituency (FC) as 14434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 well as the hope of holding a meeting with organizations of the sector and the Government to express our views. Nonetheless, the Government had been reluctant to meet with us and only replied that we should submit our concrete views on the Legislative Council election after the second round consultation commenced. Yet it turned out that soon after the commencement of the second round consultation, the Government had already set the tune of the gong with one final hit and decided that no discussion was required for the method for forming the Legislative Council. Hence, I continued to write to the authorities, but they had never taken any follow-up actions. I still had no idea what I should do.
President, although we have been striving to abolish FCs, the reality is that FCs still exist. If we do not fight the battle inch by inch, there is nobody to help us. Nobody in the professional sectors or the society at large will help us defend the core values of Hong Kong or fight for democracy.
If the Government and the pro-establishment camp are so keen on retaining FCs, they should support any move to increase the so-called representativeness of FCs. But in the present Bill, only one organization will be added to the Information Technology FC, and according to the paper provided by the Government, the number of eligible members of this organization is less than 50. I am afraid that this arrangement is made to maintain the coterie nature of FCs as the Government is still unwilling to face the sector. Apart from the Information Technology FC, there are other FCs, especially those "zero vote" Members mentioned by some Members a moment ago. Such Members can hardly represent the sectors they belong to. As a matter of fact, the only purpose of the legislative amendments is to maintain the manipulative nature of FCs. To retain FCs is not enough, they must be controlled in all aspects. Of course, obedient and pro-establishment organizations will easily be included in FCs. During the elections, these pro-establishment organizations will make all-out effort to recruit more members so that these new members will also become electors. Nobody knows it better than the information technology sector.
Regarding my follow-up work in the Bills Committee, it has already been well-documented in the report of the Bills Committee. Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and I are gravely dissatisfied that during the process of considering whether members of individual organizations can be added as new electors to an FC, the mechanism lacks transparency and accountability. Regrettably, the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs is not present today. Today, the Secretary attends the meeting, yet he has not participated in the deliberation of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14435 the Bills Committee and hence, there is no way we can ascertain whether the two "human flesh recorders" are playing the same tape, perhaps we can listen to it later. The Under Secretary kept repeating that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau had also consulted the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, yet he could not disclose any details. That's it. Even if we asked him a hundred times, he would only give us the same answer.
President, subsequently, I asked a written question at the Legislative Council. On behalf of the professional bodies in the Information Technology FC which I represent, I asked the Government whether the authorities had consulted the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau regarding the request of the new organization before formulating the above proposal. I would also like to talk about these nine organizations. I have already sought and obtained their approval for me to express their views on their behalf. Three organizations, namely, the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, The Institution of Engineering and Technology Hong Kong and the Professional Information Security Association want to amend the qualifications of registering as bodies of the FC. While one organization, that is, the Information Security and Forensics Society has been added to the FC, the requests from five other organizations, namely, the IT Service Management Forum Hong Kong Chapter, the Hong Kong Retail Technology Industry Association, the Chamber of Hong Kong Computer Industry Co. Ltd., the Hong Kong Electronic Industries Association and the Government Information Technology Professionals Association, are still left unattended. I have been hoping that eligible members of these organizations could also become electors.
The above organizations do not have any political stance. They have been working actively in the sector and have a high degree of representativeness. They also work with the Government in different projects. Some of them have also received government subvention in organizing various projects. Over the years, relevant government departments, especially the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as well as its Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, the Innovation and Technology Commission, and so on, have been very familiar with these organizations.
Nonetheless, in my written question raised at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 10 June, I asked whether the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau had consulted the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and whether their discussion had been recorded, and whether the Commerce and 14436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Economic Development Bureau had rejected the requests from all organizations (except one) to become bodies of the FC. The Government failed to give a direct reply, but only repeated the statement given at the Bills Committee, that is, the relevant Policy Bureau had been consulted before a decision was made. Nonetheless, was the final decision made by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau or another Policy Bureau? No reply was forthcoming from the public official. I have serious doubts about the actual work done by the Government with regard to consultation and liaison, such as whether it had met with these organizations, and so on. Why was it afraid to tell the truth? In fact, I had also enquired with these organizations as to whether they had been approached by either one of the two Policy Bureaux concerned regarding this matter. But they unanimously said that they had not been contacted at all.
Some members of the industry asked me how their organizations can apply for inclusion in the FC. They asked me whether an application form is available, whether they can download it online and whether they can submit their applications after completing the form. The answer is of course in the negative. In fact, since the establishment of FCs, there is no formal channel to make such applications, and the power to make decision is rested with the Government. This is completely black box operation, without any transparency. Hence, I also asked the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau when and how the so-called mechanism mentioned just now was formulated, and whether any relevant records had been kept by the Government? But from the written reply, nothing is forthcoming from the Government. Hence this so-called mechanism is very much something unheard of, and the Government has just been talking rubbish.
On the contrary, I mentioned a moment ago that three organizations requested to amend the qualification of electors, namely, the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, The Institution of Engineering and Technology Hong Kong and the Professional Information Security Association. Before I was elected a Member of the Legislative Council, Mr SIN Chung-kai, who is sitting next to me, was the Member representing the Information Technology FC back in 2007. At that time, he was the representative of the information technology industry. I can still recall that meetings of the Legislative Council were held at the old Legislative Council Building, and I observed a public hearing at the public gallery upstairs. At that time, the representatives from several organizations attended the meeting to present their views. They explained why they wanted the Government to relax LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14437 the requirements so that their members could become eligible electors. What they said at the time could still apply in the present situation. President, it has been at least eight years since 2007. After that meeting, the Government of that term said that no action would be taken. So far, no follow-up actions have been taken. Since then, the Government has not contacted these organizations at all. According to these organizations, even though the Government turned down their requests last time, they still hoped that the Government would understand their situation and see if their requests would be handled next time. The organizations had made their voice heard, yet the Government did not take any action. What does it mean? President, what is the Government waiting for? They shouldn't be waiting for "Uncle Fat", right? Will the Government be asking us to direct the question to the Secretary for Innovation and Technology upon the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, as I was so informed by the Chief Executive in this Chamber? I reckon that by that time, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology would say that we must ask Secretary Raymond TAM.
President, in Hong Kong, there are close to 80 000 employees in the information technology industry. That is the figure given by the Government. As at last year, the number of registered electors in this industry was just 5 821, which was even fewer than the number in the 2012 election. In other words, not even 10% of the employees are registered electors. Under the circumstances, it is indeed baffling why the Government still refused to include new organizations in the FC. The above figure is not the final figure because, as in the past, many people would eventually join these organizations as members in election years in order to be qualified as electors. This indicates how easy it is to manipulate the Information Technology FC. Actually since many professional qualifications and certification are involved in the information technology industry, it is absolutely not a problem to define the qualifications of electors. As the Government intends to preserve the greatest extent of manipulation, it has been refusing to take any actions.
What was the result? In 2012, even though some members had not paid membership fees and did not meet the qualification requirements, the relevant organizations still submitted their names to the Government, and those members could be registered as electors. It was only when the case was revealed by the media that more than 100 electors had their names struck off from the voter register one week before the election day. This year, another report appeared in the media as follows, (and I quote) "A commercial and trade organization whose 14438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 chairman is the first living buddha of the Han nationality has suddenly become actively involved in information technology. Apart from establishing a fund with $10 million to 'nurture talent in information technology', it hosted a dinner for 120 tables in a restaurant in North Point on a certain Sunday with guests from employees in the information technology industry. Some dinner guests revealed that a membership form was attached to the dinner invitation card. After submitting the form, they would automatically be recommended to join an industry organization of the functional constituency of the pro-establishment camp and become electors of the Information Technology Functional Constituency. The organization would even pay the membership fees for the applicants indefinitely." (End of quote) President, isn't it a blatant and obvious attempt of vote-rigging? Yet the Government has turned a blind eye to it, and no action has been taken because the Government may consider it may benefit. How easy it is to manipulate FCs. Starting from the electoral base, actions are taken to facilitate vote-rigging, and vote-rigging will actually take place, so that FCs can be kept under control. There are altogether 35 seats in FCs, and the best way is to let the pro-establishment camp win all the seats.
President, after the Umbrella Movement, many young professionals have come forward to take part in social movement. Some of them may not have registered as electors of the relevant FCs. They do not even have the opportunity to be registered as electors of the relevant FCs. According to them, although some sectors have representatives in the Council, these representatives have not listened to their voices, such as the Architectural, Surveying and Planning FC. For instance, the Insurance FC only has corporate votes. Not only are insurance practitioners being deprived of the opportunity to cast their votes, most actuaries working in insurance companies do not have the opportunity to vote either. For the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC, the votes are mainly corporate votes, and many people who work in the cultural industry are not qualified as electors.
Hence, young professionals have come forward. Before the constitutional reform proposal was vetoed, 12 professional organizations came forward to say "no" to fake universal suffrage. But that is still not enough. Professionals must stand in the forefront to defend the core values of Hong Kong. Here I would like to appeal to all professionals, especially colleagues in the information technology industry. I know many friends still have no idea how to be registered as electors of the FCs because the process is indeed very complicated. As they must also pay membership fees, they do not intend to become members. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14439
But I hope they can actively seek registration and try their best to become electors of their respective FCs, so that they can speak with their votes, refuse to be represented and continue to be the critical minority inside the Legislative Council.
President, I recall that at a meeting of the Bills Committee, Mr Alan HOO who submitted views on behalf of the Liberal Party made many good suggestions. Given the present discussion on the elector qualifications for the Legislative Council election, especially FC election, he queried why the Government had not taken the opportunity to broaden the electoral base of FCs under the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Isn't that one of the matters we have been considering during the discussion on constitutional reform? Although the constitutional reform proposal has been vetoed, can the Government simply do nothing at all? Mr HOO also said that as we now had the opportunity to proceed under the principle of gradual and orderly progress, why should we wait any longer? According to the Central Authorities, all the Members of the Legislative Council will be elected by universal suffrage after the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Even so, nobody ever said that the representativeness of FCs of the Legislative Council could only be broadened after the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. We now have the opportunity for the Government to do so, yet the Government has decided against it. These discussions include the representativeness of individual FCs, which of course include the representativeness of all FC Members now sitting in the Chamber who were elected through corporate votes, or even include the Agriculture and Fisheries FC which I kept mentioning during the discussion on the 31 August Decision and the constitutional reform proposal, and so on. Why can't these matters be dealt with in the Legislative Council?
President, what the Government has done is to maintain the manipulative nature of FCs so that the system can perpetuate forever. Moreover, it allows the Government to manipulate the FCs elections in the future, and the situation of vote-rigging will arise. President, I cannot support this Bill because it has failed to meet the requirements of the industry, and it is not in line with Hong Kong people's demand for electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.
Thank you, President.
14440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, originally there was nothing special about the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill), especially when the Bills Committee commenced its scrutiny on the Bill, the Legislative Council had yet to discuss the universal suffrage proposal, which was subsequently put to vote by the Council several weeks ago. At that time, there was still a chance for the passage of the motion relating to the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, and hence the question relating to the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020 could be dealt with. With the vetoing of the motion relating to the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the discussion on the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020 has to be shelved, and constitutional development has come to a standstill.
Originally there was nothing special about the Bill because the overall electoral system would only need to be revised or reviewed with the passage of the proposal to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Now that it was not possible for electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, the Legislative Council election would come to a standstill. What I would like to say is that many matters raised in the Bill are very confusing. The Government has never replied or resolved any of the questions. A case in point is the incident relating to the information technology industry which Mr Charles Peter MOK mentioned a moment ago. In fact, the same confusing situation can also be found in the Textiles and Garment Functional Constituency (FC).
Just now, Mr Charles Peter MOK queried whether it was because they belonged to the pan-democracy camp that so many obstacles had been put up by the Government. In fact, it is the same for the pro-establishment camp. The Textiles and Garment FC has always been part of the pro-establishment camp. Mr MA Fung-kwok will also speak later. The Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC which he belongs also faces the same situation as the Government even requires some trade associations to be included in the Insurance FC.
In the past 18 years, there are only two different trade associations in the textiles industry which have always been included in the Textiles and Garment FC in previous elections of the past four terms of Legislative Council. But this time the Government proposed that these two organizations in the textiles LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14441 industry be respectively included in the Import and Export FC represented by Mr WONG Ting-kwong and the Industrial (First) FC represented by Mr Andrew LEUNG. I asked the Government why such arrangements are made, but the Government has not given any reply or explanation. These two trade associations have all along been included in the Textiles and Garment FC over the past 18 years, why should they be transferred to another FC now? Is it because the government officials made a mistake 18 years ago, or is it because the government officials who make this decision is wrong? President, these questions are left unanswered.
Separately, Mr Charles Peter MOK mentioned a moment ago that some new organizations in the information technology industry would like to be added to the FC. It is the same situation with the textiles industry. For instance, an organization in the textiles and garment industry wrote to the Government four years ago enquiring whether it was eligible to be included in the Textiles and Garment FC. But the Government has yet to give it a reply. If the said organization is not eligible to be included in the relevant FC, the Government should just inform it right away. If the organization has yet to meet certain criteria, the Government should tell it clearly what other criteria must be met so that improvements can be made. If the said organization is eligible to be included in the FC, the Government should inform it as such. However the Government has never given any reply over the past four years. President, in the course of scrutinizing the Bill, the Under Secretary said that he would consult the relevant Policy Bureau and see if the said organization is eligible to be included in the FC.
Regarding the organization I just mentioned, the former Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Frederick MA attended an event it organized in 2007. His successor, Secretary Rita LAU had also attended an event it organized. In 2013, the Financial Secretary even attended one of its events as the guest of honour. Hence, if it is said that the relevant Policy Bureau does not know the organization concerned, how come so many former Directors of Bureaux or an incumbent Secretary of Department attended the events it organized or even accepted its invitation? So far, there are no guidelines to determine which organizations are eligible for inclusion in the relevant FCs. Hence, pro-establishment camp or otherwise, we are all facing the same confusing situation.
14442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
It is nice that the Secretary attends today's meeting because in the course of examining the Bill, Under Secretary LAU Kong-wah attended all meetings of the Bills Committee, but he just kept saying "will think about it", like a tape recorder, and he has not given any reply so far. As the system of FCs will remain unchanged and may even stay indefinitely, the Government must carefully review the criteria for the registration of electors of the FCs. Otherwise, FCs will continue to attract criticisms of having a disproportionate electoral base. The Government must strive to do better in this regard in the future.
President, although no new amendments can be proposed to the Bill at this stage, I would like to take this opportunity and call on the Government to properly review and handle various electoral legislation as well as the relevant rules and regulations in the time to come, so that Members returned by FCs can face their electors and give them a clear account.
Thank you, President. I so submit.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan said a moment ago that some new organizations would like to be included in FCs. But pardon me, those are not new organizations. Many of them have been established for quite some time, and it is just a matter of their status as electors not being resolved. I do not want to accuse the Government wrongly. But if I should objectively deduce the criteria for being registered as electors of FCs, I would say that it is a matter of choosing which camp they belong to. Organizations having a close relationship with the Government will more likely become eligible, while those having a distant relationship with the Government will less likely become eligible.
Secretary, I will illustrate my point with two examples, and I hope you would argue with me with facts. There is an organization in the information technology industry, and its problem has not been resolved after eight years. Since 2008 I stopped running for re-election as the Legislative Council Member representing the Information Technology FC. Subsequently Samson TAM was elected as the Legislative Council Member representing the Information Technology FC. Nonetheless, during the term of the Legislative Council from 2004 to 2008, at least two questions had been raised in the context of handling the same Bill. But in the past seven years, no progress has been made at all. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14443 specific example which I would like to raise has also been mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK a moment ago, that is, the Professional Information Security Association (PISA). Under the statutory requirement, the association must pass the Certified Information Systems Security Professional Certification examination and obtain the relevant qualification during the relevant period. The term "relevant period" means the period of four years immediately preceding the date on which a person applies for registration as an elector of the Information Technology FC. To put it simply, it means a work experience of four years after obtaining the qualification. Nonetheless, in order to obtain the qualification, a person must have a bachelor's degree, and it would take about five to six years to pass the relevant examination. In other words, it would take about 10 years from graduation to passing the examination and then working for four years. There is another association called iParade which belongs to the pro-establishment camp. I think Members are also familiar with it. In order to become eligible as an elector, a person must have a bachelor's degree and four years' working experience, and there is no requirement for passing any examination. Secretary, why is there such a discrepancy?
In retrospect, when the information technology sector went to Beijing in 1998 to fight for the creation of this FC, the proposed qualification was also having relevant academic qualification as well as working experience. Generally speaking, holding the relevant academic qualification means holding a bachelor's degree related to the studies of information technology, and with four years' working experience, one will be eligible to be an elector. However, there are now different systems in the same FC. The example of PISA mentioned just now well illustrates the situation. After seven years, no progress has been made at all. In 2007, the Legislative Council Member representing the Engineering FC, Ir Dr Raymond HO (not the incumbent Member, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok) also considered that we had a valid case and should state our request. At that time, the Government's reply was that the necessary amendment could not be made in time. But so far, there is still no progress at all.
Separately, there is another organization called The Institution of Engineering and Technology Hong Kong which requests for the deletion of the statutory requirement that its members must also be registered as Chartered Engineers with the Engineering Council United Kingdom before they are eligible to be registered as electors of the Information Technology FC. At present, 1 400 of its members have yet to be registered as Chartered Engineers. This 14444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 qualification is not mandatory. Even if members are not registered as Chartered Engineers, it does not mean they are not professionals. Hence relaxing the requirement can enable more information technology professionals to be registered registration as electors. The Institution of Engineering and Technology Hong Kong made this request because its parent institution in the United Kingdom revised the qualifications of certain classes of members about 10 years ago. But at that time, the Government put up the excuse that time was pressing to make the amendment, and no follow-up action has been taken ever since.
As a matter of fact, we have been raising these questions with the Secretary in each term, but of course with the exception of the last term. In this term, in order to make a deeper impression with the Government, we will vote against the Bill. The above two examples are only minor ones. Through these examples, I would like to remind the Secretary not to apply the same standard for all organizations in FCs. Other FCs, such as the Legal FC, are relatively simple. So long as a person is a legal practitioner as well as a member of the Hong Kong Bar Association or The Law Society of Hong Kong, he would become an elector of the FC. The provision is very clear, and there is only one criterion. But there are many criteria in the information technology industry ― just assume that I have wronged the Government; I hope the Secretary can refute my statement ― and it all depends on whether the relevant organization is having a close relationship with the Government or with the pro-establishment camp. The organization to which Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan belongs may also be … It is all because he is a member of the Liberal Party, and he has not left the Chamber on that day. Moreover, the Chief Executive had asked the Directors of Bureaux not to attend the anniversary dinner of Mr CHUNG's Party. The reason is just that simple. At present, the Chief Executive is trying to create conflicts by adopting different standards.
Four years ago, the Government said time was too pressing, but four years later, it still said there was insufficient time to deal with the matter. What actually has been done by the Government during these four years? Secretary, the present problems concerning the information technology sector are left unresolved not for four years, but seven years. I would like to borrow the words of Mr Alan HOO. He said it was clearly provided under Article 68 of the Basic Law that, "The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election." A moment ago, Ms Emily LAU, Chairman of our Party, has already mentioned the following provision, and there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14445 is no harm repeating it again. "The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. The specific method for forming the Legislative Council and its procedures for voting on bills and motions are prescribed in Annex II: 'Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Voting Procedures'."
President, there is actually much room for the democratization of FCs even without amending Annex II to the Basic Law. Although I had talked about it many times, what had happened in 2007 ― as I was not a Member of the last term of the Legislative Council, I did not have the chance to raise the matter ― was basically the same as the situation today. In 2007, I suggested that corporate votes should be replaced by individual votes in order to broaden the electoral base of FCs, so that the value of every elector's vote can at least be equal along the principle of gradual and orderly progress.
Actually, a lot of work can be done. For instance, regarding the Agriculture and Fisheries FC which adopts the system of corporate votes, can members of the relevant bodies also have a chance to vote? As there are so many corporate votes, is it possible to replace corporate votes with director's votes? All these matters would have to be dealt with in order to accord with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, so as to alleviate the resistance on electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in the future. When the Secretary gives his reply later, I hope he can tell us whether resistance in this matter comes from his "boss" or from Beijing because oddly, the consultation document on the method for forming the Legislative Council in 2016 has stated clearly at the outset that there is no need to make any amendments. Even the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress only states that the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage shall come first, followed by the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, and nothing has been said that the method for forming the Legislative Council in 2016 cannot be amended. The method can be amended, and it should be democratized in a gradual and orderly manner.
Today, we will vote against this Bill. In the beginning, we also had hesitations about whether we should vote against it or not. Why? Because the Government's present legislative amendments are very simple, with some bodies 14446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 changing their names, and so on. Hence if we oppose the Bill, the effect is that we oppose the proposed changes to the names of these bodies. But seemingly there is no reason to oppose such changes. If we oppose the proposed changes to the names of the relevant bodies, what would happen? Can members of the said bodies become electors? We must ascertain the situation. The Government has done nothing in respect of FCs. In each legislative amendment exercise, the Government would only collect the names of those bodies which require amendment, or make amendments relating to the use of punctuation marks, and so on, and then introduce the relevant bill. It would not deal with any other matters. One can say that this is a Policy Bureau which has not done any work.
Last time when the Council was debating the constitutional reform proposal, the Secretary told us that he had taken part in all three exercises. Of course the first exercise ended in failure. While the Secretary also told us that he had done a lot of work in relation to the third exercise, it was also a futile attempt. For the second exercise, the Secretary certainly had a role to play, but I will not repeat the reasons why the relevant proposal was eventually passed by the Council. Nonetheless, should the Government make more effort in areas that are relatively less controversial? A moment ago, Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) also queried why the Government had done nothing. I can understand the reason if the request was made by the Liberal Party, but I am clueless as to why the Government did not even heed to the request of the DAB. Secretary, can you tell us the reasons later? Is it really so difficult to add a few bodies to FCs in order to broaden their electoral base or replace corporate votes with individual votes? Personally I do not think Beijing officials would make any directives on these matters because such problems can be dealt with through local legislation. I think Beijing is most concerned about the separate voting system as well as the election results.
I hope the Secretary would understand that it is not beneficial to Hong Kong at all. If the Secretary cannot broaden democracy to the fullest extent within the permissible area, it is not beneficial to Hong Kong at all. I hope the Secretary can reply the several questions which I raised just now. Otherwise, he would say that I have wronged him again. As pointed out by Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan a moment ago, the response given by Under Secretary at meetings of the Bills Committee was invariably that he further consider or study the matters.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14447
Even if Secretary Gregory SO has been consulted, why just consult the Secretary and not the industry? Does it mean that things cannot be done if the Secretary says so? Of course, it is still uncertain as to whether the Secretary has really been consulted. But even if the Secretary has been consulted, and the Secretary said it should not be done, the authorities should at least give the relevant bodies a reason. It is very clear from the examples I cited a moment ago that on the one hand, the Government requires a person to possess the recognized qualification as well as four years' working experience, and it takes some five to six years to complete the former requirement. Hence, a person would be required to have a total of 10 years' working experience. But on the other hand, it only requires four years' working experience as well as the relevant academic qualification. The difference in terms of qualification requirements is thus very clear. Is it because of the differentiation between close and distant relationships?
President, I hope the Secretary can respond to these concrete questions of mine.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, please do a headcount.
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): Mr MA Fung-kwok, please speak.
14448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): The present Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill) tabled by the Government seeks to make some refinements to the 2017 election. Given that the constitutional reform package has been vetoed, the 2020 Legislative Council Election (especially the election of functional constituencies (FCs)) will be conducted according to the established practices. Under this circumstance, we can no longer regard this legislative amendment as a normal practice.
During the deliberation of the Bill, a number of colleagues have proposed some non-principle amendments, such as expanding the electorate base or adjusting the delineation of the electorate of FCs. Unfortunately, the response or explanation given by the Government to these requests is not very reasonable or convincing.
Take for example the Hong Kong Printers Association (the HKPA) that I am familiar with and have sought for my assistance. After the reunification, the HKPA was registered as an elector of the Insurance FC and can only vote in the Insurance FC. Its members, however, do not have a sense of belonging to the Insurance FC, nor do they consider themselves a subordinate to this FC. The inclusion of the HKPA in the Insurance FC can be traced back to decades ago when it had once provided the service of taking out insurance for its members in order to get some concessions. Following an amendment to the insurance law, the HKPA was then registered as an underwriter.
As a matter of fact, the HKPA has not made any new development on insurance in recent years. Instead, the HKPA has provided more services relating to printing, culture and publication. Therefore, it has requested to be included in another FC in the previous and present legislative amendment exercises. And yet, no positive feedback has been received from the Government so far. Not only do members of the HKPA lack a sense of belonging to the Insurance FC, there are also public views that the printing sector has an intricate relationship with publication, culture and design. This sector has made great contribution to the local economy, contributing more than $40 billion to the Gross Domestic Product every year and employing nearly 10 000 employees. Also, it is one of the largest printing centres in the world and has won numerous awards year after year.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14449
If the HKPA wants to seek help from Legislative Council Members, I think it will not approach Mr CHAN Kin-por. As I have just said, the HKPA has requested the Government to allow it to be registered as a member of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC. Although this is perfectly reasonable, the Government has failed to provide a satisfactory response and merely replied that in accordance with section 25(3)(d) of the Legislative Council Ordinance, the HKPA can only be registered as a member of the Insurance FC but not another FC. This explanation is indeed too preposterous.
In fact, all the Government needs to do is to remove this organization from the Insurance FC and include it in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC. As we all know, the purpose of making this switch is not simply to enlarge the electorate of the FC in which the HKPA is currently registered, as Ms Emily LAU has said. In order for an election campaign to attain success, it is important to first promote public understanding of the functions and roles of various FCs, to be followed by voter registration, so that the FC concerned can have a higher level of representativeness and better reflect its genuine functions. This is our core mission.
If we do not rectify or correct the problems that have already existed, they will provide a cause for people to criticize FCs or an excuse for complaint.
I eagerly hope that the Government will look categorically at these non-principle amendments, especially after the constitutional reform package was vetoed, as FCs will remain for a pretty long period of time. It is therefore imperative to maintain the credibility of FC elections and give full play to the genuine functions of various FCs. I sincerely hope that the Government will seriously consider these views when further amendments are made to the ordinance in the future. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, Members of this Council returned by functional constituencies (FCs) provide immense positive energy to resist the non-cooperation movement, thereby enabling the smooth governance of the Government. The attendance rate of many FC Members is even higher than that of Members returned through direct elections. Apart from caring for the 14450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 welfare of low-income earners and supporting the relevant initiatives, they also support the development of more land sites to genuinely resolve the problem of high property prices in Hong Kong. Moreover, FC Members have actively promoted Hong Kong's economic development, so that young people can have a better future and more opportunities to gain upward mobility and the Government can have more fiscal surpluses to improve people's livelihood, including the retirement arrangements of retirees without the means. Hence, Hong Kong absolutely needs FC Members who do real work.
Members of the opposition camp always do not mean what they say. They say one thing but do another, and refuse to yield a single step. Being incapable of independent thinking, they tend to adopt a bundling tactic. Members of the opposition camp have been very consistent in that they have all along only accepted proposals that can reach the goal in one step. This applies to constitutional development and changes to FCs. Nonetheless, under "one country, two systems", and given the absence of mutual trust between the Central Authorities and the opposition camp, how can the policies of Hong Kong and the Central Authorities be resolved in one step? Although the constitutional reform proposal is far from ideal, taking the first step forward would open up the door to universal suffrage. Once the door is open, it would be increasingly difficult to close it again, and the door will only open wider and wider.
All the Members of the Legislative Council could be elected by universal suffrage in 2020 if the constitutional reform proposal was passed. No matter how the opposition camp has played up the numbers, the public know very clearly that 28 Members have voted against the constitutional reform proposal and hence, all the Members of the Legislative Council will not be elected by universal suffrage in 2020. Some Members always claim that they want to broaden the electoral base of FCs, but when the Insurance FC proposed to replace corporate votes with director's votes so that its electoral base would be expanded from the existing 130 insurance companies to insurance intermediaries, Members of the opposition camp said that they would not accept these piece-meal fixes and insist that FCs be abolished. They have consistently maintained the stance of not practicing what they preach, and they should not be trusted at all.
Last but not least, I would like to talk about some favourite pet phrases of the opposition camp. They often claim that FC Members were elected by zero vote, which is actually quite ridiculous. Some candidates of certain FCs were returned uncontested because they have been regarded as doing a good job by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14451 their industries and hence, nobody came forward to challenge them. Hence, instead of saying that they were elected by zero vote, it would be more appropriate to say that they were elected by unanimous votes. Regrettably, some members of the public have been misled and often claim wrongly that some FC Members were elected by zero vote. How come Members can get elected by zero vote in Hong Kong?
Such misleading statements can often be heard. I would say that FCs have been discredited in a systematic and pre-meditated manner. Many FC Members have attended more meetings and performed much better than Members returned through direct elections. They have done so much better and made so much more contribution to Hong Kong than Members who are intent on creating troubles. But regrettably, some people have been discrediting FC Members through these means continuously. Hence, FC Members in Hong Kong should work concertedly from now on and inform members of the public all the practical work they have done. This is very important. I would wholeheartedly say that FCs are absolutely essential to Hong Kong. Let us think about it. At present, there are 30-odd Members of the Legislative Council returned through direct elections, and Hong Kong has been thrown into such a confusing state. What would happen to Hong Kong if all the 70 Members are returned through direct elections, and they all join hands to create troubles?
Obviously Hong Kong is a relatively balanced society. Some people prefer the welfare state, while some people are more concerned about the economy. It should have been beneficial for society to achieve balanced development so that every person can do what he wants. If directly elected Members want to provide more social benefits in Hong Kong, FC Members would give their support because I sincerely believe that employees should have the right to enjoy a balanced work life, and employers have the responsibility of looking after their employees. In this regard, I definitely will not have any dissenting views. But Members returned through direct elections must also take the time and make the effort to show their interest and propose measures to drive economic development so that the Government will have the means to give cash handouts. This is something we must understand.
What good will constant disruption bring to Hong Kong? I am not scared at all to debate with other Members. In the current-term Legislative Council, FC Members have attended the most meetings, and they return to the Chamber the soonest whenever the quorum bell is ringing. FC Members express views for 14452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 the benefit of Hong Kong; they are also the ones who spare no effort to fight against the filibustering Members. FC Members have been discredited all along, which is absolutely unfair.
Of course, the system can be improved so that Members who genuinely want to help members of the public can be elected. Similarly, though the system of direct election is good, if the Members elected muddle along without making contribution and oppose everything during their tenure of over 10 years, what benefit will they bring to society? Hence, while the system is important, human factor cannot be underestimated. Having a good system does not mean the best people can get elected. I hope we be people oriented and consider how to improve the system so that the best people can get elected to genuinely work for Hong Kong. This will truly be a blessing for Hong Kong. Thank you, President.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Having just heard the speech made by Mr CHAN Kin-por, I thought I was listening to a speech made by a member of the House of Lords more than a century ago. Honestly I have never heard such a theory before.
Very simply, if Mr CHAN Kin-por considers that directly elected Members muddle through, he could very well kick them out in direct elections. His patron LEUNG Chun-ying has also asked him to challenge me and kick me out. Why does he still hide behind his shell? If directly elected Members are so deplorable, he should do something to kick them out. He should kick me out, so that someone else can take his seat in the Insurance FC. As far as the candidate is concerned, any person can win so long as the Communist Party of China or the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region makes some arrangement. He is reversing the cause and the effect. Isn't it a fact that the four laziest Members come from FCs? The findings of the survey have already been published in newspapers, and he still tries to distort the fact. Honestly, his theory is exactly the opposite of XI Jinping's. According to XI Jinping, the ultimate goal is to achieve universal suffrage. In that case, will he favour the continuation of FC elections indefinitely? In fact, he has already admitted that so long as FC elections are in place indefinitely, they can hold on to their power through small circle elections. Tough luck if you were an Englishman because the British Parliament still has the House of Lords today. What he said is bullshit and a total waste of our time!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14453
President, I did not intend to speak originally. Having been listening to such nonsense in my office, I really cannot tolerate any longer and have to come down to make a speech.
First of all, what we are discussing now is how to fine-tune the FC elections of Hong Kong, am I right? Perhaps this can be done. Since he is so fond of reform, why not follow the practice in Taiwan and adopt the proportional representation system so that half of the Members are elected by political parties and half of the Members are elected by the people. He said that people are very important, so let people elect their representatives. He can also take part in the election himself.
But, President, you also know very well what is the crux of the problem. The crux is that the Chief Executive is not allowed to have any affiliation with political parties. We have a "dead system" or a demon in our heart. It is totally out of my expectation that someone would still speak in support of the perpetuity of FCs today. It is really eye-opening. I suggest that a figure of Mr CHAN Kin-por be placed in front of the entrance of the Legislative Council Complex, today with the following inscription (very much like the setting of the tomb of General YUE Fei in Hangzhou): "FC elections are the greatest invention in human history, and FC Members are better than directly elected Members. As directly elected Members must obtain people's mandate, they are particularly inferior." All these words should be written down clearly.
Raymond TAM, who has just now been criticized for doing nothing, wants to enhance the representativeness of FCs. It is just as impossible as proving that a triangle is a circle. To a certain extent, direct election is an election of political parties without geographical boundaries by FCs. Political parties try to win the trust of electors and serve the people with their party platforms. This can be a solution to the problem. We have all along advocated that half of the seats be elected under the proportional representation system, and FCs can run for the election by tapping on the reputation of their political parties. For instance, how many votes can the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) get? The DAB can even send a pig to run for election. The DAB says that you can look at our party platform, history, experience and track record. It is alright so long as you trust us. Aren't political parties the same as FCs? In politics, they can represent certain people. Direct elections, on the other hand, are very simple. I do not care who the person is; I will vote for him so long as he has done a good job.
14454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
It has always been like that in Hong Kong. I think it will be the overall direction of constitutional development in Hong Kong, only that Members of the Legislative Council have yet to fully grasp the importance of political parties. That is the problem to be resolved by party politics. That is why some FC Members engaging in political activities want to serve the people in the process of running for elections. Personally he does not know that political FCs are called political parties or groupings, or whatever he calls them. Now he is running in reverse gear and reopens discussion on a matter which Hong Kong people have almost thrown into hell, saying that occupation should be used … There is another problem with occupation, that is, if Secretary Raymond TAM refuses to do anything, we will have no idea where should the line be drawn for the purpose of holding FC elections. For instance, Mr MA Fung-kwok said that the printing industry should be put in the Insurance FC. Mr CHAN Kin-por, you belong to the insurance industry. I doubt if you are still working in the insurance industry. It is really ridiculous indeed.
Hence, President, as far as this question is concerned, the level of corruption is so serious. LEUNG Chun-ying said that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was worse than the legislature of Taiwan. You immediately made a solemn statement to refute him. I am now asking you now if he is telling the truth. Of course not. The royalists, like LEUNG Chun-ying, tell lies with their eyes wide open, and they are also lie when they close their eyes. They lie when they are sleeping or even dreaming. Lying has become part of their nature.
President, the legislature of Taiwan is always fighting because there are injustices, though to a lesser degree these days. Back then when JU Gan-jeng was a Member of the Legislative Yuan, he had to wait a long time for his turn to speak. Due to the presence of the "everlasting delegates to the National Assembly", he could hardly get the chance to speak, perhaps not even once in a year and hence, he snatched the microphone. President, if you are also acting unfairly, I would also snatch the microphone. But you are rather fair and whenever I press the "Request to speak" button, you would ask me to wait for my turn. If you are like the then President of the Legislative Yuan and formulate the worst rules to allow the "everlasting delegates to the National Assembly" … What is meant by the "everlasting delegates to the National Assembly"? It means they do not have to stand for re-election, almost the same as the existing FCs. That was exactly why JU Gan-jeng had to snatch the microphone, and he was not the first one to attack others after he snatched the microphone. Instead some old soldiers came up to hit him first.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14455
An unjust parliament, a parliament that kicks out the representatives of the people and dominated by Members who do not represent the people, is bound to be conflict-ridden. But he dares say that directly elected Members are bound to be populists because they want to get more votes. What is he talking about? How do I know what FCs would do for dozens of votes … Just like Mr Steven HO. The FC he represents has such a small number of electors, but he managed to get so many votes in the election. Quite simply, which option is easier in your opinion: To recompense all the people in Hong Kong or to recompense a handful of people? You can ask Mr Steven HO. If he comes to the New Territories East to recompense my electors, he will definitely fail. But with so few electors in the small circle elections, they can easily reach a consensus on the sharing of benefits.
Hence, President, I have some serious doubts about LEUNG Chun-ying forcing us to hold 28 hours of meeting within five days, which many people consider an act out of spite. But actually he is not doing so out of spite; he is worried that he may lose his title as the Chief Executive. If he is no longer the Chief Executive, how can the Innovation and Technology Bureau be established? How do I know whether the Innovation and Technology Bureau is meant to be a recompense for a particular person? Isn't it a shortcoming of electing the Chief Executive by 1 200 persons? Of course, somebody would say that they are letting all Hong Kong people elect the Chief Executive, but the 1 200 members of the Nominating Committee can still be recompensed, right? All in all, the fewer the number of people monopolizing power, the greater the chance of corruption. When the power held by the minority is greater than that held by the majority, the minority will abuse their power, which is the basic theory of politics. How can he say that the opposite is true? He is basically telling us in this Chamber that because of LEUNG Chun-ying, a triangle is the same as a circle, or black is the same as white. Isn't it just ridiculous?
I really do not want to say these words. Will Members of the pro-establishment camp please come forward and speak. What has happened to their camp? Was it not their original plan to fight for universal suffrage? All of them including the President had tried to woo the voters with this election platform. When I first ran for the election of the Legislative Council, the DAB was also advocating for double universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. If double universal suffrage were to be implemented in 2007 and 2008, would it be the same as what Mr CHAN Kin-por has said about the perpetuity of FCs? As the saying goes, "the duck knows first when the river becomes warm in spring". He 14456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 is thus a duck. What the Communist Party actually means is that even if universal suffrage is to be implemented for the Legislative Council in future, the approach will be more or less the same as the present proposal for universal suffrage which was only supported by eight votes in the Council. The Communist Party is saying that nothing will change even when all Members of the Legislative Council are to be elected by universal suffrage. In other words, the imbeciles from FCs will pre-select the candidates before Hong Kong people cast their votes. This logic is wrong. If that is the case, would it be better to revert to the previous system of monarchy? The monarch is supposed to be most impartial. He is not accountable to anybody and he needs not appease anybody. He can kill whoever he wants.
When I heard those remarks, I was really saddened. How can a Member say that the most important function of the Council he serves is defunct? Mr CHAN Kin-por is not insulting directly elected Members, but the electors who cast their votes to elect Members directly. He regards electors as morons. I am not the target of his criticisms for I am the one being chosen. Very simply, I ask you, why did LEUNG Chun-ying tell people to kick me out with their votes? If the election result is agreeable to them, the election is genuine; if not, the election is bogus. If the electors do not vote for them, they are fools; if the elections vote for them, they are wise. Buddy, having read George ORWELL's book, I reckoned that it was the best. But who would have thought that we have a new animal farm here today?
After LEUNG Chun-ying verbally attacked the Legislative Council, his lackeys in the Legislative Council followed suit immediately. Do they also want to criticize the President? Why not replace the President by a FC Member so as to better reflect the so-called "magnificent" tradition of inheritance in FCs? President Jasper TSANG is certainly partial as he is a Member returned from direct elections and hence, he must appease his electors. How can he take the office as the President? How can he be impartial? Mr Andrew LEUNG should replace Jasper TSANG as the President so that the "magnificent" system of FCs as claimed by Mr CHAN Kin-por can be given full play in the Legislative Council. Isn't that right?
President, I originally intended to discuss these matters during the Third Reading debate. But having heard these remarks today, I cannot help but wonder the reasons behind LEUNG Chun-ying's visit to Beijing? Should he not deal with the matters in Hong Kong first? Let me ask you, Secretary Raymond LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14457
TAM, would you respond to the remarks made by Mr CHAN Kin-por later? Do you agree with what he said? Do you agree that the electors who vote for Members with the largest number of votes are most stupid? In other words, do you agree that most Hong Kong people are stupid, and only the 220 000 electors of FCs are the cleverest? He is actually insulting all people of Hong Kong.
President, I now formally move a motion that you should come down and make a speech so that Mr Andrew LEUNG can take your seat because FC Members are intelligent, shameless, and invincible, so to speak. Thank you, President.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I oppose the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015. I have never swayed from my stance in fighting for the election of the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage and in opposing functional constituencies (FCs). Owing to this unwavering stance, we launched the "five geographical constituencies referendum" in 2010. Yet we were dragged down by the Democratic Party. The incident also gave them the opportunity to present a proposal to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which allowed FCs to perpetuate indefinitely.
A moment ago when Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung discussed FCs, he cited the example of "everlasting delegates to the National Assembly" in Taiwan. Yet he has left out the non-reelected Legislative Yuan. At that time, the ruling regime of the Kuomintang proposed the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion. Yet the supposedly temporary arrangements had become permanent. No re-election had ever held for the delegates to the First National Assembly as well as the members of the First Legislative Yuan. It was not until the 80s that by-elections and elections for additional delegates and members in the so-called free area were held. At that time, a Cantonese big boss used a colloquial Cantonese term "春 袋" (meaning scrotum) to describe these delegates to the National Assembly and members of the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China. President, why did he use this term to describe the non-reelected members of the Legislative Yuan and delegates to the National Assembly? The reason is that while they were indispensible for the Kuomintang and the rulers, they were obstructing democratic development. Nowadays, the Legislative 14458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Council is filled with "scrota". President, half of the Members of the Legislative Council are "scrota" who obstruct democratic development. Yet they are indispensible to the rulers. How ridiculous is this system!
Since the mid-80s, Taiwan embarked on a road towards democratic development under the principle of gradual and orderly progress. In 1986, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was formed illegally at the Grand Hotel, Taipei as a support group for Taiwan's Dangwai (meaning "outside-the-party") movement. When asked about the matter, CHIANG Ching-kuo said that the times were changing and the trends were changing. In 1987, the ban on political parties was lifted, and the DPP became the first legal opposition party in Taiwan. Having won the election, the DPP became the ruling party in 2000, marking the first change in the ruling party in Taiwan. Since the beginning of the 90s, all members of the Legislative Yuan have been elected through "one person, one vote". In 1996, the President of the Republic of China was elected by 20-odd million people in Taiwan through "one person, one vote".
There was a general trend of democratic development in the 80s. In Hong Kong, the first legislative election was held in 1985, with Members elected by the Electoral College, FCs as well as directly elected Members of the Urban Council. Three decades have passed since the beginning of democratic development in the mid-80s. This year is 2015, and FCs are still in existence. President, Members of the Democratic Party sitting on my side made a proposal in 2010 which effectively allows FCs to perpetuate indefinitely. They claimed that "quantitative changes will lead to qualitative changes". But what changes have been made now? At present, three Members of the pro-democracy camp have become FC Members. In other words, they are holding three more useless votes in FCs under the separate voting system. What kind of system is that?
According to the Democratic Party, Members of the five new FC seats are returned by all eligible voters in Hong Kong through "one person, one vote", making it a major step forward in democratic development. No proposal acceptable to the Communist Party of China (CPC) would take us a major step forward in democratic development. Yet they only realize it now and claim that they have been cheated. It is the bane of the Democratic Party that FCs can perpetuate indefinitely and that the so-called screening system is made possible for the Chief Executive Election in 2017. In the end, this election proposal was vetoed. Why shouldn't there be screening?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14459
Who eventually won the five new FC seats in the Legislative Council, or the so-called "super District Council (DC) seats"? The Democratic Party took two seats while the remaining three seats went to the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions respectively. These so-called political parties must have at least 15 seats in the DCs before they can nominate one candidate. The Civic Party is quite remarkable as its turnover rate in direct elections of geographical constituencies (GCs) is neck-to-neck with the Democratic Party. They now have five seats, that is, one from each GC. But it still does not have enough seats to run for the "super DC seats". What kind of election is that really? How democratic is it? Effectively, it is a form of screening. In order to run for the election, a candidate must be a DC Member and is nominated by 15 DC Members. That is how the seats are to be allocated. How can the Democratic Party ensure that quantitative changes will lead to qualitative changes?
Fortunately the Democratic Party took three seats, and the other side only won two seats. Next year, the other side may easily win three seats, and the Democratic Party would only be left with two seats. What kind of change will result? How many additional FCs seats have to be taken by the pro-democracy camp before quantitative changes will lead to qualitative changes? At that time, CHEUNG Man-kwong came up with an amazing theory, and I had refuted him then. When the Council was debating the constitutional reform package in 2010, he said that given the basis of public opinion of FCs in the future and with more and more members of the pro-democracy camp becoming FC Members, FCs would be abolished eventually. If that is the case, why does he not join the CPC in order to wipe it out? What was he talking about?
Hence, if we are still talking about how to fine-tune the statements made by the CPC … Secretary Raymond TAM has taken a long break already, isn't that right? What is meant by fine-tuning? What is there to be fine-tuned in these laws? Just now, Members returned by FCs have been making meaningless speeches, and none of their speeches lasts for 15 minutes. Do they have the courage to say openly that all FC seats elected by either individuals or corporate votes should instead be elected through "one person, one vote"? Nobody dares to say so, right? Coterie elections as well as uncontested elections will continue. President, it is the most evil system.
14460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
A moment ago, some Members talked about the principle of gradual and orderly progress as stipulated in Article 68 of the Basic Law. But has it been followed by the CPC? If we look at Annex II to the Basic Law promulgated in April 1990 which provides that the composition of subsequent terms of the Legislative Council should follow the so-called principle of gradual and orderly progress as stipulated in Article 68 of the Basic Law, we would expect that with the first Legislative Council in 1998 composing of 30 Members returned by FCs, 20 Members returned by GCs through direct elections and 10 Members returned by an election committee, under the principle of gradual and orderly progress, the second term of the Legislative Council would still have 30 members returned by FCs, but the number of Members returned by the election committee would be reduced by four, that is, with only six seats left while the number of directly elected Members would be increased by four, that is, with a total of 24 seats. President, isn't that right? For the Legislative Council Election in 2008, the number of Members returned by FCs and GCs would be 30 respectively.
At that time, the election platforms of the DAB and the Democratic Party were the same, that is, to strive for dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. President, you had already become the President then. Am I right in what I said? During the election forum, you had also been challenged about the DAB's pledge to achieve dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. The truth is simply that after the interpretation of the Basic Law by the CPC in 2004, the pledge has become void. The ratio of Members returned by FCs and GCs would remain unchanged. Initially each side would have 30 seats; with the additional five seats, each side would have 35 seats. That is it, and the separate voting system will also remain unchanged. How can such arrangements be regarded as conforming to the principle of gradual and orderly progress? In fact, it is just a case of "gradual and orderly regression".
President, frankly, I have spoken about these matters time and again, and it is nothing new. Yet we are still discussing how to fine-tune FCs. Are they so out of touch with reality? Do they still want to be "scrota"? Isn't that a shame? The President has not made a ruling on the term I used because "scrotum" is not a profanity. It would be wrong to translate the Chinese term "春 袋" literally as "spring pocket". As Cantonese, we all know what the term means.
I want to highlight the shortcoming of FCs, and I have cited an apt example because a moment ago, some Members talked about the case of Taiwan. On the subject of Taiwan, LEUNG Chun-ying said during a radio interview that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14461 present Legislative Council was worse than that in Taiwan. Buddy, what was he talking about? In the 80s, when JU Gan-jeng was a Member of the Legislative Yuan from the DPP, he was the first person to jump onto the desk of the Speaker. While pointing his finger at NI Wen-ya, the then Speaker, JU uttered the words "Gan Ni Niang (Putonghua)". It would be unparliamentary for me to use this term here today because it is a profanity intended to insult the mother of the other party, and all these happened in the 80s. JU then went on to hit other people.
How can the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be compared with the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan? We only throw things, and they are soft stuff. I was arrested just for hurling a glass, right? They said they were charging me for common assault, yet no prosecution has been initiated so far. President, the Council has become what it is today, not because of WONG Yuk-man alone. Do not flatter me by saying that it is the "WONG Yuk-man phenomenon". It is just that people have found the situation unbearable now. People now sitting on my side made a clear break with us. When I hurled the first banana in 2008, they held a press conference. When I pushed John TSANG's desk to stop him from delivering his budget speech, they held a press conference to condemn me. But they dare not move a motion in the Legislative Council to condemn me. They are Members of the pro-democracy camp sitting on our side. Nonetheless, they would now stage walk-out protests while holding an umbrella, or they would take other protest actions. It is alright with me. I take the lead, yet I do not see myself as a master. It is alright even if they hurl things like me. But I no longer hurl things; I only make speeches. Now I prefer making speeches than hurling things. They are free to hurl things or stage walk-out protests.
President, I actually intended to ask LEUNG Chun-ying a question the other day, but I could not do so due to some hustle and bustle. Some voters would often come to me and say, "'Yuk-man', can you ask LEUNG Chun-ying a question on our behalf at the Question and Answer Session?" When I asked them what the question was, they said, "If you get the opportunity, you must ask him when he will die." I told them that if I put this question to LEUNG, the President might rule that I have violated the Rules of Procedure. But after all, buddy, I only ask him the question on behalf of the voters. According to LEUNG Chun-ying, the present Legislative Council is worse than that in Taiwan. But the parliamentary struggles in Taiwan are quite simple. The crux is the existence of "scrota", unlike our FC Members, Members of the Legislative Yuan are also elected through "one person, one vote" in by-elections in the free area of Taiwan. In the Legislative Yuan, some members could remain in office 14462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 indefinitely, and nothing had changed since the First Legislative Yuan. President, this is what the Council has become today, and nothing has changed since 1998. Has anything been changed? Nothing. Is that what we call "gradual and orderly progress"?
President, regarding the present Bill under discussion today ― I still have about two minutes left ― it only deals with amendments in relation to FCs. But these are only minor amendments. If considered from the perspective of maintaining FCs, it is meaningless to make some improvements on the basis of the existing framework. Isn't that right, Secretary Raymond TAM? What good can these piecemeal amendments do? Regarding the 29 FCs, they all have different requirements. Some FCs adopt individual votes, such as the Education FC, and some adopt corporate votes. Some FCs adopt the "single-seat, single-vote" system, while others adopt the proportional representation system. For triple-member FCs, an elector may have three votes at most, while some FCs are even uncontested. Three FCs are uncontested, such as the Labour FC. What is there to elect in the Labour FC? They will certainly take the seats because their labour union has the greatest number of members. It is a hopeless cause for the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. During the British-Hong Kong era, at least PANG Chun-hoi, a member of the Kuomintang, was a Member of the Legislative Council. He was elected a Member because the so-called free labour unions or right-wing labour unions had a considerable number of members at that time. Hence, President, what progress has been made so far?
Some Members are now saying that it is difficult to draw the lines for some FCs, such as the case mentioned by Mr MA Fung-kwok a moment ago. Buddy, he is representing four sectors. To a certain extent, he can be regarded as a representative of the film industry. Timothy FOK used to serve as a FC Member representing the sports, performing arts, culture and publication sectors in many terms of the Legislative Council. To a certain extent, he was genuinely representing the sports sector because of his father's lifelong engagement in the development of sports in Hong Kong, and he had more or less inherited his father's position. But what books had he published? Or did he have any involvement in the publishing industry? As far as the performing arts sector is concerned, he might have some sort of connection given his son's romantic relationships with movie stars. It is even more amazing to talk about his connection with the culture sector. How can he, as an individual, represent four different sectors? Basically, the arrangement is most absurd.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14463
If I can go on with my speech, I can point out other absurdities so that people watching the live broadcasting of our meeting would gain a better understanding of why the Legislative Council has become what it is today. This system is the culprit. There is no way to tackle this situation so long as this system remains unchanged. As onlookers, we used to say that we must bear with it for two more terms. At that time, Dr Helena WONG also said that we must bear with the situation for two more terms, that is, until next year (2016). By 2020, we would no longer have to bear with it. However, as universal suffrage election will not be held in 2017, there will be no universal suffrage election in 2020 either. In that case, what can she do? Let us sit here and wait for luck.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(Mr CHAN Kin-por pressed the "Request to speak" button)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por has pressed the "Request to speak" button. But each Member can only speak once in the resumption of Second Reading debate, and Mr CHAN has already spoken a moment ago.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHAN Kin-por might wish to refute me on many points, but I think the biggest problem with his speech is that he really seems to believe what he has said. Anyway, at least he is true to himself and I appreciate him for that. However, how can he believe what he has said?
Just now he said that functional constituencies (FCs) were very important in ensuring smooth governance. Is this the duty of Members of the Legislative Council? From the perspective of FCs, what he has said is right. This is the function and duty of FC Members. They have to ensure smooth governance. Why? That is because the Government has always been biased towards FCs and the business sector. Of course they wish to see a smooth implementation of policies by the Government, so that the Government can transfer benefits to consortia and the business sector. Hence, smooth governance is very important. 14464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
From their point of view, they have to ensure that the Government implements its draconian policies smoothly; in this way, it can continue exploiting the general public and transferring benefits to consortia.
Hong Kong people, especially the younger generations, can no longer afford to buy their own homes. In the 80s, universities graduates only earned several thousand dollars a month but a flat only cost some $200,000. Today, even though the monthly salaries of university graduates have doubled to about $12,000, the property price is 10 or 20 times their salary. This is the situation of today. Over the years, the Government has never stopped transferring benefits to various consortia, to the delight of FCs, as their existence is involved with certain kinds of benefits. They also believe that the benefits of the business sector should override everything as long as the business sector can somehow allow their benefits to trickle down to the public. All in all, they are the "early birds" who get the worms, and it is most important that they have their hands on the benefits first. As for the well-being of the public, it is very low on their agenda. This is their conviction but the Labour Party opposes it totally. We believe that the 1% of people controlling the economy of society will continue to maximize their profits. They will not let anything leak through their fingers to benefit the people. Even if they are willing to give people some benefits, they expect these people to continue to work for them like slaves in return. This is the reality in Hong Kong. I think it is correct to say that FC Members support the smooth governance of the Government. They fully support the Government in transferring benefits to FCs. They are enforcing this practice and have been successful. Therefore, the electors of FCs hope that FCs can perpetuate indefinitely; in this way, they can indefinitely get the greatest benefits from the distribution of wealth in society.
It is a shame that some directly elected Members seem to gladly accept this idea, as long as they have the blessing of the Central Authorities. I agree to Mr CHAN Kin-por's point about smooth governance, but does he truly believe that FC Members can think independently? I believe he would surely answer me in the affirmative. He believes that these Members can think independently, which is just too absurd. Mr CHAN said that the Legislative Council vetoed the constitutional reform package with 28 votes. Why did he say that the package was vetoed with 28 votes? The fact is that only eight votes supported the package, which was witnessed by all. How come there were only eight supporting votes? Mr NG Leung-sing is most honest. Someone asked Mr NG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14465 if he knew what he was doing at that time. He indicated that he would not ask but just complied. This is what a member of the Communist Party should do. It is most important to comply after understanding the order, and even if they do not understand, they still have to follow the order. This is very clear. This is what they mean by independent thinking. It is simply following the orders of their superiors. Whatever their superiors tell them, they will follow without a second thought. Mr NG Leung-sing represents the banking sector. When the whole world sees how an FC Member representing the banking sector lacks independent thinking, one cannot help laughing.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Nevertheless, the banking sector only cares about its own interests. They simply do not care who represents them. But when it comes to the interests of banks, they will make their views known, just like in the aftermath of the Lehman Incident, the FC Member representing the banking sector hurriedly shirked the responsibility of banks, claiming that the incident had nothing to do with banks. This is the function of FC Members. They only strive for the interests of their own sectors. When the interests of their relevant sectors are involved, they will make all-out effort to fight; otherwise, they couldn't care less. Despite the fact that FCs are so useless, oddly someone said that FC Members can think independently.
Mr CHAN said just now that he disliked people saying that FC Members were elected with zero votes. Then I will put it in a nicer way. Let us say they were returned uncontested. Many FC Members were returned uncontested. Why were they returned uncontested? The electorate of these constituencies only wants to have someone to safeguard their interests, they do not care about the social development of Hong Kong. To them, the most important thing is to protect their own interests. For those who are making $100,000-odd or even a few millions dollars a month, they are glad that someone is willing to step forward and serve as a Member. What commitments do electors of these FCs have regarding the entire Hong Kong community? None. They only care about their own interests. They hope that their interests can be safeguarded indefinitely.
14466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
More outrageous still, I hope Mr CHAN Kin-por would not believe that FCs are now highly balanced, just like employers and employees, as claimed by him. If there was truly such a balance, why is standard working hours still not set? Do Members remember a traffic accident last week involving a cement truck driver? In the accident, the driver crashed the car while driving his colleagues home after working for 23 hours. The accident cost the life of another cement truck driver who had also worked for 23 hours. How do Members feel about this accident? I believe they have no feeling. What prices do workers in Hong Kong pay for the so-called economic development of Hong Kong? Workers not only sacrifice their family life and health, they sometimes even have to sacrifice their lives, but these Members are indifferent to workers' plights. They do not talk about balance between work and family life and they oppose enacting legislation on standard working hours. If a motion on setting standard working hours is submitted to the Legislative Council, it will definitely be voted down by FC Members since all they care is their own interests. The employer's favourite word is "flexibility". The death of workers means little to them and their prime concern is to make more money. That is their meaning of "flexibility". Why can a balance be struck?
Why can't we get what we strive for? The reason is that FC Members are standing in our way. The Chief Executive is selected by FCs and half of the Legislative Council Members are returned from FCs. Among all FC Members, about half of them are professionals and the others come from the business sector. Among the 30 FC seats, even if I disregard the five "super seats", not many seats are taken up by the professionals. Honestly, some professional sectors are also involved in doing business, and as a matter of fact, all FCs are dominated by the business sector. Are there electors in the business sector? Of course, I oppose replacing corporate votes with director's votes as it is redundant to do so. What the Government should do is abolish all FCs. There are as many as 100 intermediary companies under the listed companies. They can join the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong or the Federation of Hong Kong Industries. Actually I still do not understand why Hong Kong still needs organizations like the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong or the Federation of Hong Kong Industries. Many people do business in the Mainland only. Business in Hong Kong is of small scale and no one is engaged in manufacturing in Hong Kong. However, the representatives of the business sector can keep their seats in the Legislative Council forever through the FC system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14467
The wealth of Hong Kong has always been monopolized by the rich and powerful and this group of people relentlessly oppresses the working class so as to maximize their own interests. The minimum wage remains to be reviewed once every two years, standard working hours has not been set, universal retirement protection for workers has not been introduced, and the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) accrued benefits are still used to offset severance payments. Although they are concerned about the high MPF administrative fees, they oppose any proposal to abolish the offsetting arrangement, as the money is already in their pockets, and it is simply impossible for us to get money out of their pockets. They will surely refuse to pay. That is the nature of FCs. They are just organizations with vested interests.
Deputy President, the minor patch-up amendments proposed today are just redundant. We always talk about vote-rigging in geographical constituencies. If members of a family have different surnames, we know immediately that vote-rigging is involved, but how can we tell the vote-rigging practice among FCs? Sometimes votes can be rigged but sometimes it cannot. Perhaps I should not use the word "rig". Members of the Liberal Party have just mentioned the garment manufacturing companies. For some unknown reasons, some companies are not allowed to join a certain FC. Of course, it is not our concern because all FCs are just organizations with vested interests.
The information technology (IT) sector is not too particular about licensing and members of the sector are not required to obtain certain qualifications like the Certified Public Accountant. If they wish to join certain institutions, they do not need to be licensed. They may just need to pay a membership fee of $500. How then can their qualifications be verified? No one knows and no verification is required. If that is the case, it is vote-rigging. Sometimes a membership fee is not even required and as a result, vote-rigging can be easily done, but the Government does not care. As a matter of fact, the whole FC system is a vote-rigging machine. Votes can be rigged anytime. Some people who claim to represent a certain sector may have never worked in that field. Who are the IT personnel? How are IT personnel defined? All companies have IT staff. Are all people working in the IT sector eligible to be electors in the IT FC? Some people who are not engaged in IT work can also become electors in the IT FC. Is there a verification mechanism? There is none. The Government does not care and FCs can rig votes. On the other hand, the Government imposes very stringent regulations on some other FCs, leading to the 14468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 discontent of the Liberal Party. They do not understand why some FCs are under stringent control. In some FCs, vote-rigging is permissible, but other FCs are subject to stringent control. We have no idea about the intention of the authorities.
We, the Labour Party, oppose the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 because patchy amendments are proposed and the whole exercise is redundant. The Government should just abolish FCs. The Bill only deals with trivial and insignificant matters such as changing the name of an FC. What is the use of it? Such minor patch-ups cannot solve any problem. The problem of vote-rigging will still exist and FCs will still be organizations with vested interests. That is the essence of FCs. It is a shame that we cannot tell when FCs will be abolished. Someone will certainly shirk the responsibility and say that if the package for the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 (2017 package) was passed, FCs would be abolished in 2020. That is a lie. If the Legislative Council passed the fake 2017 package, the 2020 package will be another fake package for the Legislative Council election by universal suffrage. Members of the public can only select the candidates nominated by FCs. It is another fraud. The Government has cheated the people once and it will cheat again. If we "pocket" the package for the first time, we will have to "pocket" another package. Since the nomination of the Chief Executive candidate in 2017 can be controlled, the candidates for FC Members can be controlled again in 2020. As long as FCs are not abolished, I believe that Hong Kong society will continue to be lopsided.
LEUNG Chun-ying said that the current Legislative Council is even worse than that of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. He of course thinks that the Legislative Council is worse than Taiwan's Legislative Yuan as he likes the Mainland the most. He is most happy to attend meetings of the National People's Congress (NPC). When attending the NPC meetings, first, one must take notes. I think many NPC deputies are pretending to take notes, even though everyone seems to be very attentive in taking notes. Second, one must have the right posture when clapping hands. LEUNG Chun-ying may be extremely fond of the NPC. Should he make a comparison, he should say that the Legislative Council in Hong Kong is even worse than the NPC. The NPC is the greatest council as its deputies are most obedient and well united under the leadership of the great Communist Party to achieve smooth governance. The governance is so smooth that no other voices are heard and all matters are passed after being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14469 announced. Do we wish to have such a system? If so, why not just abolish "one country, two systems"? We support "two systems" because we want freedom, independent thinking, checks and balances as well as separation of the three powers. That is the "two systems" that we want.
If Members do not like "two systems", they may as well use the system of "one country". But many Members have become NPC deputies and I think they enjoy being NPC deputies very much, so much that when they return to their roles as Legislative Council Members after playing "dumb" deputies at NPC meetings, they find it tiring having to attend so many meetings and having to think. They need not think in their capacity as NPC deputies. All they need is to clap hands and have a good posture when clapping. Of course they wish to turn the Legislative Council into the NPC but we will fight for the genuine democracy in Hong Kong to the end. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre objects to the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill). We object totally to this Bill.
We object to this Bill not merely because of the general reason given by our colleague earlier, namely making patchy amendments, but mainly because the amended legislation has retained small-circle election. What is the ultimate outcome of small-circle election? Only the interests of the upper echelon of Hong Kong society will be protected to the neglect of members of the public, who will be deprived of an opportunity to select their own representatives to bring their voices into the Council under such an election.
On the other hand, in the eyes of many people with vested interests in society, gaining seats in the Council through this small-circle election is tantamount to having free lunch. In a democratic society which stresses the reflection of public views, this kind of election system cannot and should not continue to exist. Therefore, I absolutely object to this Bill.
Following the creation of functional constituencies (FCs), Members may notice that many parties with vested interests have requested time and again to include new FCs. I think Secretary Raymond TAM should have received many letters requesting the inclusion of so and so. Of course, the Government has not 14470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 added any new FC over the years and all the requests were turned down. There are certainly many reasons behind the rejection and I am not going to talk about it at length today. I just want to point out that under such a system, those so-called "interest groups" compete fiercely with, and even try to kill, each other just to curry favour with the Government in a bid to be added to the list of FCs. What is so good about such a system?
This system only drives people to compete incessantly for benefits, people's representatives cannot be elected to bring people's voices to the Council. So, why do we still cling to this system? Why do people keep defending it, and even making patchy amendments to fine-tune it? This is undoubtedly a waste of time, of the Council's time, on meaningless tasks.
Deputy President, there are opinions that FCs can ensure effective administration in the Council. But instead of raising this argument, it would be better to say that in order for the Government to achieve effective administration, the Council should be abolished. Given that the Council is tasked to monitor the Government, criticize its administration and request detailed accounts of its policy initiatives, the existence of the Council will inevitably make administration less effective as the Government is required to account for the timetable and details of every task.
Therefore, if Members genuinely discharge their duties to monitor and criticize the Government, it would be difficult for the Government to have effective administration in principle. Effective administration can be achieved only if all Members remain silent or act as "yes-men". If Members do not speak in the Council, if they do not criticize the Government or request it to account for its work, but act as "yes-men" and say "yes" to whatever the Government asks them to do, then there will be effective administration.
However, this is absolutely not the case and the Council is duty-bound to request the Government to account for its work. Let me cite an example. The Government has forced us to "work overtime" for additional meetings of the Finance Committee. But regardless of whether Members need to "work overtime", we are obliged to ask specifically how public money will be spent. This is our duty. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from the pro-establishment camp and FCs have not uttered a word nor asked any question; they merely demanded the expeditious approval of the funding applications.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14471
In fact, instead of requesting the Finance Committee to expeditiously approve the funding applications, Members should propose the abolition of this Council. This would enable the Government to say and do whatever it likes, and it can govern more effectively, expediently and conveniently. The Government does not even have to be accountable to the public. Regarding the introduction of any measure by the Government, people may either give compliments if they are happy with it or hurl criticisms if otherwise. Is it not better to be as simple as this? This is inevitable with the presence of Members and the only way to avoid the trouble is to abolish the Council.
At present, many colleagues from the pro-establishment camp enjoy being dummies, "yes-men" and lackeys, they are even prepared to submit themselves as the "rubber-stamps" of the Chief Executive. What does that mean? It means that they will do as told by the Government. A recent example is the Government requesting us to convene additional meetings this week. If we convene additional meetings as requested or endorse any motion as tabled, what is the point of having this Council? After all, this Council is a submissive body which lacks the ability to think independently and make its own analysis or comment, and will only comply to the Government's requests. To put it rudely, these people are lackeys who only wag their tails to beg for favours. They do not have the slightest idea of how to perform their role as people's representatives. Why can they behave in this way? The answer is that they are returned from FCs.
These FC Members are not required to face the public. They gained their seats simply by obtaining prior consent from a small group of people, which is the free lunch mentioned by me earlier. They need not do anything to gain their seats, and this is the characteristics of FCs.
I was also elected to this Council through the "new nine FCs" under the FC election back then. The mode of "new nine FCs" is in stark contrast with the existing mode because whichever sector we belonged to, we were bound to face electors from directors at the highest echelon to staff at the middle and lower echelons, and even those at the front line. They were all eligible electors with a vote in hand. In fact, the "new nine FCs" was more or less the same as a geographical constituency, consisting of electors from the well-off class, middle class or grassroots, but the number of electors was far greater than that of the present. Members returned from the so-called "new nine FCs" were bound to face the public and their electors.
14472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
How about the existing FCs? The number of electors has been decreasing. Although there is still more than a handful of them, the actual number may only be dozens. This has enabled FC Members to hold internal discussion over a meal. I am certainly not saying that they buy votes, but even if apparent buying of votes does not exist, this is an easier way for decisions to be made. What is the point to discuss political platform and political achievement? What is to point to put forward their views of the Government? All these are unnecessary as a decision can be made with a pat on the shoulder.
The Government has all along been defending and protecting this essence. Although the new "super District Council (DC) FC" seats were added in the previous Legislative Council election, only a couple of seats have been added, will this have any effect on FCs as a whole? The least affected is the separate voting system of this Council, which is of paramount importance.
According to the Basic Law, elected Members are divided into two categories, namely Members returned from geographical constituencies or functional constituencies, and all Members' proposals must be agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present. In the last legislative term, not only five seats were added to the newly created DC FC, another five seats were added to geographical constituencies as well. What does this mean? It means the additional seats have been offset and we are still the minority in terms of the number.
The Government is very good at computation. Although I am a Mathematics teacher, the Government's computation is even better. Its computation is so accurate that it has not suffered any loss so far. The Government always wins while members of the public always lose. The accurate computation of the Government has enabled it to secure an advantageous position at all times, rendering the Council unable to have any change in substance. All decisions still rest with the Government.
The Government's recent request for the Finance Committee to convene additional meetings is an example. Under the disguise of being democratic, impartial and refraining from expressing personal views, the Chairman of the Finance Committee has employed a very simple tactic of consulting members' views before making a decision. But is this so-called consultation a genuine one? He should know why I criticized him. Although he knew very well what LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14473 the outcome of the consultation would be, he still pretended to consult members. This is nothing but a scam. Worse still, he has fooled himself as well as others by denying any pressure from the Government.
After all, he is an obedient lackey who follows all orders given by the Government. Although he has tried hard to hide his arrogance and appear to be impartial, the request for additional meetings was acceded to in the end. The Government can do whatever it wishes. Has the Government ever been turned down when it asked for additional meetings? The logic is very simple. The demerit of FCs is not just the private exchange of benefits which has protected people with vested interests, but also the defence of the so-called effective administration of the Council which is in essence the absence of accountability and monitoring. The Council is not accountable to the public at all. It is not a legislature anymore as its functions no longer exist and are rendered meaningless.
I recall that when I was a Member of the former Legislative Council between 1995 and 1997, the Council was better, to a certain extent, in terms of accountability and respect from the Government though Hong Kong was governed by a colonial government back then. Nowadays, the work of government officials is much easier as they are only required to liaise with Members from the pro-establishment camp to ensure that there are enough votes to push through the legislation. There is no need for them to liaise with Members from the opposite camp, which is a waste of time. Conversation is not worthwhile either. The present situation is that government officials show no respect for Members.
Contrarily, between 1995 and 1997, newly appointed government officials would invite us to a meal and find out issues of our concern. They also encouraged us to notify them in advance any problems so that attempts could be made to resolve them. I remember when former Commissioner of Labour Stephen IP took office back then, he had lunch with me and asked about issues of my concern. After learning that I was concerned about the Unfair Dismissal Legislation of the United Kingdom, he tried to seek further information from me. I told him that, unless compensation was provided, unreasonable dismissal of employees by employers should be prohibited. He then requested relevant information from me for further examination. The bill has now become part of the laws of Hong Kong, and the compensation is now referred as "terminal payments". Although a different name has been used, 90% of the content has been incorporated into the laws of Hong Kong. As evident from the above 14474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 example, the Government back then did take heed of our advice and would act accordingly. The respect of government officials for Members' views would in turn bring benefits to members of the public.
The life of government officials is much easier nowadays because they simply do whatever they are told to without having to think, listen or take action. The Government only serves one person, the Chief Executive, and turns a deaf ear to the views expressed by elected Members. No matter what we said about universal retirement protection, standard working hours or employees injured at work, the Government has refused to listen or to act. It only follows the order of one person. What is the use of such a government? As Members have said, we do not need this Council at all. Let the Chief Executive be the king and have the final say. As her daughter has said, "My father is king."
There may be proposals that the Council does not want to pass, but he insisted on the Council's endorsement. Can Members refuse to discuss certain proposals? He said this was not allowed and Members must spare time to conduct the necessary discussions. Additional meetings must be arranged even if we had already run out of time, and he had the final say. What is the use of this Council then? What actually are the functions and roles of this Council? We can attribute his acts to the existence of FCs in this Council, which has enabled him to become so unscrupulous. (The buzzer sounded)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. Please sit down.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is indeed highly regrettable that this Council is having a debate on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill) today because the amendments proposed by the Bill are relatively minor and technical in nature. The effect of such amendments is poles apart from our demands to implement genuine universal suffrage and to abolish functional constituencies (FCs).
While it is certain that no genuine universal suffrage will be implemented under the framework of the 31 August Decision, the SAR Government can at least show its sincerity by responding to the demands of Hong Kong people in respect of the development of democracy. It can at least take this opportunity to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14475 enhance the representativeness of FCs by broadening their electorate base and increasing their competitiveness. The Government should show its sincerity, for instance, by replacing corporate votes in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, Insurance FC, Tourism FC, Finance FC, Industrial FCs and Commercial FCs, and so on, with individual votes, or by replacing corporate votes with director's votes. Nonetheless, the SAR Government has done nothing in this regard and merely proposed piecemeal amendments in the Bill, which are all technical in nature. Why did it do so? The Government has disappointed us gravely and it should be condemned.
A moment ago, many Members have spoken about the representativeness of FC Members and highlighted the anomalies in various FCs, which is even more disappointing. FCs should have been abolished in the first place. Even if the FC system must continue for the time being, the relevant arrangements should be reasonable and presentable. Why can't the Government at least make this right? The whole thing is highly disappointing indeed.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
A moment ago, some Members mentioned a number of cases about organizations being included in the wrong FC. The situation of the Education FC is better. Given the registration system in the education sector, we are less affected in this regard. Nonetheless, is the Education FC totally problem-free? In a press conference held as early as 12 July 2011, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU) pointed out that some of its members working in various tertiary institutions, especially academic and administrative staff working in self-financing institutions, could not get registered as electors of the Higher Education Subsector in the Election Committee for the election of the Chief Executive. At that time, the problems could be divided into two main categories. The first category related to academic and administrative staff working in continuing education institutes or community colleges affiliated to the eight statutory universities. Take for example academic and administrative staff working in the Community College of City University (CityU) and the College of Professional and Continuing Education of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). While they used to be registered as electors of the Higher Education Subsector in their capacities as academic and administrative staff of 14476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
CityU and PolyU, they were considered as not eligible for registration by the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) in 2011. Presumably, they were considered not eligible for registration as electors of the Higher Education Subsector because the relevant institutions did not put their names in the list of academic and administrative staff or the REO considered that they were not the academic and administrative staff of the main university and hence, they were not eligible for registration as electors. It was estimated that some 400 people fell under this category.
The second category is the academic and administrative staff working in self-financing tertiary institutions not registered under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance, such as the Hong Kong College of Technology, the Caritas Bianchi College of Careers and Yew Chung Community College. As they do not fall under the eligible institutions specified in the Chief Executive Election Ordinance, their academic and administrative staff cannot be registered as electors of the Higher Education Subsector even though full-time accredited sub-degree programmes are being offered. It was estimated that as many as 300 to 500 people fell under this category.
Without a doubt, these 700 to 900 colleagues of mine should be electors of the Higher Education Subsector in the Election Committee for the election of the Chief Executive as well as electors of the Education FC in the Legislative Council. But they have been excluded and deprived of their rights as electors due to loopholes in the law. It is highly unfair. Over the past few years, I have raised this matter time and again at meetings of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs. The Government has finally acknowledged the problem and proposed a clearer reference to the definition of an elector in the Education FC and the Higher Education Subsector. It is a good development as its helps resolve the confusion I mentioned a moment ago. Let me give a brief supplement. Regarding the institutions I just mentioned, the status of some institutions has been changed over the years.
Nonetheless, some problems are left unresolved. The meaning of a phrase in the legislation, "academic staff engaged in teaching or research and administrative staff of equivalent rank", is unclear or ambiguous. The HKPTU has been receiving complaints from its members working in various tertiary institutions that different institutions would have different interpretation to that phrase. According to some institutions, tutors would also be included as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14477
"academic staff engaged in teaching or research and administrative staff of equivalent rank", while the definition of some institutions would exclude tutors or even lecturers because the basic academic ranks in many institutions only include professors, associate professors and assistant professors. Should lecturers be included as well? This has resulted in inequality in respect of the election rights of academic and administrative staff in tertiary institutions. Given the sanctity of the right to vote, how can such a shoddy approach be adopted?
I have raised this matter time and again at meetings of the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bills Committee). My request is simple enough: various benchmarks used by different institutions should be standardized so that a relatively accurate description in line with the statutory requirements can be adopted. In this connection, I requested the Government to provide members with a list of all eligible ranks proposed to be included under the definition by different institutions. With this list, we can see clearly whether individual institutions have been treating their staff fairly. The present problem is about who can enjoy the right to vote. It turns out that the decision lies with the interpretation given by individual institutions towards the relevant provision. Different lists have been submitted by different institutions, and their standards vary completely. We should be cautious about allowing individual institutions to make their own decisions. We should monitor whether their interpretation is appropriate and whether the same interpretation is given by various institutions.
Regrettably, notwithstanding my repeated requests, the Government's reply was gravely disappointing. According to the Government, it was not in a position to do so as the information provided by the institutions could only be used for the purpose of voter registration and nothing else. But it is very clear that the information I requested is not the same as the information referred to by the Government. The latter case involves personal data, that is, information which must be provided by the institutions under the law. I do not ask for such information. I am only asking for information about the relevant ranks. Hence, the Government has shifted the focus. I request such information so that the job can be done in a better way. Why is the Government reluctant to provide such information? It would be acceptable if the Government can ensure the fair treatment of all academic and administrative staff without providing such information. But is there any means to do so? If not, why can't it deal with the matter seriously?
14478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The Government also said that should problems arise, the relevant academic and administrative staff could always lodge an appeal. I hold that it would be most embarrassing if a piece of legislation is so designed that all problems must be resolved by appeals. In my view, legislation should be enacted in the most meticulous manner. Hence, the Government should ensure that all loopholes are plugged and that the avenue of appeals is only reserved for some special or exceptional cases. Obviously, it is not so if an open approach is adopted so that all problems are left to be resolved by appeals.
I hope that further actions can be taken by the Government to ensure that a general standard is adopted by various tertiary institutions so that all academic and administrative staff would be treated fairly. The Government should ensure that full-time academic staff engaged in teaching or research can truly be registered as electors in order to safeguard their right to vote. Of course, this is only a technical amendment. It would be most important for elections of the Legislative Council to become more democratic. I hope that in the not too distant future, meaningful discussion on the abolition of FCs can be initiated so that the whole Legislative Council can move towards full universal suffrage.
I so submit.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, at the meetings of the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Charles Peter MOK raised many questions which, in my opinion, are reasonable and the Administration had responded.
President, you should have heard the questions mentioned by the two Members in their speeches. For example, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan asked why the Textiles and Garment functional constituency (FC) could not be renamed as the Textiles, Garment and Fashion FC. Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan also relayed some organizations' request to join the Information Technology FC and the Textiles and Garment FC but have not received a reply after a long time. The two Members must feel disappointed and frustrated but they should have expected it. Why do I say so?
President, that is because the arrangements of the FC seats are illogical and cannot be well understood. For example, how were the 30 traditional FCs selected? Why are there no FCs for women and young people? These areas LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14479 have been widely criticized. Leaving the issue of selection aside, I wish to ask why among the 30 FCs, the Commercial and Industrial FCs have a First and a Second FC. And among the 30 traditional FCs, why should the commercial sector be given the most seats?
Even if we leave aside the issue of selection, why do we have corporate votes and individual votes in one FC, such as the Information Technology FC? At present over 400 organizations in that FC have corporate votes. How are they qualified to be electors? This question is not easy to answer. From this we can see that even in the same FC, different groups have different qualifications and they are governed by different systems.
Well then, let us not talk about these two issues, that is, how a certain sector is selected to become an FC and why there are different criteria for eligibility as electors in an FC. Let us just talk about some issues that are easier to comprehend. The Education FC holds a seat in this Council and it has close to 100 000 electors; the numbers of corporates in Heung Yee Kuk, the Agriculture and Fisheries FC and the Insurance FCs are under 160, 160 and 150 respectively, but each of these FCs holds one seat in this Council. Hence, under such a ridiculous system, I am afraid that the frustration and disappointment of Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan will unlikely be dispelled.
President, while other Members were speaking, I have looked up the information about how FCs were introduced into the Legislative Council during the 80s. In introducing FCs, the Government had issued a green paper and then a white paper. The then Chief Secretaries also spoke about it on many occasions at meetings of the Legislative Council.
In short, the then Chief Secretaries said that the Government well understood the unique arrangement concerning FCs, but in the light of the social circumstances of Hong Kong at that time, the colonial Government did not wish to see a lack of Members with professional background in the legal, medical or commercial and industrial areas to direct the work of the Legislative Council. According to the information I have looked up, the former Chief Secretaries who had spoken on this subject included Mr Charles Philip HADDON-CAVE, Mr David Robert FORD and Mr David AKERS-JONES. They all pointed out that the professionals were in general introverted and they might not be willing to run for direct election. Mr Ronald ARCULLI even said that if he was to run for direction election, he would not even be able to get back the deposit. 14480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
According to my research, many former Chief Secretaries mentioned the social circumstances at that time and they insisted on having a transitional process. However, they also indicated that such a unique and widely criticized election arrangement would be abolished eventually. Those Chief Secretaries also expressed the wish that FC Members would make actual contributions for the benefit of Hong Kong. What they meant, I believe, was that when the Legislative Council discussed issues about healthcare, the Member from the Medical FC could, with his professional background, relevant training and qualifications, help the Legislative Council scrutinize the relevant legislation and propose related motion debates. They also had great expectations of these FC Members, that is, they would not only seek the vested interests for their own sector or trade.
President, so much for history but we can gain new insights by reviewing the past. When we discuss the retention or abolition of FCs, we cannot disregard the history. Today many Members, especially FC Members, have very strange arguments. They said that FCs cannot be abolished and must be retained forever. Such views are a far cry from those I heard when I first joined the Legislative Council in the 2004-2008 term. In that term of the Legislative Council, FC Members usually said that consideration should be made on when FCs should be abolished, but it should not be done too abruptly and a gradual process was desirable.
Nevertheless, FCs have now become something that will exist indefinitely and cannot be replaced. A Member has even said just now that FC Members perform better than directly elected Members. Such an argument really frightens us. They have forgotten the history of FCs. When the colonial Government introduced FCs in the 80s, it made it clear that this was only a transitional arrangement and when Members from various FCs, including the professionals, were ready to seek mandate from the public directly, FCs would be abolished. They have also forgotten that when FCs were first introduced into the Legislative Council, the authorities made it clear that FC Members should not seek the vested interests for their own sector or trade.
President, they have not only forgotten the history of FCs, but also the fact that FCs are most widely criticized for being manipulated easily. As FCs are rife with illogical or incomprehensible issues pointed out by me just now, those with vested interests can easily make use of such a system to produce FC Members within their small circle. In this way, they can continue to keep a firm grip of the public power already in the hands of the commercial and industrial sectors through the separate voting system in the Legislative Council.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14481
President, you should be aware that for a Members' motion to be passed in the Legislative Council, it must be endorsed under the separate voting system. Theoretically, if 34 Members out of 35 directly elected Members, with the exception of the President, vote in favour of a motion but 18 FC Members present abstain from voting, the motion will be negatived. Let me make a simple analysis, with the exception of the President, even if 51 Members vote in favour of a Members' motion but if 18 FC Members present abstain from voting, the motion will be negatived. Isn't this absurd? A motion supported by 51 Members can be negatived with only 18 Members voting against it or abstaining from voting.
The motions raised can be on simple matters, such as requesting the Government to allow workers who are only entitled to labour holidays to enjoy five more days of holidays, including three days of Easter Holiday, the Buddha's Birthday, Christmas and New Year Day, so as to narrow the gap between labour holidays and public holidays. However, Members representing the interests of the commercial and industrial sectors would usually vote against such proposals because one more day of holiday for workers would mean a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. Isn't that seeking the interests of their own sector or trade? In so doing, are they contributing to the actual interests of the general public of Hong Kong?
Today I am somewhat making use of the Bill under scrutiny to express my views on the retention or abolition of FCs. I hope the President would understand that the Bill aims at making amendments concerning the lists of persons comprising certain FCs, and the name of an FC and a subsector of the Election Committee, the Civic Party is of the opinion that such amendments cannot help solve any problems. Those amendments can hardly address the widely denounced shortcomings of FCs as mentioned by me just now, that is, unfairness can be resulted and FCs can be easily manipulated.
Even worse, the incumbent public officers seem to have forgotten the history of introducing FCs into the legislature and have not taken into consideration the remarks made by at least two former Chief Secretaries on the arrangement at that time. How come this system can be allowed to remain unchanged?
I so submit.
14482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Originally, I was not prepared to speak on this Bill but after listening to Mr CHAN Kin-por's impassioned speech and some opposition Members' badmouthing of functional constituencies (FCs), I must say a few words.
Mr Alan LEONG has just given the reasons for the introduction of FCs, and he said that FC Members will not only seek the vested interests of the industries. In fact, both directly elected and FC Members of this Council should not seek vested interests. The policies that we introduce or promoted should be in the interest of the public, and the views we put forward should also put the public interest in the first place. It is incorrect to say that FC Members only seek benefits for the industries or protect the vested interests of the industries.
In addition, Mr Alan LEONG has made a direct comparison between group votes in some industries with votes in direct election or with individual votes in some FCs. He mentioned that Heung Yee Kuk has 160 votes, and a comparison was made with the votes in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC and the Education FC. In fact, various FCs have different election methods, depending on the differences between the industries and their components. When I discussed this issue with many academics, friends and young people, we had arguments but we eventually understood one another. To a certain extent, group votes are rather fair; the Education FC adopt individual votes because a professional registration system is in place for teachers. As for the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, the Heung Yee Kuk FC, the Tourism FC and even the Insurance FC which corporate votes are adopted, if the number of electors increases substantially due to various reasons, certain groups will have an overwhelming advantage in terms of the number of electors.
I would like to talk about two figures. Early this year, the issue of live chickens was extensively discussed in Hong Kong. There are, in fact, only 30 chicken farms in the territory. If "one person, one vote" is adopted in this sector, how should the votes be allocated? I believe this sector would have 30 votes at most; even if the number is multiplied by 10, there are just 300 votes while there are 650 local fishing vessels on the register. To make a heartless remark, can the FC still be called the Agriculture and Fisheries FC if it only deals with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14483 fishermen but not the livestock industry? "Balanced participation" as stated in the Basic Law fully illustrates this situation and it also applies to FCs. We should not only listen to the voices of the live chicken industry, the aquaculture industry and the pig raising industry, we should also cater for the interests of sectors comprising a larger number of people engaging in fishing in small vessels or medium and large trawlers. Fairness can only be truly reflected this way.
Just now Mr IP Kin-yuen seemed to say that some people could still be elected though they did nothing were elected because they thought that no one was willing to give up lucrative incomes and became Members which was a tiring work. Is it that easy? I have heard of "parachuting directly elected Members but I have never heard of such a situation in FCs; this is rarely seen. Mr TSE might have tried, but it is rare for FC Members to parachute in other FCs. Each FC Member has certain years of working experience in his industry; to put it bluntly, he has been engaged in careful cultivation. FC Members can represent their industries and they have a real understanding of the operation of the industries concerned. Thus, they can consider major social issues in this Council or in the future Election Committee from the perspectives of their industries, which is most important.
I do not quite understand the logic of some opposition Members. On the one hand, they ask for a wider electorate to avoid criticism, yet, on the other hand, they seek to achieve the ultimate goal of abolishing FCs. If FCs can be optimized so that they are acceptable to the community, why should they be abolished? Mr CHAN Kin-por has just given a thumbs up because many of us do not understand that. How can we continue to discuss this issue in this Council in the future? While their goal is to abolish FCs, they now demand to fine-tune FCs, which is self-contradictory. Is it meaningful to make drastic or patchy amendments to FCs before drawing a conclusion on the retention or abolition of FCs? As a consensus has not been reached in the community at this stage, we should focus on economic and livelihood issues.
Furthermore, why is the operation of this Council so unsmooth? I deeply feel that we have politicized too many livelihood issues while opposition Members have even set economic issues against livelihood issues. However, economic and livelihood issues can be put together to a certain extent, but sometimes political issues should not be closely associated with economic and livelihood issues in order to avoid a dilemma. A case in point is the Innovation 14484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 and Technology Bureau as it is also related to economic and livelihood issues. If you blow up the political issues ― sorry to say so, Mr MOK ― a dilemma will be resulted. While Mr MOK endorses and strongly supports the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, he has taken actions to procrastinate. He has constantly questioned why additional meetings should be held and why the proposal should now be submitted to the Finance Committee but not wait till October as meeting will be convened then.
The reality is that we have placed political issues on top of livelihood and economic issues, resulting in impeded operation. In fact, most FC Members and directly elected Members wish to seek co-operation to facilitate the smooth operation of this Council. If we do not untie the knot in heart, the road ahead will continue to be rough.
I recalled a remark made by the former Commissioner of Police, Andy TSANG. According to him, if we ask kidnappers about the Police-public relations, they would certainly say that the relation is not good. If we apply this to the debate on the Legislative Council election system, we will get the same answer. Even if some people are eligible, they cannot win in the election; and they can still not win no matter how the system has been modified. Of course, it is perfectly normal for them to criticize that the system is inappropriate and to discredit it by all means. The pro-establishment Members, especially FC Members, have to face such kind of attack but we cannot sit still and do nothing, lest their sophistry should over-expand in the community, giving the public a bad impression. Yet, some members of the international community questioned why their countries have not adopted the FC system. We should really understand this system and have confidence in it, and we would like to find out if we could gain international recognition in this regard in the future. This will really become the indisputable international standard then.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the 1 200-member Election Committee and FC elections which have been severely criticized by Members. The reality is that the proposal to increase the number of voters from 1 200 persons to 5 million eligible voters was vetoed by 28 opposing votes. Regardless of whether the pro-establishment camp had "slipped" or whether problems had arisen in the course of operation, the fact that the constitutional reform package was vetoed can absolutely not be changed. This is the most important point. If Members indicated earlier that the issue could be discussed and there were fewer LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14485 than 23 opposing votes, the package could still be passed if we could get 47 supporting votes. We would certainly bear responsible but the most critical issue is that there were 28 opposing votes. Since they refused to discuss, the 1 200-member Election Committee, which has attracted great criticisms, would be preserved. This system is not bad but there is room for improvement, and the situation will come to a standstill.
As we all know, the society is now torn apart and there are people advocating "Hong Kong independence", Members of the opposition camp are not only unyielding, but also adopt the bundling tactics. Even if there is another opportunity to deal with the political issues, I believe the progress will not be satisfactory. We might as well spend more time on economic and livelihood issues, and take a step back. This is the suggestion I would like to make.
Lastly, I hope that pro-establishment Members, especially FC Members, would not be silent victims and tolerate all smearing. We must take the initiative to fire back and give positive energy to the community. We should tell them the real advantages of this system, so that our deeds would accord with our words inside and outside this Council. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, if the constitutional reform package is passed, we will immediately open a can of worms, that is, we will have to deal with the issues of functional constituencies (FCs) and the Legislative Council election. This Bill is very technical and, as pointed out by Mr WONG Yuk-man, the amendments are irrelevant but I still hope that we can, as suggested by Mr Alan LEONG, make use of the subject to put forward our ideas on the issue of FCs.
As a matter of fact, I think the Administration's amendments on FCs are piecemeal in nature and far-fetched, failing to make good use of this opportunity to optimize FCs progressively. However, there are contradictions. Regarding the current exercise of making patchy amendments, many Honourable colleagues from the opposition camp criticized that it is a waste of efforts; but if the Government makes more concrete and significant amendments, I believe the 14486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 opposition party will still raise objecting, saying that optimizing FCs means perpetuating FCs indefinitely. The saying that "heads you win, tails I lose" can be used to described the stance of many Honourable colleagues. They oppose whatever they dislike and demand for its abolition. I am afraid this is also the most serious social issue at present. Should we gradually improve our society in more rational and prudent manners? For instance, although the United Kingdom does not have a formal Basic Law or Charter ― it has the Magna Carta but it only contains basic provisions ― it has modified its system in a very careful, gradual and orderly manner in order to keep up with the times. Or should we choose to learn from France and carry out a revolution in all desperation first, and then adopt a more gentle and prudent approach later? Hong Kong is now facing various difficulties, not knowing which road to take in the future.
President, as Mr Alan LEONG has said, we might as well review the history. If we trace back further in time, we will find that initially, some Members were returned through geographical constituencies by direct elections. The current system has been evolved slowly. These systems are not designed by God, by people who dominated the world in our religions, by wise and distinguished men or by the ancestors of Greece, a country now faced with huge economic difficulties; the systems have been developed gradually. Likewise, during the 19th to 20th century, as some people considered that there were still inadequacies concerning the representativeness of people returned through geographical constituencies, they designed the concept of FCs and introduced the system of proportional representation, which we are all familiar with, so as to allow the expression of non-mainstream views.
President, as you are a senior Member, I believe you are well aware of the most important element of a representative government. I will just talk about the most important factor of representativeness, which indirectly implies the necessity to avoid the factor of manipulation. Hence, any system that can enhance representativeness and reduce manipulation is desirable. On the contrary, any system that cannot enhance representativeness and reduce manipulation is not an advanced system or it cannot keep pace with social development.
Many people criticize that the FC system lacks representativeness, but I think there are two aspects of representativeness. Apart from quantity, quality also counts; it would be best if quantity and quality are both present. We also do LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14487 not understand why the FC system is not readily acceptable as the proportional representation system, especially in European countries or regimes. Mr Alan LEONG has spent a lot of time explaining the difficulties concerned and how we should rationalize or design the system in order to achieve two objectives. The first objective is to persuade people with vested interests to accept the system and hand over their positions and powers; the second and more difficult objective is to determine which industries may have its representatives and how a division should be drawn. Mr Steven HO has just talked about the difficulties faced by the representative of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC. In fact, the implementation of the FC system will inevitably encounter these two problems: vested interests and uneven distribution. This precisely explains why many places, including the United Kingdom, have eventually given up, after consideration, the inclusion of FC representatives to improve the systems; instead, the number of members with FC background in the Upper House will be maximized, so that they can give expert advice in the Upper House. This also highlights another difficulty faced by Hong Kong.
Recently, Mr Clifford HART, Consul General of the United States of America to Hong Kong has, without fearing to arouse suspicion, criticized the failure of the constitutional reform in Hong Kong, using the word "raw". In the United States, the word "raw" means lack of experience and training, that is, something primitive. Indeed, Hong Kong is at a "raw" stage in respect of political awareness and system, and in particular, in respect of culture and political parties. A mature political party should be able to implement democratization within the party and comprise representatives of different sectors, so that the political party would become a small community, fully representing the voices of various sectors in this Council. However, an overview of the political parties in Hong Kong shows ― I am sorry, my criticism may lead to accusations by many people ― that party politics has not reached such a stage that all sectors of the community are represented. Some political parties in Hong Kong have strong representativeness. Some political parties represent the interests of trade unions; some political parties represent the interests of the general public; some political parties represent the interests of the business community; some political parties represent the interests of professionals, especially barristers; some political parties represent the interests of the mega media or paymasters. Yet, we do not have a political party which can sufficiently represent various interests, and we do not have a representative who can balance various interests in the party.
14488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
We have recently visited Germany and found that it has a very explicit system. In addition to direct elections, half of its 598 seats are allocated by quotas to political parties with sufficient representativeness, so that they can elect party members to be members of the parliament. Basically, people elected by the parties should win the seats and they need not face the risk of direct elections. As pointed out by Mr Alan LEONG just now, people from the business sector or people with professional background such as the former Member, Ronald ARCULLI, may not be able to face up to the more brutal culture of direct election. These people have to be nurtured by political parties, and the advantage of nurturing by political parties is that most party members are professionals who have a calmer state of mind. Moreover, more time can be spared in nurturing. An example is the former Member, Dr Margaret NG, whom I have mentioned many times in this Council. I really appreciate her as she adopts a fairly professional and rational perspective, unlike other Honourable colleagues who are also barristers. Probably as these colleagues have gone through several direct elections, they tend to make slogan-type and superficial remarks, and they will also make unnecessary and even irrational comments to attract attention. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages but we cannot deny the problems that we are now facing.
President, I have just discussed the problems of FCs. Fortunately, I have moved from FC election to direct geographical elections; thus, I hope my remarks will not make people think that I want to retain FC seats indefinitely. My stance is in fact is very simple. After years of implementation, the concept of FCs has its merits and demerits but the Government has failed to progressively optimize the FC system in respect of the system implemented, its stance or its handling of political party issues. Instead, it just allows the system to be berated and smeared. I believe members of the public have thought that the FC system is a scourge and cannot be accepted. This is really regretful.
President, in consideration of the current state of the FC system, we must take drastic measures at this critical moment to tackle the issues. If we affirm the representativeness of FCs but acknowledge that they can be manipulated easily, we should strengthen its advantages and reduce its shortcomings; otherwise FCs will soon disappear. The implementation of the FC system has been unsatisfactory for many years there are many negative examples. However, I think it is because we have not brought the advantages into full play LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14489 or fully examined its merits and demerits so as to minimize the shortcomings. We have failed to do justice to the FC system. My stance is that everyone, including the Government, should step up efforts to understand the merits and demerits of FCs, and consider how improvements can be made to enhance its representativeness and reduce the chance of their being manipulated. When the general public fully understands FCs in the future, a decision can be made on the retention of FCs, or the abolition of this system described as scourges by many opposition colleagues. I do not know when that day will come and we may have to make a decision soon.
President, in conclusion, it can be said that this Bill is not moving towards the direction I proposed, and at the same time it reflects that the Government has only focused on the amendments to the method for selecting the Chief Executive without making enough efforts on proposing amendments to the method for forming the Legislative Council or making gradual changes. Certainly, I will not oppose this Bill on this ground because in my view, Hong Kong is a civilized and well-educated society which has absorbed the nutrients of democracy and the rule of law from the United Kingdom for many years, and hence we should have the awareness, cultivation, civilization and culture to gradually improve the reforms in our society. We should not rashly request to repeal the Basic Law or all other legislation or systems as this is not the attitude of the vast majority of Hong Kong people who want our society to remain stable.
President, I now voice my criticism against the election method of FCs. I have also considered that regarding the Legal FC, whether the votes by solicitors or barristers have sufficient representativeness? Why can't we allow people equally committed to the legal profession and have many years of experience to become voters? For example, can legal assistants or company secretaries as defined under the Companies Ordinance with more than 10 years of experience be registered as electors after objective verification, so as to increase the number of electors in the Legal FC to 50 000 or 100 000? Of course, this may not increase the representativeness of FCs. Even in direct geographical elections, the votes for every seat do not have the same value because of the different number of voters in different constituencies. All in all, it is most important to have sufficient representativeness and to minimize manipulation as far as possible.
14490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Nonetheless, a number of FCs, such as the business FC, have relatively lower thresholds; people can go into business upon completion of business registration. If all business people can become representatives, will the original intent when designing the system be weakened, making the operation of the system difficult? These are the issues that must be considered and we inevitably need to consider how we can cope with the constitutional reform. The constitutional reform in Hong Kong is still at a very "raw" stage while the systems in the United Kingdom and the United States have gradually evolved over a period of several centuries. Actually, the words "political parties" are not found in the Constitution of the United States and the political party system has been gradually nurtured. Politically, Hong Kong is currently at the infancy stage but this does not mean that we can do nothing. I think we should act with caution and adopt the mode of the United Kingdom, instead of the brutal mode of France or the mode of the third word or developing countries where a democratic election system exists in name only. In the absence of an appropriate culture, the relevant system will be ineffective and it can hardly be maintained.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, after hearing the speeches of a number of Members, in particular Mr Steven HO from your party, I feel the need to speak out in response. Mr HO said that many countries in the world are observing how this distinctive functional constituency (FC) system in Hong Kong can be introduced into their countries to enhance governance. I would like to humbly ask Mr Steven HO which countries are examining how FCs can be introduced into their systems for the development of democratic governance. Can he tell us? As far as I know, there is no such country.
Instead, the United Kingdom considered reforming the House of Lords system in 1999. The House of Lords was the house of aristocrats and appointed members had discussed how to carry out a reform. As we all know, the FC system was introduced into Hong Kong during the British-Hong Kong era, and I do not know why today so many people are still clinging to that system after the reunification. The system was introduced because the people in power did not want Hong Kong people to have democracy. So, they hypocritically pretended to carry out a liberal reform, turning FCs into organizations with vested interest which would perpetuate indefinitely. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14491
Firstly, I would like to point out that the FC system is not that good and it is just a bomb left behind by the British during the British-Hong Kong era. Today, 18 years after the reunification, are there any problems for us to talk about the abolition of FCs and the election of all Legislative Council Members by genuine universal suffrage on the basis of "one person, one vote" in direct geographical elections? These are the problems that we have to face, is that right? If Members have any views, they should not deny pan-democratic Members' criticisms against FCs but should instead review this product of the British-Hong Kong era.
When a reform of the House of Lords was debated in the United Kingdom in 1999, it was suggested that the implementation of the FC system was unfeasible. They had considered the questions raised by Mr Paul TSE earlier, that is, how to optimize and enhance the representativeness of FCs, as well as how to reduce the manipulation of FCs. They had indeed examined these issues and had prepared some consultation papers and research reports that covered hundreds of pages; yet, the FC system was eventually considered unfeasible. They said that from the problems in Hong Kong, they clearly saw that they should not introduce into the United Kingdom this FC freak that they produced.
While the United Kingdom has exported a freak, we are singing the praise of it, just like what Mr CHAN Kin-por is doing. Singing praises or making criticisms is not an issue. I really respect his personal feelings and I believe he has to speak out his grievances when being berated. I understand his discontent but we should also understand that the FC system is a hypocritical fraud.
How can we beautify FCs on this basis? That is not possible. Although some places in the world have adopted systems similar to the FC system, they fail to give full play to FCs. For example, in Slovenia, a republic previously belonged to the Republic of Yugoslavia, the seats with FC elements in the parliament were not abolished after its independence. Nevertheless, Members who have taken up seats with FC elements seldom have meetings; they just play an advisory role and do not have real power. If truly democratic countries such as the United Kingdom and Slovenia, members of the parliament are directly elected, the governments have sufficient recognition and representativeness because their election systems will not be manipulated at all.
14492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Unlike what Mr Paul TSE has said, these countries will not temporarily retain FC seats pending cultural development and the slow discussion on how to promote democracy. In fact, the democratization movements in many places will not lead to bloodshed but will go through a peaceful evolution process. Yet, their pursuit and aspiration for democracy are resolute and the development is speedy without having to wait for a long period of time. According to them, after the implementation of parliamentary democracy, party politics, the relations between the executive authorities and the legislature, and the relations between the ruling parties and the opposition parties will be developed. They may stumble in the process but the pace of development is rapid and long wait is unnecessary. There are no objective indicators as regards whether political parties have become more democratic and whether they are prepared to become the ruling parties. We have to learn in practice. This is an essential stage of democratization in places around the world, and oddly, many excuses are given in Hong Kong, saying that we are not ready in many aspects. Thus, this election system which is unequal and not universal should be preserved.
Just now, a FC Member said that he has to defend his dignity and sing praise to FCs. He then made an unfounded remark that various places of the world are learning from Hong Kong. He is really talking nonsense. If they say that FC Members have excellent performance in this Council, I need not argue with them. I would like to ask Honourable colleagues to read the report of the Catholic Monitors on Legislative Councillors. The report sets out the performance and attendance of individual Members, as well as the performance of Members returned from FCs and from geographical constituencies by direct election in various aspects, including the questions they raised, the number of times they spoke and voted, their voting inclinations, their failure to vote or their absence.
Year after year, the reports reveals an objective fact that directly elected Members engaged more seriously in politics than FC Members and they strived for excellence of this Council. Therefore, Members should not be hypocritical and self-deceptive, making casual comments to defend themselves. In fact, under the existing system, not only FCs, the relations between the executive authorities and the legislature as well as governance are problematic, with all kinds of inadequacies. FC Members cannot save the planet, and I dare not say that directly elected Members can save the planet. We have yet to get a clear answer about a review of the entire system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14493
Some Honourable colleagues have said, "Thank you for vetoing the proposal on the 2017 Chief Executive Election; as such, FCs will perpetuate indefinitely." In fact, this is a very hypocritical comment. If FC Members also think that FCs should not perpetuate indefinitely, they should voice their views on reform and tell us how changes can be made to the FC system, so that it can be in line with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, enable us to have an election by universal and equal suffrage, as well as an universal and equal right to stand for election, the right to vote and to be elected. We are actually evading the core of the problem and shifting responsibilities onto 28 Legislative Council Members striving for genuine universal suffrage. FC Members do not have any ideas or they have not offered any ideas. Even if the fake Chief Executive election by universal suffrage can be implemented in 2017, when we discuss the formation of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020, they would say that the community has not reached a consensus on how to broaden the composition of FCs. In that case, FCs should continue to exist or it may be proposed that some FCs may adopt a screening method by first selecting two to three candidates by certain bodies of FCs to be elected by more members of the bodies. In this way, the system will be regarded as having optimized.
Nonetheless, this problem does not happen in 2015. Before the reunification, we already criticized the British government for giving us these things in the 80s, and wonder how they could be abolished, evolved and changed in the future? The British had left Hong Kong and they certainly did not bother about us. At present, FC Members are still defending the system, showing strong support to the "handicapped system" left behind by the British-Hong Kong Government.
President, these FCs with vested interests are constantly bragging, making various excuses to ensure that they will perpetuate indefinitely. They are totally shameless. They talk about the pursuit of democracy but they put vested interests and the survival of groups in the first place at the crucial moment. Are they not preserving FCs? In an article I wrote a few years ago, I mentioned that if FCs were considered so important, this Council should be returned to Hong Kong people, with all Members returned by direct elections. The 30 or more FC seats should be included in the Executive Council and become part of the Executive Council. This can be done and FC Members would be satisfied. As members of the Executive Council, they could influence and lobby the Government and fight for their rights.
14494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
This Council should belong to all Hong Kong people and all seats should be returned by Hong Kong people by "one person, one vote" in an equal, fair, open and impartial manner. It would be useless to distort the existing arrangements for FCs. From the views raised on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015, we know that FCs are not clearly delineated. How come a certain group can join an FC while another group cannot? Mr MA Fung-kwok queried why a certain group joined the Insurance FC for no reason. Explanations should be made. When some groups want to join an FC, the Government requires them to make important contributions to that FC but these contributions cannot be quantified.
I do not understand why some Honourable colleagues from the Education FC can vote but some others cannot. The authorities cannot explain that. When we want to get more information, the authorities said that privacy is involved or there are restrictions under other ordinances on elections, so they have no comment. When we take a look at the register of electors at election time, we do not know why one person can vote while another person cannot though they are from the same university. Some tertiary institutions are going through a transformation; for example, the City University of Hong Kong is merging with an Australian university and the School of Continuing and Professional Education is going through a transformation. Can people working in these institutions vote? God knows. Of course, I believe they will fight for the right to vote and the right to speak. Nevertheless, why do some people have to surmount numerous difficulties and overcome adversities before they can vote in elections? Such arrangements and ideas have definitely exposed the corrupt practices and defects of the governing system, the parliamentary system and the system for the Chief Executive election in Hong Kong.
We have considered how to optimize FCs but all the proposals we made have been rejected because a consensus has not been reached. In the last-term Legislative Council, some pan-democratic colleagues proposed amendments to the Chief Executive Election (Amendment) Bill 2010 and the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2010, so as to broaden the electorate and remove some unreasonable restrictions. These were very rational proposals but they had all been rejected. We had given FC Members the opportunities to tell Hong Kong people through their words and deeds that they had seriously considered how to reform FCs. Yet, the proposals had been rejected under the separate voting system. Therefore, they could not possibly convince us. They declared that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14495 changes should be made to the FC system and pursued the formation of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, but there is a total lack of sincerity after all. They are now putting the blame on other people and shifting the responsibilities onto us.
Do FC Members have independent thinking? Mr CHAN Kin-por has just made very serious remarks. Many people may not have a clear picture merely by observing the daily operation of this Council. Nonetheless, when the constitutional reform package was put to vote on 18 June, they saw that some Members had independent thinking while some left this Chamber following the "class perfect". They did not have time to find out what happened, and in a split second, they just left the Chamber, like ducklings following the mother duck. Is this the so-called "independent thinking"?
We have to criticize and review this system, and we have to know which parts of this system cannot be changed. Since changes are not possible, the only thing we should do is to consider when all FC seats can be abolished, so as to return the Council and its power to Hong Kong people. This is the core of this debate, which is a follow-up constitutional reform debate after the voting on 18 June. I believe Secretary Raymond TAM and Chief Secretary Carrie LAM know that such disputes are inevitable, and there is no need to wait for the next-term Government. We should properly deal with these issues now.
I so submit.
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 Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to reply. This debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous 14496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bills Committee) and its members for their efforts in the past two months, so that the deliberations on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 can be completed smoothly.
President, in the debate that lasted over three hours, a number of Members have, let me quote the words of Mr Alan LEONG, made use of the subject to put forward their own ideas. I reiterate that the Government has followed the consistent practice of the previous election cycles to introduce the Bill and make technical amendments to the specific arrangements for the Legislative Council election in 2016. In my speech when I moved the Second Reading debate, I already introduced in detail these technical amendments. However, as the remarks made by a few Members today are related to the Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to respond briefly.
President, at the Bills Committee meetings, some Members mentioned how the requests made by individual groups for joining functional constituencies (FCs) should be handled. In accordance with the established practice, the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments are consulted before each Legislative Council general election to review whether the delineation of the electorate of FCs under the Legislative Council Ordinance needs to be adjusted. Requests from bodies for inclusion into or deletion from FCs, or change of names of the bodies, and so on received since the last review will also be considered. We propose to maintain in the Bill the original delineation of the electorate of FCs and only the required technical amendments should be made for the 2016 Legislative Council election. The proposals in the Bill are drawn up after consulting the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments and taking into consideration their comments. In line with past practice, we will inform the relevant bodies of the outcome of their requests after completion of the relevant legislative exercise.
I have noted the request of Mr IP Kwok-him that the SAR Government should enhance the transparency and efficiency of the relevant procedures when handling future applications. We will carefully consider Mr IP Kwok-him's views in this regard. I note that a few Members have made relevant comments, and these comments will also be considered.
President, Mr Charles Peter MOK mentioned a media report some time ago about an organization recommending members to join the specified body of the Information Technology FC and the sponsorship of membership fees, I would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14497 like to respond briefly. In April, the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) issued letters to the relevant specified body (the association), asking it to provide information on the allegations concerned. The association stated in its written reply dated 28 April this year that it has not received any application for membership as recommended by the foundation, and the association would examine and approve the applications in accordance with the approval procedures and membership eligibility.
President, Mr MA Fung-kwok referred to the registration by an association in the printing industry as an elector of the FC. Under the Legislative Council Ordinance, if a person is eligible to be registered as an elector in one of the four special FCs, namely Heung Yee Kuk, Agriculture and Fisheries, Insurance and Transport, the person can only be registered as an elector of that special FC, unless he or she is eligible for registration in the District Council (First) FC. As the association in the printing industry mentioned by Mr MA Fung-kwok is an association of underwriters approved by the Insurance Authority under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41) to carry on insurance business, it fulfils the eligibility to be registered as an elector of the Insurance FC under the Legislative Council Ordinance. Therefore, unless the association is no longer an association of underwriters approved by the Insurance Authority under the Insurance Companies Ordinance to carry on insurance business, it can only continue to be registered as an elector of the Insurance FC and it cannot be registered as an elector of another FC.
Mr IP Kin-yuen expressed his views on the eligible electors of the Education FC. Regarding the different interpretations of "full-time academic staff engaged in teaching or research and administrative staff of equivalent rank", we agreed at the Bills Committee meetings that the institutions concerned should draw up their respective lists of eligible staff for registration in the Education FC in accordance with the relevant provisions in the light of their actual circumstances. Individual staff members who are dissatisfied with the relevant decisions could lodge claims with the authorities concerned, which would be dealt with through the established channel. Regarding Mr IP Kin-yuen's request for a list of staff that are eligible for registration, we have also discussed at the Bills Committee meetings. Since the provision of the Electoral Affairs Commission Regulation stipulates that information obtained may only be used for the purpose of preparing a register or in specified occasions or legal proceedings; the REO is thus not in a position to disclose the requested information.
14498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill and hope that Members could support and pass the Bill, so that the relevant changes can be made as early as possible in the 2015-2016 annual voter registration cycle.
President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr WONG Yuk-man rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14499
Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.
Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 50 Members present, 30 were in favour of the motion and 19 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): The Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015.
14500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 19.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 19 stand part of the Bill.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung indicated a wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have put the question to you and just now, I have given sufficient time for Members to indicate a wish to speak. Members should develop better habits in requesting to speak.
Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr WONG Yuk-man rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14501
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.
Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 51 Members present, 31 were in favour of the motion and 19 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.
Council then resumed.
14502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Third Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2015
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, the
Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 has passed through the Committee stage without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have a bad habit. I have just received a WhatsApp message, asking me not to raise my hands but to press the "Request to speak" button, so I tried to press the button but it turns out that the button cannot be pressed. Is the WhatsApp message sent by you? As I have this habit, there is a WhatsApp message asking me to do so, it is the WhatsApp message that I behave like that …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, although it is your habit to make up stories, please make up a story that is related to the subject. In the Third Reading debate, Members should explain why they support or oppose the Bill.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I know stories are about things of the past.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14503
In short, I resolutely oppose the Bill. Even though the authorities said that the miscellaneous amendments proposed would optimize the legislation, many issues have remained unresolved. Let me give a simple example. An association in the printing industry can only be registered as an elector of the Insurance functional constituency (FC). Has Secretary Raymond TAM made any amendment? He has not. To be honest, if he has not done so, I do not know how Mr MA Fung-kwok would vote later. Is this something prepared in advance, just like overnight pork dumplings?
All Members lodging complaints here are treated like fools by the Government. Why do we have to pass the Bill? This proves that the term "miscellaneous amendments" does not reflect the reality. Miscellaneous amendments should be made to the Bill, that is, to correct mistakes and guard against making mistakes. President, was this how you teach students when you were a principal? You asked a student to go to the principal's office to give him a dressing-down, you then told him that you were not directing against him, he should, upon hearing what you said, make improvements if there were problems; and if there were no problems, he should take it as a kind of encouragement.
Buddy, this is what happens now. In this dignified Chamber, Members from the pro-establishment camp raised some issues ― in fact, the amendments to FCs are related to the pro-establishment camp and it has nothing to do with me ― it that too much for them? The Government relies on their "iron votes" but they said to Secretary Raymond TAM, "There is something wrong with the windscreen of our car, can you help us wipe the windscreen if you are not going to give us a new car?" He answered no.
President, I am actually speaking for others. I notice that in the relevant paper, the points about Secretary Raymond TAM are unreasonable. Let me give an example; as stated in paragraph 13 of the paper and I quote "Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan considered that all the bodies concerned fulfil the said criteria. They have also expressed dissatisfaction that the Administration has not included these bodies in the relevant FCs without giving any explanation." (End of quote). Buddy, has Raymond TAM given any explanation? I do not think so.
The discussions about the Bill fully exposed the corruption of FCs. Mr CHAN Kin-por has repeatedly suggested that FCs should perpetuate indefinitely. Buddy, if such a humble request made by the pro-establishment 14504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 camp has to be defended by FCs, how can Secretary Raymond TAM show contempt, is this really bad? He also mentioned that the current-term Government would not propose any miscellaneous amendments, because the opposition camp had obstructed the implementation of "2017: Make it happen!", he would thus be doomed. What else can be done?
The legislative exercise on the Bill proves once again that the FC system is one of the systems in Hong Kong, and it is impossible for the Legislative Council to make any changes. President, I can make a reasonable inference: in the "2017: Make it happen!" campaign, most FC Members actually do not want changes. President, you should be familiar with the expression: "holding the Quotations in their hands, saying long live in their mouths, stabbing you in the back"; that is how things are. If the 2017 fake universal suffrage proposal of the Communist Party is passed, the Communist Party should at least reform FCs, right? Will changes be made to the privileges enjoyed by most incumbent FC Members under the current corrupt system?
President, a sage (I cannot announce his name) told me, "Long Hair", don't be silly, how could the Communist Party oppose changes? Opposing changes is a tool used by the Communist Party, and this tool has allowed them to enjoy various privileges and benefits since 1997. If the Communist Party makes changes, they will be doomed.
I can say that Chief Secretary Carrie LAM is a fool. In fact, I am not the one who opposed her, and those who opposed her fear that changes will be imposed in 2017, be it genuine or fake …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed from the subject.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How have I digressed from the subject?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I just mentioned, this is the Third Reading debate, you should explain why you support or oppose the Bill.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14505
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am now saying that I oppose the Bill and I point out that this kind of change is bogus. I just want to explain in detail that the change is bogus not because Raymond TAM is hypocritical, but because he has failed to make changes though it is obviously reasonable to do so for the sake of giving out political rewards in 2017, right?
President, is Secretary Raymond TAM a fool? I think he is not a fool. Is Secretary Raymond TAM an unreasonable person? He is not. Why then does he refuse to take forward the proposals made by his allies? Have I digressed from the subject? I just want to explain that the proposed miscellaneous amendments are actually ears drawn on the wall, which are useless. President, to be honest, if the Bill is useless, would you pass it? I will not pass it.
I would also like to hear Mr CHAN Kin-por elaborate his "theory of omnipotent FCs" but I must reiterate that FCs must be reformed and replaced by party politics.
Many voters think that the existing proportional representation system in Hong Kong is not desirable because it allows a small number of people to join the Legislative Council and create trouble. Changes should be carried out. President, it seems that you had also mentioned this point before. Before becoming the President, you had also said that amendments should be made and directly elected Members should work in the community for the public. What is the other political functional body? It is a political party.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
A functional body formed for fair election is a political party. A political party will tell everyone through its platform the policies and measures advocated and it will call upon electors to support it. Once this political party wins the election, it will arrange the best party member to take up a seat. Is this not an improvement? This can prevent the occurrence of incidents described by Mr CHAN Kin-por, right?
Chief Secretary, if a political party is a political functional body ― for instance, a political party called the Labour Party serves workers ― electors may 14506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 vote for it after listening to its platform. Is this not a functional body? This point is clear enough. Such functional bodies are entirely different from the existing FCs. We do not know a lot about the delineation of FCs and they are like demons and ghosts.
Many royalist Members in this Council do not know that functional bodies are actually political parties or bodies similar to political parties in electoral politics or parliamentary politics. We should also make changes so that half of the seats will be returned by direct geographical elections and another half will be reserved for political functional bodies, that is, political parties, so that they can make use of their platforms to win the votes of electors.
A lot of people queried how capable members of professional bodies can become Members to serve the public. Simply put, they can join a political party or form a "wealthy party", right? They can then say that they belong to a "wealthy party" or a conservative party. Mr Paul TSE, they have indicated that they are conservative; can't I vote for a conservative party? There are different factions within a conservative party ― Chinese people are most hypocritical ― we are united and we form parties and factions. Everybody knows that Chris PATTEN from the Conservative Party conspired to overthrow Mrs Margaret THATCHER; otherwise, he would not be sent to Hong Kong …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the President has already reminded you that in the Third Reading debate, you should only explain why you support or oppose the Bill. You should not express other views during the debate, those views should be expressed during the Second Reading debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): These are the reasons why I do not support the Bill. Do you mean I just have to stand up and say that I do not support the Bill?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please focus on the question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14507
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, are you saying that when Legislative Council Members speak during the Third Reading debate on the Bill, they can simply indicate whether they support the Bill or not. Should we say: I support the Bill because I am a royalist or I do not support the Bill because I belong to the opposition camp? It should not be like that, that is why I have to explain why I do not support the Bill. The direction of the reform is wrong. I was interrupted by you while I was delivering my remarks.
If we really want to reform, we have to establish the status of political parties but the Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive cannot be a party member. Deputy President, have they taken the wrong medicine, do they have a fever? Under this constraint, we cannot act like other democratic countries. Mr Paul TSE has just mentioned France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and so on. In all these countries, political parties try to win power in order to implement their platforms and their platforms must be beneficial to the people. The party elected by the people will be the ruling party for four years; they will be replaced if their performance is unsatisfactory, and they have to wait for the next chance to rule. We should develop in the direction of having an election with functional bodies.
You often say that there are so many disturbing voices and ordinary people do not know how to choose, right? This is what we have to do. During the whole process, have we moved in this direction? On the contrary, the authorities intend to allow the continual existence of the FC system which countenances evil practices and should not have existed in politics, how can I give it my support? I cannot do so.
If the authorities have a specific direction, things will work out. For example, some FC seats will be designated in the next-term Legislative Council for the Taiwan-style non-regional election. In other words, members of the public would know that the implementation of universal suffrage is not just an empty talk. This should be done in a more rational way, winning the votes by virtue of platforms rather than family background, money, social networks, and so on.
Mr CHAN Kin-por does not understand that. If the candidates are rightist like Ronald REAGAN or Mrs Margaret THATCHER, they would attack labour unions once they are in power as they have put that down on their platforms. 14508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Another example is the Coalition of the Radical Left in Greece. Once it assumed power, it demanded delinking from euro, but delinking is not possible now, so the Coalition has little chance of being re-elected. That will certainly be the result and signs of internal dissensions. A coup d'état is in the pipeline and most cabinet members will leave. Indeed, this is the governance by the popular mandate. A person cannot just proclaim that he is a professional and is much better than the others.
Professionals have their specific expertise. If someone is a doctor, will I, "Long Hair", argue with him? If I go to see a doctor for chest pain, I would definitely not argue with him if he wants me to undergo examinations. It is enough for professionals to make contributions in their specific areas. Should we ask professionals to provide free service? In the first allocation, they already got their entitled rewards. Why should they be given more privileges in the second allocation of power and resources? Have they gone out of their mind?
Professionals have already contributed to society while they receive professional training and work for society. They can also carry out lobbying work through pressure groups. This is the best practice in the so-called democratic countries. May I ask why some Members in this Council do not have to participate in elections and can get a seat, while we have to tire ourselves out for the election? I simply cannot support the Bill. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, during the Third Reading debate, I would like to talk about my voting intention and make some points related to the Bill.
As I have mentioned, I request to revise the eligibility of three bodies in the Information Technology functional constituency (FC), and add six bodies to the FC, in particular the three bodies that are now in the FC. In fact, all I request is to make some changes in wording so as to rationalize the request of electors and to tie in with the actual operation. I may need to explain, but as Mr SIN Chung-kai had already done so during the Second Reading debate; I will now try to be brief. In 2007, the Institution of Engineering and Technology Hong Kong (IET HK) and the Professional Information Security Association (PISA) came to the Legislative Council and requested for making the same changes. The IET LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14509
HK wanted to delete the existing provision that members ought to be registered as a Chartered Engineer of the Engineering Council United Kingdom to be eligible to be an elector. About 1 400 members have not applied to be registered as Chartered Engineers of the Engineering Council United Kingdom, because not everyone has the need to make such registration, but that does not mean they do not have professional qualifications. All of them are degree holders and have many years of working experience. Yet, the Government still refuses to make changes.
About 10 years ago, IET's main office in the United Kingdom made some amendments on membership criteria, consequently giving rise to the existing problem. In making the corresponding amendments, the Government will screen away in disguise some professionals from the IET HK. However, the Government has so far refused to deal with the matter, without giving reasons or explanations.
About the PISA, it is stipulated in the legislation that members must obtain the certification of professional qualifications within the relevant period, and they have to wait four more years before becoming electors. They have Certified Information Systems Security professional qualifications …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, such comments should be made during the Second Reading debate or during the debate on the question that the relevant clauses stand part of the Bill.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, please let me go on, I will finish soon …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): At the Third Reading debate, Members should only explain their voting intentions and they should not make other comments as what you just did.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I am now going to explain why these people are not included as electors despite having the qualifications …
14510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, you should explain the questions relating to voter eligibility at the Second Reading debate, please organize your speech.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, you have to be fair. How come Mr LEUNG is allowed to make lengthy speech while I cannot make comments? I only need a few more minutes …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, let me remind you again, according to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure on the Third Reading debate, it is stipulated that the debate on the motion that the bill be read the Third time and do pass shall be confined to the contents of the bill and no amendment may be moved to the motion. Members shall not repeat at the Third Reading debate the comments already made at the Second Reading debate.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have not repeated.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The comments you just made should be made at the Second Reading debate, please be concise.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is very unfair; you allowed Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to talk about FCs but I cannot say anything about FCs now.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not unfair; I only act in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The President's ruling may not be debated.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14511
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount according the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY 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)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please continue with your speech.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I also know that Members should speak on the contents of the Bill at the Third Reading debate, so I would all along speak on the contents of the Bill.
Deputy President, concerning the reasons why I oppose the Bill, in addition to the two associations mentioned just now, there is another association which has not been mentioned, and it is the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. Under the existing Ordinance, Fellows, Members and Graduate Members of the Division can be registered as electors of the Information Technology FC. However, between Members and Graduate Members, there is another class of members called Associate Members which has been ignored in the Ordinance. Last year, the Division revealed to me that there were 220 Associate Members. The situation was that among the four classes of A, B, C and D, A, B and D can be registered as electors but C in the middle cannot.
Furthermore, another reason why I oppose the Bill is that, in addition to these three bodies, six other bodies also relayed to me that they would like to join the FC but only one body succeeded, and it is the Information Security and Forensics Society (ISFS) as mentioned in the Bill. Although the Society has a relatively small membership, it is well qualified professionally. However, the other five bodies are unable to join the FC, and they include the IT Service Management Forum Hong Kong Chapter whose members are information technology systems management specialists, the Hong Kong Retail Technology 14512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Industry Association, the Chamber of Hong Kong Computer Industry Co. Ltd. and the Hong Kong Electronic Industries Association. These three associations have worked with the Government for many years in organizing joint industry activities and have received government funding, but the Government has not accede to their requests and has not given any explanations. The last body is the Government Information Technology Professionals Association (GITPA) and all its members are government information technology professionals. There are more than 2 000 civil servants engaging in information technology and the Government should be well aware of the professional standards of these civil servants. Yet, the Government has not taken that into consideration or given any explanations. This is how the Government deals with professional civil servants.
The Government has unreasonably handled the requests for joining FCs, and my only explanation is that the Government and the pro-establishment camp want to maintain control over FCs, especially professional FCs. The only thing I can do is to express my views and put them on record. Besides telling Honourable colleagues that we oppose FCs and we think that they should be abolished, we also want the public to take a closer look at how the Government strengthens its control over FCs, especially professional FCs. Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the People Power opposes the Third Reading of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 (the Bill) for a rather simple reason: The amendments regarding electoral legislation proposed in the Bill basically fail to suit the remedy to the case. This political system is suffering from terminal cancer, but the herbal tea prescribed by the Government completely fails to target the problems exposed in the legislation. In the 18 years after the reunification, the political system, the composition of the Government and this Council, as well as the problems arising from the original sin of functional constituencies (FCs) have aroused widespread grievances among members of the public. In particular, the Umbrella Revolution had given rise to opposing views and social dissension, and all these problems are attributed to this political system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14513
Therefore, after the constitutional reform package proposed by the constitutional reform trio was vetoed by an overwhelming majority of 28 to 8, we shall draw a lesson from the bitter experience. Deputy President, this is a historical record. I do not care if Honourable colleagues were waiting for "Uncle Fat", or waiting for "Hulk" to speak or whatsoever, the result was that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong vetoed the constitutional reform package by an overwhelming majority of 28 to 8. As the package had been vetoed, should the relevant electoral legislation and amendments be withdrawn and handle afresh? In Taiwan, the front page headline of a newspaper was "victory of Hong Kong people", followed by a report that the constitutional reform package put forward by the Communist Party of China was vetoed in Hong Kong by the Legislative Council by a 28:8 majority. Should the Government conduct a review? This Bill was introduced nearly at the same time as the vetoing of the constitutional reform package by a 28:8 majority; as the package was vetoed by such an overwhelming majority … There are 70 Members in the Legislative Council but only eight of them supported the constitutional reform package put forward by the Government under the framework laid down by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) on 31 August. Should the responsible government officials take the blame and resign en masse? Should LEUNG Chun-ying commit hara-kiri? Should the royalist Members bow and step down?
The amendments on elections as proposed in the Bill have entirely ignored current social issues, paying no heed to the problems created by this system as well as the problems of social dissension caused by the fact that the original sin of FCs has lasted 18 years. Owing to the existence of FCs, many decisions made by this Council have distorted public opinions and popular sentiments. FCs take up only 40% of the votes but they control 60% of the votes in this Council. Thus, public opinions and popular sentiments have been distorted time and again over the past 18 years. Eventually, social dissension and confrontations failed to be handled and resolved in this Council, and they have to be resolved politically and socially.
Deputy President, why do we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill? Why do we have to vote against the Bill at the Third Reading? When a system fails to deal with social problems and the views of the masses, it must be reviewed and reformed. The Communist Party has been ruling the Mainland for many years in a feudalistic and dictatorial manner, and repeated discussions will be made 14514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 within the Party when dealing with public opinion issues. For instance, for reports to be published by the NPC or decisions to be made by the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau, a long period of time will be spent on internal deliberations and struggles, and solutions will be drawn before passing over to the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau or the NPC for endorsement. However, it is not the case in Hong Kong. It has been 18 years since the reunification; politically, the Government makes the final say with regard to the formulation of many policies. The most obvious case is the licensing issue of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited. When a system fails to handle certain important issues and the decisions made under the system go against public views and arouse public indignation, the system has serious defects and shortcomings. The Government fails to make rectification or improvements by the current legislative amendments; instead it aggravates certain bad practices and intensifies the original sin, leading to society being torn further apart. When seeing the continuous existence of this system and the worsening social dissension, if Members still support the Bill, they will push society towards radical dissension.
The royalist Members show no concern about this situation. The reason is simple enough; they can get benefits from the system. Why have so many smart and wise royalist Members turned a blind eye to these problems? This is because they put their personal interests above everything. Take a look at the royalist Members, they are so smartly dressed, even the young Members who do not have a business background drive Porsche sports cars. Buddy, they drive Porsche sports cars after serving as Members for a few years. I am not sure how many years young people in society have to work to get to that stage. Obviously, for those rich and powerful Members, not only they get the benefit, their family members or those around them may also gain some benefits through certain political relations.
Why do we strongly oppose the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau? It is because we do not believe that this system can really promote economic development through the policies on innovation and technology. In the end, the bigwigs will abuse power for personal gains. Even before the establishment of the Policy Bureau, the Under Secretary was designated and agreements had been signed. Owing to nepotism, the descendants of someone will be benefited. This is the problem caused by a corrupt system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14515
Deputy President, they will finally be in trouble. Royalist Members are now enjoying wealth and high positions but no one would be spared when the struggles become drastic.
Deputy President, regarding the Bill, I have to point out clearly that there will be further harm and further degradation of Hong Kong, and society will be more seriously torn apart. However, in this Chamber which is manipulated and remotely controlled by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, it is all about pressing buttons in the end. The outcome of pressing buttons is that FCs with the original sin will continue to exit, and the bigwigs will continue to manipulate this Council, the Chief Executive election and the operation of the Government; consequently, the abuse of power for personal gains will intensify.
Hence, the People Power strongly opposes the Third Reading of the Bill.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Article 68 of the Basic Law clearly provides that the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. Therefore, in considering whether we should support this Bill be read the Third time and do pass, the first question we have to ask is: Has the Bill complied with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, such that the election process of and method for forming the Legislative Council would be directed towards the ultimate aim of electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage?
Obviously, from the phenomenon described by Mr Charles Peter MOK and the contents of the Bill scrutinized by us, we fail to see that the Bill could implement or realize the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Surely, many Honourable colleagues or pro-establishment Members would say that this is attributed to our vetoing of the constitutional reform package. Nevertheless, please do not forget that there were only eight votes in support of the constitutional reform package. The pan-democratic camp has explicitly told Hong Kong people that we would vote down the constitutional reform package by a majority of votes for the package was about fake universal suffrage. Under 14516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 such circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to examine how the ultimate aim of forming the Legislative Council by universal suffrage can be achieved under certain constraints. One of the possibilities should be expanding the electorate of functional constituencies (FCs); yet, we fail to see from this Bill how we can significantly expand the electorate.
In fact, what is the purpose of establishing a political system? A political system is established for resolving social contradictions, it should not be maintained and perpetuated indefinitely. Seeing that the political system has failed to resolve social contradictions more than 10 years after the reunification, we cannot help asking how the situation can be further perfected and improved. Certainly, the pan-democrats naturally think that we must begin with the political system, this is why we have been requesting for the selection of the Chief Executive and the formation of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.
Some may consider that a democratic system will necessarily drive society towards populism and they always quote Europe, the United States and Greece as examples to illustrate this point, claiming that this will certainly be the outcome of a democratic society. However, the question is: to resolve social conflicts, the ultimate power should be returned to the people and the people should be allowed to make decisions. Their decisions can be right or wrong but the system allows people to rectify the decisions made. If we have no trust in the people and then say that a system should be set up under which members belonging to FCs or people with knowledge and insights can be elected as members of this Council through small circle elections, so as to offer advice for the sake of our society, this is in essence a distrust of the decisions of the people.
In fact, why does a political system need the authorization of political parties or the people? That is because in the authorization process, people with different political views have to face each member of the public, trying to win their mandate and acceptance, as well as incorporating their views into their platforms. Just imagine, LEUNG Chun-ying raised many issues in his manifesto during the Chief Executive election and some of these issues had the support of members of the public. Nevertheless, there were only 1 200 electors in the election and only 689 votes supported him. No matter how he puts it, he still has an original sin, in the sense of political science. How can he tell people that his manifesto are widely accepted or recognized by the public? Even if his manifesto is widely accepted or recognized by the public, he cannot escape the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14517 challenges imposed by people with different views on his manifesto. This is because the presence of such an original sin in politics prevents our political system from becoming a platform for resolving social conflicts.
Many Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp cited the example of Greece in their speeches. During the election in Greece, a left-wing political party was elected. In the recent referendum, people even opted for non-acceptance of the European Union's stance on debt restructuring. However, they eventually have to face the political situation and the Greek Government has to think of ways to clear up the mess. This tells us that in a democratic system, if a person whom, out of our expectation, is elected, he has to face the political situation, unlike what is happening now that he can hide under the political system, claiming that he has nothing to do with all the decisions made. Such a political situation will intensify social conflicts and also drive our society towards an idling situation.
I oppose this Bill because, firstly, it cannot realize the principle of gradual and orderly progress and has not mentioned that FCs will be fully abolished later. We fail to see how we can ultimately achieve the aim of electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.
Secondly, it has all along been suggested that if the Chief Executive can be selected by universal suffrage, a reform of the Legislative Council can be carried out. However, if a reform of the Legislative Council is based on fake universal suffrage where the general public can only make a choice after a screening process, the same logic will also apply to a reform of FCs in the Legislative Council. This makes us more worried that the system may not be able to resolve social conflicts as the Chief Executive and FCs are elected by fake universal suffrage with a screening process. This is not what we would like to see.
Therefore, the Democratic Party will clearly indicate our opposition at the Third Reading of the Bill because we are of the view that the Bill does not comply with the provisions of the Basic Law. It cannot realize the principle of gradual and orderly progress and has not suggested any paths or made any promise that FCs would eventually be abolished. It has also failed to expressly state that the amendments to the electoral legislation can better resolve social conflicts. The phenomenon cited by Mr Charles Peter MOK indicates that the 14518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Government only intends to make use of the electorate and electoral arrangements of FCs to manipulate the outcome of the FC election. On this basis, we oppose this Bill. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a quorum is not present.
DEPUTY 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)
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before stating whether I support the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 and the justifications, I must clearly present my view on functional constituencies (FCs).
Last week, a friend from the insurance sector gave me a call, and said that after listening to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung speaking for 15 minutes for the first time, he basically did not know what Mr LEUNG was saying. Even if Mr LEUNG speaks nonsense, he also has his supporters. I am not fussy about that, but if his remarks are related to the insurance sector or FCs, I must point out the absurdity of his remarks. During the Second Reading debate a while ago, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung made some remarks. If we compare the speeches of these two Members, it is obvious who is better. I may not agree with the contents of Mr WONG Yuk-man's speech but his speech is at least 10 times better than that of "Long Hair" in terms of the basis of arguments and the standard of presentation. I hope Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung would do more research instead of making casual remarks, so as to convince people. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned putting the cart before the horse, telling lies with open eyes or telling lies while dreaming; he is actually describing himself and I am very grateful that he is so frank.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14519
According to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Members with the worst attendance record are from FCs. But as far as I know, Members with the worst attendance record include FC Members and directly elected Members, depending on how computations are done. However, as for Members with the best attendance record, I believe most of them are FC Members and FC Members would take up top positions. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung often makes arbitrary remarks; for example, he mentioned that $100 million were paid for buying votes. I do not have time to settle old scores with him. Just now I said that FC Members facilitate smooth governance of the Government, but my remark has been misinterpreted as FCs support the transfer of benefits. This is really pathetic. The opposition camp has gone out of their mind in opposing the Government, thinking that fighting against the transfer of benefits is opposing the Government and doing what they have to do; thus, they continue to rebuke the Government.
The Government has taken actions against high property prices but they are finding fault with the Government. Do they sincerely have the interests of Hong Kong in mind or do they want the interests of Hong Kong to be undermined? Hong Kong people should make their own judgment. I guess the opposition camp wants to mess up Hong Kong; the more chaotic, the better. Only by raising opposition continuously can their interests be last forever; only by constantly provoking the emotions of Hong Kong people can they win votes. Although some Members said that FC Members only seek the interests of their sectors, I notice that a number of FC Members can balance the interests of the sectors and the community. If individual FC Members only seek their own interests in voting, they will not get the support of other FC Members.
I very much hope that the opposition camp will no longer mislead the public and discredit FC Members. It is worth noting that quite a few directly elected Members only want to win votes and their only concern is whether the Government's short-term policies will be advantageous to them in the next election. However, they have ignored the long-term development of Hong Kong. We cannot blame these directly elected Members; if we take a look at the countries and regions around the world which have implemented universal suffrage, in order to win votes, their governments have become …
14520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, at the Third Reading debate, Members should only talk about their voting intentions. You have digressed from the subject, please focus on the motion on the Third Reading.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Yes, thank you, Deputy President. But I hope you could give me some more time because the President only asked Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to return to the subject after he had spoken for six minutes; after you took the Chair and asked him to return to the subject, he went on speaking for about 10 minutes. I hope you could give me two minutes; I will speak on the subject soon. I am sorry …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please speak on the motion on the Third Reading.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President, I will return to the subject very soon. If I skip this background information, Honourable colleagues may not have a clear picture. Members of this Council can express their views in a free-spirited manner and a number of Members frequently digress largely from the subject. However, the President has not asked them to return to the subject. I also hope that the Deputy President would understand that I do not do so very often and my comments are indeed closely related to the subject. I beg your pardon.
According to my observation, many governments have, for the sake of winning votes, turned their countries into a disastrous state, bringing suffering to people. Since FCs have been smeared over an extended period, some FC Members really think that they have original sins. I hope they would not think so. We must make good use of the votes in hand, we have to withstand pressure and do practical work for the long-term interests of Hong Kong and the well-being of young people in Hong Kong.
In addition, we should let more people understand and accept FCs. This is a lengthy process and I hope FC Members would work harder in this connection. For example, the group of six that I am more familiar with, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14521 including Mr Martin LIAO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr NG Leung-sing and Mr YIU Si-wing, have given up their well-paid jobs and served Hong Kong with full dedication. I also know that many FC Members in this Council have done the same.
Deputy President, finally, to sum up, I would like to say that I support the existence of FCs as I think FCs can make this Council become balanced. This Bill actually aims at improving FCs. In this process, it does not matter if the steps taken is big or small ― some people certainly think that the amendments are not very effective while some others think that amendments are needed ― I think they have positive effects. I will vote in support of the Bill.
Please allow me to talk about the printing company's case. There are arguments just now and I would like to express my views. Should the printing company be included in the Insurance FC or other FCs? The Government is right in the sense that a registered underwriter belongs to the Insurance FC under the law. But the problem is that the printing company was registered numerous years ago, is it still appropriate for it to be included in the FC now? The Government should review whether it is necessary to cancel its status as a registered underwriter. The Government really needs to do something and absolutely cannot ignore the issue. I hope the Government would examine the matter. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
14522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have pressed the "Request to speak" button and the number "1" is displayed on the screen …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I cannot hear what you said.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have pressed the "Request to speak" button indicating a wish to speak, please handle it.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the Third Reading stage of the Bill; a Member can speak only once.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
(While the division bell was ringing)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please slightly move the placard in front of you because the Clerk and I cannot see if you are in your seat.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14523
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.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.
Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 Members present, 33 were in favour of the motion and 17 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015.
14524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SHARING SYSTEM BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 30 April 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the above Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bills Committee), I now report on the salient points of the deliberations of the Bills Committee.
The aim of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bill) is to put in place a legal framework for such matters as the establishment of the Electronic Health Record (eHR) Sharing System (the System), the sharing and using of data and information contained in the System, and the protection of the System. The Bills Committee has held 22 meetings to discuss the Bill with the Administration and also received representations from the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) as well as other organizations. In the following speech, I will report in gist matters of particular concern to Members.
Given the sensitive nature of health data, the discussions of the Bills Committee were mainly focused on the privacy of the data of registered healthcare recipients (HCRs) found in the System. The great majority of members are of the view that registered HCRs should be allowed to impose additional access control, such that they can exclude certain prescribed healthcare provider (HCPs) which/whom they have already given a sharing consent to, from access to certain parts of their health data, so as to enhance public confidence in the System.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14525
The Administration has undertaken to conduct a study in the first year of the stage two eHR Programme after the passage of the Bill, with a view to developing and implementing some form of new device or arrangement, so as to give additional choices to HCRs over the disclosure of their health data. In response to Members' request, the Administration will move amendments to provide that a registered HCR may, in relation to his or her health data, make a request to restrict the scope of data sharing. The proposed new provisions should take effect only upon completion of the study and after the relevant feature is technically ready for implementation.
According to the Bill, the giving of a sharing consent and a joining consent by a registered HCR would enable the HCP, the Department of Health (DH) and the Hospital Authority (HA) to obtain from, and also to provide to, the System any sharable data of the HCR. The Bills Committee has discussed the proposal put forward by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau to change the aforementioned arrangement. Under the proposal, the indication of agreement to the prescribed HCPs' contribution to, and obtaining from, the System any sharable data of the registered HCRs will not be combined under a single consent given by the HCRs and HCPs in the public and private sectors will both receive the same treatment. The Bills Committee, however, has not come to any unanimous view on the issue. Dr LEUNG Ka-lau will move amendments in this regard to redefine the arrangement of giving a joining or sharing consent in the Bill. Dr LEUNG Ka-lau will explain the aim and details of his amendments later on.
Members consider that access to the health data of an HCR in the System on a need-to-know basis should be ensured. They have proposed that provisions should be added to the effect that among the staff employed by a prescribed HCP given sharing consent, only relevant healthcare professionals could have access to the relevant parts of eHR kept in the System, in order to reflect the "need-to-know" principle more expressly. The Administration has agreed to move amendments to add a new provision such that it is the duties of a prescribed HCP to take reasonable steps to ensure that access to any health data of a registered HCR is restricted to a healthcare professional of the HCP concerned who may perform healthcare for the HCR, and the access is restricted to the health data that may be relevant to performing healthcare for the HCR.
Members have expressed concern that under the definition of "healthcare" proposed in the Bill, the healthcare activity has to be performed in Hong Kong by a healthcare professional for the individual. Members consider that in order to 14526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 protect the interest of HCRs, access to the System by a healthcare professional registered under relevant ordinances in Hong Kong for the purpose of using the data and information of a registered HCR for improvement of healthcare performed outside Hong Kong should be allowed. The Administration has taken on board members' view and will move amendments. Members noted that section 33 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (PDPO), which has not yet commenced, prohibits a data user from transferring any personal data to places outside Hong Kong except in specified circumstances. Members take the view that the sharing of health data in the System with an overseas HCP for life-saving purpose as proposed in the Bill should not be prejudiced when section 33 comes into operation. The Privacy Commissioner pointed out that the HCPs concerned might, where appropriate, invoke the various exceptions as provided for under the section when the provision comes into operation.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
In addition, Members expressed concern about using the identifiable data of a registered HCR for carrying out research or preparing statistics that are relevant to public health or public safety. At the suggestion of members, the Administration has undertaken to formulate a separate set of detailed guidelines for the eHR Research Board in its consideration of an application. Members also consider that, in order to ensure that the 10 non-ex officio members of the eHR Research Board to be appointed by the Secretary for Food and Health would be drawn from various fields, the specific membership requirements for the Board should be set out in the Bill. The Administration has said that it will move amendments to provide that only persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary for Food and Health, have expertise or experience in healthcare, privacy protection, statistics, research, law or information technology; represent the interests of HCRs; or have other experience that would render the persons suitable for appointment would be appointed as non-ex officio members of the eHR Research Board.
Members also formed the view that HCRs should be allowed to access and correct data contained in the System, an arrangement consistent with that under the PDPO. The Bills Committee noted that the Administration will propose amendments in this regard. In addition, the Administration will conduct a study LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14527 on the setting up of a patient portal in the first year of the stage two eHR Programme, with a view to striking a proper balance between the convenience of HCRs' access and data security.
As regards new offences relating to the operation of the System, the Bills Committee noted that clause 41(6)(b) is modelled on section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) concerning access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent. Members expressed the view that the aforementioned provision of the Bill, if enacted, should be invoked for handling cases involving illegal access specific to the data or information contained in the eHR of registered HCRs. Perpetrators of such cases should not be charged under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance at the same time. The Administration has explained that in determining which provisions in law should be invoked when pressing charges, the law-enforcement agency would give due regard to the individual circumstances of each case. In general, the more specific provisions would be invoked by law-enforcement agencies. In addition, the Privacy Commissioner has suggested that unauthorized access by means other than the use of a computer and inappropriate uses of data or information contained in eHR for purposes other than that for which the data and information is collected should be made an offence. The Bills Committee has discussed the proposal but since the issues involved are quite complicated, Members have not come to any unanimous view on the issue.
Members also expressed concern about the liability of government and public officers, and so on, under the Bill. In response to Members' concern, the Administration will move amendments to make it clear that the liability it seeks to limit is only civil liability under the Bill. The protection would be provided to an employee of the HA, or an employee of a body corporate established by the HA, appointed by the eHR Commissioner to assist him or her in performing a function or exercising a power. In addition, Members considered that the eHR Commissioner, as a data user under the PDPO, is obliged to inspect the local eHR systems of prescribed HCPs to ascertain whether the Ordinance is complied with; or whether any sharable data provided is accurate. In response to Members' concern, the Administration will move amendments to withdraw the proposal that the eHR Commissioner is not obliged to inspect, or commit to inspect, the local eHR systems of prescribed HCPs.
The Bills Committee also discussed in depth such matters as a substitute decision maker arrangement to facilitate the registration of those HCRs who may not have the capacity to understand eHR sharing or provide an express joining or 14528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 sharing consent; the criteria for registration as an HCP; the suspension or cancellation of registration of HCR and HCP; the requirements for accessing the System; complaints relating to the operation of the System and the codes of practice issued by the eHR Commissioner. The details of the discussions are set out in the report of the Bills Committee, so I am not going to delve into them here.
Deputy President, in response to the concerns of the Bills Committee, the Administration will propose some amendments to the Bill. Members also noted that the Government will propose some textual or technical amendments. The Bills Committee has no objection to the Committee stage amendments (CSAs) to be proposed by the Administration later on.
Deputy President, the foregoing is my report on the work of the Bills Committee. I am now going to express my personal views on the Bill.
Many people may not be aware that Hong Kong is a frontrunner in the development of electronic medical record systems in the region and even in the world. The major reason for this lies in the fact that relatively speaking, the healthcare systems in Hong Kong mainly come under a single public system, that is, the HA, and over the years, the HA has developed a clinical management system that has reached a mature stage and is shared system-wide.
However, one phenomenon observed in Hong Kong is that although the application of information technology by the HA in the public sector is comparatively speaking advanced, in the private sector, for example, in private hospitals and clinics, it is relatively backward. Some years ago, when the Government was examining ways to take forward public-private co-operation, it already noticed one thing, that is, if the medical records of the public could not be shared between the public and private sectors, the public would not be able to make use of the healthcare services of the organizations, hospitals and clinics in the public and private sectors according to their different medical needs. Apart from causing inconvenience, the quality of healthcare may also be compromised. In view of this, from 2009 onwards, the Government rolled out a 10-year two-stage eHR Programme. On the one hand, this is a prerequisite for the implementation of public-private co-operation by the Government, and on the other, this also gives Hong Kong the opportunity to maintain its leading position in medical information technology.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14529
The Bill today deals with healthcare co-operation between the public and private sectors. The Government will introduce the eHR Sharing System after the enactment of the legislation but before the launch of the System, examples of public-private interface mainly include the Public-Private Interface ― Electronic Patient Record (PPI-ePR) Sharing Pilot Project and the Health Care Vouchers provided by the Government to the elderly. The difference between the PPI-ePR and the System to be introduced after the passage of the Bill lies in the existing system being purely a unidirectional sharing system under which participating members of the public allows private-sector HCPs to access their data in the clinical management systems of the HA in the public sector. However, the future system will be two-way and both the public and private sectors can read and write information under the same sharing system.
When the Government conceived this system back then, I was a member of the HA. I remember that during the discussions back then, we were already well aware that the development of the System would face challenges in three areas: The first was technological development, the second was financial arrangement and the third was the legal framework. Having reached the present stage, it can be said that this is the last step and this sharing system will finally be able to come into being.
In the course of scrutinizing the Bill, we have held 22 meetings and our impression is that the meetings at an early stage were mostly concerned with how to protect the health information and privacy of members of the public as HCRs. Nevertheless, at a later stage, there were more discussions on how to enable HCPs to truly utilize this system, as well as making it convenient for and encouraging more members of the public to join this system, so as to improve the quality of healthcare service provided to HCRs and assure their safety. Therefore, Members are obviously all aware of the need to strike a balance between privacy and the convenient and extensive use of this system.
Members spent considerable time on discussing a concept known commonly as a "safe deposit box", that is, HCRs can exclude certain prescribed HCPs to which/whom they have already given a sharing consent, from access to certain parts of their health data, the reason being they may think that certain health data is particularly sensitive. I believe this concept is understandable from the viewpoint of individuals but patients are not healthcare personnel, so whether or not they understand the implications of concealing part of the information on the diagnosis is also worthy of concern.
14530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
However, the biggest problem with introducing the "safe deposit box" approach right away is that we have not yet finalized the details of such a feature. The Government did not adopt, still less even considered adopting such a feature when developing the System according to the outcomes of the previous consultation. If it is added to the Bill without due consideration, after the enactment of the legislation, it will be necessary to redevelop the System before it can be used, so this is not practicable in reality. Therefore, I support the Government's undertaking of dealing with the "safe deposit box" concept in the stage two eHR Programme, and to add the provision of "sharing restriction request", so as to incorporate beforehand into the Bill the concept of a registered HCR being able to make a request to restrict the scope of data sharing, but put it into operation only at a later stage. This can strike a balance between the present state of the System and the expectations of the Bills Committee, some members of the public and even the Privacy Commissioner about the future direction of development of the System.
Another point that I wish to talk about is related to the restriction on the location of the healthcare performed. Nowadays, the integration of information technology and healthcare technology has given rise to tremendous development opportunities in long-distance healthcare as well as benefits to patients. Nevertheless, under the definition of "healthcare" in the Bill, healthcare activities are limited to those performed in Hong Kong by a healthcare professional for a patient, yet we can think of many scenarios. During the deliberations by the Bills Committee, many Members suggested many scenarios: Patients may fall ill or be involved in accidents that require healthcare services in places outside Hong Kong and HCPs in Hong Kong may be requested by the local healthcare personnel to provide the health information of the patients concerned in the System, or HCPs from Hong Kong travelling overseas may need to log onto the System through the Internet to access patients' information, so as to provide long-distance assistance to a member of the Hong Kong public in Hong Kong or in another place as well as making medical decisions. Will they be allowed to do so?
I agree with the Government's final decision to move amendments to the definition of "healthcare" to remove the restriction that the healthcare has to be performed in Hong Kong. However, section 33 of the PDPO, which has yet to come into operation, prohibits a data user from transferring any personal data to places outside Hong Kong. The Privacy Commissioner has advised that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14531
HCPs concerned might, where appropriate, invoke the various exceptions as provided for when the provision comes into operation. However, I wish to take this opportunity to point out that section 33 has yet to come into operation despite being enacted more than a decade ago but Internet technology and applications are now vastly different. Cloud computing is a good example. Even the computer users concerned may not know whether the information is located inside or outside Hong Kong. Regarding many instances of application and even the Bill this time around, problems and conflicts may arise, so even though I may be digressing a little bit from the subject matter, I still have to say this: Before the Government brings section 33 of the PDPO into operation, it must carry out consultations again and consider if it is necessary to make amendments to it before its commencement.
Deputy President, an academic reflected to me that he was particularly concerned about the issue of identifiable data being used for research. He noted that the medical information may include some uniquely individual and unalterable information, such as DNA, and even if the names of patients suffering from special and rare diseases are not disclosed, it would still be possible to trace the identity of the people concerned. For this reason, he requested that clearer procedures and oversight requirements be introduced for this type of research. The Administration has undertaken to formulate a separate set of detailed guidelines for the eHR Research Board established according to clause 53 of the Bill in considering an application and add a new subclause (2A) to clause 53 to specify the qualifications for appointment as non-ex officio members of the eHR Research Board. However, we still have to monitor closely if such a measure is adequate after the enactment and we should consider strengthening it if necessary.
Deputy President, in this Chamber, I have expressed concern a number of times by way of questions and even a Member's motion about the indiscriminate invocation of section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (CO) concerning access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent. I noted that clause 41(6)(b) is modelled on section 161 of the CO concerning access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent and comprises four parts: (i) with intent to commit an offence; (ii) with a dishonest intent to deceive; (iii) with a view to dishonest gain for the person or for another; or (iv) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another. Of these four parts, ordinary members of the public are most concerned about the extensive scope of the reference to "dishonest". Certainly, the Administration 14532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 has explained to us that apart from section 161 of the CO, the word "dishonest" can also be found in many other pieces of legislation and the Court also has its own test.
As it turned out, we found that the biggest problem does not lie in the reference to "dishonest" and that the "intent to commit an offence" poses the greatest threat. The reason is that if someone is deemed to have an intent to violate any law, for example, by jay-walking, speeding, and so on, he may be convicted. Fortunately, under the Bill, only "knowingly" causing access to, or modification of or damage to data is criminalized. Such a restriction is actually effective because no matter what the intent is, this provision can only be invoked to target the acts described in the Bill. There is no such a restriction under section 161 of the CO concerning access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent, so it may be abused. Of course, this does not fall within the scope of the Bill being examined today, so I am not going to elaborate on it further.
In the course of discussing the offences listed in the Bill, Members noted with disappointment the Security Bureau's reply to the Bills Committee that no breakdown of the number of convicted cases under various paragraphs of the relevant subsection (for example, the four parts mentioned just now) of section 161 of the CO was available. Once again, I have to denounce the Security Bureau for continuing to conceal from the Legislative Council and the public information related to the prosecutions and convictions under section 161 of the CO. Although we made inquiries for a long time, the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice were still unable to provide such a limited amount of simple information, so this is hardly believable and also hardly convincing that there is no cover-up.
Deputy President, the Bill is an entirely new one. We held 22 meetings and the time spent on scrutiny was quite long. For this reason, I wish to thank members of the Bills Committee, government officials, colleagues of the Legislative Council Secretariat and the Legal Adviser for their co-operation and patience. In addition, the Privacy Commissioner also offered a lot of advice and attended meetings on a number of occasions to answer Members' questions. This is very helpful to our work, so I also wish to thank him and his colleagues in particular. The Government also responded positively to most of Members' requests and proposed a number of CSAs. On one occasion, a meeting of the Bills Committee was aborted due to a lack of quorum but the Privacy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14533
Commissioner was still very generous to hold a meeting with some of the members who were present or who were late in the café for more than two hours. Although that meeting does not count towards the 22 meetings, it was also quite helpful to our work.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the passage of the Bill.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): In the wake of the outbreak of SARS in 2003, some of my friends who are professionals in the information technology sector and I submitted to the Government a proposal which highlighted the importance of medical and health informatization to the surveillance of communicable diseases and public health management and suggested that the Government expeditiously promote the computerization of medical records. Later, in 2005 we set up the eHealth Consortium and continued to promote electronic health records (eHRs) and eHealth. It is unimaginable that not until 12 whole years later that the Legislative Council is going to read the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill for the Second time today.
In 2008, the Government published the healthcare reform consultation document entitled "Your Health, Your Life". The consultation document proposed records following the patients and the establishment of an eHR database. In 2009, the Legislative Council approved the funding of $702 million for the Government to launch the first stage of the Electronic Health Record Programme for the development of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System). After five years' preparation, the Government eventually submitted the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill to the Legislative Council in April last year. It is expected that the System will be officially introduced by the end of this year. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) greatly supports the System which will facilitate the sharing of eHRs between the public and private sectors and enable members of the public to receive more expeditious and accurate diagnoses and treatment.
The Bills Committee has held a total of 22 meetings. Since the System will store lifelong medical records of members of the public, including personal data on mental illness, venereal disease and hereditary disease which is highly sensitive, I am especially concerned about how the System will fully protect patients' privacy in future.
14534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
At the end of 2012, the Government conducted a public consultation exercise on the privacy and security framework of the System and received 18 submissions during the consultation period. There was a view that a "safe deposit box" feature should be provided in the System. That means patients may choose to keep their sensitive medical records confidential, and healthcare providers (HCPs) shall obtain separate consent for access to certain health data. However, no such provision for this was included in the original Bill submitted by the Government. In the public hearing held in May last year, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner), the Hong Kong Alliance of Patients' Organizations, as well as a number of organizations and members of the public requested the authorities to build in a "safe deposit box" feature as soon as possible. Regrettably, the Government had ignored this request all along.
During the scrutiny of the Bill, the authorities had repeatedly insisted that the study on whether or not to provide a "safe deposit box" feature be left to a later date. According to the Government, there were difficulties in building in a "safe deposit box" feature in terms of both technicality and execution. It also felt concerned that the "safe deposit box" would undermine the integrity of eHRs and affect the quality of diagnoses and treatment. I disagree with such reasons. In fact, participation in the System is entirely voluntary. Members of the public may choose not to participate or not to consent to data sharing among HCPs. In that case, the eHRs will still be incomplete after all. We should not have the wrong impression that the eHRs in the System will be complete and exhaustive. With or without eHRs, doctors still need to directly communicate with patients and ask about their health records in detail in order to make the most accurate and reliable diagnoses.
In launching the System, the Government should focus on how to dispel the worries of members of the public and doctors so that more people will participate in the System. The aim of the "safe deposit box" feature is to enhance the protection for patients' privacy and sensitive information so that members of the public can feel more assured in joining the System. I have provided the Bills Committee with various sets of reference material about how overseas countries protect the privacy of patient records. The reports of a number of international organizations have affirmed the necessity to adopt measures to enhance the protection for medical records and sensitive information. For this reason, I insisted at meetings of the Bills Committee that a "safe deposit LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14535 box" feature must be built in to ensure that patients' interests are protected. I also requested the Government to discuss with the Privacy Commissioner how amendments could be made to the Bill. Eventually, the Government added a "sharing restriction request" which carries the spirit of the "safe deposit box" in new clause 16A. I am quite happy that the Government can readily heed good advice.
I expect the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill and the amendments proposed by the Government to be passed today to enable the Government to launch the System within this year and immediately start working on the provision of a "safe deposit box" feature. Owing to the lack of a "safe deposit box" feature in the System introduced by the Government at the end of the year while the proposed new definition of the "sharing restriction request" has yet to come into force, the protection for the privacy of patient records is still not sufficient. I guess many members of the public may not be willing to join the System right away. I believe the rate of utilization of eHRs will definitely rise if the Government can expeditiously build in a "safe deposit box" feature.
Apart from requesting the provision of a "safe deposit box" feature to protect the privacy of patient records, I also made a number of suggestions to the Government during the scrutiny of the Bill in the past year or so, including better use of the System to support the surveillance of communicable diseases. The outbreak of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome epidemic in South Korea in the month past has again aroused Hong Kong people's concern about the Government's work in controlling communicable diseases. Regrettably, the present Bill only briefly mentions that the data contained in eHRs may be used for the control of diseases and enhancement of disease surveillance. I hope the Government will seriously study how the System can complement the existing communicable disease surveillance system to facilitate more effective control of communicable diseases.
Besides, in the public hearing held last year, there was the view that the Government seemed to have become a software system developer which competed with the private sector for profits, thereby affecting the development of the medical software industry. Comprising more than 1 000 people, the IT team of the Hospital Authority (HA) is one of the biggest teams engaged in software technologies in Hong Kong. The Government has commissioned the IT team of the HA to develop a clinic management software for free use by clinics. 14536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Members of the industry are worried that the free clinic management software of the Government will dominate the market of medical software systems. I understand that the Government wishes to provide private doctors and clinics with a low-cost channel for connection with the System so that more doctors will participate in the System. However, I also hope that the Government will seriously explore other ways to motivate doctors to participate in the System, for example, assisting the industry in connecting with the System by providing incentives or connection software, so as to pre-empt queries about the Government competing with the private sector for profits and stifling the room of survival in the medical software industry.
In its report released in 2011, The Economist pointed out that Denmark was the most successful country in implementing eHRs. The main reason was that the sector could choose to use different types of software rather than using the only type of software provided to the sector free of charge by the Danish Government. The Danish Government also offered financial incentives to the sector and provided data integration and support services for software systems in the market through an organization operating under public-private partnership. As a result, software developers could provide more diversified software and features to the medical sector. I suggest that the Hong Kong Government draw reference from the successful experience of Denmark and gradually fade out from its role as a software system developer. Instead, it should provide the market with the system connection standard, data integration and support services and genuinely put public-private partnership into practice so that the market can flourish with varieties, thus creating a win-win situation.
Moreover, I have made various proposals to the Government, including publishing the code of practice of the System in the Gazette, setting up an electronic health development committee, strengthening the support for the application of eHRs in the Chinese medicine sector, and establishing as early as possible an electronic platform for patients where members of the public can give consent to data sharing and records of medical consultation outside Hong Kong can be managed conveniently. I hope the Government will consider them and implement the same one by one.
In my view, to make the System a success, the most key lies in enabling the participation of more clinics, healthcare institutions and patients. In the past few years, the Government has introduced the Electronic Patient Record Sharing Pilot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14537
Project and public-private partnership programmes in which more than 300 000 patients and 3 000 private healthcare practitioners have participated. However, millions of members of the public, thousands of healthcare practitioners and many healthcare institutions have yet to participate in such. If a lot of private doctors and clinics remain unwilling to participate after the launch of the System, will the Government consider amending the legislation to make it mandatory for healthcare personnel and institutions to join the System? I consider that only when there is participation by more doctors and healthcare institutions can more members of the public be motivated to join the System to facilitate genuine sharing of eHRs between the public and private sectors. In that event, members of the public will be able to enjoy better healthcare services.
Lastly, if the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau were passed, a great adjustment would have to be made to the proposed System, which would thus not be introduced as scheduled. Given that the "sharing restriction request" will be added through clause 16A in the Government's amendments, when the Government draws up the "sharing restriction request" and the "safe deposit box" feature later, it can impose a restriction to prohibit public hospitals from accessing medical records specified by patients. I believe this arrangement is also conducive to assuring patients' privacy and autonomy. For this reason, the DAB will vote against his amendments.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Bill and the Government's amendments.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the Consultation Document on Healthcare Reform published in 2008, the Government proposed to develop electronic health record sharing as an infrastructure to support the healthcare reform. We in the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions have all along advocated the provision of proper primary healthcare services, and we believe the development of an Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) can help promote primary healthcare development to a certain extent. We, therefore, very much support this proposal.
We consider that the computerization and sharing of health records will benefit both the development of the overall healthcare system and the patients. The health records of a person are like a book of his medical records from the day 14538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 of his birth till the day of his death. For people who are lucky, their medical records may be thinner but for those who run into bad luck, their medical records may be as thick as a dictionary. The computerization of medical records can help recording and keeping the data, while making it convenient for the storage and retrieval of data to dovetail with technologies and applications, and facilitating the conduct of more advanced analyses, which can be of certain help to healthcare development. To the patients, one of the merits is ensured accuracy. People who have read medical records scribbled by doctors will know how illegible their handwriting is, which is not decipherable to everyone. If these medical records are transferred to other healthcare workers, a lot of cases of misreading may arise. Compared with handwritten medical records, electronic health records in the System are better formatted and more accurate and this can minimize the chance of misreading. Besides, given that the proposed System is sharable, the medical records of a patient in different healthcare institutions can be pieced together to form a more integral and compressive set of records of the patient. To patients in need of emergency treatment, the merits of an electronic record sharing system are all the more obvious because in case of emergency, the healthcare personnel can immediately retrieve from the System the more comprehensive medical records of the patient and start medical treatment as soon as possible without having to spend time approaching different doctors or healthcare institutions to obtain the patient's medical records. Members should not underrate this point because sometimes, some simple, minor problems may create a huge impact on the procedures of medical treatment. For example, before making the prescription, a doctor will often ask the patient if he has any drug allergy but sometimes not even the patient can answer these questions and so, the healthcare personnel have to rely on the medical records in making a determination.
In fact, many medical conditions nowadays are very complicated, and a patient's condition may be examined by several doctors. Moreover, when facing some serious diseases or severe conditions, patients will normally consult one or two more doctors to seek more opinions. Under such circumstances, the merits of sharing of electronic health records (eHRs) can be brought into play, which will be helpful to the treatment of patients. Although I agree that the System has merits, I must emphasize that the participation rate is vitally important for the System to truly perform its functions. Participation by patients, doctors and healthcare institutions is essential to this System becoming more meaningful.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14539
Some doctors have told us that there are comparatively less incentives for them to participate in this programme. This has aroused our concern that the programme cannot achieve its effectiveness due to the low participation rate of doctors. Given that participation in the programme is voluntary, how we can attract the participation of more doctors or healthcare institutions is a question that the Government needs to think about. In my view, after the enactment of the Bill, the Administration should step up promotion, publicity and education to attract more doctors or healthcare institutions to participate in the programme before the patients can be benefited. In the course of scrutiny of the Bill, what was discussed most in the Bills Committee is the "safe deposit box" feature which gives healthcare recipients (HCRs) the right to choose to "lock up" certain parts of their health data to the effect that such data will be neither sharable nor accessible. The purpose is to protect their sensitive health data, such as records of mental illness. I personally support the "safe deposit box" concept because every person should be provided with protection to ensure that their participation in the programme will not result in their sensitive health data being accessed by other people and hence causing them to become targets of discrimination. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient protection, patients will not trust the System and ultimately, they will not choose to participate in it and their participation rate will not be high. As I have just said, without a high participation rate, it will be impossible for the programme to give play to its functions.
The Administration has said in response that the provision of the "safe deposit box" feature is not an item within the project scope of the first stage of the programme, but after consideration, the Administration will move a Committee stage amendment (CSA) to add a new definition of "sharing restriction request" to provide that a registered HCR may, in relation to his or her health data, make a request to restrict the scope of data sharing, and this provision should take effect upon completion of the further study and after this feature is deemed technically feasible. We welcome this CSA and hope that this feature will be technically ready for implementation as soon as possible. This will not only respond to the concern of the Bills Committee but also provide greater protection for the privacy of patients, which will, in turn, inspire trust from the patients in the System and raise the participation rate.
As for Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments, we hold that since the Hospital Authority (HA) and the Department of Health (DH) are public healthcare service providers and also healthcare institutions which come into contact with the largest 14540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 number of HCRs, when an HCR participated in this programme and signed to give his consent, he should be automatically taken to be consenting to the use of the relevant data by the HA and the DH, and this should give no cause for criticisms. Without the HA or the DH to form a part of the System, the database may become flimsy and may fail to serve the original purpose of the programme. Therefore, we will not support Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments.
The Bills Committee has spent over a year scrutinizing the Bill and listened to the views of many relevant organizations (especially the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data). The enactment of this law marks an important step forward. However, I still wish to emphasize that upon the implementation of this programme, there will still be inadequacies in the "sharing restriction" feature in the System, which means that the patients' privacy will be exposed to certain risks. Therefore, the Government definitely has to play its "gate-keeping" role stringently to provide safeguards for the participants' privacy, thereby ensuring that patients can place their trust in this System and a high participation rate can be achieved.
I so submit. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we in the Labour Party support the passage of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bill). The relevant proposals have been discussed for many years. The initial proposal of sharing patient records between the public and private healthcare systems was aimed at facilitating the smooth transfer of patients from public medical institutions to private ones. The relevant proposals were put forward by the relevant Secretary as early as the first term of the Legislative Council. I believe Members will still remember that when Dr YEOH Eng-kiong was Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, he led his entire team to the Legislative Council with computers in their hands for meetings with Members. At that time, the Bureau was highly commended by Members for leading other Policy Bureaux in the use of information technology. Certainly, there was an absolute need to do so because the SARS outbreak occurred during that period. So we can see that it has been a long-standing practice for the Bureau to make good use of information technology within its portfolio having regard to the development of the situation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14541
The most important consideration is for the relevant proposals to benefit patients, regardless of whether their purpose is to save money for public healthcare institutions, enable more patients to enjoy services provided by private healthcare institutions, or whatever other purposes. The establishment of an electronic platform for sharing patient records is good for the patients, no matter whether they are transferred from the public healthcare system to the private one, or vice versa, so long as patient records can be shared speedily to enable the new attending doctors to learn about the patients' previous diagnosis results or their conditions after receiving medical treatments. For instance, the new attending doctors can instantly find out what medicines have been taken by the patients, to what medicines the patients are allergic or what treatments they have received, rather than trying different medicines or treatments slowly, which may otherwise prolong the torture suffered by the patients. From this perspective, the relevant proposals are good and their direction is generally agreeable to the public.
As regards issues of detail such as privacy protection, the concept of "safe deposit box" has been discussed most by the Bills Committee. Actually, we consider the concept proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau very good because under the existing Bill, a patient will be regarded as having given a single consent after signing an agreement, which means that he will not have the power to stop the sharing of information he does not want others to know. This will indeed cause problems in privacy protection. As such, we have consulted the healthcare sector as to whether or not it is absolutely necessary for medical practitioners to know all the medical records of their patients before they can make the best and most accurate diagnoses. Such medical records may include sensitive information on cosmetic procedures. Assuming a male or female patient who has had a rhinoplasty to make his or her nose look better is going to receive another surgery such as appendectomy, is there a need for the medical practitioner responsible for the surgery to know that he or she has previously undergone a rhinoplasty? While a rhinoplasty might not be a big deal, how should cases involving breast augmentation, venereal diseases, HIV infections or mental health problems be dealt with? We understand very well that it is most preferable for a new attending doctor to know the whole story, but we also agree that the choice should eventually rest with his patient. If a patient switches his attending doctor and has built up confidence in the doctor after consultations and diagnoses, he may even take the initiative to give the doctor information accessible under the existing System, or sign a new agreement and give it to the doctor. This is precisely the point raised by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau: Instead of requiring a patient to sign an agreement to enable public healthcare institutions or any private medical 14542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 practitioners to access all of his medical records with no limitation or boundary, can he keep certain information in a "safe deposit box" that can be opened only with his further consent or by a person or a healthcare provider (HCP) specified by him?
Unfortunately, although this proposal may provide very good privacy protection for the patients, the Government has made no preparations for such protection in its stage one electronic health record (eHR) Programme. The first stage is designed in such a way that the same consent is given to all related institutions, such as the HA or care-and-attention homes, rather than a single HCP. This is most regrettable since the entire computer system fails to match the proposals put forward by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau in software and programming. If the Bill is passed today, the Government should certainly take steps to catch up on this front. However, during the period after the passage of the Bill but before its commencement, the Government might be unable to do what it is basically capable of doing now. Or it can only follow the existing practice of public healthcare institutions within a specific scope.
Being placed between a rock and a hard place, I have to state that although we approve of the Committee stage amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, we will abstain on them. In our opinion, the Government must expeditiously revise the architecture of the existing System. Despite the Government's proposed amendments to allow the public to request that the scope of sharing of their health data be restricted rather than permitting new healthcare institutions to access all the data in future with a view to providing space and flexibility for the public, it depends on the pace of the Government in amending the computer system architecture. As such, will Secretary Dr KO tell us later on what timetable and pace will be adopted to improve the existing architecture? How much resources and manpower will be required to improve the existing architecture to enable the "safe deposit box" concept to be implemented as soon as possible?
Deputy President, there is one more point I wish to raise. In addition to privacy protection, a balance must be struck, too. Not everyone can keep their own health conditions confidential for the sake of privacy protection. Public officers, sorry, enjoy no privacy. In this respect, section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance in relation to the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent", which was frequently mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK, must be taken into account. Insofar as the health conditions, particularly the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14543 mental state, of public officers are concerned, are they capable of making decisions as normal political figures, or will they make decisions which will compromise public interests purely according to their own preference given that they are emotionally disturbed? It is indeed imperative for us to know their mental state. For instance, when Ms Elsie Leung was Secretary for Justice, she had indeed had some health problems. Certainly, we all sent her our blessings and she has recovered already. However, was she physically or intellectually capable of meeting the demands of her duties when she was in public office? Here, public interests are at stake. The health conditions of the Government's principal officials, especially the Chief Executive, should be made public. As with the United States presidents, their annual health check results are made public in press releases rather than being "dug out" by reporters as gossips. I would like to reiterate that the more powerful a person is, the more his health conditions are related to public interest. Members of the public have a right to know. When it comes to certain issues in relation to the "safe deposit box" concept, such as whether or not someone is an HIV carrier or emotionally disturbed or has been tested positive for HIV, ordinary people should be protected and their employment opportunities should not be affected as a result. But, sorry, the "safe deposit box" concept is not applicable to people holding important posts or enormous powers.
Lastly, Deputy President, I would like to reiterate that we find it most regrettable that the Government has failed to take this point into consideration when setting up the stage one eHR platform. Was it because of inadequate consultation at that time or was it because there was no need to enact legislation because it was considered to be merely administrative work and so the Government decided to deal with it on its own with no need to discuss with many people or listen to their concerns? Will Secretary Dr KO please explain all of these issues to us later on.
Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr Elizabeth QUAT has already presented the stance of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong towards this Bill.
14544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
We all share the common aspiration of realizing the "records follow patients" concept. After the passage of the Bill, with the consent of patients, medical practitioners may have access to patient records shared by the Hospital Authority (HA) and private hospitals. To many patients, this arrangement is indeed much more convenient. Given that patients are not professionals, if they are to tell each medical practitioner their medical history or the medicines prescribed to them, the information provided by them will definitely be incomprehensive. Therefore, the sharing of patient records will definitely assist medical practitioners in making diagnoses in a positive manner.
I would like to mention in particular ― Secretary Dr KO ― I have pointed out to the Administration that the key to success of this programme lies in the rate of participation of patients and medical practitioners. While we all agree that participation of patients should be on a voluntary basis, I understand that, with the exception of the HA as well as hospitals and medical institutions in the private sector, private medical practitioners may choose of their own accord whether or not to participate in this programme. I find this unsatisfactory.
I recall that I had mentioned this point in different committees, but the Administration indicated that the programme must be operated on a voluntary basis. Although I initially found this acceptable, the Administration has yet to give us a clear reply. I hope Secretary Dr KO can give us a response later on. In my opinion, if we are to realize the "records follow patients" concept, the formulation of a plan and timetable is vital to promoting the full participation of medical practitioners in this programme. Come to think about this. Many Hong Kong people may seek treatment from public hospitals, private hospitals or the private specialists they trust from time to time, but I know that many private specialists have not yet participated in this sharing programme, which means that patient records are incomprehensive. If the patients seek treatment in other places, sometimes they may be unable to present a full picture of their own condition.
Actually, we can note in the announcement made by the Audit Commission in April 2012 that the participation rate of patients in the pilot project launched by the HA in 2006 was 46%. However, the participation rate of medical practitioners was a mere 23%, which was even lower. Actually, medical practitioners have long been reluctant to participate in the sharing of patient records. I hope Secretary Dr KO can say a few words about it in his response later on. Although it is acceptable to us at this stage, will there be any plan and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14545 timetable at the next stage? What efforts will be made to promote active engagement of private medical practitioners in the relevant programme? If the target remains not achieved by a certain year, should private medical practitioners be reasonably required to participate in the programme to realize the "records follow patients" concept?
Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the resumption of the Second Reading of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill. First of all, I thank Mr Charles Peter MOK, Chairman of the Bills Committee, for presiding over 22 meetings and one unofficial coffee meeting, and also for his efforts in helping us with the detailed scrutiny of this Bill. I also thank the various organizations for presenting their views to us. In his report on the work of the Bills Committee earlier on, Mr MOK already gave an account of many of our views. We support this Bill in principle.
Deputy President, not long ago, I still very much admired the healthcare system in Hong Kong, and many doctors have also stated that the healthcare system in Hong Kong is among the best in the world. Some doctors even said that our software is definitely first rate whereas our hardware, such as that in Queen Mary Hospital, is nevertheless inferior and dilapidated. Recently, there have been reports about Hong Kong people emigrating to overseas countries, such as Taiwan or other places, because of their complaint that the healthcare system in Hong Kong is far from good and that they are not duly provided with services. I hope that the authorities will really channel more resources to the healthcare system, so that the healthcare workers would not have to work in conditions so difficult. As described in the press, hospitals in Hong Kong are like hospitals in times of war as anyone who goes into a hospital would have the feeling that a battle has just been fought there.
The purpose of the Administration in formulating this Bill is to facilitate co-operation between the public-sector and private-sector healthcare institutions in order to make improvement, as the Secretary has often cautioned about an imbalance. So, since it would bring about improvement, I do not have strong 14546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 views on it, but the authorities are duty-bound to provide services for the general public, especially the grass-roots people. This, I think, is most important, and the authorities must always bear this in mind. Therefore, Deputy President, I personally believe this system will be able to provide assistance because in case of emergency, disregarding whether the patient consults a doctor overseas or locally, the patient's records can speedily reach the relevant doctor and this can be helpful to the patient.
Ms Starry LEE said just now that doctors in the private sector seldom use this system, and perhaps the Secretary can tell us the percentage later on. I remember that when doctors came to us to express their views, we also asked them questions about this. Setting aside the point of whether there is any financial incentive, one of the reasons is that even though it takes them many years of studies to become doctors, some private doctors actually do not use computers. This is why some Members have said earlier that doctors' handwriting is hardly legible and not even the nurses can decipher it. If the doctors do not even use computers, how can this record sharing system be implemented? I remember I was told back then that 30% of the doctors do not use computers. I do not know the latest figure, but if they do not use computers in the first place … of course, there is no reason to make taxpayers pay for computers and give them to doctors as gifts, because the doctors should buy the computers themselves. If we think that the implementation of this system is aimed at improving the quality of services for the patients ― which is what I firmly believe ― we must make an effort to this end, but if we should not take money out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize the doctors, then we must think about ways to make these doctors come abreast of the times in terms of information technology and then consider providing other incentives to encourage their participation in the System.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
President, in fact, during the discussions of the Bills Committee, as Mr MOK said earlier, emphasis was put on the question of privacy initially because medical records are considered very important privacy information by many people. Disregarding whether the persons concerned are celebrities or not, the disclosure of personal health records to other people for no reason may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14547 greatly harm and affect the patients. Therefore, I personally agree that the privacy of patients should be protected by all means. In this connection, on the question of building in a "safe deposit box" feature to allow patients to make a decision on their own, even though patients would be allowed to make their own decisions, it is still imperative for the Government to protect information provided by the patients willingly. Therefore, in any case, I think it is most important to protect privacy.
We support this Bill, and as some Members said earlier on, this Bill is to be passed in the first half of the year and it is only July now. I hope that this programme can be brought into effect expeditiously and that work can be commenced as soon as possible to implement it. But if privacy problems emerge in the implementation of the programme and as the Secretary should know, it is often the case that once the privacy issue is involved, it would be a major headline grabber as Hong Kong people and the media attach great importance to privacy, especially as everyone is talking about this and even people who came to the Bills Committee also asked us anxiously how we would provide protection for privacy. Added to this is that the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) also considered it necessary to enhance privacy protection. If, in implementing the programme in the future, the Secretary fails to provide a "safe deposit box" feature but the patients have uploaded their privacy information onto the platform and if their information is leaked for no reason and a huge public outcry is hence caused, I believe this may greatly impede the implementation of the programme overall. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary and the Hospital Authority (HA) will handle this properly, and as mentioned earlier on, it is appropriate to ensure that only people who need to know will know. Some people may ask what is meant by "people who need to know". Dr LEUNG, or "Doctor Weird", said to me just now, "If I have not read all the health records, how do I know what information is of the kind that I need to know and what is not?" If it is necessary to read all the records, does it not mean that the person in question will have known everything? But the problem is, firstly, we hope that the healthcare personnel have integrity, but institutionally, there is also a need for regulation, so as to prevent them from acting arbitrarily and to inspire confidence in the public and the patients. I agree with Members' view that the System will not be successful if the public do not have confidence in it. At present, this arrangement has already been applied to all the patients of the HA without being subject to any regulation in law. But I hope that after this Bill is enacted into law, the Secretary will urge everyone to act in a really prudent 14548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 manner and handle such sensitive information of patients with great care. When the public place their trust in you by letting you upload their medical records onto the platform or letting you share these records with private hospitals or doctors, if you have done something which made the patients think that you have betrayed their trust, it would make the implementation of this System difficult.
On the other hand, and as the Secretary may be saying later on, even though the authorities have proposed an amendment in this respect, the provision will not take effect for the time being as it will come into effect only after the second stage, and I agree to this arrangement. I hope that the authorities will expeditiously carry out work and identify ways to implement it effectively. I understand that on the proposal for provision of a "safe deposit box" feature, views were diverse even during the consultation but as I believe, and as Members should all understand, it is necessary to respect the choice made by the patients themselves. Of course, when the patients are to make a choice, I think they also understand that if they hope that their doctors can treat them more effectively, surely they must be honest to the doctors and divulge to the doctors more information, so that the doctors will know the patients' condition. This is only my personal view, and I think some patients may have different views. Having said that, President, disregarding how much information a patient is willing to provide in respect of his medical history, it is still necessary to respect the trust that the public have placed in you. When other people tell you something, or when it is about some shocking information or illnesses, just as those mentioned by Ms HO just now, any kind of illness may be considered sensitive by some people, whether it is about a person having suffered from mental illness before or having undergone some sort of plastic surgery or having AIDS. On hearing such news, some people may react very strongly and so, this would cause an uproar, though other people actually do not have the need to know.
Therefore, the authorities will have to shoulder great responsibilities in future. I hope the Secretary will give this Council a categorical assurance that when patients have given their consent, their trust will not be violated and that no huge public outcry will be caused. In many cases investigated by the Privacy Commissioner before, we have seen private data being disposed of casually or recovered from rubbish bins and on the streets. If that happened, it would be very bad indeed. So, the Secretary must understand that we are gravely concerned about this point.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14549
Moreover, just now I have also mentioned the situation where patients are in places outside Hong Kong. I agree with the amendment proposed by the authorities because this arrangement should not be confined to Hong Kong. The latest example is an accident that happened in Taiwan in which several Hongkongers suffered burns in a fire that broke out during an activity held at a swimming pool in Taiwan, and at that time, there might be a need to obtain some information and so, I think such information should be provided. In fact, Hong Kong people will travel everywhere at all times and there are Hong Kong people in many corners of the world. In the Bills Committee back then I already made the point that even if this Bill were enacted, some of the existing practices should not be discontinued as a result, and the authorities should act in the best interest of the patients. Therefore, the authorities should aim to provide better protection for the patients after the enactment of this Bill. I think that since Hong Kong people often travel everywhere, in case they are in distress, fall sick or encounter accidents overseas, they would wish that their doctors or the hospitals in Hong Kong can speedily transfer their medical records to the places where they are located. I hope that the Administration can do this.
Furthermore, concerning the use of these data for carrying out research, President, as you may know, this is a very sensitive issue, though the names of the patients will not be disclosed and I understand that for the sake of development in the future, sometimes it is necessary for us to carry out more researches. The Secretary may mention later that a board will be established in future and the authorities will determine the membership of this board, the requirements or qualifications of its members, and so on. Besides, when this board conducts research in future, what procedures should it follow and what guidelines will be put in place? I share the view of Mr MOK that it may be necessary for the Legislative Council to further examine these practices, for it is a very sensitive issue.
I must thank the Secretary, too. It is because at that time, I mentioned to him this organization named the Hong Kong Alliance for Rare Diseases with which my office and the Democratic Party have co-operated on several occasions. In fact, patients of rare diseases are in a small number but this organization is very committed to its work of organizing exhibitions and talks in different districts in Hong Kong. I think that since these are rare diseases, the authorities should be particularly interested in carrying out research into them. In this connection, the authorities have undertaken to meet and hold discussion with this organization, in order to find out about their concerns and views. I hope that the authorities will definitely live up to its words. Certainly, I am not saying that 14550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 the authorities need only meet with this organization because since the authorities will be using these data to carry out research, this will definitely arouse concerns from other parties.
President, I hope the Secretary can tell us whether this system will be implemented within this year, the areas that warrant our attention, and how the participation from private doctors can be encouraged, so that patients who wish to access this service can be benefited. It is because if doctors are unwilling to provide support, it would be useless even if the patients wish to be provided with this service. If I am consulting a private doctor or seeking medical consultation in a private hospital but if, all of a sudden, something happened, say, I am in an emergency condition or I need to seek medical treatment in a public hospital, what can be done if the private doctor concerned is not a participant of the System? The patient will really have no idea about what he should do.
Lastly, I wish to once again express my gratitude to the Privacy Commissioner ― I am afraid this Privacy Commissioner will not be reappointed as there is news that he will be sent away soon ― He and his colleagues are most sincere and have provided a lot of views to us, though some of their views were not instantly taken on board by the authorities. But I think the Privacy Commissioner absolutely plays a most crucial role in looking into what measures should be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation on privacy or other legislation from the angle of privacy protection, in order for Hong Kong people to be provided with full protection under this system. I hope that the Secretary, when taking forward this system and introducing other amendments, such as when considering how the "safe deposit box" feature can be introduced in the future, will continue to liaise with the Privacy Commissioner and officers in the Privacy Commissioner's Office. I certainly hope that the new Privacy Commissioner, like the incumbent, will put in great efforts and keep a keen interest in this issue, not fearing criticisms from others and not fearing accusations of him sticking his nose into this issue.
President, I really very much hope that this system can be implemented as soon as possible. I also hope that this system can win the applause of Hong Kong people, whether they be patients, doctors, or others, so that the healthcare service of Hong Kong will command more praises in the international community. President, I have great expectations for this system, and I hope the Secretary will not let us down.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14551
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Concerning the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bill), I am all for it because I have also benefited from it. During the Occupy movement, I was arrested by the Police. At that time, I said I was on medication but the police officers said they did not know what kind of medicine I had to take, nor would they allow anyone to bring me the medicine. For this reason, I went to the Caritas Medical Centre to see a doctor. The doctor there found the record of the prescription issued by the Queen Mary Hospital to me, so I was prescribed the same type of medicine. For this reason, I think this is really excellent.
After listening to the debate among Members, what I find it the hardest to understand is the fact that although some doctors said they would not join this programme or this kind of sharing system, as it turned out, the Government can do nothing about them. I am really baffled. May I ask Secretary Dr KO Wing-man what do the Latin words you learnt when studying medicine mean? Do they not mean that patients' interests should be above everything else? Yesterday, while having a debate, we talked about insurance, that is, the trade to which Mr CHAN Kin-por belongs. Even when taking out an insurance policy, it is necessary to state that it is in the best interests of the policyholder or one will be penalized, condemned or sanctioned. I hope the Government can really have a policy for examining the entire healthcare sector, including the public sector operated with public funds or private healthcare systems. Do they mean that their aim is not to serve patients but doctors? I find this really strange. Secretary, you are a doctor and have connections with the medical profession, so maybe you can explain a little bit what their difficulties are. Is it because doctors do not have any money that they do not join this programme, or what are the reasons? Or do they place their own interests above those of their patients? I think that if I do not raise this issue in this Chamber, I will really feel uneasy because I remember that in a certain television programme, it was said that it was necessary to learn Latin words when studying medicine and that all of them meant the motive for studying medicine was very noble. You have to understand that the so-called "birth, senility, sickness and death" are the stages of life that all people must go through. That means no matter if one is a doctor or not, one would fall ill and after falling ill, one has to seek medical treatment. For this reason, this profession called doctor should put patients' well-being above 14552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 all else. If we agree unanimously that the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) should be implemented, I really cannot see any reason for the Government not stepping up the vigour in implementation. I am really baffled by this.
Just now, I listened to the whole debate. Since I have not been following this matter, I am only like an old dog learning new tricks. Concerning the issue of "safe deposit box", Members' expositions all voiced the view that it should be introduced. If some people do not want their medical history to be revealed fully in one go, perhaps we can do so in "chunks", that is, put it in a "safe deposit box" and open it when necessary. When drafting the legislation, the Government said that this could not be done because two areas were involved: First, doctors had refused to join this system and the Government could do nothing about this. Also, patients want to preserve some privacy or do not wish to disclose their medical history, and the Administration also said that nothing could be done either. President, please do not lower your head. May I ask the DAB what solution does it have apart from identifying those 70 or so litter black spots? This is because all Members of the DAB played a part in the scrutiny of the Bill, did they not? Dr Elizabeth QUAT spoke on this subject matter on behalf of the DAB and Ms Starry LEE also built on Dr QUAT's speech when she gave her comments but now, the Government is not going to do anything about it. Apart from asking the Government to clean up the rubbish, what tricks does the DAB have? There is none and herein lies the major problem. If the Government fails to do something, what can be done? This is the situation in the legislature now: When scrutinizing or drafting Bills, the Government uses the long title to restrict the contents of the Bill, so even though we wish to say a little bit more, we cannot do so. Even if something is mentioned in the long title, if we ask the Government to make certain efforts, the Government still says it cannot. President, as a result, our situation is like this: Either take it or leave it. Is this how the relationship between the executive and the legislature should be like? Should the administration by a government not be founded on sound justifications? Does it mean that everything is just empty talk?
President, LEUNG Chun-ying said that after the constitutional reform exercise, the emphasis would be placed on measures related to people's livelihood. In that case, may I ask why, given that this is such an important Bill eliciting so many views in the Legislative Council ― I found that each and every Member has spoken ― after Members had made their speeches, the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14553 went so far as to turn a deaf ear to them? In coming downstairs, I actually wish to back Dr LEUNG Ka-lau. Hey, although Members have presented their justifications, everything is in vain. As a result, violence is often the resort, for example, the so-called "violent rescue of the market", "violent rescue of the party", and so on. This is just like the relationship between the executive and the legislature. In terms of the constitution, we conferred all the powers on the Government, but has the Government shown the slightest trace of flexibility when dealing with problems? I wonder why, when people wanted to preserve some privacy, the Government said that it could not do anything to help them because initially, no consideration had been given to those issues, so the software created at that time could not perform such a function. Since no preparations have been made, one can only wait for the next time or the next train.
At the same time, this is a matter related to the doctors, a matter related to the functional constituencies. May I ask the Secretary if he is a doctor? You are a doctor, so do you mean the Hong Kong Medical Association can call all the shots? Given such a low rate of participation among doctors ― and even all Members of the DAB also said that the participation rate among doctors was low ― if doctors do not take part, it will not be possible for patients to pass their information to another doctor, so why does the Government not deal with this issue? Why is it like that? Does this not mean that the two major goals of the entire Bill cannot be attained? Let me say this once again: Medicine is intended for patients, not doctors. When doctors practise their profession, they can certainly make themselves useful to society or make a living out of it but why, when the Bill touches on patients' rights, did the Government say that it had not thought about that, so it could not provide any assistance? Separately, doctors also said, "Even if we do not join, what can the Government do about us?" The Government lacks any vigour in implementation in these two areas. President, is this Government not even worse than that of Taiwan? I think it is even worse than governments in the Third World.
We live in such an affluent society but the Government could outrageously say that it had not given this matter any consideration and could not rewrite the software, or request that the legislation be enacted first and changes be made to it in due course in future. Buddy, how possibly can there be such rationale? I am not sure if anything has been overlooked in this debate but now that since the Government has overlooked something, can the Secretary make an undertaking to this Council on the measures that will be taken to make the arrangement of the 14554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 so-called a "safe deposit box" feasible? When will it become feasible? After the passage of this piece of legislation, when will it be submitted for review? If it does not work, what monitoring mechanism will there be? Can he also tell us what sanctions the Government has for doctors if their resistance continues? It has none.
President, the Chief Executive taught you how to regulate the conduct of Legislative Council Members but is he capable of controlling the Secretaries under him? Is he capable of doing that? This is called "a dog catching mice" ― poking one's nose into other people's business. He went to another person's home, said that the vase in this man's home was not placed properly but his own home is actually all filthy and there is even urine all over the place. President, every day, I am lambasted by Members of the pro-government camp. They attack me as a major target and I feel that this is actually an honour because if one finds oneself having done an unreasonable act, it would only be strange if one is not lambasted. May I ask the Secretary if there is any preferable course of action in this regard? I also wish to ask the DAB: Apart from identifying the dozens of litter black spots, then asking the Chief Executive to order the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Carrie LAM, to assume the role of the commander-in-chief of a cleaning team, as Donald TSANG once was, what other contribution have they made? They have also played a part in the scrutiny of this Bill. President, I see that you are looking at me with impatience on your face, so I am afraid you will chide me again. I am not going to speak anymore as I am a little bit scared now.
President, a straw shows which way the wind blows. You do not want to listen to Dr LEUNG Ka-lau and when I spoke from the patients' perspective, did you listen to me? I also wish to ask Secretary KO: To your understanding, what actually are the reasons for doctors' reluctance in joining this medical record system? Are they afraid of them being found to have given the wrong prescriptions and made the wrong diagnoses? I think this is a problem, that is, they want to protect themselves. President, this is very simple and please listen to me. If doctor A was initially very muddle-minded and when treating patients, he made mistakes or did not do his best and if his patient records are circulated all the time, they would be seen by other people, do you understand? This is just like LEUNG Chun-ying, whose efforts always started with a bang and ended with a whimper. If he is asked about what he once said, he may say that the problem does not exist anymore and of course, that would do. However, if the medical records are widely circulated, that is, from consultation, through diagnosis to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14555 prescription, everything is transparent, this is a direct response elicited by the challenge to a rotten system, that is, the system under which doctors are supreme. Why is the writing of doctors so illegible? Because they do not want you to read it. President, if you write me a note but the handwriting is illegible, how do I know what you have written? This is how doctors write. In fact, this is meant to protect themselves. Do you mean there is no reason for this? It is just like a secret code. Can lawyers do so? Mr Albert HO cannot. Clients will scold him, saying that although he charged so much money, he has written his pleadings in such a manner. Therefore, on this matter, my greatest concern is why doctors can resist doing such a thing and what desirable course of action the Government has. Secretary, please reply.
However, perhaps I am too shallow but I think that if a system is implemented and when dealing with patients ― that is, all people, since everyone can fall sick ― if a small number of people know how to practise medicine, that is, a small number of people are gifted or have received training and are capable of taking care of other people, what reasons are there for them not to heed sound advice? If they do not heed sound advice, why is the Government not amenable to sound advice by forcing these people to do this? This is my biggest query, so I hope the Secretary can give me a reply in brief later on. In his mind, since the rate of participation is so low, what timetable and roadmap are there to compel their participation? Alternatively, if they do not join the System, what special defence can they cite for not doing so?
President, I shall stop here. Bye bye.
DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): President, initially, I planned to say a few words only in Committee, but since a number of Honourable colleagues said earlier that they had heard that not many doctors had participated in the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) and they took exception to this and intended to introduce compulsory participation for doctors, I would like to respond to the issue briefly.
First, in the private healthcare sector, market force is the greatest force. If patients request private doctors to connect to the health record system of the Hospital Authority (HA), doctors will definitely do so. Look at this key in my hand. I can use this key to check the health records of Members with the computer in front of me if Members can give me your password provided by the 14556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
HA for accessing the records. This is the power of the market, and I must act according to it. If so, why have some doctors not participated in the programme? I have not conducted any survey on this. Yet as far as I know, most doctors are using computers for the operation of their clinics, including accounting, appointment booking, keeping inventory and turnover of drugs and other items, prescriptions, printing drug labels, and so on, even though they have not participated in the health record sharing programme of the HA.
Yet these are only trivial matters. When it comes to electronic health record (eHR), we have to face a major problem. The computers used in most of the clinics of doctors are common personal computers and not the large-scale systems like the ones used by the HA. We all know that computers will break down one day, and the information stored in the hard disk will be lost one day. When will that day come? It may be three months later, six months later or two years later. If a doctor stores all the information of his patients in the system, it will be troublesome once the computer is down. We do not know what to do if that happens. Therefore, regarding the use of eHRs in the private sector, it may be feasible for hospitals, for they have sound systems, and they definitely have back-up arrangements and will generally keep back-ups. However, for doctors in private practice, they can hardly do that. They have to deploy additional resources to ensure the safety of the system they use. I am not referring to damage or invasion of the system by others but that they have to ensure the information stored will not be lost.
Moreover, I would like to pose a hypothetical question to Honourable Members for discussion: Should the use of an eHR system by doctors be made mandatory? I know some senior doctors who are experienced doctors and have exquisite medical skills, yet they are not interested in computers. May I ask Members one question: For these doctors with exquisite medical skills but are computer illiterate, should we revoke their licences? Does it warrant such a course of action? Take my case as an example. I used to work in the Prince of Wales Hospital. Back then, professors would write the health records of patients and give them to junior doctors to follow up. Now, I work part-time at the Prince of Wales Hospital and I visit there sometimes. Since I have been using that system for a long time, I will input the information myself, as I am quite good at using computers. However, when it comes to making surgery arrangements for patients, I do not know how to do it, for the system is really very "user-unfriendly". In such events, or at times I have to handle other issues, I will jot down a note to ask others to help make the arrangement.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14557
Another concern is privacy. I hope Honourable Members will understand that if the use of an eHR system by doctors is made mandatory, I am afraid doctors may be subject to mandatory requirements of including certain information of patients arising from other political force in future. I hope Members will understand that this is not a scenario we desire. Hence, the best incentive to encourage more doctors to use this system is market force, which is a very powerful force. Then, it is about the establishment of a sound system ― I have to declare here that I set up a company called the Hong Kong Electronic Medical Record Company three months ago. I am the sole director of this company, but so far no activity has been carried out, which means nothing has been done. Since I notice the eHR system for private doctors now available in the market has many inadequacies, including the one provided by the Hong Kong Medical Association, and the system often breaks down, so the system is somehow inadequate for the reliable and safe operation of a clinic. I thus hope that I can use my medical and computer knowledge to develop a better system later, which can ensure that the patient records will not be lost easily. In fact, the information should be stored in the cloud system with high reliability instead of the computer placed under the doctor's desk, which will be damaged easily when it is kicked inadvertently. If information is stored in the cloud, it can be ensured that it will not be lost, yet it involves the problem of cloud security, that is, whether the information will be stolen by hackers. A general practitioner in independent practice can hardly handle this issue. These arrangements can only be handled at the level of an organization, say by a hospital or a company formally established for such purpose.
I am only explaining the actual situation to Members, hoping that Members will not often blame private doctors for not participating in the System and using it. First, they really may not have the need, for their patients do not need that. Second, reliability is a significant consideration. More often than not, doctors will use computers for other tasks, but we really dare not use them for the storage of patient records. The reason is just that simple.
With these remarks, President, I support the resumed Second Reading of the Bill.
14558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, we of course support the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) as a platform as well as the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bill) tabled for discussion today, but we still have some matters of concern. Apart from those raised by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau just now, perhaps I will mention the matters when I speak on his amendments later on.
Overall speaking, the sharing of patient records across different platforms of public-sector or private-sector healthcare institutions … even for public bodies like the Hospital Authority (HA) and the Department of Health, the current systems are indeed not shared, so inter-connection is already good enough; if the systems are further linked up to private doctors or hospitals, we hope that this will foster the continuity of healthcare services. However, as for whether this signifies our endorsement of privatization of healthcare services, the answer is absolutely in the negative. We only hope that patients' healthcare needs will be met in a timely manner through this electronic record platform.
Of course, as I believe, the Government knows very clearly that apart from linking up both the public-sector and private-sector systems as far as possible, the initiative is probably also aimed at shifting the responsibility of healthcare cost to the market. This is exactly what we need to argue with them. We definitely do not support this. Certainly, I also have to thank Mr Charles Peter MOK for leading the Bills Committee all along. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has also made great efforts regarding the Bill by raising a lot of points of doubt, and the authorities have made amendments in the light of these suggestions and points of doubt. We support all of these. As for the concerns raised by several Members in their speeches earlier, like those relating to privacy, patients' choices as well as patients with rare diseases or unique backgrounds, we also agree with them.
Nevertheless, concerning the Bill, I wish to say a few words for those who are particularly underprivileged. The Government has made it clear that the platform as a whole is voluntary in nature, and we surely know it is good as it allows the sharing of health records for the provision of timely healthcare services. However, to those who are unable to express their will to join in, what will be the impact on them following the passage of this platform or Bill? Mentally incapacitated persons are mentioned in the Bill, and they need the help of substitute decision makers to decide if they should join the platform or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14559 withdraw from it after joining it, or what to do after joining it, such as retrieving records, deciding what to be placed into the safe "deposit box" when options are available in the future, and so on. Under the System, such substitute decision makers have to help healthcare recipients (HCRs) or patients make the decisions they need to make.
First of all, we hold that the concept of mental incapacity per se is rather outdated. Of course, the Government has stated in the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) that "mental incapacity" refers to mental disorder, or those with mental illness specifically, as well as mental handicap, or intellectual disabilities as a more up-to-date term; or a person who is incapable, by reason of mental incapacity, of managing and administering his property and affairs. According to the stipulation in law, a lot of people are covered.
President, I have to make a declaration. My daughter has severe intellectual disabilities and should thus be categorized as mentally handicapped. She is surely unable to decide on her own if she should join the System, so how should we help her join it? My daughter is now 24, already an adult, but a system is not in place in Hong Kong for this kind of persons to be automatically assigned a guardian once they become adults. As her father, I am not even her legal guardian. If I am to make a choice for her to join the System, there are surely various types of substitute decision makers under the current Bill. The first type is a guardian; the second type is a guardian or trustee appointed by the Court; the third type is a family member; and the fourth type is a healthcare provider. These four types of people may serve as her substitute decision maker in the order mentioned just now. By order, the first one to make the decision should be the guardian; if she has no guardian, it will depend on whether she has been appointed a guardian or trustee by the Court; if no, a family member will come next; if she has no family member, the healthcare provider as the substitute decision maker will have to make the decision for her.
As for guardians, the existing guardianship system in Hong Kong is rather passive. I have raised this point during the Bills Committee's deliberations because the right to decide if one should join the eHR platform is not included as part of the existing guardianship system. The guardianship system is categorized into six types, namely requiring the person concerned to reside at a specific place; bringing the person concerned to a specific place; requiring the person concerned to attend at a place and time for treatment, education or 14560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 training; receiving medical or dental treatment; requiring access to the person concerned to be given to professionals, including medical practitioners and social workers; and receiving or paying a monthly sum roughly equivalent to the median monthly income, which now stands at $13,500. The matter of electronic patient records is not included therein. We propose that if there is a need to make such a decision, should there be a proper way for us as their carers to become their guardians?
As regards the Government's replies, the Bill is certainly under the charge of the Food and Health Bureau, and public officers from the Bureau have attended Bills Committee meetings to answer our questions all along. But disappointing is the reply from the Labour and Welfare Bureau, which suggests that there is basically no need to change anything, and this will give rise to some difficulties. If the person concerned has no guardian and he will not seek the appointment of a trustee by the Court for no reason, then the third tier will be family members. His family members may want him to join the programme, yet what is meant by "family members"? The definition provided in the Bill is so extensive that anyone in the family will be regarded as a family member, irrespective of his relationship with the person in question.
Then, if there is a conflict among family members, what should we do? The Government's current reply is "first come, first served", that is, if the first family member making decisions for the person in question decides that he should join in, he will join in; if the second family member wants him to withdraw, it will be a troublesome situation then, and such instances happen very often. For example, if I were survived by my daughter, other family members of mine might have different views on the decision on whether she should join the System. There will be problems if some family members want her to join it while some do not.
Therefore, why does the Government not make some minor amendments to the guardianship system in the light of these matters so as to extend the scope of the Bill, such that the scope of guardianship may cover decisions that are obviously healthcare-related? This is actually very simple. It baffles me why the Labour and Welfare Bureau would instead say that they are not going to do anything, and period. If it is said today that the scope and framework of the current guardianship system as a whole are to remain as passive as possible to pre-empt excessive control on the ground that we should not deprive those who are mentally or intellectually challenged of the right to make various decisions in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14561 their life, we will understand this point. Of course, the degree of passiveness or activeness is open to negotiation. Nevertheless, the decisions involved in the Bill may affect many people who cannot make decisions for themselves, especially when we are talking about patients now. If they have carers, this surely is a problem, but the system per se may readily give rise to confusions. Hence, we should have a corresponding solution to it. The simplest one is to increase the types of power under the guardianship system from six to seven, but the Government is reluctant to make even such a simple move.
The number of persons without family members is actually not insignificant. For example, in many cases, after the elderly are arranged to live in residential care homes, their family members may leave Hong Kong, pass away or just do not care about them at all. They may be suffering from dementia or other difficulties. Their access to information can be so extremely limited that they may have no idea of the initiative. Moreover, even if they have access to it, are they able to make decisions? Such decisions may be complicated. In particular, if the System is indeed to be developed to carry a "safe deposit box" feature in the future, how should we protect their rights and interests? It is now suggested that HCPs may make the decisions for them. Yet, when private residential care homes are to make such decisions, is there really any guarantee that they will have regard to the well-being of the elderly?
There are situations where individual elderly persons do not wish to expose their privacy or background to others. In theory, I assume that HCPs in general would encourage or think that their HCRs or patients should join the System as it benefits HCPs by facilitating the admission to or discharge from hospitals or medical consultation of the elderly, and patients would benefit from it as well. However, if patients themselves have some special points of concern, they may not wish to join the System when they are able to make the decision on their own, but they are now compelled to do so because no one can make the decision. Hence, this is also a loophole here, that is, who should effect monitoring? I once asked this question about a substitute decision maker helping a mentally incapacitated person submit an application for participation, the reply the Government gave me was that the substitute decision maker had to be able to provide proof that the HCR or patient was unable to give consent. For the sake of such proof, for parents like me, do I need to take my daughter to another medical consultation such that she will be certified as incapable by the doctor, and then the Government will endorse it? What kind of proof is it?
14562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The HCP for the residents at a residential care home is the person in charge of that home. If he says that all residents will join in, will the Government ask him to seek proof from doctors on his own, or will HA doctors take the initiative to offer them such proof? We are quite concerned about many of these details. We understand that the law is not an exhaustive list of all circumstances, and I believe that a relevant code of practice is now being prepared by the Government. However, how should we protect the rights and interests of patients as the most vulnerable party from their own perspective? In our view, these matters are not prominently reflected in the current Bill.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, I believe Honourable colleagues in this Council have already reached a consensus today of supporting the passage of this electronic record platform. Despite some controversies over certain details, such as a consensus might not be reached on the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Members have actually had a consensus on the goal, proposals, direction and principles of the general policy. Moreover, the Panel on Health Services of the Legislative Council has discussed this issue, and it has been agreed by all that the electronic record platform is absolutely beneficial to healthcare development in Hong Kong, especially the well-being of patients.
Regarding the principles mentioned by many colleagues just now involving the keeping, use and confidentiality of patient information, it is most important, as I mentioned just now, for the entire System to make protection for the well-being of patients the paramount consideration. Furthermore, as the entire System is voluntary in nature, the logic is very simple. In the handling of patient information, including its keeping, use and confidentiality, the consent of healthcare recipients (HCRs) must be upheld as the primary principle, which means that the consent of patients to the use of their information should be made the paramount consideration. Certainly, it is definitely helpful to society if the general public and healthcare providers (HCPs) can obtain a full picture of certain information and use it freely.
Today, the System operates on a voluntary basis with patients' rights as its paramount consideration. By public interest, it means that such information can be used by HCPs without the consent of patients under certain circumstances and being restricted to clearly defined areas of exemption, such as circumstances related to law enforcement, research or specified overriding interests such as prevention of infectious diseases. Otherwise, it must be clearly specified that the consent of patients must be obtained. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14563
Just now, Ms Cyd HO raised an interesting point in mentioning an issue related to the health information of public officers. I wonder if there is any country which requires that such information must be made public. For instance, should important public office holders who are suffering from certain illnesses be required to disclose their conditions to certain persons or the public according to law or certain regulations? From the angle of political ethics, there is no reason for a holder of significant public powers to conceal the fact that he has health problems or is critically ill ― even Mr TUNG had to inform the public of his leg ailment, though it was a bizarre political illness. From the angle of political ethics, he ought to disclose his leg ailment. In my opinion, this norm is founded on the political landscape of society and the existence of such conventions, guidelines or codes. Nevertheless, I believe Ms Cyd HO did not mean that we would be automatically entitled to browsing the medical records of certain public officers or even opening their "safe deposit boxes". Since she was sitting next to me just now, I immediately asked her this question and she replied that she did not mean it. Therefore, this is yet another issue. After this enactment, the privacy of personal data of public officers will be respected in the same manner as ordinary people, unless in some special or exceptional circumstances. This is the point I wish to clarify.
When it comes to issue of consent, certain circumstances, such as mentally incapacitated persons, might be involved. Just now, Dr Fernando CHEUNG expressed great concern about this issue and pointed out that there is a need for the law to deal with issues in this regard. I do agree that there are indeed inadequacies in the law which must be improved. However, when mentally incapacitated persons are unable to indicate their intention, their guardians or immediate family members usually will sign documents on their behalf to obtain proper healthcare services in their interest. I am aware that a framework will be devised after the passage of the Bill. By then, many matters in the financial and software research areas can be dealt with. We hope that the System can be implemented expeditiously to better enable the entire healthcare system to upgrade its treatment of patients.
Just now, a colleague asked whether problems would be caused if private medical practitioners refused to complement the effort or participate in this platform for certain reasons given that the System is voluntary in nature. I think more time is needed. As pointed out by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, many healthcare experts of the older generation might not be interested in computers or think that 14564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 there is no need to use computers, despite their great professional achievements. I do not consider it too useful to compel them to use this platform. As time passes, computers will naturally become part of the living or life of young people, which means that there is simply no need to compel them to use computers and the problem will be resolved.
Nevertheless, after the enactment of the legislation, private medical clinics will be required to provide their patients with more uniform information and inform them that the clinics have joined the healthcare platform to provide the relevant information. For instance, the information of the patients will be shared by public clinics or hospitals after their signing of the relevant documents. In other words, there is a chance for patient information to be retrieved for treatment purposes, and so there is a need to explain this to the patients concerned. Even if a clinic is not linked to the healthcare platform, its patients should still be informed so that they can decide whether or not they should seek treatment from that clinic. Since some eminent medical practitioners might not provide such service, patients who have been informed can then make a choice. Anyhow, medical practitioners are duty-bound to take the initiative to inform their patients of the relevant circumstances. This is the second point.
Third, the HA will gather a lot of information in future and, as I pointed out just now, such information must be used for medical purposes. Regarding the question raised by Ms Cyd HO just now on whether or not the HA could retrieve the medical records of medical practitioners during recruitment, I think that the HA should not and cannot do so because the medical records of medical practitioners or healthcare personnel should be used for medical purposes only. Even employers cannot retrieve records of the persons concerned without their authorization, although the former might be concerned that the latter have past records of certain illnesses which make them unsuitable for certain posts. Although some people might have misgivings about this issue, I think that employees can be required by contract or legislation to make an honest declaration. This requirement should be applicable to HA posts as well as other posts. Hence, this platform is not meant to authorize the HA as an employer to control the relevant information or the keys of the "safe deposit boxes" and use such information for other purposes. Just as the first point raised by me just now, the entire System should be patient-centred. Patient consent is most crucial. Moreover, the relevant information can only be used for medical purposes. If it is used for other purposes, patient consent must be obtained. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14565 believe this point is very clear. I only wish to reiterate that some concerns might be unwarranted. I also believe there will be many issues to tackle after the platform has commenced operation. For instance, the issues mentioned just now, such as criminal offences and security, need to be addressed. Some medical practitioners might think that they should not be held responsible for protecting information security if the information is not under their control, for he has no idea how to protect information security and what system should be adopted or whom should be recruited to monitor the patient information.
The information of certain patients might be very sensitive. For instance, many people might be very interested in the private affairs of public figures such as certain public officers or famous movie stars. The relevant System will create legal problems if its information is stolen because it is vulnerable to hacking. For instance, there might be questions about whether medical practitioners have taken adequate precautions to prevent hacking by way of a high-security system. All of these questions must be answered. This explains why some renowned medical practitioners prefer focusing on treating patients because they have no time to deal with these matters. Nevertheless, after the commencement of the entire System, a lot of things will be gradually improved and dealt with. Certainly, training is most crucial. Furthermore, all people must familiarize themselves with the use of the System.
I am still unable to fully understand Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments. Neither have I decided how to vote. More time might be needed for discussions. Although the approach proposed by Dr LEUNG requires a high degree of protection for privacy, some consequences might be caused. Later on, we will note with interest whether or not the amendments will delay the commencement of the legislation and give rise to possible consequences. I would also like to listen to the account to be given by the Secretary. Generally speaking, we are anxious to see the legislation come into operation because the policy is good. I also hope that the HA can upgrade the capacity of HCPs to provide better protection for the health of Hong Kong people.
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, this Bill, as I see it, comprises about seven parts with a total of 62 clauses. I note that after 22 meetings over the past year or so, about 19 clauses will be amended. That is to say, in response to the views of Members, public officers or the Privacy Commissioner for 14566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Personal Data, at least one third of the Bill comprising a host of clauses will be amended after discussion on 22 occasions. Here I dare not say whether the Bill is well done or well written, but the fact is, after thorough discussions and heeding different views, the authorities have indeed made some amendments.
In retrospect of the whole matter, when the last-term Government put forward this concept, we considered it a good idea. As far as I, a service provider, understand it ― I may also be a user in future ― actually this concept is very simple. It is the sharing of the existing medical or health records of patients among different healthcare institutions. It is hoped that when a patient goes to a certain institution, the relevant parties will have clear access to his medical records by simply pressing a key on the computer, and thus the patient will be able to receive treatment expeditiously because the healthcare personnel will have a full grasp of his health history, or what we call medical records. Such is the concept of this programme.
To me, this is not something new actually. Why? Because electronic health record, abbreviated as "eHR", has been implemented in the public-sector healthcare system and private hospitals for years. Does it have any problem? It certainly has many different problems, with some of them having never come to my mind before. President, suppose I am now admitted to a public hospital, that means a certain hospital under the Hospital Authority (HA). The medical conditions stated by me will be recorded and entered into the computer for storage. An interesting point is that under the present system, this record does not belong to me. It belongs to the healthcare institution. I am talking about the present system. If I wish to obtain these pieces of information, apart from asking my attending doctor or those nurses who are responsible for looking after me ― they will merely give me some incomplete information ― I will have to make an application for a detailed medical report. That means under the present system, the right of ownership of these records actually is vested in the hospitals or institutions concerned.
In this situation, private hospitals have got their own systems. As for the HA's public healthcare system, the Secretary should know very well that actually a similar approach has been adopted since the outbreak of SARS. Dozens of hospitals under the HA have been sharing their records for a long time. That means all the medical records in the whole HA have long since been available for sharing among its hospitals. These records belong to the hospitals rather than LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14567 the patients. Since records are available for sharing, now even X-ray films can be shared and retrieved by the simple press of a key on the computer. It is hoped that when patients are hospitalized or seek consultation in different public hospitals, they will be able to receive the most appropriate medical treatment as soon as possible.
In comparison, if my memory has not failed me, now there are some 10 private hospitals. I do not quite remember if there are 12 or 14. They have established their own system for sharing records. Similarly, if I wish to get back my records after seeking medical consultation in a certain private hospital, I will have to make an application because these records do not belong to me.
If I switch from the public-sector healthcare system, that means a hospital under the HA, to a private hospital for medical consultation and wish to get back my medical records from that public hospital, I will have to spend much time on making an application before I can obtain my medical records. Consequently, my treatment will be delayed. Because of these reasons, the last-term Government came up with the idea of sharing records between the public and private sectors. So it set out to introduce the legislation and drafted a host of clauses in the Bill, which consists of about seven parts with a total of 62 clauses. When it was submitted to the Legislative Council for discussion, actually I was a bit surprised, but Honourable colleagues have divergent views. No matter whether it is in the interest of patients or from the perspective of information technology, a lot of things are included in the Bill. Compared with our original intention, it seems the initial mode of operation has become much more complicated. I dare not say whether this is desirable or not.
Nevertheless, simply put, when the last-term Government discussed with us in the Panel on Health, our original intention was simply to merge the public and private systems. Since both systems are in operation, we may as well find a better platform to connect the two. However, there is one question which has never been discussed, that is, after the sharing programme is put in place, who owns or will own these records? Can the patients access their own records? Or is it that only authorized persons in the hospitals have access to the records? At present, not everyone can access the records. Only authorized persons can do so. I cannot access the records even if I press the key on the computer. Neither can you, President. Even the Secretary cannot do so. Only those persons who are authorized at the time in question can access the records.
14568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
What will happen after the sharing programme is implemented? After the sharing programme is implemented, it is still necessary to make an application for access to the information. However, how will the controversy over patients' privacy be handled? After attending those meetings ― I certainly did not attend all the 20-odd meetings, but the meeting which was aborted has nothing to do with me. I was present, and I took part in the discussion in the Coffee Corner ― as I have noted, our original intention is to connect the two major systems in the public and private sectors by administrative means. The merit which will be brought about by such connection is that the participants, including the staff of the institutions, the institutions themselves and the patients, will be subject to regulation and protected by law. This is the most important part. It will be unlike the present situation where there may be a need to go to court or handle a load of administrative work. In my view, the merit of this Bill, about one third of which will be amended, is the clarity of rights and responsibilities of various parties and the availability of protection in law. In response to the concern for different interests or different views held by various parties during the course of discussion, a lot of things will be added to the Bill.
As regards patients' privacy, is it given sufficient protection now? I think whether it be in the public healthcare institutions or private hospitals ― for private clinics and nursing homes, President, I dare not make any assertion ― so far I have not heard of any big problem with patients' privacy in these two types of institutions. Suppose there is something which I do not wish to tell other people when I seek medical consultation, say, Joseph LEE has got a certain strange disease, I do not want anyone else to know about it except the people who treat me. These will be entered into the records. No one else will know about it. Only authorized persons and people who provide me with treatment will know about it. Of course, some people will say, what if my information is disclosed by someone who treats me? In that case, he will be sent to prison. This is precisely what this Bill offers me: protection for patients.
Hence, I am not saying that patients' privacy is unimportant. Yet this time, the overall legislative intent is to provide better protection by legal rather than administrative regulation. For this reason, hanging too many things onto the Christmas tree will only complicate this matter. Our original intention is simply to put the current operation under regulation. That is it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14569
Another point is, if the patient is mentally incapacitated, what should be done? At present, a consent form is available in the HA. According to the terms in the consent form, if the patient is underage, unconscious or like Dr Fernando CHEUNG said, incapacitated, a "Consent for Minor" ― I have forgotten what it is called in Chinese. It is a consent form anyway ― will have to be signed by someone else. The consent of an authorized person is required. There is such a system to protect the patients. Can further improvements be made? Sure. We often say in this Chamber that there is always room for improvement for everything. After bringing up the matters relating to the 62 clauses in a total of seven parts for discussion, one third of the Bill will be amended. Can it be improved further? It can certainly be done better. The problem is, our original intention is to have a distinct merger of the two systems so as to provide protection to patients expeditiously, but as I have noticed, the System has now become more complicated. Is it that the systems cannot be merged? They certainly can. Yet the problem is, our original intention is simply to provide protection under the two existing systems in operation, two systems which are already mature and satisfactory, by way of legislation, with a view to doing the work more properly.
Another controversy, which is the third controversial point I have heard, is whether any information will be disclosed for scientific research. If so, there will be a big problem. As far as I understand it, scientific research is not so simple. Being an academic, I know that in conducting scientific research, one must overcome a multitude of hurdles before one can get certain information. Will such information involve privacy? For example, it turns out that in the whole territory, only I, Joseph LEE, have contracted the strange disease from which I am suffering, and the scientific researchers come across this information during their scientific research. When the relevant report is published, other people will know that the person referred to in the report is Joseph LEE. Will that be the case? It is not that simple. At least I have never heard of such a case. Patients certainly have their worries. In fact, we worry about a lot of things. Nowadays in Hong Kong society, everyone has their own worries. Nevertheless, the question is, is that the case in reality? Not necessarily so. I do not see the need to amend the legislation for this reason. Actually this is quite complicated.
However, that does not mean the Government does not need to do anything. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity of the Second Reading debate to ask the Government to give an explanation. We support this Bill, but 14570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 now the matter turns out to be so complicated, though our original intention is very simple. Hence, at this stage, should the Government not adopt administrative means or guidelines to effectively dispel Honourable colleagues' worries? For example, it can tell us how the Government is going to deliberate on certain issues and strike a balance between different approaches. This is what it should do this time. Frankly, the Secretary should not think he can back off and act as he pleases after Members have voted for the Bill in a while. What we have observed is that the existing system needs to be regulated through legislation to make it more effective.
I would like to talk about patients' privacy again. Such issues as how the authorities will act as the guardian of mentally incapacitated patients, as well as questions concerning information for scientific research need to be explained through different channels so that members of the public can rest assured and know that this is a desirable piece of legislation that can help them, and now the Government will seek to regulate the existing system effectively through legislation. Only then will more people participate in the System.
The Secretary will say this is only a voluntary programme. As I told Dr LEUNG Ka-lau just now, since it is a voluntary programme, some people will say it is all right if they do not join it. We certainly cannot say that, right? How can we encourage more people to join the programme? We need to make members of the public realize that this is a programme with merits that can help the patients. I very much agree to Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's point earlier. If private doctors and private hospitals join this meritorious programme, that means if most of the healthcare institutions join it upon the passage of the Bill which provides protection in law, they will form a market force. When a patient goes to a healthcare institution to seek medical consultation and finds that this institution has not joined the sharing programme, he will leave this institution for another one which has joined the programme for medical consultation. As such, those who have not joined the programme, including doctors, residential homes for the elderly and nursing homes, will join it automatically because they also wish to have this selling point. This is an important factor.
Under this situation, we need to examine whether it is unsuitable for this programme to adopt a voluntary mode of operation. I have heard Members say that although we cannot make it mandatory for healthcare institutions to participate in the programme, we still hope more healthcare institutions will join it. However, even though we need to encourage more healthcare institutions to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14571 join the programme, I agree to Ms Emily LAU's earlier remark that we must not expend public money. The Policy Bureau should not be mistaken that it ought to expend public money to acquire more computers for private doctors to facilitate their participation in the programme. We will definitely object to such a course of action. This is not acceptable. This programme simply seeks to enable healthcare institutions to gain the patients' confidence and provide patients with the most effective and expeditious treatment, since the relevant institutions have put in place the eHR sharing system which is subject to our regulation. This is what we are doing right now.
The last point which I would like to raise is, as reported in the newspapers lately, the computer system of a certain major hotel group has been hacked. Given the numerous concerns of Members and the enormity of the database ― Mr Charles Peter MOK is not present. I believe he is an expert ― the Government has the responsibility to make it clear to the public. The HA, the public healthcare institutions, the Department of Health, private hospitals and private doctors should also make it clear that this programme is installed with a powerful firewall which will not be breached no matter how it is attacked, and no hacker will be able to retrieve any information from the System. Yet I have no knowledge in this field. I need an expert to do the explaining.
However, if the Policy Bureau fails to deal with this aspect properly in future ― I hope that will not be the case for the Policy Bureau ― suppose after the law has come into operation, we all voluntarily join this programme, but unfortunately, one day the System of the HA is suddenly hacked, and all the information seems to be leaked, and the information of certain famous persons or people who do not wish to disclose their medical records is leaked, then in that case, I guess the Secretary indeed will be unable to shirk his responsibility, and I will worry for him. Nonetheless, never mind. By then, the problem may have been passed to the next-term Government already, and he may be working in another post. However, this is a very important question which needs to be addressed.
Although this question is not directly related to legislation, the original intention of the legislation is, in my view, to share the patients' health history or medical records among the healthcare institutions under a patient-oriented approach so that patients can receive more effective, expeditious and comprehensive medical treatment. I support this original intention. However, 14572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 just now I mentioned the problem of the System being complicated by the hanging of too many things onto the Christmas tree, and I believe it will not be settled today. Yet it does not mean there is no need to address this problem. I hope the Government will face it squarely. Thank you, President.
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 Secretary for Food and Health to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Mr Charles Peter MOK, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bills Committee) and all members, as well as the Legislative Council Secretariat for their efforts which have contributed to the successful completion of the scrutiny of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill (the Bill). The Bills Committee has held 22 meetings over the past year for detailed and in-depth discussions on the clauses of the Bill. The Government has all along attached great importance to the valuable views and suggestions presented by the Bills Committee and stakeholders in the course of refining the Bill and planning further development of the system.
It is our belief to adopt a prudent and pragmatic attitude towards the research and development of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System). To test the viability of an electronic health record sharing system (eHRSS), the Government launched the Public Private Interface ― Electronic Patient Record Sharing Pilot Project (Pilot Project) in as early as 2006 through the Hospital Authority (HA) to allow participating private healthcare providers (HCPs) to view their patients' medical records kept at the HA subject to patients' consent. The Pilot Project has received positive feedback from the participants and the success of the test has also laid an excellent foundation for the sharing of eHRs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14573
Subsequently in the Healthcare Reform Consultation Document titled "Your Health, Your Life" published in March 2008, the Government proposed the development of a territory-wide eHRSS which later received general support from the public. The System aims at providing an efficient platform for shared access to patient records between the private and public HCPs. Through this platform, HCPs such as hospitals and clinics may upload and access patients' health records. We believe that the implementation of electronic health record sharing will enhance the co-operation between the private and public HCPs which will in turn help address the imbalance between the private and public healthcare services. The commissioning of the System will first bring the greatest benefits to the elderly, children and also those who often need to use public and private healthcare services at the same time. In the long run, it will help reduce misdiagnoses, misprescriptions and unnecessary duplication of tests.
The currently operating Pilot Project is in nature a one-way sharing pilot programme, the purpose of which is mainly to test the relevant technologies and the acceptability of the concept. The future System which provides two-way sharing will facilitate participating HCPs to derive benefits from the System through access to data while contributing to it through uploading data. Compared to the one-way sharing offered by the Pilot Project, the new System provides two-way sharing which will bring greater benefits to patients and HCPs.
Members have, both during the scrutiny at the Bills Committee and earlier at this meeting, enquired about the participation of healthcare personnel in the programme. To date, the Pilot Project alone has more than 400 000 participating patients and over 3 000 healthcare personnel. Of course as far as any future development is concerned, just as Members have pointed out, there are various reasons, for example, many HCPs are yet to computerize their operations, which render it technically unfeasible to enforce mandatory participation of HCPs in the current Project. However, I think we should note one thing, which is there has been a growing number of public-private partnership programmes established in the HA and private healthcare institutions. In these programmes, we would also require participating private HCPs to practise electronic health record sharing, which may therefore become a market demand as suggested by a couple of Members. If private HCPs know they are to join the public-private partnership programmes introduced by the Government while patients also have such needs, they will have the incentive to let more private healthcare personnel take part in the programme.
14574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
To develop the System, we applied to and were approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council the non-recurrent funding of $702 million in 2009 to carry out the work of the Electronic Health Record Programme (eHR Programme) in the first five-year stage. The three main objectives of the stage one eHR Programme are: (1) to set up an eHR sharing platform to connect the participating public and private hospitals; (2) to ensure there are health information systems available in the market for private HCPs to connect to the sharing platform; and (3) to formulate a legal framework to protect data privacy and system security prior to commissioning the System.
In the past few years, the HA has provided tremendous assistance in the implementation of the stage one eHR Programme and undertaken a large amount of professional technical work. The technical development of the first stage of the System is completed and ready to be launched upon passage of the Bill.
The main concept of the System received wide support from Members in the Legislative Council Finance Committee's discussion of the first stage funding in 2009. Subsequently, after making reference to the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO), general relevant clinical treatment and overseas experiences, we formulated the legal, privacy and security framework regulating eHR sharing in 2011 and conducted public consultation on the framework for two months from December 2011 to February 2012. Responses received during the consultation indicated that the public generally accept the main concept and principles we put forward, including the voluntary participation of both patients and HCPs, sharing only information within the pre-defined sharable scope, healthcare professionals conforming to the "need-to-know" principle when accessing data, as well as identification and verification of the identities of HCRs, HCPs and healthcare professionals.
Given the sensitive nature of the information contained in health records, coupled with the unique arrangement of eHR sharing, we consider it necessary to enact new provisions to enhance the safeguards and build up public confidence in the System, and at the same time stipulate penalties for crimes involving the operation of the System. Just as I stated in moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 30 April, the purposes of the Government in introducing the Bill were to provide for the establishment of the System, sharing and using of data and information contained therein, protection of the System and other incidental and connected matters.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14575
The Government understands that in implementing the sharing of eHRs, we have to take into account the concern and needs of various sectors in society, especially the healthcare professionals and patients, in order to strike a balance between the usability of the System and the privacy of patients. Therefore, we have formed a Working Group on Legal, Privacy and Security Issues (Working Group) under the Steering Committee on Electronic Health Record Sharing (Steering Committee). In the process of preparing for the public consultation document and the subsequent discussions, the Working Group and the Steering Committee generally supported the proposal for legislation. The representative of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has also taken an active role in the discussion of the Working Group and most of his recommendations were taken on board. In a nutshell, we agree that the personal data of HCRs collected, kept and used by the System should not receive less privacy protection than what is provided by the existing PDPO. We agree that personal data contained in the System shall be subject to regulation by the PDPO and the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) will have the power to monitor the use of personal data contained in the System. We briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Health Services (the Panel) on the outcome of the public consultation and the key features of the Bill on June 2012 and 18 March 2013 respectively. Members were generally supportive of the implementation of the eHR Programme and the proposed legal framework.
In the course of scrutiny at the Bills Committee, members and the Privacy Commissioner and deputations who attended the meetings were still generally supportive of the Bill in principle. However, they also expressed their views on some provisions and arrangements relating to patient privacy. To address these concerns and respond to the other recommendations made by the Bills Committee, the Government has proposed a number of Committee stage amendments (CSAs) to the Bill. The relevant CSAs have been submitted to the Bills Committee for consideration and deliberation. The Bills Committee does not object to these CSAs. Therefore, I will introduce and move the relevant CSAs during the Committee stage later on. The Bills Committee will not propose any additional CSA to the Bill.
I would like to particularly mention here that the Bills Committee has had a detailed discussion on the issue of whether a so-called "safe deposit box" feature should be built into the System. The "safe deposit box" feature is not an item 14576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 within the development scope of the first stage of the eHR Programme. Both the public consultation conducted not long ago and the views expressed by stakeholders to the Bills Committee show that the general public has not reached a consensus on this matter. Some views prefer stronger protection for certain sensitive health data while other views express concern over the risks posed by such a feature to the quality of healthcare services and the safety of patients and healthcare professionals. At the Panel in 2012, the Administration undertook to conduct a further study on imposing extra access restrictions on sensitive data at the second stage.
During the discussions in the Bills Committee, we have further undertaken to conduct the abovementioned study in a positive direction in the first year of the second stage. It also answers the enquiry made by some Members earlier about the timing of carrying out such a study which aims at developing and implementing some form of new function or arrangement so as to give additional choices to patients over the disclosure of their data. Stakeholders will be consulted as appropriate upon the completion of the study. The Bills Committee generally welcomes the direction of our study and understands that it is impossible to set out a specific form of "safe deposit box" in the Bill before the results of the study are available. After discussions with the Privacy Commissioner and the Bills Committee, we agreed to add provisions to the Bill to state the spirit of fostering patients' choices over the scope of data sharing without pre-empting the future design of the relevant feature. These relevant CSAs include the addition of new clauses 16A and 16B and the addition of the new definition of "sharing restriction request" to clause 2. The new provisions will take effect upon completion of the future study and after the feature has undergone appropriate consultation and is technically ready for implementation.
As regards Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's CSAs to the Bill under his name, just as the Government has explained to the Bills Committee during its scrutiny, the Administration objected in principle to the amendments. It is because the amendments will: (i) seriously undermine its policy objective to promote two-way sharing amongst public and private HCPs; (ii) completely alter the fundamental design principles and consent arrangement as laid down by the consultation exercise earlier; and (iii) render the System already developed in stage one not operable. We have also pointed out that clauses 16A and 16B newly proposed by the Government already provide very flexible room to allow LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14577 different methods of restrictions of the sharable scope in the future, including arrangements to address the concern of Dr LEUNG and different potential scenarios. Therefore, it is not necessary to further amend the Bill. On the contrary, if Dr LEUNG's amendments were adopted, even if the Bill was passed after amendment, the already developed System could not be commissioned. We have estimated that the extra work resulting from the amendments (including redesigning and redeveloping most of the existing system features and functions) will require at least 24 more months and additional cost and manpower to complete. Such delay will negatively affect a lot of patients. I will give a detailed account on this aspect when Dr LEUNG moves his amendments in Committee later on.
President, the System is the major infrastructural facility of the future healthcare system in Hong Kong. I hereby move the Second Reading of the Bill and implore Members to support the passage of the Bill and the amendments that I will later move in Committee to provide a legal framework for the protection of data privacy and system security so that the System can be commissioned as soon as possible, thus providing better healthcare services for the public. Subject to the Bill being passed in this legislative year, we plan to commission the first stage of the System in the first quarter of next year. Meanwhile, we are defining the scope of development for the second stage of the System and are looking at making an application for the necessary funding to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in 2016. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
14578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
Members may refer to Appendix III to the Script for the debate and voting arrangements for the Bill.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SHARING SYSTEM BILL
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will first deal with the clauses with no amendment. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24 to 34, 36, 39 to 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 and 59 to 62.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the said clauses stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14579
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 19 to 23, the heading of Division 4 of Part 3, clauses 35, 37, 38, 43, 46, 50, 53, 57 and 58.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move the amendments to clauses 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 19 to 23, the heading of Division 4 of Part 3, clauses 37, 43, 46, 50, 53, 57 and 58, and the deletion of clauses 35 and 38, as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The Bills Committee made a lot of valuable and constructive suggestions during the scrutiny of the Bill. The aforementioned amendments are primarily proposed in response to the views and suggestions given by members, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) and the interested groups/stakeholders who had attended the meetings. To improve the clarity of the Bill, we have also proposed some textual, technical and drafting amendments to the Bill. I would like to particularly explain the proposed amendments as follows.
To clause 2(1) concerning "interpretation", the Administration proposes to amend the definition of "healthcare" to relax the geographical restriction in respect of the location of the healthcare performed (that is, the location does not have to be in Hong Kong). This amendment serves to allow access to the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) for healthcare in overseas places under certain special circumstances. We also amended the definition of "healthcare recipient" in clause 2(1), clauses 17 and 19 accordingly.
As to clause 3 concerning "substitute decision maker", the Administration proposes to add a person "residing with" a healthcare recipient (HCR) "who accompanies the healthcare recipient at the relevant time" as an eligible substitute decision maker of the HCR. 14580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
As regards clauses 10 and 22 which respectively concern "suspension of healthcare recipient's/healthcare provider's registration", the Administration proposes to provide for a time limit for the suspension period of the registration for the sake of clarity. The suspension would be for an initial period of not more than 28 days, and can be extended once only for not more than 28 days if the Commissioner for the Electronic Health Record (the eHR Commissioner) considers appropriate.
As regards clauses 11 and 23 which respectively concern "cancellation of healthcare recipient's/healthcare provider's registration", the Administration proposes to expressly provide that an HCR/healthcare provider (HCP) would be given an opportunity to make representation before the eHR Commissioner makes a decision on cancellation of the registration of the HCR/HCP.
As for clause 17 concerning "application by healthcare providers for registration", the Administration proposes to remove subsection (5)(g), which is a residual provision that allows registration as an HCP by a specified entity that, in the opinion of the eHR Commissioner, directly or indirectly provides healthcare to any HCR.
As regards clause 20 concerning "registration of Government bureaux and departments as healthcare providers", the Administration proposes to amend subsection (1) to restrict the eligibility for registration to government departments and subject government departments to similar criteria on the provision of healthcare as required of other HCPs for registration under clause 17.
As regards clause 35 concerning "prescribed healthcare provider's duties on electronic medical record system", the Administration proposes to delete the clause for better clarity and conciseness. It will not affect the operation of clauses 22(1)(e)/23(1)(e).
As regards clauses 37 and 38 which respectively concern "Privacy Commissioner's performance of functions or exercise of powers in relation to data or information" and "access to and correction of data or information", the Administration proposes to delete clauses 37(2) and 38 to remove the prohibition on a person authorized in writing by the data subject from making a data access LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14581 request/data correction request to data of the HCR contained in the System. The amended requirement realigns with the practice of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486).
As regards clause 50 concerning "the eHR Commissioner may require a healthcare provider to produce records or documents in certain circumstances", the Administration proposes to expand the scope of records or documents to cover those "in the possession or under the control" of the HCP. We also propose to subject the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health, in addition to registered HCPs, to the requirement to provide records or documents.
As regards clause 53 concerning the "establishment of the Electronic Health Record Research Board", the Administration proposes to add new subsection (2A) to elaborate further the specific requirements for the "not more than 10 other members" appointed by the Secretary for Food and Health under subsection (2)(c). We also propose to amend subsection (3) and add new subsections (3A), (4A) and (4B) to provide expressly in the Bill the term of appointment, reappointment, removal and notice of appointment of the aforementioned members.
As regards clause 57 concerning "limitation of public liability", the Administration proposes to amend the formulation "… is not liable …" to "… does not incur any civil liability …" in subsection (1) to make it clear that the liability that clause 57(1) seeks to limit is only civil liability. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we also propose to delete subsection (2) which provides that the eHR Commissioner is not obliged to inspect the local electronic medical record systems of HCPs to ascertain compliance with the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Ordinance or accuracy of data provided to the System.
As regards clause 58 concerning "protection of public officers, and so on", the Administration proposes to amend subsection (3)(b) and substitute "a person appointed by the Commissioner under section 48(3)" with "an employee of the Hospital Authority, or an employee of a body corporate established by the Hospital Authority under section 5(n) of the Hospital Authority Ordinance (Cap. 113), appointed by the Commissioner under section 48(3)" so as to narrow down the persons to be conferred protection under clause 58.
14582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Examples of textual, technical or drafting amendments include amending the English text of "immediate family member" to "family member" in clause 2(1) to align with the apparent wording of the Chinese text of the term (that is, " 家 人") as well as amending "healthcare services" to "health care services" in clauses 46(8) and 46(9) and make it clear that the term has the same meaning as in sections 35B and 35I of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
The Bills committee did not raise any objection to the amendments proposed by the Administration. I hope Members will support the relevant amendments. Thank you, Chairman.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2 (See Annex III)
Clause 3 (See Annex III)
Clause 10 (See Annex III)
Clause 11 (See Annex III)
Clause 17 (See Annex III)
Clause 19 (See Annex III)
Clause 20 (See Annex III)
Clause 21 (See Annex III)
Clause 22 (See Annex III)
Clause 23 (See Annex III)
Heading of Division 4 of Part 3 (See Annex III)
Clause 35 (See Annex III)
Clause 37 (See Annex III)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14583
Clause 38 (See Annex III)
Clause 43 (See Annex III)
Clause 46 (See Annex III)
Clause 50 (See Annex III)
Clause 53 (See Annex III)
Clause 57 (See Annex III)
Clause 58 (See Annex III)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to speak specifically on the kinds of person covered by the definition of "family member". The Government is making two amendments to the definition of "family member": one being deleting "immediate" in the definition of "immediate family member" in clause 2(1) in the English text of clause 2(1), as the Secretary has just said, so as to align the meanings in both the Chinese and English texts; the other, which is relatively more important, concerns clause 3(2)(d), to which a CSA is proposed in Committee to delete "an immediate family member of the healthcare recipient" and substitute with "a family member of the healthcare recipient, or a person residing with the healthcare recipient". We can see that this is actually to expand the definition of substitute decision maker from the relation of "family member" by blood, marriage or adoption.
We actually meant to make same-sex couples the exact subject for expansion when we raised this question. Primarily, it was because a healthcare recipient (HCR) and his or her partner in a same-sex relationship are definitely not related to each other by blood; matrimony-wise, they are currently not recognized as being related to each other in any form; yet they are not in a relation by adoption. However, no matter how long this couple has been already together, they often may not make medical decisions for each other in the course of medical treatment, particularly when the other party in the relationship does 14584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 not have the legal status to make decisions for an HCR in a coma. Having criticized this for years, we are so glad that the authorities have finally accepted our suggestion to expand the scope of relation from between parents and children as those by blood, marriage, adoption, and so forth, to include persons residing with the HCR. It is also recorded in the report of the Bills Committee that this refers to a person residing with an HCR who accompanies the latter during the course of medical treatment. We welcome very much the Government accepting this concern of ours and proposing amendments to this effect.
In fact, when he was still a representative of the Hospital Authority (HA) in 2001, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man came to the Legislative Council to attend a meeting of the Subcommittee to study discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, at which he said that there was no need for homosexuals to seek medical consultation because having different sexual orientations was not an illness that could be intervened with "treatment"; yet if there was depression arisen from discrimination with subsequent mental health problems, seeing a doctor would be essential. Therefore, it is not only today that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is friendly to homosexuality. Here we must give him recognition for his recognition of equal rights.
However, while same-sex couples can be treated with equality only in this Bill for the time being, there are still certain situations which cannot be dealt with. As raised by Members just now, in case two family members show up at the same time with one considering decision A should be made and the other considering decision B viable, what should we do then? Actually, as mentioned in paragraph 38 of the Bills Committee report, the Government thinks that when there are disputes among the immediate family members of an HCR, they should be allowed to take their time to discuss among themselves; in case of emergency, it shall be subject to the professional judgment of the doctor. In that case, we shall be rather worried: if two persons come before the HCR, one being his or her same-sex partner and the other a relative by blood, who shall prevail in case they are in dispute? It is simply not accounted for in the law.
Therefore, Chairman, the most fail-safe way would actually be ― we certainly hope the Government will consider it ― for the authorities to give recognition to the relationship of same-sex couples under other legislation (such as the Marriage Ordinance) or by way of enacting another new ordinance, in addition to taking this tiny step of amendment, so as to establish ― not under the definition of "marriage" but through a separate ordinance ― the fact that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14585 homosexuals have the need of union and forming families, and let them enjoy the statutory status to be able to make critical medical decisions for their partners in the course of treatment.
Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to speak again.
(Secretary for Food and Health indicated that he would not speak on the clauses again)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Food and Health be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the amendments passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the amendments to delete clauses 35 and 38 have been passed by the Committee, clauses 35 and 38 are deleted from the Bill.
14586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 3, 10, 11, 17, 19 to 23, the heading of Division 4 of Part 3, clauses 37, 43, 46, 50, 53, 57 and 58 as amended.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 3, 10, 11, 17, 19 to 23, the heading of Division 4 of Part 3, clauses 37, 43, 46, 50, 53, 57 and 58 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 7, 12 and 16.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG Ka-lau has given notice to move amendments to clauses 2, 7 and 12, and the deletion of clause 16.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the relevant part of clause 2, the original clauses 7, 12 and 16 and Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, you may now move your amendments.
DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): Chairman, please do a headcount. Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14587
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, please move your amendments.
DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move the amendments to further amend clause 2, to amend clauses 7 and 12 and delete clause 16.
Chairman, in the past two days, Honourable colleagues often said to me, "Sorry, we cannot support you." I told them that "It is fine.", and hoped they could come to the Chamber and listen to my speech before making a decision. Thank you, Honourable colleagues.
The amendments proposed by me put patients' interests and rights in the first place. Some day, Honourable colleagues will eventually have to use this system. I hope they can consider my amendments from the standpoint of patients. The electronic health record (eHR) system is undoubtedly a good thing. The Hospital Authority (HA) has been using the eHR sharing system for many years. As a number of Honourable colleagues and the Secretary have highlighted its many merits earlier on, I will not repeat them here.
In recent years, some mechanisms enabling two-way exchange have started to develop. For example, the screening results of some private hospitals can be uploaded onto the platform of the HA. This shows that a new law is not a prerequisite for the development of the eHR system and sharing arrangements, and it is impossible for the new system to replace the original one of the HA within a short period. Hence, the essence of enacting a new law lies in two points. First, it can facilitate the sharing of health records, which is better than the existing arrangements; and second, it can enhance protection of patient privacy at the same time. Nevertheless, as regards how best patient privacy can be protected, especially the arrangements relating to the consent given by patients, there are still problems with the Bill. Maybe I have to briefly explain the existing legislative arrangements before I can go ahead to explain my 14588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 amendments. First, let me talk about the most fundamental point. What are the purposes of the eHR platform or the sharing platform, and what are the underlying principles? To put it simply, all healthcare providers (HCPs) including doctors, public hospitals, the HA and private hospitals will upload patients' health records onto the platform, which is the first step. Next, after a patient has given consent to a prescribed HCP such as a doctor when seeking consultation at a public hospital, private hospital or from a private doctor, the doctor can log in to the platform and access all the information thereon. This is the most fundamental arrangement of the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System).
What is the current legislative proposal of the Government? It has made a very interesting twist to the arrangement described by me just now, that is, a patient needs to give two types of consent to allow a doctor to access his data on the platform. The first type of consent is called the "joining consent", and the second one is called the "sharing consent". But the Government has respectively specified these two types of consent in three parts of the Bill, that is, clauses 7, 12 and 16. Clause 7 deals with the first type of consent, that is, the "joining consent". What does it mean? Its general meaning is that it allows the Commissioner for the Electronic Health Record (the eHR Commissioner) of the Government to upload the patient data available to an HCP who has obtained the "sharing consent" onto the public platform, and allows an HCP who has obtained the "sharing consent" to access the relevant data. Sorry, I think I have not expressed it smoothly. Maybe let me repeat it once again. Put simply, the "joining consent" allows the eHR Commissioner to upload the data of an individual onto the platform, and enables HCPs to access the data. Nevertheless, actually this clause has to be read together with clause 16. What is clause 16 about? There is no need for the HA to obtain the "sharing consent". It can upload and download data as long as it has obtained the "joining consent". What is the actual effect? It means that when a patient has given the "joining consent", that is, the first type of consent, the HA and the Department of Health can upload the data available to them and access all the data of the patient on the platform, thereby bundling up the authority to upload and download together. That is to say, after obtaining the "joining consent", the HA can access all the data. This is the arrangement in respect of the "joining consent".
As to the second type of consent, that is, the "sharing consent", what is it about? Put simply, the "sharing consent" allows a doctor who has obtained consent to upload patient data onto the platform and access the data thereon. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14589
Regarding the two types of consent under this arrangement, what do these three clauses imply? The "joining consent" allows public organizations to upload and download data, while the "sharing consent" allows private organizations or doctors to do the same. This is their effect. What are the problems with this arrangement? I can list at least three scenarios. First, when some patients who have long been seeking consultation at public hospitals discover some particular conditions of their health, they may not want to be treated at public hospitals, or do not wish to let public hospitals know their conditions due to privacy concern. They will then choose to seek consultation at private hospitals or from private doctors. They certainly hope to let the private doctors know their records at the public hospitals, and it is therefore necessary for them to give the private doctors the "sharing consent" Nevertheless, the effect of giving the private doctors the "sharing consent" is enabling public hospitals to see the record of their consultation with private doctors. That is to say, even if those patients with no intention to seek consultation at public hospitals do not wish to let public hospitals know their health data, there is no way to do so under the existing legislative proposal of the Government.
Conversely, assuming that a patient has long been seeking consultation at a public hospital, but as the waiting time for such examination as a computed tomography scan (CT scan) may be long, he decides to do the CT scan at a private hospital. He certainly hopes that doctors at the public hospital can access the data of his examination done at the private hospital. And according to the existing arrangement, he needs to give the private hospital the "sharing consent". However, he actually only wants to enable the public hospital to access the data of his CT scan instead of allowing the private hospital to access his data at the public hospital. There is no way to do this either under the existing legislative proposal.
I wish to respond to the remarks of some people and the most important point mentioned by the Secretary, that is, their view that these proposals in my amendments will weaken the two-way policy objective at the policy level. Members may make a comparison. I think the relevant objective can be enhanced, while the Secretary holds that it will be weakened. Why do we have polarized views on the same issue? Will Members please think about it. How can this system be brought into the fullest play? Is it that the more data the better? Is it best for public organizations, private hospitals and private doctors to upload all data related to patients onto the System? It seems that only by so doing can the System be brought into the fullest play. But according to the 14590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 arrangement of the original Bill of the Government, after a patient has given the "joining consent", in fact, only public organizations will upload his data. Private hospitals will not upload his data onto the System. If a patient hopes that a private hospital will upload his data, and assuming that he has sought consultation at three private hospitals, he has to give the three private hospitals the "sharing consent" one by one. Hence, as proposed by my amendment, when a patient has given the "joining consent", all HCPs shall be authorized to upload his data, unless otherwise specified by the patient. This amendment proposed by me gives patients a choice by amending the "joining consent", so that public or private organizations or private doctors shall be allowed to upload patient data onto the platform after a patient has given the "joining consent". This arrangement must be better than the original proposal of the Government.
Moreover, I also seek to amend the "sharing consent", that is, the second type of consent. No matter whether a patient seeks consultation at a public or private organization, special consent given by the patient is required. According to the Bill of the Government, the relevant definition is one year or open-ended. But it should at least provide that an HCP can access patient data on the platform only with the "sharing consent" given by a patient. In fact, this practice will offer enhanced protection for patient privacy. And as mentioned by Mr Albert HO earlier on, the most important thing is the patients' own right to make decisions.
I wish to use the remaining time to further talk about the original Bill of the Government, in which there is also an arrangement relating to "referral healthcare provider". How is it? Assuming that these two persons next to me are respectively a patient and a doctor. According to the original arrangement in the Bill, if this patient gives me the "sharing consent", and I refer him to another doctor, the doctor may automatically access his data. But there is no need for me to obtain the patient's consent for such in referring him to another doctor. In other words, after a patient has given someone the "sharing consent", and if that person wishes to let others access the data of the patient, all he needs to do is to make a referral of the patient, and there is no need to obtain the patient's consent in the process. There is no safeguard for this in the current legislative proposal. The Government is very much concerned about privacy, often stating that the privacy protection afforded patients under this piece of legislation will not be less than that provided under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO). But the problem is that after patients have agreed and signed the consent form, it means that they have given consent. In that case, how can the PDPO protect LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14591 them? They have signed and consented to that authorization, allowing others, the HA or public organizations to access their data. How is the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance still able to protect patient privacy?
I hope I have managed to explain in the short 13 minutes just now why the existing Bill of the Government cannot protect privacy. I hope Members can think about whether they are willing to accept this arrangement from the standpoint of patients. I have no intention to filibuster, so I am stopping here for the time being. Thank you, Chairman.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2 (see Annex III)
Clause 7 (see Annex III)
Clause 12 (see Annex III)
Clause 16 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not wish to filibuster, but I have heard the speech delivered by Dr LEUNG. Moreover, I have made great efforts to read the Chairman's ruling, the Government's response and the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG.
The Government's original intent is that pressing the button once can indicate consent to sharing or participation in this platform, which means that both the public and private healthcare systems can access the relevant records. This is the principle. However, I find the response of the Government most disappointing because it said that, owing to the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG, the Government had to spend extra money on developing afresh the System as a whole. But this point bears no relevance to the matters of principle mentioned by Dr LEUNG just now. I believe Members in this Chamber might feel very puzzled, too. Simply put, should the legislation give protection to the public by disclosing patient records on each occasion or at one go? If Members 14592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 in this Chamber did not take part in the discussions of the Bills Committee, they might feel very puzzled. Though I disagree with Dr LEUNG's amendments, I find it disappointing that the Government has even given Members such a poor answer, saying that extra money will have to be spent if Dr LEUNG's amendments are supported by Members. However, this point has nothing to do with the concept of sharing health information in concrete terms. In this connection, I would like to listen to how the Secretary can "defend the Government" later on.
The Government might think that more money will have to be spent should this proposal be accepted, but this is actually not a matter of principle. Although I find Dr LEUNG's amendments a bit "cumbersome", the Government's own approach is not at all problematic. Nevertheless, I have to reiterate that I find its response quite disappointing.
Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I originally intended to filibuster, but I have decided not to filibuster this time around because I support Dr LEUNG Ka-lau. Please proceed to the vote expeditiously now that I have decided not to filibuster.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will give a brief response. I think the Bill on the eHR system this time around has a significant objective, that is, to handle the provision and retrieval of information simultaneously, for this is a problem faced in the past. Under the existing pilot system (that is the system for the Public Private Interface ― Electronic Patient Record Sharing Pilot Project), private HCPs can only retrieve (read) but not provide (write) information. According to my understanding in the past, I think the system has bundled up two rights, the right to provide and the right to retrieve information, and this is one of the important concepts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14593
Moreover, I worry that if the two rights are separated, it may give rise to some problems. On the part of public HCPs, that is, the Hospital Authority (HA), since it possesses the largest amount of patients' data, if members of the public participating in the programme can opt to allow or disallow public officers to have access to their data, I worry this will narrow the application scope and scale of the System, limiting the System to a scale even smaller than the internal system now used by the HA. In that case, the demerit outweighs the merits, and the usage of the System will be reduced.
Members have also mentioned many privacy concerns. After all, I think we always have to strike a balance between privacy and convenience. If the public are given too many options, I worry that it will be quite complicated to explain the usage of the System. If the programme is too complicated, it will prompt some members of the public to give it second thoughts when they cannot understand it. Eventually, will they become unwilling to join the programme? By then, the loss will outweigh the gain.
Lastly, regarding Prof Joseph LEE's comment that it is unconvincing for the Government to use the need of additional resource as an excuse for not pursuing system development, I think we really have to give regard to the actual situation, for the functions concerned were not included in the existing system when it was designed. If legislation on these functions is enacted hastily now ― it may not be hasty as the Legislative Council has the power to make amendments, and if the provision is passed, changes will need to be made to the System. In the normal course of computer system development, the design specifications and functions have to be laid down first before the development of the system can be taken forward. After that, the authorities will enact legislation based on the system to exercise regulation. If the order is reversed, I think it will give rise to a number of problems. How can we know the specifications to be included to make the system reasonable in the reverse order? Besides, we do need time and money to undertake this task. If our objective is to implement the System expeditiously and by the end of this year, we may not be able to achieve this objective if we have to include those functions. Is such a delay justified?
In fact, the most important point is not about whether or not the justification is convincing but that the issue was not considered in the first round of consultation. In my view, Dr LEUNG's proposal merits further deliberation. But since the proposal was not discussed during the first round of consultation, and if this is included during the scrutiny by the Legislative Council, there may 14594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 be a possibility that other stakeholders may not necessarily agree with the proposal. Hence, I think this arrangement may not be proper in terms of procedure. From the perspective of practical operation and the desire to implement the System as soon as possible for public use, I have reservations about the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG. I think this is not at all feasible to implement the proposal at the present stage, so I will not support the amendments.
Thank you, Chairman.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, during the resumed Second Reading debate, we actually mentioned this point in brief. These amendments by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau are actually proposed from the angle of the right of patients to make a choice. This, we agree. It is because patients should have the right to decide the extent to which their privacy should be protected. A patient may wish to reveal some data but may not wish to reveal some other data. Of course, from the angle of the HCPs (or doctors), they certainly wish to be told of all the information, for this can help them make the most accurate diagnoses and prescribe the right medicine to treat their patients, and this can also provide them with comprehensive information in other respects for their reference. Having said that, the patients' health and bodies belong to the patients after all. We also agree that conceptually, healthcare recipients (HCRs) should be the ones to make the final choice. Regrettably, the framework proposed by the Government now is all or nothing, which means that once a patient puts down his signature, all of his data will be made public. This may enable the patient to be provided with better and more efficient healthcare services but even if he may not wish to reveal some of his data to other people, all the data will be made public once he puts down his signature. Therefore, the shortcoming is that the situation just described by me will arise under the framework set up in stage one. There is not any buffer zone at all. As soon as a patient makes just one gesture to give his consent, everything about him will be exposed, and this may not be the wish of every patient. Such being the case, he may opt not to use the health record sharing platform in order to protect a small part of his privacy information that he does not wish other people to know.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14595
Of course, as Mr Albert HO also mentioned during the resumed Second Reading debate, even if you have some privacy information which you do not wish known and when you make public all the details, all the institutions concerned should abide by professional ethics and refrain from accessing information that they do not need to use or even spreading such information everywhere. However, if you have not read all the information, how can you tell which information is the kind that you need to use and which is not? Once they access the information, they will certainly read all of it, and it is only after they have read it that they know certain information is neither essential nor relevant to their diagnoses. Of course, there may be the situation where a certain patient is found to be a public figure, and this explains why Mr Albert HO had all along expressed reservations earlier on. In his earlier speech he always forgot to mention people who hold public office as he only referred to public figures in his discussion. With regard to public figures, especially those in the performing arts sector, some people, such as reporters, are indeed interested in turning up gossip about them. But we understand that insofar as these amendments are concerned, apart from expecting these people to abide by professional ethics and refrain from casually disclosing the information they have read, we also hope that the most basic protection can be provided. In other words, instead of expecting everyone to abide by professional ethics, since there is still the possibility of muckraking, it is better to let the HCRs make their own choice and decide what information they wish to upload onto the System or better still, they should decide on their own the persons who can access all of their data. That is, they should be able to authorize their attending doctors to access their information, rather than giving authorization to the entire institution through a signature and hence making public all of their private data and allowing all the healthcare workers in a certain institution to access such data.
Deputy Chairman, I wish to reiterate that we support this concept put forward by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau but technically speaking, the relevant computer program, from its development to the first stage implementation of the programme so far, has not taken patient choice into consideration. Therefore, sorry, we cannot support these amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau but I hope he knows from our speeches that we actually very much support this concept put forward by him, only that there are still problems on the technical front and in timing.
Therefore, we urge the Administration to take this into consideration. Since the authorities have introduced amendments to clause 16 to allow HCRs some degree of flexibility by enabling them to impose restrictions on the retrieval 14596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 of their data in the future, we hope that the authorities can expeditiously follow up these amendments and incorporate the right of patients or HCRs to make a choice into the computer program in stage two of the eHR Programme.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, earlier on, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau cited an example to explain that if a doctor, who is given consent by a patient, inspected the patient's health records and subsequently referred the patient to another healthcare worker or other testing institutions, the patient's records would be accessible by other people. This apparently sounds outrageous. But let us not forget that an amendment has just been passed to add clause 35A. This provision will be able to provide protection, because it provides for the "need-to-know" principle. In case a doctor in a certain institution referred a patient to another institution for an X-ray examination, the person there reads the medical records of the patient though he actually does not have a need to read them, this provision will be able to provide protection. I wonder if Dr KO will make a clarification later, for it sounds that if countless referrals are made in respect of a patient, the patient's data will then be inspected by different people for a countless number of times. But the relevant amendment has actually plugged this loophole.
Besides, I found that whether in the course of scrutiny or in the speeches made today, many Members have mentioned the point about whether patients can control how far their medical records should be made available for access by doctors. In the course of scrutiny, the Government heeded good advice and proposed the inclusion of clauses 16A and 16B in the Bill, adding that the Government would commence work in this respect in the first year of stage two of the eHR Programme in the future. Given that the relevant arrangement is not made in stage one of the eHR Programme, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments, if passed today, will render the entire eHR sharing programme not operable. It is because if the entire programme cannot be started up, it would be impossible to implement the sharing programme. We all very much hope that the programme can be implemented as early as possible, for it can help a lot of people. But if this proposal will cause unnecessary delays or may incur additional costs or manpower input, this may not be what we wish to see.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14597
I think the issues of concern to Dr LEUNG Ka-lau have actually been addressed because these issues were already discussed in the previous discussions on the "safe deposit box" feature which allows patients to control how far their health records should be made available for access by doctors. This was actually discussed at meetings of the Bills Committee, and the Government has undertaken to start carrying out work in this area in the first year of stage two of the eHR Programme. I think we should allow some degree of flexibility and what is more, the amendments, if passed, will render the programme not operable, which may not be a good thing. We have conducted deliberations on the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill for nearly a year. Stage one of the sharing programme is all ready and can be brought into operation anytime. I hope that Members' views can be left to stage two of the eHR Programme for further discussion. While we support the concept that patients' rights or privacy should be protected, we cannot support Dr LEUNG's amendments. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong will oppose Dr LEUNG's amendments.
DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I absolutely respect the views of colleagues but I wish to give a brief response.
Mr CHAN Han-pan, if a patient is referred for an X-ray examination, the person responsible for performing the X-ray examination will already meet the "need-to-know" principle and can therefore access all the data, and his doing so is not open to challenge at all. The reason is simple, because he must read all the data before he can make a diagnosis. As also pointed out by some Members earlier on, if, for instance, I give you, Mr CHAN, some data and tell you to read only those that you need to read, the problem is that you must read all of the data before you can find out what data you need to know. This is where the trick lies.
Mr Charles Peter MOK, if I have not got it wrong, you are concerned that after splitting the uploading and downloading of data, private doctors would not upload data onto the System. We must make clear one point. The uploading or downloading of data is a right, not an obligation. Even if they are bundled up together, when a doctor downloads data from the System, it still does not mean that he will upload data onto the system. These are two different things. A right and an obligation are two different things. What is proposed to be bundled 14598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 up together now is the right, not the obligation. Mr MOK also mentioned that without the arrangement whereby the Hospital Authority (HA) is automatically given the sharing consent, the incentive for participation will be dampened. I found this incomprehensible because under my proposed amendments, once the sharing consent is given, HCPs in both the public and private sectors can upload data onto the platform.
I did not mention the third scenario in my speech earlier. For instance, colleagues in this Chamber may never have sought medical consultation at a public hospital but may have done so at various private hospitals, say, hospital A and hospital B. Since they have never sought medical consultation at a public hospital, there is no incentive for them to join the programme to allow public hospitals to access the data of private hospitals. But if they do not join the programme, the data of hospital A and those of hospital B will not be sharable. However, these data will be sharable under my proposed arrangement, because after a patient has joined the programme, the patient's position applies regardless of whether it is a public or private hospital and in short, the data will be sharable among everybody. In fact, this arrangement can encourage more patients to join the programme.
Another point is that if too many changes are made, will this arouse too much concern among the public and hence deter them from joining the programme? In fact, my amendments are much simpler than the original proposals of the Bill. Step one is to upload all the data, and step two is that everybody must obtain the patient's consent before accessing the data. This is very simple. On the contrary, the provisions proposed by the Government are very complicated as clause 7 must be read together with clause 10 in order to understand the meaning and then clause 12 has also bundled up the two rights together.
The last point is that the Government said that the System does not have this design and so, the implementation of the programme would be delayed. My personal computer at home definitely has this design and even if changes have to be made, it should be completed in a few days' time. But the Government's system is so huge, and I really have no idea about it. In my speech at the outset, the first point that I made is that the HA's current system has operated for years and effectively, and it is impossible for the new system to replace the HA's system in a short time. Therefore, even if the programme would be slightly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14599 delayed, honestly, it is not too pressing to implement the provisions and the System proposed by the Government as there is already in place a proven system which has been operating effectively. The Government said that it is opposed to my amendments in principle. As such, when there comes the time for clause 16A to take effect, which allows patients to restrict the scope of their sharable data, I am only worried that the Government may not necessarily give consideration to it.
This is all I wish to say in response. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. I so submit.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, as I explained during the resumed Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Administration opposes Dr LEUNG Ka-lau's amendments in principle. For the amendments will: First, seriously undermine the policy objective of promoting two-way sharing amongst public and private HCPs; second, completely alter the fundamental design principles and consent arrangement previously agreed after a due consultation process; and thirdly, render the already developed stage one Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System) not operable. I will explain these in detail.
After almost five years of design and development work, our technical team has completed stage one of the System. The underlying concept of the System has incorporated two tiers of consent. First, all patients (including the patients of the Hospital Authority (HA) and the Department of Health (DH)) are free to decide whether to give "joining consent" to join the System. Second, for those patients, that is, HCRs, who have joined, they could choose to selectively give "sharing consent" for individual private HCPs to view and upload their eHR.
As for the amendments by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, broadly speaking, they will bring about the following direct impact. First, it is about obtaining separate consent for the "viewing" and "uploading" of eHR. With the amendment to 14600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 clause 7, "joining consent" will be redefined as consent from an HCR (that is, patient) for all the concerned HCPs to upload his or her eHR. With the amendment to clause 12, the "sharing consent" will be redefined as consent of a patient to allow the concerned HCPs to view his or her record in the System. Second, it is about the arrangement of giving consent to the HA and the DH. With the deletion of clause 16, a patient will no longer be regarded to have given a "sharing consent" to the HA and the DH when he gives a "joining consent".
According to the letter issued to the Bills Committee in May this year by Dr LEUNG, it seems that his concern is that there may be circumstances where a patient only wishes to allow a private HCP to view his eHR in the HA/DH but not to upload his data onto the System for the HA/DH to view; or where a patient may not wish his private HCP to view his eHR contributed by the HA/DH but wants the HA/DH to view his eHR contributed by that private HCP. These are scenarios involving one-way sharing of data.
As previously explained to the Bills Committee, the System is a Government-funded sharing platform of which the fundamental objective is to foster two-way sharing of eHRs between public and private HCPs for the benefit of patients. It is indeed in line with our policy intent and a reasonable arrangement that "sharing consent" should cover both viewing and uploading of eHRs. As I said earlier, this is the consensus reached during the consultation period.
The Public Private Interface ― Electronic Patient Record sharing Pilot Project currently being implemented is essentially a one-way sharing pilot scheme. It is useful in testing relevant technologies and popularity of concept. The two-way System will facilitate participating HCPs in obtaining useful information from the System and making contribution to it and enriching the content of patient records. Compared with the one-way pilot project, it will bring both patients and HCPs greater benefits. But a splitting of the original sharing consent to create one-way arrangement as a default arrangement will greatly undermine our policy objective.
On the proposed deletion of clause 16 regarding the consent for the DH and the HA, we have previously explained to the Bills Committee that the HA and the DH are the largest HCPs in Hong Kong possessing a vast amount of health data. These data will be the essential building blocks of patients' lifelong eHR, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14601 conducive to the continuity of care of the patients. Without these data, the content of patients' eHR may become much more flimsy, and the value and benefits of joining the System will be substantially undermined.
The overall consent arrangement incorporated into the System now developed has undergone due deliberation and consultation with the Steering Committee on Electronic Health Record Sharing (the Steering Committee) and its working groups. The Steering Committee comprises various stakeholders including patient groups, healthcare-related professional bodies and experts in particular sectors or representatives of relevant institutions. The arrangement was also presented in Chapter 4 of the public consultation document on "The Legal, Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Health Record Sharing" in 2011-2012.
From international experience, to successfully implement a voluntary sharing system of such scale, simplicity and ease of use for the majority of participants is of the utmost importance. The present consent arrangement and stage one System was designed and developed with this in mind.
The stage one System already developed would be able to cater for the majority of participants. That said, we appreciate that some patients may have concerns in some circumstances over the sharing of their eHRs. Indeed, possible scenarios were raised during the earlier discussion on the "safe deposit box" issue. After considerable discussions at the Bills Committee, the Administration has eventually undertaken to conduct in the first year of stage two of the Electronic Health Record (eHR) Programme a study on enhancing patient choice in a positive direction, with a view to developing and implementing some form of new device or arrangement giving additional choices to patients over the disclosure of their data. It was also agreed that after completing the study, we would consult stakeholders including the Steering Committee, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner), medical professional bodies and patient groups on the proposed new feature before implementation. We have accordingly prepared a set of Committee stage amendments on "sharing restriction" to provide the legal basis for a patient to make a request to restrict the scope of data sharing in relation to his eHR. This arrangement was generally accepted by members at the meeting on 26 February 2015.
14602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
In this connection, we wish to highlight that the amendments proposed by the Government have already provided very flexible room to allow different methods of restrictions, including arrangements to address the underlying concern of Dr LEUNG and different potential scenarios. Hence, we consider it unnecessary to further amend the Bill.
The existing clauses 7, 12 and 16 of the Bill, together with other clauses, are drafted as an integral whole to give effect to the stage one System developed and the related operational workflows. On the contrary, if Dr LEUNG's amendments were endorsed, the developed System could not commence operation even if the amended Bill were passed.
To meet the requirement of Dr LEUNG's amendments, the Government needs to redesign and redevelop most of the features and functions, workflows of the System, application and the co-ordination of the interfaces between the System and the eHR systems of other HCPs, and tests have to be conducted afresh. These tasks will entail a large amount of additional development cost. At the same time, significant changes have to be made to the operation workflow of the System.
Moreover, since the System is a complicated system and involves the sharing of sensitive health information of patients, a lot of security features and privacy control settings are built into the System. To carry out significant technical modifications mentioned, it is necessary to conduct a detailed study on the overall framework, function specifications/requirements and source codes of the System from the security and privacy angles, and to run through the different operation scenarios to ensure that unusual circumstances can be handled properly. After that, the detailed security risk assessment and audit and the privacy assessment, which have already been completed, will need to be conducted afresh.
If Dr LEUNG's amendment were passed, we reckon that the additional work entailed will take at least 24 months to complete and will incur additional costs and manpower. The delay will have tremendously negative impact on many patients. Despite the concern for delay, the amendment per se will undermine our policy objective of reinforcing the two-way sharing amongst public and private HCPs long term. Moreover, as the Bills Committee has decided at its meeting that the Bills Committee will not propose this amendment, it is evident that the proposal is not supported by members in general.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14603
Dr LEUNG has mentioned another point on transfer arrangement earlier. Though Mr CHAN Han-pan has already raised this point earlier, I would like to point out that the referral arrangement under clause 12(6)(b) of the Bill provides adequate protection, which stipulates that data obtained by the referral HCP must be sharable data relevant to the healthcare referral.
Deputy Chairman, I thus urge Honourable Members to oppose the amendments proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau and to retain the original clauses 7, 12 and 16 of the Bill. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, do you wish to speak again?
(Dr LEUNG Ka-lau indicated that he would not speak again)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is not agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendments negatived.
14604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2 as amended.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the amendments to clause 2 moved by the Secretary have been passed by the Committee earlier, I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 2 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 7, 12 and 16 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14605
CLERK (in Cantonese): New division heading Division 3A ― Sharing before new clause 16A Restriction
New clause 16A Request for sharing restriction
New clause 16B Commissioner to specify sharing restriction
New clause 35A Prescribed healthcare provider's duties to restrict access to health data.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I move the Second Reading of the new division heading and new clauses read out just now. The amendments are set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The new clauses concern two matters relating to privacy protection. The first one is "sharing restriction". The Administration proposes to add a new Division 3A entitled "Sharing Restriction" to Part 2 which contains new clauses 16A and 16B entitled "Request for sharing restriction" and "Commissioner to specify sharing restriction" respectively. The addition of a new definition of "sharing restriction request" to clause 2(1) and the addition of new clauses (3)(e), (5)(g) and (5)(h) to clause 3 are consequential amendments.
As I already explained at the resumed Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Bills Committee had a detailed discussion on the question of whether a "safe deposit box" feature should be provided in the Electronic Health Record Sharing System (the System). In the light of the concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Privacy Commissioner) and the Bills Committee, the Administration has undertaken that a study would be conducted in a positive direction in the first year of the stage two eHR Programme with a view to developing and implementing some form of new device and arrangement so as to give additional choices to patients over the disclosure of their health data. The Bills Committee generally welcomed the suggestion of conducting the future 14606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 study in a positive direction and understood that the Administration cannot stipulate in the Bill the provision of a specific "safe deposit box" feature before the commencement of the future study. In this regard, the Privacy Commissioner and some members suggested that the Administration should explore the feasibility of stipulating the spirit of extending the choices of patients over data sharing in the Bill without containing any provision which pre-empts the future design of the relevant feature.
In view of this, the Administration has proposed the aforementioned new clauses to stipulate that a registered HCR may, in relation to his or her health data, make a request to restrict the scope of data sharing. The eHR Commissioner must specify the types of restriction in respect of which a person may make a request. The new clauses will take effect only upon completion of the further study and after consultation with stakeholders on the relevant feature when it is technically ready for implementation.
In response to the concerns raised by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau at the meeting of the Bills Committee, the Administration will now add "Despite anything contained in sections 12 and 16" at the beginning of new clause 16A(1) to stipulate more clearly that the new clauses would have effect notwithstanding the relevant existing clauses.
The second matter is the "need-to-know" principle. The Administration proposes adding new clause 35A entitled "Prescribed healthcare provider's duties to restrict access to health data" to Division 4 of part 3.
As explained by the Administration to the Bills Committee some time ago, the "need-to-know" principle had been adopted in the design of the System and reflected in the relevant legislative provisions and system operation or workflows. In view of the concerns raised by the Bills Committee and the Privacy Commissioner, the Administration proposes adding the said new clause to better reflect the "need-to-know" principle in the Bill. The clause stipulates that it is the duties of an HCP who is given a sharing consent by an HCR to take reasonable steps to ensure that access to any health data of the HCR is restricted to a healthcare professional of the HCP who may perform healthcare for the recipient, and the access is restricted to the health data that may be relevant for performing healthcare for the recipient.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14607
Furthermore, in response to the suggestion made by the Privacy Commissioner, the Administration further proposes under new clause 35A(3) that for complying with a data access request or data correction request under Part 5 of the PDPO, the HCP is not to be treated as contravening the aforementioned requirement even if access to the health data is granted to a person other than the healthcare professional.
The Bills Committee did not raise any objection to the amendments proposed by the Administration in regard to the aforementioned two matters. I hope Members will support the relevant amendments. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the new division heading before new clause 16A and new clauses 16A, 16B and 35A be read the Second time.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the new division heading before new clause 16A and new clauses 16A, 16B and 35A be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
14608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
CLERK (in Cantonese): New division heading before new clause 16A and new clauses 16A, 16B and 35A.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I move that the new division heading and new clauses read out just now be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
New division heading before new clause 16A (see Annex III)
New clause 16A (see Annex III)
New clause 16B (see Annex III)
New clause 35A (see Annex III)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the new division heading before new clause 16A and new clauses 16A, 16B and 35A be added to the Bill.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14609
CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedule.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Schedule stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.
14610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SHARING SYSTEM BILL
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the
Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Electronic Health Record Sharing System Bill.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14611
MOTIONS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motions. Proposed resolution under the Legal Aid Ordinance.
Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon the Secretary for Home Affairs to speak and move the motion.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE LEGAL AID ORDINANCE
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the Resolution standing in my name on the Agenda.
According to section 5 of the Legal Aid Ordinance (the Ordinance), a person whose disposable financial resources do not exceed $269,620 is financially eligible for legal aid under the Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme (OLAS). The financial eligibility limit for the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme (SLAS), as stipulated under section 5A of the Ordinance, is $1,348,100. The aforementioned limit for the OLAS also applies to criminal legal aid. The Government reviews the limits regularly to take into account movements in Consumer Price Index (C) (CPI(C)), so as to maintain the real value of the limits.
The last adjustment implemented in June 2013 had taken into account the (CPI(C)) change of increase by 3.7% between July 2011 and July 2012. For the present adjustment, we propose to increase the financial eligibility limits for the OLAS and the SLAS by 7.7% respectively to reflect the accumulated change in CPI(C) recorded between July 2012 and July 2014. The proposed rate of increase under the Resolution now will adjust upward the financial eligibility limits for the OLAS from $269,620 to $290,300, and from $1,348,100 to $1,451,900 for the SLAS.
The proposal is supported by the Legal Aid Services Council and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of the Legislative Council.
I urge Members to support the Resolution. Thank you, Deputy President.
14612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The Secretary for Home Affairs moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap. 91) be amended as set out in the Schedule.
Schedule
Amendments to the Legal Aid Ordinance
1. Section 5 amended (persons eligible for legal aid) Section 5(1) ― Repeal "$269,620" Substitute "$290,380".
2. Section 5A amended (supplementary legal aid) Section 5A(b) ― (a) Repeal "$269,620" Substitute "$290,380"; (b) Repeal "$1,348,100" Substitute "$1,451,900"."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Home Affairs be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14613
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Home Affairs be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now declare the meeting suspended while awaiting the arrival of the Secretary for the Environment who will move the next motion.
6.07 pm
Meeting suspended.
6.12 pm
Council then resumed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015.
Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon the Secretary for the Environment to speak and move the motion.
14614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015 be amended as set out on the Agenda.
Under section 77B of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the Commissioner for Transport may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a motor vehicle complies with vehicle emission standards, require the registered owner to have the motor vehicle tested at a designated vehicle emission testing centre. The fee to be charged in respect of the test is set out in paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 10 to the Ordinance.
Vehicle emission testing is an integral part of our efforts in improving roadside air quality. Under our Smoky Vehicle Control and Strengthened Emission Control of Petrol and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Vehicles Programmes, implemented in 1988 and 2014 respectively, owners of vehicles found to have excessive emissions will be notified by an emission testing notice issued by the Environmental Protection Department. Their vehicles will be required to pass a dynamometer-based emission test at a designated vehicle emission testing centre within 12 working days so as to ensure the problem is rectified. Failure to meet the requirement will lead to suspension of the licence of the vehicle in question.
At present, a test fee of $310 is charged for different types of vehicles. This fee was set on a full cost recovery basis in 1998 based on the then idling smoke test. The idling test has now been replaced by the dynamometer-based emission test, which can provide a better assessment of vehicle emissions. The enhanced emission test involves more costly equipment and longer testing time. Hence, vehicle emission testing centres have been incurring extra capital and operational expenses for conducting such tests. Despite the increased expenses, the test fee has not seen any increase over the past 17 years. Some centre operators are considering ceasing their operation. It is necessary to set the test fee at a reasonable level to maintain the operation of these centres. After review, we propose that the test fee be increased to $620 for petrol or LPG vehicles, $730 for light diesel vehicles, and $680 for heavy diesel vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14615
The Legislative Council set up a subcommittee to scrutinize the Amendment Order. In the course of scrutiny of the Amendment Order, the Subcommittee held a meeting with deputations, in which the transport trade representatives objected to the proposed fee increase.
We wish to stress that it is always the fundamental responsibility of the vehicle owner to repair and properly maintain his vehicle on a timely basis to avoid causing excessive emissions. As long as vehicle owners fulfil this responsibility, they need not pay the test fee. In fact, since the launch of the remote sensing scheme in September 2014 for detecting vehicles with excessive emissions at roadside, we have monitored the emissions of about 400 000 vehicles as of end-April 2015. Less than 1% or about 3 100 vehicles have been found with excessive emissions. Hence, we do not think the increased test fee would impose a burden on most of the vehicle owners, provided that they maintain their vehicles properly.
After considering the opinions of the transport trades, the Subcommittee formed the view that the proposed test fee increase should be effected in two phases. Given the need to effect the fee increase proposal as soon as practicable, and the strong view of the Subcommittee, we have thus agreed to amend the Order to effect half of the proposed test fee increase on 1 August 2015 and the rest on 1 February 2017.
I sincerely thank Mr Frankie YICK, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and all members of the Subcommittee for their efforts in scrutinizing the Amendment Order and support for the resolution to amend the Order. I look forward to the Legislative Council approving the Resolution.
Thank you, Deputy President.
The Secretary for the Environment moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that the Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 90 of 2015 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 20 May 2015, be amended as set out in the Schedule.
14616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Schedule
Amendments to Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015
1. Section 1 substituted Section 1 ― Repeal the section Substitute "1. Commencement (1) This Order, except section 3(2), (3) and (4), comes into operation on 1 August 2015. (2) Section 3(2), (3) and (4) comes into operation on 1 February 2017.".
2. Section 3 amended (Schedule 10 amended (requirements applicable to vehicle emission testing centres)) (1) Section 3 ― Renumber the section as section 3(1). (2) Section 3(1), new paragraph 6(b)(i) ― Repeal "$620" Substitute "$465". (3) Section 3(1), new paragraph 6(b)(ii) ― Repeal "$730" Substitute "$520". (4) Section 3(1), new paragraph 6(b)(iii) ― Repeal "$680" Substitute "$495". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14617
(5) After section 3(1) ― Add "(2) Schedule 10, paragraph 6(b)(i) ― Repeal "$465" Substitute "$620". (3) Schedule 10, paragraph 6(b)(ii) ― Repeal "$520" Substitute "$730". (4) Schedule 10, paragraph 6(b)(iii) ― Repeal "$495" Substitute "$680"."."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for the Environment be passed.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015, I would report to this Council highlights of the Subcommittee's work.
The objective of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015 is to increase the emission test fee for vehicles as specified in Schedule 10 to the Road Traffic Ordinance from the current flat rate of $310 to three different levels of $620, $680 and $730 subject to the types of vehicles. The test is carried out at designated vehicle emission testing centres, and all of them are private undertakings.
14618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The Subcommittee has held three meetings to examine the Order and received views from deputations. Members note that no adjustment has been made to the test fee since 1998. Since the introduction of the dynamometer-based emission test by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in 1999, new equipment has to be purchased for the testing centres and there are extra operating expenses as well. The testing centres find it difficult to maintain the provision of the test services at the current fee level. On the other hand, some members of the transport trades, in particular liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) taxi operators or owners, hold that the increase in the test fee is so substantial that their operating cost will be driven up immensely, and this will ultimately be passed onto users of transport services. Hence, they strongly object to it.
The Administration advises that under the "polluter pays" and "user pays" principles, vehicle owners should pay the fee for the emission test on their vehicles. The fee increase will not affect vehicle owners who have properly maintained their vehicles; but for those who have overlooked vehicle maintenance and are subject to the emission test, the test fee increase can be a deterrent to their negligence.
To strike a balance between the interest of the transport trades and the operators of testing centres, the Subcommittee has explored with the authorities the feasibility of postponing the test fee increase. The authorities stress that most of the vehicles meet the requirements on emissions, and that the test fee increase should not be delayed for the few vehicle owners who have not properly maintained their vehicles.
The Subcommittee further suggests that the fee be increased in two phases, that is, 50% of the increase comes into operation on 1 August 2015, the original effective date; and the remaining 50% of the increase comes into operation 24 months after the implementation of the first phase. The Subcommittee holds that this will help the transport trades to absorb the impact of the fee increase progressively. After detailed discussions, the authorities agreed to implement the fee increase in two phases, but suggested that the second phase should come into operation 18 months after the implementation of the first phase. Members in general consider the authorities' proposal acceptable, and agree that the authorities shall move amendments to the Order to this effect.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14619
The Subcommittee noted with concern that given the dropping number of vehicles with excessive emissions on the back of the Government's strengthened control over emissions, fewer vehicles will be required to undergo the emission tests, and it may even be more difficult for the testing centres to recover the full operating cost in future. Members worried about the more frequent or substantial increase in test fees by the authorities in the future. The authorities advised that they would review the test fees from time to time in the future to keep them in pace with cost increases and avoid making substantial fee adjustment at one time.
To ensure the sustained provision of emission test services in future, the Subcommittee has together with the authorities looked into the feasibility of direct provision of such services by the Government. Some members also suggested that the authorities earmark spaces at public facilities under planning, such as carparks for heavy vehicles, industrial estates and government complexes, for lease to testing centre operators at affordable rental levels so that they can provide emission tests at lower fees.
The Administration advised that the test fees would also need to be fixed on a full cost recovery basis even if the Government provided the test services. The authorities hold that the testing centres should continue to operate under the market mechanism, and the Government should not interfere with it so as not to invite criticisms of the Government favouring a particular business.
The Subcommittee notes that the authorities are working on the inclusion of the dynamometer-based emission test as part of the annual examination of motor vehicles for licence renewal to align with the policy of reducing vehicular emissions and improving roadside air quality. The Subcommittee urges the authorities to implement the arrangement expeditiously.
The Subcommittee supports the resolution proposed by the authorities. The Subcommittee will not propose any amendment to the Order.
Deputy President, my personal views on the Order are as follows.
The transport trades in general do not support increasing the emission test fee, the first reason being that the increase is substantial and the second one being that the Government's improper administrative arrangements have incurred 14620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 additional costs for the trades with regard to the test. LPG taxis and minibuses make up the strongest opposition among the transport trades. In retrospect, the Government implemented measures last September to strengthen the monitoring on emissions from petrol and LPG vehicles with a view to further improving roadside air quality. Before the measures were implemented, the EPD had introduced a replacement scheme for catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, through which a one-off subsidy was offered to all owners of LPG taxis and minibuses in Hong Kong to replace their catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. The scheme sounded good by itself, but it gave rise to bitter complaints from the trades.
First of all, the trades held that the replacement scheme is not comprehensive enough. Apart from catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, emissions from vehicles are also determined by their mixers, vaporizers and exhaust gas recirculation valves. Hence, the trades suggested that they be replaced together, but the authorities did not accept the suggestion. The replacement scheme merely covered catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, and had to conclude in six months.
Then, some taxi and minibus owners claimed that less than a year after the catalytic converters and oxygen sensors had been replaced at contractors designated by the Government, the newly replaced catalytic converters and oxygen sensors failed, and the engines of some vehicles were plagued by frequent stalls as well. The trades thus cast doubt on the quality of the catalytic converters. Despite the proactive follow-up effort by the EPD, it was still difficult to address the worries of the trades about the quality of the catalytic converters and oxygen sensors replaced by the Government.
The replacement scheme concluded in April 2014. Of the 20 000 eligible LPG taxis and minibuses, as many as 80% had joined the replacement scheme. In September of the same year, the Government officially began the installation of roadside remote sensing equipment to monitor emissions from petrol and LPG vehicles. As of April this year, emission testing notices were issued to 3 083 vehicle owners in total, yet 66% of them or about 2 042 notices were related to taxis and minibuses, and nearly 60% of the taxis and 80% of the minibuses had joined the replacement scheme. This also fuelled the trades' suspicions about the effectiveness of the newly replaced catalytic converters and oxygen sensors in reducing emissions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14621
Under the Government's proposal, catalytic converters should be replaced at an 18-month interval. However, less than a year after the conclusion of the replacement scheme, 1 000 or so taxis and minibuses having joined the scheme were found to have failed in the roadside remote sensing test. In the Government's funding application for the replacement scheme, each catalytic converter was estimated to cost around $5,000. Coupled with the cost of replacement, vehicle owners would have to bear thousands of dollars as additional cost for the regular replacement of catalytic converters. Given the lifespan of a catalytic converter of less than a year at present, this undoubtedly will further add to the financial burden of vehicle owners.
One should be aware that in case of failure in the emission test, vehicle owners' licences may be suspended by the Transport Department (TD). Therefore, within 12 days after receipt of an emission testing notice, vehicle owners will have to arrange for examination and repair of their vehicles at garages as well as schedule for a test at the vehicle emission testing centres designated by the EPD; what really causes taxi and minibus owners to feel dissatisfied is that their vehicles may still fail the test after repeated examinations, particularly the passing rate merely stayed around 50% when the test was initially introduced.
Despite the Government's subsequent interim measures of offering two free tests to vehicle owners and strengthening communication with the vehicle repairs trade with regard to the key repair items, in any event, if vehicle owners have joined the replacement scheme but are told that they fail in the emission test and thus need to overcome more troubles for it, not only the daily operation of the vehicles is affected, vehicle owners and drivers may also suffer loss in terms of time, effort and money. That the taxi and minibus trades do not support increasing the emission test fee is understandable.
Another reason for the trades not supporting the current fee increase proposal is that the TD's annual examination and the EPD's requirements on emissions are not synchronized. The lack of co-ordination between the two departments means that vehicles having passed the annual examination may still come short of the EPD's emission standards, so additional emission tests may be required for the owners, and additional costs will be incurred.
The Government has all along emphasized that if vehicles are properly maintained, vehicle owners will not be affected by the new fees. Nevertheless, as the taxi trade members pointed out in the public hearing, since the introduction 14622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 of LPG taxis by the Government in 2000, the LPG model is the only choice for replacement owing to the fuel mandated, so those in the trade have no incentive to replace their taxis in the lack of choices. No matter how properly a vehicle is maintained, its parts may still age. At present, there is no lack of taxis aged 15 running on the road. Despite the Government's subsidy for owners to replace the catalytic converters and oxygen sensors so as to give a new "liver" to a much worn-out vehicle, it is still difficult for the vehicle to return to a state where the emission standards are like that of a new vehicle. The newer a vehicle, the less its emissions. To reduce emissions, the phasing out of old vehicles is the radical solution at root. As the Government has offered an ex-gratia payment to phase out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles, should the authorities not consider subsidizing LPG taxi owners for the replacement of vehicles, with a view to phasing out aged LPG vehicles?
The testing centres have not adjusted the emission-related fee over the past 17 years, but if the fee is doubled in one go, the taxi and minibus trades may find it unaffordable indeed. As I have stated time and again in the meetings of this Council as well as the panel, the operation of the taxi and minibus trades has become increasingly challenging thanks to the expansion of the railway network in recent years. Also, illegal carriage of passengers for hire or reward is so rampant that the room of survival for the taxi and minibus trades has been dwindling. Coupled with the ever increasing cost of operation, any additional cost will further add to the burden borne by the trades.
As the trades strongly identify with the difficulty of the ever increasing cost of operation, if it is unavoidable for the testing centres to adjust the fee, the wish of the trades is that the Government will reduce the rate of increase or postpone the implementation of the new fee. When the Government first proposed the fee adjustment last July, the plan was that it would take effect early this year. At that time, I requested that the Government consider postponing the fee adjustment. That the current effective date is set at 1 August can be regarded as a move answering the request of the trades.
As for the trades' suggestion on adjusting the fee in phases, the initial idea is that 50% of the increase will first come into operation on 1 August, to be followed by the remaining 50% of the increase in the second phase two years later, such that the TD will have sufficient time to install dynamometers for testing emissions. However, members of the Subcommittees favour 18 months as proposed by the Government, so I will support the Government's amendments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14623 as well today. Nevertheless, I still hope that the Government will strive to include the emission test as part of the annual examination for vehicles within 18 months, such that no additional emission test is needed for the vehicle owners after passing the annual examination, thus reducing the additional effort made by owners in terms of time and money.
Lastly, I wish to mention one more point. As those transport trades members have told me, they hope that the Government can lower the emission test fee for vehicles weighing less than 5.5 tonnes to the same level as that for those exceeding 5.5 tonnes. I understand that the test fee is subject to location of the testing centre as well as its rental. Hence, in the long run, in future planning for public facilities, the Government should consider dedicating part of the land to centres for vehicle repairs and examination. At a reasonable rental, pressure faced by operators of such centres to increase the fee caused by the ever rising rental will be lessened.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Order. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please speak.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
14624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please speak.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, this piece of subsidiary legislation is an amendment proactively made by the Government in response to the discussion of the Subcommittee.
(Some Members talked in the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please do not talk in the Chamber. Ms HO, please go on.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): This time around what happens to the subsidiary legislation is an extremely rare case, since the authorities have made this amendment in response to the scrutiny by the Subcommittee. The amendment is very simple, as it seeks to raise the original fee from $310 to respectively $620, $680 and $730 for different types of vehicles at one go. Originally, there should be no cause for criticism in adjusting the fee 17 years after the adjustment in 1998. However, we have invited members of the transport trades to express their views in our public hearing, and this time it has proved that public hearings of the Legislative Council are really useful because members of the trades have relayed a lot of views to us, and the problems highlighted by them are not solely about the fees. Frankly speaking, if their vehicles are examined once a year, and during that year, no excessive emission is detected by the air monitors installed by the Government at roadside, the annual one-off increase of $300 to $400 is actually even less than the daily rent for the vehicles because at present, the taxi rental is exorbitant. This increase in the fee is way behind the rent for the vehicles. In comparison, as the taxi licence premium has soared to $7 million as a result of speculation, this increase of $300 to $400 is in fact insignificant. For this reason, I do not quite agree to the claim made by the trades that this will increase the cost because after all, the trades also have the responsibility for the maintenance of vehicles. They cannot just allow the vehicles to remain defective with continuous emissions on grounds of cost, thus affecting the air quality.
Nevertheless, we have also heard members of the industry relay in the public hearing a number of inadequacies on the part of the Government before this fee increase. That include the monitoring of emissions and the provision of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14625 a one-off subsidy for members of the industry to purchase catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. Firstly, the roadside emission monitoring devices may not be accurate. This point was raised by members of the transport trades in the public hearing, and the public officers were unable to give any response. For example, when a motor car travels past the first monitoring location in a certain area, its emission can meet the standard. The first device does not indicate excessive emission from the car. However, when it reaches the next monitoring device in the same area, excessive emission is detected by the device. This makes members of the trades suspect whether these devices are accurate and whether their operation will be hindered by the need to undergo another examination of their vehicles because of inaccuracy of these devices.
The second point raised by the trades is about the Government's procedure in subsidizing their purchases of catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. On the one hand, the Government will tighten its regulation. Very often, it will use a stricter law, whipping the industry with the stick. Yet on the other hand, the Government will probably provide subsidies and hand out "candies". In that case, the work will be much easier. As we can see, the environmental monitoring measures introduced by the Government in the past were geared in this direction so that the work could be carried out more smoothly. However, we have heard the trades query why the authorities would provide catalytic converters and oxygen sensors which were not original make. The number of such devices which were unusable was indeed not small. As shown by the figures provided to us by the public officers, nearly 8% of the 20 000 catalytic converters and oxygen sensors purchased with the subsidy were unusable. What was the consequence? It was the generation of waste. Since these catalytic converters and oxygen sensors were unusable, they had to be removed. This also reflects a problem. If the Government can provide vehicle owners a one-off subsidy of nearly $5,000, why are they not allowed to make their own purchases of devices produced by the original manufacturers as in the case of the education voucher or other subsidies? They might as well return the surplus if the price is lower than the subsidy and pay the difference if the price is higher, but now the Government has specified that they must buy the devices from a certain contractor. This has in effect led to de facto monopolization because they do not have a choice. Consequently, now it is found out that 8% of the catalytic converters and oxygen sensors are unusable, which makes members of the trades feel that firstly, the subsidy they have received is unable to help them, and secondly, although they have received the subsidy, it turns out that the emission still fails the standard and thus affects their business.
14626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The third point is about the emergence of de facto monopolization. In the past, the Government merely introduced liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) taxis without providing the trade with any choice. As a matter of fact, three motor makes currently supply LPG taxis, but only one of them provides maintenance service by the original manufacturer in Hong Kong, and the taxis of this make have recently changed from five-seaters to four-seaters, thus bringing difficulties to the operation of the trade. For this reason, all along, the Legislative Council has raised the following question: given that diesel vehicles with lower emission are currently available and the Government itself is promoting the use of electric vehicles, why does it maintain the use of LPG taxis? In this regard, actually the restriction can be relaxed to give the trade one more alternative and pre-empt monopolization in supply which makes members of the industry feel being exploited by the vehicle suppliers in terms of both maintenance and vehicle prices. In fact, the Government merely needs to formulate a standard to cap emissions. Members of the trade ― be they vehicle owners or drivers ― may use whatever methods to meet the standard. In that case, it will obviate the need for the Government to adopt various approaches such as legal and administrative means to exert pressure, leaving them with only one choice.
President, in closing, I would like to commend the Environment Bureau of the current term. They have done a lot more work than they did in the last term. Yet we have noticed that some measures indeed did not meet the standard. The Environment Bureau and its department did not meet the standard themselves. On the one hand, the Administration provides a subsidy for drivers to install catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, but on the other, it tightens the legislation to impose regulation, making it mandatory for them to have their vehicles examined and repaired if they do not meet the standard. However, the roadside air quality monitors are installed at locations which are three-storey high. As a result, they cannot really monitor the roadside air quality. Concerned about the air quality, some people in the civil society conducted an air quality monitoring exercise at the height of a tram station. The results were vastly different from those obtained by the devices installed by the Government at those locations which are three-storey high. Given the Government's sincerity in improving air quality and containing emissions through legislation and the provision of subsidies, why is it unwilling to adopt measures in respect of the figures obtained in air monitoring? If the figures obtained can truly reflect the roadside air quality, the executive, the legislature and the civil society will be able to see more clearly what should be done in terms of administrative measures, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14627 subsidies, allocation of resources as well as legislation. Only then can the right step be taken to resolve the air quality problem. We await this step to be taken by the Administration.
Thank you, President.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the resolution on the Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015.
President, earlier on, Mr Frankie YICK and Ms Cyd HO already made it clear that this was the first time in 17 years for the Government to propose an increase in the test fee for emission testing centres. However, I think the Government needs to strike a balance between the interests of operators and drivers at the same time. As for operators, they are facing such factors as inflation and maintenance of equipment, as well as considerable pressure in operation. Earlier on, the Secretary also mentioned the escalating operating costs of testing centres currently. However, if the test fee is increased substantially by one-fold from $310 to $620 all at once, it may cause enormous pressure to bear on professional drivers. Hence I think that in proposing a phased implementation of the fee increase, the Government has actually demonstrated its willingness to respond to the aspiration of the transport trades and Members.
Earlier on, the Secretary pointed out the existing difficult business environment of vehicle emission testing centres, and the declining number of such centres. For example, there is currently only one testing centre for diesel vehicles over 5.5 tonnes, and another dedicated for smaller diesel vehicles across the territory. Members can see that diesel vehicles required to undergo emission tests may have to wait for a long time. Nevertheless, with the reduction in emissions from registered diesel commercial vehicles, the number of vehicles required to be examined has also decreased accordingly. Hence, it is anticipated that the business of these testing centres will probably dwindle. And I have also put forward an idea for discussion at meetings of the Subcommittee. Given the operating difficulties and rising costs of testing centres, can we consider having them operated by the Government instead? Or can additional emission testing facilities be provided at vehicle examination workshops or centres? Earlier on, Mr Frankie YICK asked whether the emission test could be included in the vehicle examination, so that professional drivers needed not do them separately, 14628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 thereby avoiding a loss of business time and income to them. A number of Honourable colleagues have also put forward many relevant suggestions at meetings of the Subcommittee. I think the Government and the Secretary should give them serious consideration.
In fact, the Government launched the remote sensing scheme last year for detecting petrol/liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles with excessive emissions at roadsides, and requiring substandard vehicles to pass the dynamometer-based emission test within 12 working days. However, there are currently only four centres providing such services across the territory. And users of petrol/LPG vehicles are usually public light bus and taxi drivers who are professional drivers. As pointed out by me just now, it may take a longer time for these workshops to do the repair work. And as mentioned by a number of Honourable colleagues earlier on, there is a problem with the batch of catalytic converters subsidized by the Government. Hence, apart from requiring them to undergo the vehicle examination mandated by law, the Government should actually handle those vehicles which are unable to be examined in time in a more flexible way in order to reduce the pressure faced by the trades.
In addition, I also subscribe to the view that it is the vehicle owners' responsibility to maintain the normal operation of vehicles and ensure that they meet emission standards. Nevertheless, when they go for a vehicle examination for the problems with their vehicles, the Government should actually bear part of the responsibility for the inadequacy of vehicle examination centres or testing centres. For this reason, I think the Government should ensure that the testing centres function properly and share responsibilities with the industry while stepping up random inspection of vehicles for exhaust emission.
I welcome the Government's phased implementation of the fee increase in response to the aspiration of the Council and the trades to ease the pressure on the trades after the two meetings of the Subcommittee and the public hearing to receive views from the trades. In fact, from the perspective of environmental protection, I will encourage professional drivers to properly maintain their vehicles by undergoing timely examinations and repairs. This can actually help reduce the frequency of visits to vehicle examination centres and contribute to the environment. I also have to thank the Secretary for appreciating the sentiments of the community and implementing the fee increase in phases. In view of this, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and I will support this resolution. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14629
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, I have to thank the Bureau, especially the Secretary, for readily heeding sound advice and being willing to make a compromise in adhering to the principle of having vehicle owners fulfil their responsibility of maintaining their vehicles and implementing a self-financing operational policy for the vehicle examination centres, to enable Members to give an account after listening to the views of the public and the trades as well as balancing the overall interests of society. This approach is quite good.
Certainly, this is merely a trivial matter because, in the long run, the more vigourous the efforts made by the Government in promoting environmental protection initiatives, the greater the awareness of environmental protection on the part of vehicle owners. As a result, the number of vehicles required to be tested will become smaller and smaller in the future. So, what can the vehicle examination centres do about it? Is the Government going to raise the test fee to nearly $10,000? As we are aware, the Office of The Ombudsman is compiling Direct Investigation Reports on the vehicle examination work of the Transport Department (TD) and the Environmental Protection Department (EPD). I have no idea of the outcome of the Reports, but I earnestly hope that joint efforts can be made by the two departments to offer facilitation to not only drivers and vehicle owners but also the synergized operation of the two departments, thereby avoiding causing confusions to the public. This is my wish. I understand that former Secretary Dr Sarah LIAO did not envisage major problems in designing and devising policies related to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles and enhanced emission reduction, probably because the policies were implemented by the same Policy Bureau at that time. However, it is now very troublesome for the policies to be handled by the two Policy Bureaux, as if they are separated by a mountain. This is not what I would like to see.
Some professional drivers, especially taxi drivers, query if the patrol officers of the EPD merely pinpoint taxis because they are easily identifiable and their mileage is very high. Is it true that the authorities pinpoint taxis only? This is the query of taxi drivers. I hope the Government can explain the principle of its spot checks to dispel the misgivings of taxi drivers.
If taxis and other vehicles can be properly maintained, I believe the number of vehicles required to be tested will definitely continue to shrink, and there will be no more complaints or strong reactions. However, the reality tells us that LPG vehicles face serious maintenance problems. The first problem is definitely related to the subsidy scheme launched several years ago for the 14630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 replacement of catalytic converters, which eventually ended up in a mess. The second problem is related to the query made by quite a number of vehicle repairs workshops as to why the scheme was not extended to all workshops. When the policy was put into implementation, all workshops and taxi drivers said that the scheme had failed to bear fruit although money had been spent. What result has actually been achieved? Has any review been conducted? Do workshops currently undertaking the maintenance of LPG vehicles face serious problems in business operation?
Furthermore, it is evident in the incident involving the explosion of a workshop for LPG vehicles in Tsz Wan Shan on 26 April that the certification scheme for maintenance of LPG vehicles faces a very serious problem. This is why Ms Cyd HO and other Members asked just now whether or not LPG vehicles must be adopted, LPG must be used as the fuel for taxis, and public light buses should be encouraged to switch to LPG? Personally, I do not find it necessary to do so because proper preparations have yet to be made. Moreover, LPG involves a grave safety risk problem. If workshops of all scales can carry out maintenance for LPG vehicles, then they can carry out maintenance for tyres today and exhaust pipes tomorrow and, finally, removal of the tanks the day after tomorrow. Why should the tanks be removed? Just now, a member pointed out that from 2009 onwards, many taxis have converted from having five seats to four because of a change in the structure of their entire fuel system, not because of the shrinkage of the number of seats or business. Since the four-seater taxis in 2009 had built-in pumps, and the wear and tear of the pumps would increase with the mileage of the taxis, many small workshops might replace the pumps without permission. This practice is, however, not only illegal but also very risky.
Simply put, the situation of workshops undertaking maintenance of LPG vehicles is very chaotic. I hope the Secretary can take the initiative to discuss with YAU Shing-mu and Anthony CHEUNG, who are responsible for transport policies. Regarding the positioning of the TD in modes of public transport, relevant studies and the fuel used by taxis, can the authorities adopt a more open attitude? Despite the calls in the community for premium and barrier-free taxis, the existing types of LPG taxis are unable to meet such demands. It is unwise to let LPG taxis continue to be restricted by their fuel even with enhanced functions. Therefore, I hope the Secretary can pay attention to these issues and take the initiative to open discussions with the Transport and Housing Bureau.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14631
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 Secretary for the Environment to reply.
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Frankie YICK, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015, and all members of the Subcommittee for their support for the amendment resolution.
Reducing roadside air pollution for the protection of public health is an important aspect of our work. Therefore, vehicle emission testing is part of our efforts in solving the problem of excessive emissions arising from improper maintenance of vehicles. Although inflation and the upgrading of technical requirements for emission tests have incurred extra capital and operational expenses for operators of vehicle emission testing centres, the test fee has not seen any increase over the past 17 years. For this reason, we need to set the test fee at a reasonable level to maintain the operation of these centres.
I trust Members will also agree that vehicle owners have the responsibility to properly repair and maintain their vehicles on a timely basis to avoid causing excessive emissions. Therefore, the fee increase would not affect vehicle owners who have fulfilled their responsibility of maintaining their vehicles properly. However, the proposal can be a deterrent to owners who have overlooked vehicle maintenance. More importantly, it can help improve roadside air quality to create a better environment for the public.
The Panel on Environmental Affairs supports the increase in the vehicle emission test fee, and the Subcommittee on Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 10) Order 2015 also agrees to the proposed Resolution. I hope Members will support this motion.
Thank you, President.
14632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for the Environment 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 of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two motions with no legislative effect.
It is now 7.08 pm. As I informed Members earlier, today's meeting will be suspended at around 10 pm. Two motions with no legislative effect are now pending processing. Earlier I had consulted Members through the Secretariat. After listening to Members' views, I have decided that if the debate on the first Members' motion can be finished before 9 pm tonight, we will continue with the meeting until the last item on the Agenda is completed. If the debate on the first motion cannot be finished by 9 pm tonight, I will announce that the meeting will be adjourned after the debate on the first motion is over.
We now proceed to the debate on the first Members' Motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motion debate on "Report on the visit of the delegation of the Legislative Council to Germany".
Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Ms Emily LAU to speak and move the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14633
REPORT ON THE VISIT OF THE DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO GERMANY
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Liaison Subcommittee, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
President, at the invitation of the German Government, a delegation of nine Legislative Council Members visited Berlin, the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany, and Bremen, one of the federal states of Germany, from 1 to 6 March 2015. President, this nine-member delegation was a cross-party delegation selected by the House Committee. I was the delegation leader, and Mr Tommy CHEUNG was the deputy leader. The other members of the delegation included Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr Paul TSE.
President, this visit was different from the visit to Northern Europe mentioned by me last week. Our report submitted last week was on the visit of three countries of Northern Europe chosen by Members of the Legislative Council with the objectives of visiting their legislatures and drawing on their experiences in various aspects. However, this visit in March was the first time in the history of the Legislative Council, and probably even the Legislative Council before the reunification, that a foreign government ― this time it was the German Government ― had ever invited the Legislative Council to send a cross-party delegation to visit its country. And all the expenses for this visit were borne by the German Government. We wish to thank the German Government for its invitation. We would like to thank, in particular, the Consul General of Germany in Hong Kong, and his colleagues for a carefully planned visit programme which ensured the success of our visit and our opportunities to observe the many practices in Germany. As for whether we can practise what we have learnt after returning to Hong Kong, probably later on Deputy Secretary LAU Kong-wah will cite the Basic Law again, saying all those practices are not feasible, just like the last time when he indicated that nothing could be followed.
President, as a matter of fact, after I had arrived at Berlin, I learnt from our host that they have a plan in Germany every year. This year, they have invited delegations of legislatures from 16 countries or places to visit Germany. Hong Kong is one of the 16 places. We stayed for five days in Germany from 1 March to 6 March. Our first stop was Berlin, the capital of Germany. We 14634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 toured their beautiful parliament building. We also visited the Lower House of the Federal Parliament of Germany (the Bundestag) as well as the Upper House (the Bundesrat). So we visited the two Houses of their Parliament. The delegation met with the Vice-President and Members of the German Parliament; officials of the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. We had discussions with them on various aspects. After our visit to Berlin, we went to Bremen, one of the 16 federal states of Germany. We also met with the President of the Bremen Parliament, Senators, officials and academics of Bremen.
President, regarding this visit to Germany, I believe Members who have taken part in the visit and those who have not will speak later on in the meeting. First of all, I would like to thank our secretary, who is sitting next to the President. On return from our visit in March, the secretary completed this report expeditiously. I would like to thank the secretary for all this. Members can also read this report. During our stay in Germany, irrespective of whether we were meeting with their Members or officials, a point regarding the political culture of Germany was continuously highlighted to us. And what was that? President, it was the consensual political culture. They said that they were prepared to hold discussions and make compromises with a view to reaching a consensus. This certainly is related to their experiences in warfare which had left a lasting impression on them. Someone once said that Hong Kong might have to go through a war before we could reach a consensus. Meanwhile, we can observe that they are not only willing to seek a consensus, a mechanism is also put in place in the parliament to enable them to conduct negotiations and seek a consensus, thereby achieving a win-win solution in the decision making process. President, this is probably something Members and officials in Hong Kong seldom hear of, because they believe what they have to do is to achieve a total victory for themselves and a total loss for their opponents.
President, please allow me to talk briefly about the electoral system of Germany. In Hong Kong, we have just completed our discussion. This morning, we had just raised objection to the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015. The electoral system of Germany adopts a mixed electoral system of "one person, two votes" ― this is different from the existing "one person, two votes" for the Legislative Council election ― in the Lower House which consists of 598 regular seats. What is meant by "one person, two votes"? There are 299 single-seat constituencies in Germany. Each voter is allowed to vote for one Member in his own constituency through a simple LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14635 majority system of "first past the post". The second vote is for a party list of candidates based on a proportional representation system. Seats are allocated to the political parties according to the number of votes they won in the election. They hold that this arrangement ensures that Members of the Parliament and the number of seats held by political parties can reflect the wish of the people who cast their votes.
President, there is a very special feature in this practice. I mentioned just now that there are 598 seats in the Parliament of this country. However, the number of seats can be increased. In an election, if a political party wins more constituency seats than its share of seats determined by the party vote, it can keep the extra seats, which are known as the "overhang seats". If this party wins "overhang seats", other parties will also be allocated more seats, which are known as "balance seats". This arrangement is meant to ensure complete proportionality of the share of votes for all parties as stipulated under the Federal Electoral Act. Therefore, this is a relatively complicated practice. The system in Bremen, the state we visited, is even more drastic. They want to change this system. They believe that two votes for one person are not enough; instead, five votes for one person will really be able to reflect the wish of voters.
Moreover, owing to the fact that only political parties may submit lists of candidates, political parties play a very important role in elections in Germany. A party must be represented by at least five Members in the Federal Parliament or a state parliament without interruption since the last election to be eligible for sending candidates to stand in the next election. Otherwise, the Federal Electoral Committee will decide whether that political party can nominate candidates.
In the general election on 22 September 2013, the ruling Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union alliance won 41.5% of the votes and 311 seats, leaving it just five seats short of an absolute majority necessary for becoming the ruling party. After a two-month negotiation, the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union alliance reached a deal with the Social Democratic Party to form a grand coalition, with Chancellor Angela MERKEL continuing to lead the coalition. In the face of such a powerful coalition, the opposition parliamentary groups had only 127 seats; and according to the rule of the Parliament back then, the threshold for setting up a committee of inquiry was one quarter of Members. With the opposition parliamentary groups having only 127 Members, how did they deal with the situation? President, they changed the 14636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 rule. By lowering the number of Members required to agree to the proposal to 120, the opposition parliamentary groups may jointly request the setting up of a committee of inquiry. Let us reflect on this. Where can we find such arrangements in Hong Kong?
Moreover, another feature which is worth commending is the Council of Elders. Led by the President of the Bundestag, the Council has 30 Members, comprising the President, six Vice-Presidents and 23 other Members. It is a cross-party, high-level body represented by the whips of all parliamentary groups. Every meeting of the Council is attended by a Minister of the Federal Government. The Council assists the President of the Bundestag in handling matters of the plenary, which include determining the plenary's agenda, topics of debates, and length of debates. All these are determined by the Council. The proposed agenda agreed by the Council is recommended to the plenary for adoption, a procedure which will meet with no obstacles as all parliamentary groups have representatives serving as members of the Council. This Council is a miniature of the entire Bundestag. However, seats in the Council are distributed according to the number of seats of the relevant political parties in the Bundestag. The Council is also the venue where the allocation of chairmanships and deputy chairmanships of various committees is decided. All these are allocated according to the percentage of seats held by political parties in the Bundestag.
I learnt from today's newspaper reports that Mr IP Kwok-him indicated that the pro-establishment camp had vowed to seize the chairmanships of all panels in the coming year. Slips in co-ordination are not allowed to happen again. He did not take part in the visit to Germany. However, Mr CHAN Hak-kan did. A proportional distribution of seats is practised in Germany. In Hong Kong, we do not have a Council of Elders like the one in Germany. So what are we going to do? We swarm to join the panels in order to seize these positions. During the interview, Mr IP Kwok-him indicated that they had to ensure that at least 28 pro-establishment Members would join each panel, with a view to seizing the chairmanships of all panels.
President, just take a look. What kind of practice is this? We should know what is meant by demeanour required of parliamentary assemblies to render it unnecessary to go to Germany or Northern Europe in order to learn from them. In this Council, Members have their own way of dealing with things. But they must not do something like this as if they were out of their mind just because they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14637 lost two chairmanships of the two Subcommittees under the Finance Committee this year, and slipped up in co-ordination in the course of voting that resulted in eight Members voting in favour and 28 Members voting against the constitutional reform. What is the point of doing something like this? A victory won in this way can be ignominious. It is evident that we have this many Members in the Council. We account for a certain percentage. If they must seize the chairmanships of all panels, and even the position of Deputy Chairman, sparing not one single slot, they have already forgotten entirely the practice of Germany and Northern Europe in no time. When will Hong Kong abandon the practice of pugnacity and belligerency typical of LEUNG Chun-ying's style? If this is practised in the Council, how can colleagues of this Council be convinced?
President, I hope Honourable colleagues will share our experience of this visit to Germany with others. I also hope that Hong Kong people can be smarter and learn from others on how best to find a win-win solution.
Ms Emily LAU moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council notes the Report on the Visit of the Delegation of the Legislative Council to Germany from 1 to 6 March 2015."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Emily LAU be passed.
UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, a delegation of the Legislative Council visited Germany in March this year and has compiled a report on the outcomes and observations of this visit. The report covers matters in various areas. I wish to respond briefly to the report after listening to Members' speeches.
Thank you, President.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it was my honour to have taken part in this delegation in the capacity of deputy leader, and join the other eight Members on the visit. It was the first time the Legislative Council had been invited by a parliamentary assembly of a foreign country. All expenses for 14638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 this visit were borne by the German Government. Therefore, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the German Government and the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Hong Kong.
I was very much impressed during the entire visit. The emphasis of the German political structure is on communication, consensus and checks and balances, which I greatly appreciate. Today, when our society is turning polarized, this is something we need to learn. The current political structure of Germany is closely related to the historical background and social structure of the country. Put it simply, after the painful lessons of the two World Wars, it has been hoped that the future development of the country will be able to prevent the emergence of either an authoritarian institution such as the Nazi dictatorship, or an overly fragmented democracy. For this reason, under the Basic Law ― the constitution of Germany is also called the Basic Law ― an intricate system of checks and balances governing the interaction among different organs of the government is stipulated.
Germany adopts a bicameral legislature, that is, the German Parliament comprises the Upper House (the Bundesrat) and the Lower House (the Bundestag). Everyone knows that Members of the Bundestag are directly elected by universal suffrage. However, what is worth noting is that Members of the Bundesrat are appointed by each of the cabinets of the state governments, and are not directly elected by the people. There is a total of 69 appointed Members in the Bundesrat. These Members concurrently hold office in the state and federal institutions. The number of seats for each state is determined by the population size of a state, ranging from three to six seats. There is no definite term of office for Members of the Bundesrat. The state governments may recall or replace their representatives at any time.
Meanwhile, to counterbalance the power of the Bundestag, the Bundesrat is vested with a number of legislative and scrutiny powers. Most bills prepared by the Federal Government must be passed by the Bundesrat before they can be presented to the Bundestag for scrutiny and vote. For bills to amend the constitution, or bills which affect the states' budgetary revenue and administration, the approval of the Bundesrat must be sought before they can become law. The Bundesrat may also veto a bill that substantially affects the state interests.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14639
It is thus evident that to a certain extent, the Bundesrat and the Bundestag keep checks and balances on each other's functions. To pre-empt the impasse of both sides refusing to give way to each other, mechanisms are put in place to strengthen the communication between both sides. For instance, when disputes emerge in the course of a legislative exercise, a Mediation Committee can be established between the Bundestag and Bundesrat under Article 77 of the Basic Law as a body which acts as an intermediary to seek a consensus between the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The decisions by the Mediation Committee are made on a majority basis; thus, they are known as "compromise proposals".
In fact, President, there are many other similar platforms for communication, including the Council of Elders in the Bundestag and the Board of the Bremen Parliament. Members of our delegation this time around comprise representatives of different political parties. We take the unanimous view that the aforementioned platforms facilitate the process of making compromises, and offer worthy reference to Hong Kong. We must note that the proceedings and content of the meetings of these platforms are kept confidential. This is very important as it ensures that Members' communication will not be subjected to any political pressure so that Members can express their views freely, discuss specific issues, make compromises or concession for the sake of the overall situation. It can be said that these mechanisms that facilitate communication, consensus and co-ordination are the most important factors in the successful political decision-making process in Germany.
President, I often say, "Politics is all about compromise." Politics is basically an art of compromise. However, Hong Kong has changed from "Let's talk" to "Let's not talk" in recent years. We feel very helpless about this. Each party is insisting on its own view, trying to beat others by hoarding the largest number of chips, just like the game of "show hand" in casinos, playing for high stakes. But in the end, it will be Hong Kong that stands to lose. Compromise and negotiation are particularly important in the deliberation of political systems. In fact, in the drafting of the Basic Law, Hong Kong had undergone a very long process during which both the Chinese side and the British side had made compromises. Take the principle of "one country, two systems" as an example. This is a hard-earned result of negotiations. Hence, I hope that young people today will not talk so lightly of discarding the Basic Law of Hong Kong.
Perhaps we should consider whether we have made good use of the existing platforms, or whether more communication platforms of confidence can be put in place to facilitate peaceful, rational and constructive discussions that 14640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 will not be reduced to political shows aimed at stealing the limelight. I agree with the view presented in this report that political parties in Hong Kong may make reference to the experience of the operation of the Council of Elders in the Bundestag to reorganize the party coalition in Hong Kong. In fact, in the early 2000s, political parties in the Legislative Council once organized the "eight-party coalition" to successfully work together in resolving certain issues.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the so-called democratic system varies in different countries according to their own circumstances. Through implementing the system of the Upper House and the Lower House, the Federal Government of Germany has to take into account the interests of various states in the country when it makes legislative decisions. Hong Kong is a society geared towards development and with our emphasis placed on economic development. Of course, we attach importance to the issues of people's livelihood as well. However, we absolutely do not wish to see Hong Kong head in the direction of populism. To ensure that Hong Kong will not head in the direction of populism, and prevent policies from being decided on the basis of "headcount" only, elements that facilitate checks and balances, consensus forging and co-ordination must be built into our democratic system.
President, I so submit.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I did not join the delegation this time around, but I am glad that Members have the opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of this unique country of Germany again.
When I was a student, I studied the German culture and the German language. I may not be able to appreciate its literature, but I think many aspects of its culture and history are worthy reference. As a matter of fact, Germany is a nation that has gone through many trials and tribulations. Germany was originally a society of serfs torn apart among rivalling warlords. It was in 1870 that the country was finally unified. However, as early as 1870, a number of prominent figures in philosophy and music had already emerged in Germany. It was particularly so in the realm of philosophy where the depth of thinking was much respected. Probably owing to its poverty or weather, there was a sombre mood in Germany. A high degree of obedience was found among the entire nation, a characteristic attributable to the people's desire for survival.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14641
President, I believe you may be interested in one thing, and that is, the German language stresses logic a lot. There are even equations in learning the language, different from the French language which is relatively arbitrary in that some alphabets are pronounced while some are not pronounced. In fact, in the sentence structure of the German language, there are definite rules governing the positions of the subject, verb, adverb and adjective. Hence, it is not difficult to learn the German language. However, I feel pity for those who have to write in German with literary flair after learning the language. When the sentence structure of a language is so strict and precise, how can one write with literary flair as well? This may account for the fact that when prominent figures of German literature are mentioned, usually they are commended for the breadth and depth of their literary content, but not their literary flair.
Some characteristics of the German nation are worth learning from, such as their high degree of obedience and ability to endure poverty and hardship. Today, Germany is the country that takes the lead in the European Union in examining the Greek financial crisis. It is evident that this entire nation is very prudent in finance management, and does not squander its money. However, at the end of the First World War, Germany was the defeated country, penalized by the victors with very heavy fines, to the extent that Germans lived in destitution and thus had a strong reaction pent up. Incited by HILTER, the Germans wanted fervently to cleanse their national shame, and subsequently initiated the Second World War. Germany was defeated in the Second World War, whereas the genocide it committed against the Jews under the dictatorship and leadership of HILTER was a disgrace in human history.
However, this nation knows how to learn its lessons and has the courage to admit to its mistakes. This is shown in their action of stipulating in the constitution that in order to prevent the next bout of "one party dominance" and the re-emergence of dictatorship, small political parties must be respected. In each financial year, resources are allocated by the German Government to at least four political parties to ensure that the emergence of "one party dominance" will not take place. Now, when we enter the parliament building, we may find that the four corners of the building are designated as the venues of meetings for four political parties. Hence, in the face of the strong and powerful ruling party, small political parties also have the opportunity to be allocated resources on a parallel basis. Moreover, with respect to deployment of funds in Germany, the practice aims at assuring that each small political party will be allocated sufficient resources to invite academics to train the young people. President, this is similar 14642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 to your concept of setting up a think tank which serves as an incubator for young people intent on participation in politics. Of course, they promote the notions of their respective political parties. Meanwhile, they encourage young people to make a tour of other parties without being confined to one political group. They can join political parties A, B and C before making their final choice. In fact, this provides a good foundation for participation in politics of the new generation of young people. It will help young people understand the notions and direction of each political party through internship or discussion. However, like other countries, in the era when peace and prosperity has lasted for quite a long time, and with the influx of new immigrants seeking to live in more affluent countries, the ideology of the extreme rightists has developed among some young Germans. I hope that this nation will use its wisdom to stop this ideology of the extreme rightists, and will not repeat the serious mistake of committing crimes against human civilization like those during the Second World War.
Moreover, at the time of the reunification of West Germany and East Germany, the commitment of both sides in the entire nation and country was really beyond imagination. Back then, West Germany was prepared to endure the very heavy financial expenses of using one Deutschemark of West Germany to exchange for one Deutschemark of East Germany in order to achieve reunification. Today, we can see that under Greater China, the economic disparity among Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Mainland has narrowed ― the Mainland will probably surpass the other two regions soon ― however, the reunification and interest of a nation should not be considered in economic terms. Instead, they should be considered from the perspective of the overall culture and history. I hope that this reference can be drawn by Hong Kong people as well as people in China.
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, there were several things which impressed me during the German visit of the delegation. The first thing was our visit to the Upper House (the Bundersrat). The building used as the parliament building has a long history. Inside the building, you can see graffiti on the wall left behind by the Soviet troops when they conquered Berlin back then. You will ask in the first instance why, at the time of renovation, they did not remove these historical traces ― words written by the Soviet soldiers with insult and sarcasm on the Germans. The reason for not removing but preserving the graffiti is precisely because they wish to always remind themselves in the parliament building of this very dark history of the Germans, an episode they will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14643 never forget. They want to always remind themselves that history absolutely must not and should not be repeated in this nation and country; they must not repeat the mistakes made in the Second World War. This left a deep impression on me.
Second, when we visited the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, I asked the officials why they had invited this delegation to this visit. In fact, very few countries would invite organizations such as the Hong Kong Legislative Council to make a visit. At that time, the officials replied that they had read a lot about the Umbrella Movement of Hong Kong from international news reports over the past year. I asked them about their views on the Umbrella Movement. They told me they had been deeply moved by the Umbrella Movement of Hong Kong people, as they could see such high quality in Hong Kong people, and such strong determination in their pursuit of democracy and freedom. According to them, through the Umbrella Movement, they can really see that Hong Kong is very special, and that Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" has turned out to be a vivid and brilliant example of this constitutional system.
They indicated that previously their interest in Hong Kong was not great as they thought that Hong Kong was just a part of China after the reunification. However, through the Umbrella Movement, they have found that Hong Kong is really so special, so full of vitality, and Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" has turned out to be so important. Hence, after seeing the Umbrella Movement, they felt that Hong Kong and the Legislative Council of the place are something of importance and novelty to them. This led to the wish to contact us. I asked them whether their impression of Hong Kong had been affected after the Umbrella Movement. They replied that their impression was completely positive ― definitely not the view that the Umbrella Movement had tarnished the image of Hong Kong as claimed by some people. On the contrary, the impression I got from this visit to Germany is that foreigners take a very positive view of the Umbrella Movement.
Apart from respecting the persistence of Hong Kong people in their pursuit of democracy and freedom, through this visit, they hope that we can devote more efforts to studying the difficulties encountered by Germany on their road to democracy, and how the design of the German system is geared towards overcoming difficulties. When Ms Emily LAU spoke just now, she also mentioned some special features of the German system. For instance, how are they going to resolve the disagreement among the Lower House and the Upper 14644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
House? They resolve the disagreement through the Mediation Committee, which is basically a part of their constitutional system. How does it operate? When there is disagreement on any issue between the Lower House and the Upper House, they will send representatives to the Mediation Committee. All meetings of the Mediation Committee are held in camera. All Members who attend the meeting must reach a solution or method in resolving the issue before they can come out of the meeting room. Remarks made in the meeting are off the record. According to them, this Mediation Committee is very useful in resolving disputes among different political parties as well as disputes between the Upper House and the Lower House. Therefore, this system is very important to them.
Just now, Ms Emily LAU also talked about how various political parties of the Bundesrat resolved problems through co-ordination and communication. The German parliament is renowned for its efficiency. Of course, they have various political parties and Members from different parties. However, its efficiency is absolutely not slowed down because of this. It has been said that a democratic system has no efficiency. The democratic system of the Germans is just the opposite. Apart from democracy, they also have high efficiency.
Just now, Mr Tommy CHEUNG said, "Politics is the art of compromise." This remark is not at all accurate. As a matter of fact, in the 19th century, what Chancellor Otto von BISMARCK of Germany said was "Politics is the art of the possible.". That is, politics is the art of the possible, not the art of compromise. Many people often quote the quotation wrong. In fact, the correct quotation of this German Chancellor of the 19th century is "the art of the possible". I do not have time to do further explaining today. However, the concrete meaning of the two remarks are very different. They also have far-reaching implications.
Lastly, I am glad that through this visit, I have had the opportunity to spend nine days with eight colleagues of the Legislative Council. Usually Mr TANG Ka-piu, Mr CHAN hak-kan and I do not have any opportunity to talk to each other. I am glad that during this visit, I had the opportunity to get to know them better and to communicate with them. This is an opportunity we do not usually have, and I think, a valuable one.
Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14645
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to respond to Mr Dennis KWOK's point just now about the opportunity to talk to each other and get to know more about each other. It was a precious opportunity. I would also like to thank the Secretariat for the assistance rendered to making the delegation's entire visit to Germany a success.
President, from the perspective of politics, Germany is a very special country. A German diplomat once said to me proudly that although the German politicians failed to catch people's eyes, unlike the American politicians who knew how to present themselves, he held the view that the past German Governments after the Second World War were brilliant and competent. This is actually the fact. The current German Chancellor, Angela MERKEL, is a rather down-to-earth person. To us, she does not seem to exhibit any special charisma. However, nobody will look down on the strength of Germany in Europe. Down-to-earth seems to be the political culture of Germany. In the German political circle, the most commonly heard remark is whether a proposal can be effectively achieved. In other words, whether it works or not. This is one of their characteristics.
What is so special about Germany is that it has experienced two World Wars. And in these two World Wars, Germany was unfortunate or it had only itself to blame for playing the role of the aggressor. After the First World War, although the Weimar Republic adopted a democratic system, the Germans back then did not make a thorough reflection on their role in the First World War. In the end, this led to the totalitarian Nazis taking up the reins of government. This is an experience of a devastating defeat of the modern democratic system. Insofar as the Germans of the post-Second World War period are concerned, this is a very hard lesson. For this reason, the design of the political system of Germany after the Second World War is, to a large extent, aimed at preventing the tragedy of corruption in democracy from recurring again. In the realm of politics, the Germans attach great importance to checks and balances, consensus and respect for minority political groups. Hence, the political system and the electoral system designed by them are extremely complicated, and obviously different from those of the United Kingdom and the United States, with which we are familiar.
This time around, I had the opportunity to experience in person the situation in Germany. The experience left me with a very deep impression. It was particularly so when I saw the hard search and exploration undertaken by this 14646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 defeated country over the past 70 years. For instance, to prevent autocracy of the ruler, the person in power in Germany has to overcome various obstacles before decisions can be made. First of all, the ruler has to massage the diverging views of the governing coalition within the parliament. Second, as part of the power of the parliament is subject to checking by the Upper House, the ruler has to solicit the support of various regional governments in the Upper House. Meanwhile, the composition of the political parties of these regional governments are very complicated. Hence, in the pursuit of checks and balances as well as consensus, politicians in Germany have to spend a lot of efforts in lobbying and bargaining. In the European Union, decision-making in Germany is renowned to be very slow. Given that decision-making is not determined by the Chancellor alone, the relevant decision made is all the more dependable.
On the other hand, the Germans also attach enormous importance to the feasibility of the system. Excessive checks and balances and absolute consensus will result in the entire system not being able to operate. So when they encounter disagreements between the Lower House and the Upper House that cannot be reconciled, the Mediation Committee with Members from the two Houses will contrive to resolve the difference. The German parliament building is renowned for its transparent rooftop. However, the meetings of the Mediation Committee are conducted in camera ― Mr Dennis KWOK also mentioned that just now ― to facilitate the bargaining between the two Houses and among different political parties. This precisely illustrates the pragmatic aspect of politics in Germany.
The parliamentary election in Germany is based on a proportional representation system, which is also adopted in Hong Kong. The system of "single-member constituencies" is adopted in both the United Kingdom and the United States, under which the winner takes all. This usually results in the creation of two super political parties. However, the parliamentary seats will not be able to accurately reflect the diversity in the political spectrum of the people. The merit of the proportional representation system lies in the proportional allocation of parliamentary seats being able to reflect the wish of the people. But the problem of the proportional representation system ― the Weimar Republic prior to the Second World War also adopted the proportional representation system ― lies in the fragmentation of the parliament. It was difficult to co-ordinate the dozens of large and small political parties or political groups. In the end, the Nazis managed to take advantage of the situation. Learning from this painful experience, the post-war Germany put in place the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14647 new design of a 5% threshold. A political party that cannot secure 5% of the votes will not have any seat in the parliament. This delicate design has been able to ensure that only three to four political parties are represented in the parliament for a long time, thereby facilitating the smoother operation of the democratic system. Nevertheless, small political parties in Germany still have room for survival. They can secure seats in the state legislatures and exercise checks and balances on the ruling party through the Upper House. After they have grown and become stronger, they will be represented in the parliament. One of the examples is The Greens.
From this, it can be seen that the German political system is ever evolving. The principal momentum of its evolution comes from the people having faced squarely the problems and the root cause of failure, sought consensus and prescribed the right remedy for the ailment, thus rendering the German rise from a nation with failure in democracy in the past to another model of successful democracy nowadays other than the United Kingdom and the United States.
Looking back at Hong Kong, our difficulty is that we know where the problem lies but we fail to address it squarely. For instance, the division and confrontation between the executive and the legislature has resulted in low efficiency; the absence of universal suffrage has resulted in the entire political system lacking in authority and with very low legitimacy. It is not that we do not know where the problems lie, just that we are unable to genuinely identify the means and mechanisms to resolve the problems. Without the means and mechanisms, we can only march on the same spot, or even lag behind when we make no further progress.
We have tried every means to improve the constitutional system, but so far, we have yet to identify this method. In this regard, can we make reference to Germany or other places, and work hard to resolve our problem? I so submit.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, I was honoured to have joined this delegation to visit Germany. I would like to thank the German Government, the Legislative Council Secretariat, as well as the attentive care given by our delegation leader and deputy leader. Their efforts enabled the smooth completion of this exchange programme. During the visit, we saw a lot, be it the system or the cityscape, which led us to think deeply, make some reflections and comparisons.
14648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Everyone says that the Germans respect history very much. You will understand this when you are in Berlin. This is because in the city centre of Berlin, testimonies to war crimes during the Second World War for the reflection of the Germans can be seen everywhere. They are there for the Germans and other people to see. Some Honourable colleagues have mentioned just now that the walls and the building of the Federal Parliament also manifest this attitude of respecting history. It was mentioned that the design of the German political system seems to be very good with many aspects of it worth learning. But we have to note that from the perspective of the constitution or the process of forming of government, be it the West Germany of the post Second World War period or the Germany after the reunification of East Germany and West Germany, the German nation did not have the final say. As the defeated country, the Basic Law formulated by Germany stipulates that West Germany was a welfare state, and thus would absolutely not exercise stringent control over expenditure. That was because West Germany wished to build a good social welfare system, thereby illustrating to the socialist blog of East Germany that the livelihood of people in West Germany was the best. All these and many checks and balances on power were, in fact, constrained by the then victors of the Second World War. During the time of the reunification of East Germany and West German, there were the Six-Party Talks, which facilitated this historical event. Therefore, we must not look at things in an isolated context.
May be it is precisely because of this reason, the Germans know that they cannot allow the country to be divided again, and cannot allow other people to look down upon them. As I mentioned just now, be it the constitution of the defeated country of the Second World War, or the reunification of the East Germany and West Germany, the so-called intervention of foreign forces were involved. For this reason, the Germans cannot allow themselves to be looked down upon. When we talked to people of various levels, including those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, political parties of the Parliament, and officials of state governments, we had the feeling that the ultimate objective of parliamentary meetings were, first, to forge a consensus; and second, to find a feasible solution. Hence, in every meeting, we heard the word "compromise" at least five to six times. I think many Members can bear testimony to this. Irrespective of whether they are members of political parties or Members of Parliament, their ultimate objective of participating in public affairs is to reach a consensus, to serve society, but not to put on a "show".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14649
Probably owing to the fact that the Germans have already reached a broad consensus, that is, they will not allow their country to be looked down upon, and they must revive the country and seek progress, so that people can lead an affluent life; thus, the proportional representation system mentioned just now has emerged to be the system adopted. Even though small political parties may have different views, they are respected. In the end, through the system established, all parties are able to communicate boldly without any worries, with a view to forging a consensus.
Let me cite two examples. The first one is the Council of Elders, which I mentioned just now. This is a council for the elderly, a council for the "old prats", or a council of the "veterans". It is responsible for discussing the agenda of the plenary meeting. When I asked them whether there were occasions of filibustering, they replied that they absolutely did not have any filibustering. I know that another delegation visited Northern Europe where filibustering do not happen either. This is because they hold that the ultimate objective of the Parliament is to get things done and reach a consensus. The other example is the mediation mechanism for the Upper House and the Lower House. As I pointed out just now, the meetings are conducted in camera since they do not think it necessary for the proceedings to be open and transparent. They all understand that to reach a consensus, someone has to make concession. The most interesting thing is that the minutes of the relevant meetings will not be publicly disclosed immediately. If I remember it correctly, the minutes will only be made public after eight years. I hope other colleagues will correct me if I have got it inaccurately. Members who take part in the mediation may at the same time represent the interests of state governments, as well as the notions and interests of the political parties to which they belong. However, the ultimate objective is to forge a consensus. As I mentioned just now, to spare them of being subject to pressure from various sides instantly, it seems the minutes will be disclosed only after eight years.
I am very impressed by the German nation and the political culture of Germany. Owing to various considerations, after winning the 2013 German election, the MERKEL Government invited their old opponents, the Social Democratic Party, to form the Government. We have a profound impression by this ― I do not know whether the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions or Mr LEE Cheuk-yan will speak on this later on ― the Social Democratic Party asked the Government to join hands in tackling the issue of minimum wage. It turned out that as a Member State of the European Union, Germany implemented the 14650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 minimum wage only in 2015, setting the minimum wage at €8.50. Back then, the procedure was very simple, with no arguments arising from it. I would like to take this opportunity to advise the SAR Government with all sincerity that if it really wishes to secure the support of Members, it must honour its pledges, respect various aspirations, and must not make an appeal only when it needs support.
Moreover, I would like to talk about an interesting thing. Just now I have mentioned that Germany attaches importance to the development of political parties, including political parties of the states as well as the federal republic. We asked whether the procedure for registration as a political party was easy. The reply we got was that the procedure was simple while the regulation was also not complicated. However, given that a political party has to obtain 5% of the votes in order to get the "admission ticket", it is not at all easy for a political party to access the stage of the Federal Parliament. It is ironic that the Free Democratic Party, a political party of the governing coalition, on failing to secure 5% of the national threshold in the 2013 general election, withdrew from the scene altogether. Hence, we can see that Germany practises separation of powers and at the same time stresses concentration of powers. As for the issue of accepting donations, all foreign donations are virtually rejected by Germany, except for those from the European Union, because Germany is a Member State of the European Union. All these are very interesting features.
Lastly, I wish to conclude by using the words of Max WEBER, my favourite German sociologist. According to him, the qualities of a politician are passion, judgment and a sense of responsibility and ethics. A politician must not deliver empty talks on notions only, instead, he must have a clear idea of the social responsibility or implication when he supports or opposes a certain issue. I also hope that Members of this Council have such breadth of mind. Thank you.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I participated in the delegation of the Legislative Council visiting Germany. First of all, I would like to thank the German Government for their invitation, and the Secretariat for its careful arrangements. I would also like to take this opportunity to put forth my views on the German political system. Just now many Honourable colleagues have pointed out that Germany is a federal state, with different levels of government being responsible for policies of different areas. Hence, the highest LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14651 level of the Bundestag has preserved representativeness for various regions. Germany suffered setbacks in the early period of implementing democratic politics, which subsequently turned into the Nazi regime. It was after the Second World War that Germany began to establish the existing system. After learning the painful lesson of history, the Germans have learnt the importance of tolerance and collaboration to help one another. Similar to Hong Kong, Germany adopts the proportional representation system. On the one hand, it ensures that different political parties, be they big or small, have the opportunity to be represented in the Parliament. On the other hand, Germany does not advocate very acute conflicts among various parties. Hence, it has put in place a Council of Elders of the Bundestag, in which Elders of different political parties engage in communication and collaboration through meetings on a regular basis, so as to minimize eruption of confrontation during the formal meetings, thereby achieving a situation of "agreeing to disagree".
Just now, Ms Emily LAU expressed appreciation of the Council of Elders, and opined that the Council did very well in forging communication and co-ordination, as well as ensuring the allocation of chairmanships or persons in charge of various committees to different parties in the Parliament. Meanwhile, Ms LAU also criticized Mr IP Kwok-him of my party, accusing the pro-establishment Members of planning to seize the chairmanships and deputy chairmanships of all panels. I do not know whether the memory of Ms LAU is not good, or she is deliberately taking the issue out of context. I can still remember that when I first joined the Legislative Council, the pan-democratic Members and the pro-establishment Members had agreed to take turns to act as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of various committees. Despite the fact that we do not have the Council of Elders, we had already agreed to this arrangement. We had built a foundation of mutual trust on which the chairmanships and deputy chairmanships of various committees would be taken up on the basis of rotation. However, Ms LAU had forgotten that the reason for this year's unexpected situation of seizing the chairmanships and deputy chairmanships of all panels, as she put it, is due to the fact that the pan-democratic Members did not honour its undertaking, sprang a surprise attack and took the chairmanships of the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee. Hence, if we can only see the merits of the German system, but fail to see the spirit of tolerance and mutual trust underlining the entire system, even if we copy the whole system to Hong Kong, we will not be able to operate as effectively as the German Parliament. Therefore, I hope Ms LAU will think again whether they had made such an undertaking.
14652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
President, coming back to the German system. As a matter of fact, the development of the political system of a country does not take place in an instant. A country has to go through a process, and learn from experiences in this course before its political system can be perfected. Take the German constitution as an example. From the Weimar Republic of the 1920s to the post-war period of today, Germany has undergone enormous changes. For instance, any provision in the German constitution could be amended in the past. However, today, all rules in relation to basic rights in the constitution are irrefutable even if the statutory procedure of a constitutional amendment is activated. Moreover, we can also see that the Basic Law of Germany has abolished the emergency power that overrides the basic rights. The existing Basic Law also ensures that a new chancellor must be first elected before the incumbent chancellor can resign. These constitutional changes are neither baseless conjectures, nor have they followed any of the so-called international standards. Rather they are formulated in the light of the history and actual situation of the country itself. Given that the Germans had the history of human rights infringement during the Nazi rule, the existing constitution of Germany stringently protects the basic rights of its people.
Compared to Germany, Hong Kong is in fact very fortunate. This is because our Basic Law has already provided for the democratic principle of gradual and orderly progress. The Basic Law has also established a good foundation for the constitutional system of Hong Kong. Unlike Germany, we neither have to start from zero, nor go through some historical twists and turns. We do not have to stage a revolution. This is a blessing for Hong Kong people. Hence, I feel saddened when I find that there are people in the community opposing the Basic Law.
Of course, Hong Kong is different from Germany. We have our own Basic Law while Germany has its own Basic Law. Just now, Members of different political parties sang praises of the German system. They praised the Council of Elders put in place under the system, as well as the Mediation Committee established between the Upper and Lower Houses. However, they fell short of mentioning the spirit underlining the system, and that is, the spirit of "agreeing to disagree". This spirit is something the Legislative Council in Hong Kong or colleagues of this Council all the more should learn. Today, many Hong Kong people have adopted the attitude of "men of totally different principles can never talk to each other", and even engage in deadly fights. However, must we put in place the German system in order to achieve harmony despite nonconformity? I do not think so. The reason for Germany LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14653 establishing this political system of harmony despite nonconformity is attributable to their political culture of being tolerant and willing to help one another. This culture is developed after they have learnt their lesson from history. Their political system is built on this political culture. Therefore, if people say that the system established in Germany has led to the culture of harmony despite nonconformity, such a remark is putting the cart before the horse.
President, at present, we can see that there are glaring contradictions in the community of Hong Kong as well as internal confrontations within the Legislative Council. The internal attrition caused by the culture of protest is undermining the edges of Hong Kong. I hold that we should rebuild a political culture based on communication and consensus, with a view to ensuring the normal operation of this Council, thereby making more contribution to society and the economy of Hong Kong.
President, I so submit.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, after listening to Mr CHAN Hak-kan's speech, I am thinking whether or not he and I had actually joined the same delegation to Germany. I am also baffled as to why our ultimate understanding can be so very different. This is particularly so as Mr CHAN Hak-kan pointed out just now that the Germans achieving harmony despite nonconformity is not because of their political system; rather, it is because their culture is capable of being tolerant of each other. This argument is utterly untenable. Because if we talk about the culture of the Germans ― their culture was in fact rather terrifying. If we genuinely talk about it, we have to mention the rise of Nazism back then.
During the visit to Germany, I went to a place called the Topography of Terror. Other Members did not go. At this place, they explained how the Nazis rose to power, how they oppressed the Jews ― they attached great importance to the theory of eugenics ― they held that the Jews were equivalent to disabled persons. That was really terrifying. If we talk about culture, they had that kind of culture. Certainly, there is one side of them which we really appreciate, and that is, despite this kind of cultural background or history, they have walked out of this episode of history. Having learnt the painful lesson of history, they are addressing history squarely. Hence, they have built places like the Topography of Terror, which are similar to exhibition galleries and museums. Because of this painful episode of history, Article 18 of the Basic Law of 14654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Germany stipulates that whoever abuses freedom of opinion in order to attack the free democratic basic order forfeits these basic rights. This is very interesting. One thing is very clear here, and that is, they have a basic principle ― the basic principle of democracy and freedom. They will not allow this principle to be attacked, like what Nazism did to the principle back then. This provision can be found in the Basic Law of Germany. Why is there such a provision? The reason is that they have learnt from history. Hence, the lesson from history has given rise to their political system, that is, the proportional representation system. It has led to a multi-party system in which checks and balances on one another is exercised.
Of course, Members will say the attitude of "agreeing to disagree" has subsequently been adopted by them. However, why can they achieve harmony despite nonconformity? The reason is that all political parties agree that the system is fair. Mr CHAN Hak-kan did not mention the point that they all agree this system is fair at all. It is precisely because they hold that the system is a fair one, they are willing to play the game within this system, and abide by the rules of the game and the system. So, after joining the Parliament, the political parties of Germany are able to achieve harmony despite nonconformity under the rules of the game in the Parliament, and take part in more co-ordination and be more tolerant. This is clearly due to the system itself, and not because their character or culture is more tolerant. We hold that this is basically because they have learnt the lesson from history and genuinely believe in a fair system accepted by them. Hence, on this basis, a politically more tolerant system of harmony despite nonconformity is developed. When we met with them, we heard them mention there were many occasions on which much co-ordination had to be done among different political parties.
Of course, what gave us the deepest impression were the remarks made by the pro-establishment Members who went with us to the visit. They said on many occasions, "Look, the Germans can make so many compromises, but you pan-democrats refuse to compromise at all." As a matter of fact, I only raised a question back then. I posed it to the other party. Since the Germans said they very often made compromises, I remember I asked the Chairperson of The Greens, who is a Turk as well as the Vice-Chairman of the Bundestag's German-Chinese Parliamentary Friendship Group, to this effect, "As you think it is imperative to compromise, if a piece of legislation is enacted to stipulate The Greens cannot stand for election, would you make any compromise?" He replied that certainly there would be no room for negotiation, and asked how it could be possible for a piece of legislation to be enacted to stipulate a certain party could not stand for election.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14655
Therefore, we have to think about one point. It is often said that compromises should be made. If we go back to the entire process of the constitutional reform, many have queried whether the pan-democrats should have made compromises. However, let us return to the basic principle, that is, whether the system itself is fair or not. When I heard the speech of Mr CHAN Hak-kan just now, I found that something was really wrong with his remarks. He said it was a blessing for Hong Kong people to have the Basic Law. Come on! Does he really have to spend so much efforts in flattery? The Basic Law makes Hong Kong people feel blessed. And the sentence that can most give the impression of being blessed is actually ― this is his view and what he said ― "gradual and orderly progress"! How can that be the case? We have been striving for a fair democratic system for many years, and they have actually been using "gradual and orderly progress" to suppress us. And after we have been suppressed, they even say we are really blessed. This seems to be the meaning of his remarks. How can Hong Kong people be blessed? The Central Authorities have not honoured the undertakings the Basic Law has all along promised us. Today, we still do not have genuine universal suffrage. "Gradual and orderly progress" as mentioned in the Basic Law is really as slow as the progress made by snails, and sometimes not even progressing. The entire constitutional reform package has completely ignored 2016. The entire electoral system of the Legislative Council has not undergone any change at all. Then how can they talk about "gradual and orderly progress", "we are blessed", and so on? The last remark is the one I really cannot put up with. However, it is not very difficult to put up with many things. Just forget it. I am not going to talk too much about it.
Coming back to our delegation to Germany. We do not object to the co-ordination and co-operation between political parties, but this must be conducted on the basis of mutual respect. We think that apart from the unfairness of the system, it also involves the question of whether there is genuine mutual respect among political parties. You will say, "You pan-democrats are detestable. You have seized the chairmanships of the PWSC and the Establishment Subcommittee." They will say things like that. However, the problem is that over all these years, you have all along seized the chairmanships of the subcommittees relating to security, establishment, PWSC, and constitutional affairs. This year, we have only regained the chairmanships for one year only. President, this is only fair.
14656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would also like to thank the Consul General of Germany in Hong Kong and the German Government for the invitation, and the Secretariat for taking care of us throughout the entire visit programme.
President, in their speeches, Members have been continuously emphasizing that we have learnt something about the attitude of co-ordination and tolerance. And we enjoyed happy and harmonious times during our trip. With these sweet memories in our mind, I hope we can avoid criticizing each other by all means during the speaking time of seven minutes.
However, President, I would like to emphasize one point. Just now when I heard two colleagues speak on the electoral system of the Lower House, probably they have some … may be I did not catch them clearly. Ms Emily LAU was correct in saying that among the 598 seats, half of them are "first past the post", that is, they are returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, while the other half are filled through a more precise proportional representation system. The entire system ensures that on the one hand, the seats represent the interests of geographical constituencies on the basis of winning by a majority vote to fully reflect the wishes of residents of local districts; and on the other, the number of seats calculated on the basis of some formulas accurately reflects the interests of various political parties, including the interests of some small political parties. This system merits our reference.
During the debate this afternoon, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned the direction in which the functional constituencies should head. He said that political parties were the best functional constituencies. It sounds to be a very simplified way of putting it. However, as a matter of fact, when we consider the abolition or retention of functional constituencies in the future, the German system, in some measure, can serve as reference for us. How can we assimilate and reflect this concept in the direct electoral system of Hong Kong in which the proportional representation system is adopted, so that under the system of party list, some representatives who are not so much of "politicos", those who do not like to "stage a show" ― President, you once made a criticism of this before ― or those who are relatively refined in manner, mild, rational or with professional background may have a chance to stand for election on the party list?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14657
President, just now many colleagues mentioned how the Mediation Committee tackles disputes between the Upper and Lower Houses. It is not necessary for me to dwell on it again. They also mentioned the role of the so-called Council of Elders. This also merits our reference. Under the circumstances where political parties have different views, what can be done to prevent the powers of the President from being excessively concentrated on one person? This is particularly so when the President has to face pressure and attacks when he cuts off filibusters. The Council of Elders is responsible for making prior arrangements and compromises regarding any points on the agenda, the length of debates, as well as the manner of debates.
President, another system which was not mentioned by colleagues is the Constitutional Court. We did not pay a formal visit to the Constitutional Court this time around, but it is mentioned in the report. Under the Basic Law, we also have a Committee for the Basic Law in Hong Kong. However, we all know the role and composition of this Committee, as well as the status or background of its members. But this Committee lacks proper legal qualifications and credibility. There certainly are representatives of the legal profession in the Committee, but the Committee only gives one the impression of a politicized body more than a genuine legal body that maintains fairness, which renders it unnecessary for us to seek interpretation of the Basic Law at every turn but gives us in advance some understanding of how the Basic Law is interpreted. Of course, under the existing Basic Law, we cannot casually make any amendment or add such systems to it. Nevertheless, when we have the opportunity to explore the Basic Law in future, the system of this Constitutional Court can serve as reference in some measure. This will enable us to have another fair and just system trusted by all to deal with some disputes in advance when there are any disagreements in future; thus, preventing continuous arguments and even any reluctant interpretation of the Basic Law under inappropriate circumstances.
Moreover, President, I would like to talk more about several points. First, Mr Dennis KWOK just now talked about individual Members' views on the Umbrella Movement. I have to point out that the relevant Members had also mentioned with admiration of the restraint and professionalism of the Hong Kong Police Force in tackling the Umbrella Movement. They even held that it was a very civilized way.
Another point is we did raise questions about the issue of women rights. According to my understanding, they passed a bill on 6 March 2015 to require the percentage of women in all listed companies to reach at least 30%. This has 14658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 given us the impression that when society is heading in a direction towards fairness and justice, some rights which might have been neglected in the past will be afforded particular respect.
Based on the same rationale, we can also see that Angela MERKEL is a tough and candid Chancellor now. As a matter of fact, it is strange ― at least it is a relatively strange phenomenon to me ― that West Germany, whose economic, cultural and political capacities far exceed its East German counterpart, has actually accepted a woman from East Germany to be its Chancellor. Not only that, MERKEL has all along been loved by the entire nation, and comparatively speaking, popular among the Germans over the years. On the issue of how Hong Kong treats our compatriots, we often think we are superior to many compatriots who come from places where their economy, culture and society are less advanced than ours in Hong Kong. In our treatment of compatriots, I am afraid our tolerance lags far behind the way the West Germans treat their East German compatriots.
President, I would like to spend some time to mention in passing another point, and that is, they do not think it necessary to set a high threshold when they set up a committee of inquiry. This practice highlights the respect Germany has for the minority. That a minority of Members may request the setting up of a committee of inquiry to investigate matters that involve major blunders is evident that, comparatively speaking, they show a high degree of tolerance to the views of the minority. When we have the opportunity to review the Rules of Procedure in future, this merits our reference.
In conclusion, it was a very pleasant trip. I hope that Members will have more similar opportunities. Just as Mr Dennis KWOK put it, we do not usually have the opportunity to contact other colleagues, but on an overseas trip and under circumstances of not being captured by cameras, we were on very good terms with each other and got along harmoniously.
Thank you, President.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, when we talk about visiting the Federal Parliament of Germany, we must also mention the arson attack on the parliament building. In fact, marks of the arson can still be found in the new parliament building now. Back then, the Nazis made use of a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14659 member of the Dutch communist party who was mentally disturbed to set fire on the parliament building. In fact, he was alone and drunk. The fire set by him should not have resulted in such severe consequences. An investigation afterwards proved that it was the act of the Nazis.
The situation is the same for the Umbrella Movement and the Chamber of this Council. Those in the parliament are talking nothing but nonsense … I regard this Council as a parliament. President, HILTER and LEUNG Chun-ying are very much alike. HILTER had said the person who set fire on the parliament building must be a member of the communist party and a Jew. He later became the head of state ― at that time he was the Chancellor ― it was only after many years that what he said was exposed to be an outright lie. LEUNG Chun-ying is now on duty visit to Beijing. Does he dare to tell the leaders in Beijing that he has received a secret report proving LEUNG Kwok-hung is advocating "Hong Kong independence" or a secret agent of the United States ― does he dare to actually say that? He had said so in this most solemn Chamber. Was his conduct not shameful? The most inappropriate act of his is to learn from HILTER.
Still, this Council has to worship this "HILTER". He actually had asked why this Council had become so messy. On the contrary, he should ask himself this question in the first place. Irrespective of what system the German Parliament adopts, at least it is a universal and equal system, that is, equal value for each vote. Making use of the system to ensure respect for the minority is a manifestation of universality and equality. However, the situation in Hong Kong is not universal and equal. That the majority has to respect the minority is based on the principle of universality and equality. How can an unequal election respect the minority?
He calls us the constructive opponents. But do I have the opportunity to beat him? President, how can a boxing champion respect another boxing champion? Will a boxer go into the boxing ring with his hands down by his sides, allow the opponent to punch him freely, and even praise the opponent for good boxing skills afterwards? Why should I respect him? Why should a boxing champion respect the boxer who challenges him? This is because both of them are engaging in a free fight. You punch me and I punch you. Each punch is a heavy blow to the opponent. The one who gains the most points wins. Elections should also be like this. We have the mandate of the people. I have no idea what Members are actually talking about.
14660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
President, you had studied the German history before. Among the historical figures of Germany, the one who had a long and profound historical tie with Hong Kong was BISMARCK ― back then BISMARCK was the Chancellor of Germany, and the unification of Germany in 1870 was wholly attributable to him. Today, the Germans think the unification is a good thing, but BISMARCK practised autocracy back then. He gave falsified instructions in the name of the emperor, just like what CAO Cao did when he was under the rule of Emperor Xian of the Han Dynasty. The Germans have experienced a painful episode in history. They invaded France and had grudges with France afterwards. Defeated in the First World War, Germany had to face the Second World War. President, this Council is discussing Germany now. But have we thought of the Germans?
Speaking of unification, you would have thought it was the West Germans who gave freedom to the East Germans. In fact, it was the East Germans who came forward to engage in confrontation because they had been disappointed with their government. I would like to ask Mr Dennis KWOK how the Germans perceive the protest by the Leipzig residents, and how they perceive the Berlin uprising in 1953. I do not believe the Germans are so stupid as to think this is a good thing. Whether you like Germany or not, the fall of the East German tyranny was attributable to the persistent mass movements 10 times more severe than the Umbrella Movement.
President, Members of this Council have to speak even if they have no knowledge of the subject matter. Now I would like to ask Under Secretary LAU this question. After visiting so many democratic countries, have you come across a situation in which votes do not have equal value? This precisely is the reason for our fight for universality and equality. When we talk about tolerance and respect, the most important thing is to respect the equal rights of other people. President, when XI Jinping meets with the eight major political parties, he will appear to be refined and polite, knowing the etiquette of letting others walk in front and sit down before he does. However, the eight major political parties want to have the opportunity to come to power. Now, what Hong Kong is fighting for is a system that allows them to come to power.
The Government often mentions reforms; however, it is all talk but no action. The Germans have succeeded in doing so. Half of the seats are not returned by geographical constituencies, instead, they are filled through the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14661 system using the party list. The other half of the seats are filled by direct elections. Hong Kong is also implementing similar reforms. But what kind of reforms have they become now? Half of the seats are filled by functional constituencies which last forever. The other half are filled by directly elected Members, but the votes do not have equal value. There is going to be a committee comprised of 1 200 persons for the Chief Executive election. Who says he "can select the Chief Executive"? Is the Chancellor elected by the Upper House of Germany? As a matter of fact, the German Chancellor is elected by the legislatures of the federal states returned by elections of universal suffrage. They have the mandate of voters whose rights to vote are consistent with the principles of universality and equality. This is the system we aim at in our reforms now; otherwise, what can we learn when we make a trip to Germany (The buzzer sounded) … I want to eat BBQ-pork buns. I do not want hamburgers. I am very angry.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I will give a response here to the sections related to constitutional matters in the Report on the Visit of the Delegation of the Legislative Council to Germany, as well as the views on constitutional and electoral matters expressed by Members in their speeches earlier on.
The report described the political and electoral system of Germany. First of all, I must point out that the constitutional structure of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is founded on the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (the Constitution) and the Basic Law. Constitutional development in Hong Kong must be carried out within the framework of the Basic Law. It is also provided in the Basic Law that the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage.
14662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Therefore, I noted that in the Conclusions in Chapter 4, it is also pointed out that due to the fundamental differences and dissimilarities in political background, tradition and situation, the experience of the German political system may not be relevant or readily transferrable to Hong Kong, but I agree with Members' suggestions just now that it is really worthwhile to make reference to some of its excellent political culture and democratic spirit.
In the report, the delegation formed the view that "… the consensual political culture in Germany and the mechanism devised … to achieve "win-win" situation in decision making process … will certainly serve as useful references for the political development in Hong Kong.".
President, on the issue of seeking a consensus in constitutional development, we have all recently gone through some experience together. As the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs said in his closing remarks on the motion to amend the method for the selection of the Chief Executive at the Legislative Council meeting on June 18, the relationship between the Central Authorities and the SAR is the core issue in the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. To successfully implement universal suffrage in the future, we must deal with the "three bases" properly, namely, legal basis, communication basis and basis of mutual trust.
Firstly, on the legal basis, the Basic Law has clearly stipulated, under "one country, two systems", the relationship between the Central Authorities and the SAR; the constitutional powers of the Central Authorities; as well as the respective powers vested in the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive, and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). This constitutional order must be recognized and respected by different sectors of the community. This is clearly stipulated in the Constitution of our country, the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretations and Decisions of the NPCSC. Therefore, any constitutional reform proposal must be formulated strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretations and Decisions of the NPCSC. Consensus could be forged only when all people work on this same legal basis.
Secondly, on the basis of communication, communication is very important in narrowing differences and avoiding misunderstandings. At the 31 May meeting in Shenzhen, some pan-democratic Members expressed to officials of the Central Authorities their view on sustained communication. However, Members must understand that the key to successful communication does not lie in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14663 form of communication, but the attitudes of both sides. Even with appropriate arrangements, such efforts could not bring any substantive results if the communication was not conducted with sincerity, an open mind, a willingness to listen, or in a respectful manner.
The final basis is that of mutual trust. Mutual trust cannot be built overnight; rather it is built through a gradual and cumulative process. It is only when all parties return to the same legal basis and make good use of the communication basis that mutual trust can gradually be built.
The SAR Government considers that for some time in the past, Hong Kong society has had extensive, in-depth and heated discussions on constitutional development and there were even quite a lot of irrational and extreme comments that deepened the conflicts. Without the establishment and consolidation of the aforementioned "three bases" to strengthen the relationship between the Central Authorities and the SAR, we are afraid there may not be sufficient objective conditions in the community to kick-start the "Five-step Process" to achieve universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election.
In respect of the development of political parties, the report points out that political parties in Germany play a very important constitutional role in election campaigns. The Act on Political Parties in Germany provides a legal framework to regulate different sectors of the party system, including designation and internal organization, equal treatment, principles and the extent of state funding, the rendering of accounts and the implementation of the ban on unconstitutional parties. The delegation is of the view that Germany's experience in political party redevelopment is useful reference for Hong Kong.
Financial assistance for election candidates was first introduced in the 2004 Legislative Council Election with the aim of encouraging more candidates to participate in elections and cultivating an environment to facilitate the development of political talents in Hong Kong. In 2007, the financial assistance scheme was extended to District Council elections.
Starting from the District Council ordinary election to be held in late 2015, the subsidy rate of the financial assistance scheme for eligible candidates of District Council elections would be increased to $14 per vote. The subsidy rate for candidates of the Legislative Council election will also be reviewed later this year.
14664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
These types of financial assistance are provided to all eligible candidates in the Legislative Council and District Council elections regardless of their political affiliations to reduce the financial burden arising from participation in elections.
As for the case for enactment of a political party law, the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs discussed it in 2005. Views were divided at the meeting. Some members supported the introduction of a political party law but some members held that it was not desirable to legislate for regulation lest political party development would be stifled.
The Government adopts an open mind towards the issue of making a political party law and we welcome views of the Legislative Council and the community on this issue.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Emily LAU, you may now reply and you still have one minute 50 seconds.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, the Under Secretary has mentioned just now that we need to have the legal basis, the basis of communication and the basis of mutual trust. We saw the practice of the Germans in these regards. In fact, in Hong Kong, I do not think we oppose all of these. We agree that the Legislative Council election and the Chief Executive election should comply with the Basic Law, but the public should be given genuine choices.
Speaking of communication and mutual trust, at least seven Members in this Council have not been allowed to visit the Mainland over the past 20-odd years. So which side does not trust the other side? What efforts has the SAR Government made to enhance the mutual trust between the people's representatives of the SAR and the Central Authorities? Even Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying seldom meets with us to hold discussions. How many of our proposals have been accepted by him?
The German Government had specially invited us to a visit so that we can understand more about the system in Germany. There are many things which are worth learning. Mr CHAN Hak-kan said just now that there were no acute LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14665 conflicts among various German political parties. Why is that so? Because they are able to come to power in turns. It is different from Hong Kong where a group of people are always suppressed to such an extent that they have neither powers nor responsibilities. They can join the Council, but they should only play the role of a "hand-raising machine", just like the rest of them, having no sense of shame and glory. However, Members are the people's representatives. If they get a sufficient number of votes to win the election, they should be responsible for the governance of this place.
Therefore, President, we went to visit Northern Europe and Germany to learn more about how civilized countries deal with things. But on coming back, we have to face this kind of a ruling clique. When do you think there will be democracy in Hong Kong? Nevertheless, we in the Democratic Party and the democratic camp will not give up. We will certainly fight for a government elected by the people.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Emily LAU be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
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.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 8.35 pm. We now proceed to the debate on the second motion with no legislative effect. I will announce that the meeting is adjourned after the conclusion of this debate.
14666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The motion debate on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident".
Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Mr SIN Chung-kai to speak and move the motion.
NOT FORGETTING THE 4 JUNE INCIDENT
(Mr Albert HO stood up)
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, a headcount please.
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): Mr SIN Chung-kai, please speak and move your motion.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
President, the Legislative Council has debated the motion on vindicating the 4 June incident for 16 times in the past 17 years. The first time was in May before the reunification. It was moved by the late Mr SZETO Wah and passed but thereafter, the motions on vindicating the 4 June incident moved each year were all negatived. This year, it is the 17th time that this motion is moved. Even if it is negatived again, so long as we remain in the legislature, we will move the motion until the 4 June incident is vindicated.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14667
Twenty-six years ago, out of sheer sincerity, a group of students went to the Tiananmen Square to express their aspirations for democracy and social justice and opposition to bureaucratic profiteering and corruption to the regime of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but in the end, what they got in return was the bloody suppression by the troops. This massacre devoid of humanity appalled the world and aroused the indignation of men and gods alike. Each year, in the evening of 4 June, we would gather in the Victoria Park and light candles. Each and every spot of candle light denotes an indelible mark in our heart and our conscience, which is determined to defend the truth.
Twenty-six years later, the China economy appears to be developing in leaps and bounds but the costs are the collusion between bureaucrats and business, the wanton violation of human rights, the dominance by privileged groups and the monopolization of resources. After XI Jinping came to power, not only has there been no improvement in freedom and democracy, on the contrary, retrogressive policies are adopted and civil rights activists suppressed. Recently, in one stroke, several dozen human rights lawyers were arrested, detained, kept under surveillance, imprisoned or made to disappear and even suicided. Their freedoms of speech and movement were completely stymied. Xi Jinping's China dream is the nightmare of the Chinese.
Twenty-six years have passed since the 1989 pro-democracy movement. The worsening conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong, from "communist-phobia" to doubts nowadays about our national identity, have all prompted the people to scrutinize and reflect on patriotism and their identity as Chinese even more stringently. I am afraid that "fading from memory" will become the stance of the new generation nowadays towards the 4 June massacre. However, in face of the totalitarian rule by the CPC, the curtailment of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the pro-democracy movement and dissidents are subjected to persecution and intimidation, and corruption in society is intensifying. In addition, not only has democracy in Hong Kong not seen any progress, it has even shown signs of retrogression. Once again, the spots of candle light revive our conscience and rekindle our passion. In the face of all sorts of adversities, we have to leave cynicism behind, refuse to accept fate and say "no" to totalitarianism.
What is encouraging is that in recent years, the force of civil society in China has been growing. Although constantly being subjected to attacks and oppression, not only have this group of valorous compatriots not given up, on the 14668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 contrary, they have embraced the spirit of "who will speak up if we do not? Who will do it if we do not?" and are struggling to the end. So far, the 4 June incident has yet to be vindicated and "4 June" is even a sensitive term in the Mainland. Those who discuss or commemorate the 4 June incident are prone to be imprisoned. CHEN Yunfei, a civil rights activists in Sichuan, YU Shiwen, a former leader of student movement, and PU Zhiqiang, a human rights lawyer in Beijing, were all arrested without any specific charges after taking part in activities commemorating the 4 June incident.
Today, we want to speak up for people leading a miserable life under the totalitarian rule of the CPC to let them know that they are not battling alone. To take forward democracy in China is by no means easy but we still have to persevere. We also want to pay tribute to the martyrs for the cause of democracy who were killed in the 4 June massacre 26 years ago. Their sacrifice made us see clearly the hideousness of the CPC regime. The totalitarian nature of the CPC regime was also evident to all in the way it handled matters related to constitutional reform in Hong Kong. On the pretext of national security and by virtue of the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, it ruled out the prospect of introducing genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong. On 18 June, we had no choice but to negative the constitutional reform package, with the sole aim of holding fast to perseverance by all. We will stand on the front line of the struggle for democracy and continue to campaign for genuine democracy and genuine universal suffrage, as well as supporting the democratic movement in China. In the face of the machine of totalitarian rule, the Chinese people must unite in striving for democracy. We believe the egg will surely prevail over the high wall.
Let us salute the martyrs for the cause of democracy and carry on the spirit of the 1989 pro-democracy movement by steadfastly rejecting lies, rejecting hypocrisy and rejecting injustice, until democracy returns victorious.
"Release pro-democracy activists! Vindicate the pro-democracy movement in 1989! Pursue responsibility for the massacre in Beijing! Bring one party dictatorship to an end! Build a democratic China!" ― these are the slogans on which the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) has been insisting steadfastly in the past 26 years. Nevertheless, what we want to emphasize is the vindication of the 4 June incident and the demand for release of civil rights activists.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14669
President, what I have read out is basically the declaration made by the Alliance during the night when the rally commemorating the 4 June incident was held. Recently, we noticed that when the 4 June issue was discussed on the Mainland, some new political rumours seemed to have surfaced. For the time being, I would not describe it as a glimmer of hope. I have in hand a copy of the Boxun and the comments made by XI Jinping on the vindication of the 4 June incident are mentioned therein. The caption reads, to this effect, "XI Jinping comments again on the 4 June incident/Issue may be resolved before the 20th National Congress". We all know that at present, the 18th National Congress of the CPC has been convened and the 20th National Congress will come after the 19th National Congress. According to the practice on the Mainland, the tenure for each leader will span two National Congresses. Since his tenure straddles the 18th National Congress and 19th National Congress, unless he changes this practice, during the 20th National Congress, he will have completed two terms as the General Secretary or the State President. Will this political rumour turn into reality? Does the word "resolve" therein mean vindication of the 4 June incident? We are not in a position to know. However, we found that in recent years, the voices calling for vindication of the 4 June incident on the Mainland have not weakened, and on the contrary, they have grown louder as we can get a rough idea by looking at the discussions in various areas. Nevertheless, we know ― Mr Charles Peter MOK can also comment on this later ― that some terms on the Internet have been deleted. For example, such terms as "4 June" on the Internet will definitely be deleted during sensitive periods.
President, this motion on the 4 June incident used to be moved by the late Mr SZETO Wah, the then Chairman of the Alliance. I find it strange ― in fact, this should not be considered strange ― that this motion was passed only in the first year, that is, the year when a larger number of Members from the pro-democracy camp were returned as Legislative Council Members. I believe this Council will have the opportunity to pass the motion on vindication of the 4 June incident again. Although I do not expect this to happen in the short term, I believe Honourable colleagues in each term of the Legislative Council will carry on the unfulfilled wish of Mr SZETO Wah and continue to move motions on vindicating and not forgetting the 4 June incident until it is truly vindicated.
I so submit.
14670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Mr SIN Chung-kai moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council urges that: the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr SIN Chung-kai be passed.
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, for the motion on the 4 June incident this year, we cannot omit to mention the newly enacted National Security Law because it represents a major change which will affect people's freedom and even the democratic development of the entire country.
So many years have passed since the 4 June incident, but as we can see, China is still extensively disregarding and suppressing freedom and human rights. The new National Security Law will aggravate many problems in respect of human rights and freedom. Let us put aside the content of the National Security Law for the time being. Many people said that they worried the National Security Law would be extended to Hong Kong and form part of the laws of Hong Kong. I must hereby clarify that according to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, by no means can the new National Security Law be extended to Hong Kong for application. The reason is very simple. Firstly, although the new National Security Law is a national law, it is not applicable to Hong Kong. Regarding the national security issues mentioned in this law, actually Article 23 of the Basic Law has clearly conferred on Hong Kong people the room for enacting laws on their own. Obviously, by enacting laws on their own, it means that Hong Kong people will decide when to enact laws in respect of Article 23 based on their own system and timetable. Hence, the new National Security Law will absolutely not, nor will it be possible, to undermine the room for Hong Kong people to enact laws on their own as provided in Article 23 of the Basic Law.
Secondly, some people asked if the National Security Law could be incorporated into and stand part of the Laws of Hong Kong through Annex III. Article 18 of the Basic Law provides clearly that the laws listed in Annex III shall definitely be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs. Laws not falling under these two areas cannot be incorporated into the Laws of Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14671 through Annex III. Since Article 23 has stated so clearly that Hong Kong people shall make their own decision on when and how to enact legislation relating to national security, it is impossible for the new National Security Law to be incorporated through Annex III. These are explicit provisions and requirements in the Basic Law which must not be violated.
Some people may ask if the new National Security Law can be extended to Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, it cannot meet a very basic requirement: in terms of precision and clarity of wording required in common law, the National Security Law is far behind the general legislation in Hong Kong. Judging from the content of the new National Security Law consisting of nearly 7 000 words, actually it is not a piece of law. Instead, it looks more like a policy paper as it does not contain any detail. It does not even provide for any penalty or criminal liability. It only sets out at great length the so-called obligatory policy objectives, such as protecting the fundamental interests of the people and the adoption of necessary measures to protect national security, but it falls short of explaining what is meant by necessary measures. Another example is Article 15, which stipulates that the mechanism for the control and monitoring of exercise of power shall be strengthened. These in fact are neither legal expressions nor legal specifications about what a person shall or shall not do. Actually, the new National Security Law sounds more like a policy paper of the CPC. Hence, any common law judge or lawyer will know that such legislation, as it is called, cannot be implemented in Hong Kong which practises common law.
Having said that, President, ever since the National Security Law was enacted, we have noted many incidents in the Mainland which are rather distressing and greatly disappointing. They are the arrests of lawyers on 10 July. The news has in fact widely spread on the Internet and in the circle of civil rights activists. As Members know, more than 100 lawyers have been detained or subjected to forced disappearance on the Mainland. What were they accused of? They were accused of inciting the masses and hyping up the so-called civil rights litigation and were thus arrested.
I hereby read out the names of a group of legal professionals who are now being prosecuted, under criminal detention or subjected to forced disappearance: WANG Yu (Beijing lawyer), ZHOU Shifeng (Beijing lawyer), WANG Quanzhang (Beijing lawyer), HUANG Liqun (Beijing lawyer), and SUI Muqing (Guangzhou lawyer), who is accused of allegedly inciting subversion of state 14672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 power and detained now. The following eight lawyers are subjected to forced disappearance: LI Shuyun (Beijing lawyer), LIU Xiaoyuan (Beijing lawyer), LI Heping (Beijing lawyer), ZHENG Enchong (Shanghai lawyer), XIE Yang (Hunan lawyer) and ZHOU Lixin (Guizhou lawyer). We are looking for the whereabouts of these eight lawyers through our network. They have totally lost contact with the outside world since 13 July, and even their family members cannot locate them.
President, there are also 74 lawyers in Shandong, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanghai, Chongqing and Hunan who have been detained or interviewed by the authorities. What actually have these some 70 lawyers done? They have simply discharged their duties as lawyers. The so-called hyping up, or civil rights litigation … In fact, civil rights litigation is most ridiculous. Our duty as lawyers is to protect the rights of our clients, and litigation is precisely a job of protecting their rights. Yet lawyers doing such work on the Mainland have unexpectedly become offenders. Lawyers have become prisoners who are detained and suppressed. President, it is heart-rending to see such a development.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, "If we do not stand up for those oppressed by autocracy, how can we be called humans? It is cowardice for a regime to oppress its people in order to maintain a stable administration. We do not need to be afraid of you." I wrote these words more than a month ago and sent them to a group of friends who are launching an online movement called "Release GAO Yu". They have produced a picture today to share these words of mine with other people. In my speech on the motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" today, the first thing I would like to say is precisely about releasing GAO Yu.
On 22 April 2013, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) issued a circular entitled "On the Current Situation in the Ideological Domain", also known as Document No 9, which is about the "seven topics not to be mentioned", namely, universal values, freedom of the press, civil society, civil rights, historical mistakes of the CPC, elite cronyism and judicial independence.
The 71-year-old GAO Yu, who leaked this propaganda guideline, was charged by the Government with the offence of "unlawfully providing state secrets outside the territory of China". She was sentenced to imprisonment for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14673 seven years and will be deprived of political rights for one year upon her release. This clearly demonstrates that freedom of the press, human rights and the freedom of speech are still weathering through a severe winter in China.
Ever since GAO Yu actively engaging in reports on the 1989 pro-democracy movement, she has been imprisoned by the CPC regime a number of times for upholding her independent personality and freedom of thought, as well as exposing injustices through her pen. She is the first intellectual in Beijing who was imprisoned because of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and the only reporter who had the courage to report stories about those so-called "backstage manipulators of the 4 June incident" who were attacked by the Government. Besides writing objective news reports, she would also come forward bravely in the face of injustices.
In her book My 4th of June, GAO Yu mentioned, to this effect, "The pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square definitely does not only belong to students and intellectuals. It belongs to Beijing citizens. It belongs to all the people in China." Upon receiving the Courage in Journalism Award in 2006, she said, "Between freedom and dictatorship, and between truth and lies, there is no middle ground. It is impossible for me to have another choice."
Apart from GAO Yu, as mentioned by Mr Dennis KWOK just now, today I too have noticed a piece of information from the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China forwarded by the Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. It is a picture posted on Facebook, in which it was mentioned that nearly 100 human rights lawyers and activists had been subjected to forced disappearance, arrested or interviewed by the authorities within four days.
It has been 26 years since the 4 June incident occurred. What improvement has there been insofar as the human rights condition in China is concerned? I would like to quote from Facebook the remarks of two of the human rights activists. Ms WANG Shengsheng, a lawyer, said to this effect, "The journey that is halted today must be completed, or else we will continue tomorrow, and so will our posterity as long as we strive for the rule of law, human rights, justice and freedom."
Mr XU Lin, another lawyer, wrote "A Letter to My Wife". He said, to this effect, "If I am convicted, or locked up for a year without sentence, or have gone missing for a year, you should proceed to arrange for a divorce. I will send 14674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 you a divorce agreement by mail soon afterwards (if I can send it out in time). Take good care of yourself and of our child. Make him learn those several songs written by me. So long for now." I have never heard of any divorce statement which is so full of love. Will people hearing it not be brought to tears? President, what a deformed government it is! What a deformed country it is!
If the 4 June incident is not vindicated, such deformity will simply persist in China. The Cyber Security Law passed recently includes the real name registration system and systematization and institutionalization of Internet censorship. The Government can also unilaterally decide when and under what circumstances an entire website can be closed down. Hence, we can see that over the past two decades or so, freedom of speech and freedom on the Internet have only been worsening in China. Together with the National Security Law, we do have reasons to worry that such a tendency will affect Hong Kong, including various kinds of freedom and freedom of the Internet that we enjoy at the moment, while some members of the religious sector in Hong Kong have already been arranged for talks with the authorities.
If the 4 June incident is not vindicated, China will not change and will not become democratic. It is justifiable for Hong Kong people to stay alert because we will be affected. Yet more importantly, living in Hong Kong, we Hongkongers should really know that if the lips are gone, the teeth will be cold. We must continue to support these dissidents and human rights activists who insist on their ideals in Mainland China.
Do not forget the 4 June incident. With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, it has been 26 years, yet the 4 June Incident still evokes some feelings in many people. While some people would organize or take part in memorial activities, there are also many people who wish to reflect upon the incident and to draw experience and learn from it, making a concerted effort to facilitate the stable development of the country and create a better living environment for the people, with a view to achieving national prosperity and peace for the people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14675
President, "opposing official profiteering, opposing corruption and opposing depravity" were among the major causes that triggered off the student movement in 1989. As a matter of fact, the determination of the Central Government to fight corruption and depravity in recent years has been obvious to all and has won positive comments from many people. It has been reported that about 50 officials at the provincial or ministerial level have stepped down following massive anti-corruption campaigns conducted by the Central Authorities over the past couple of years. They include ZHOU Yongkang, who was formerly a state leader and member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau and Secretary of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs. This has certainly reflected the gravity of the problem and so, it is necessary to concentrate efforts on solving the problem seriously and continuously.
At the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Articles of Agreement signing ceremony held in late June, State President XI Jinping emphasized that China wished to join hands with various member states to build AIIB into a new type of multilateral development bank that is professional, efficient and clean. This evidently shows that our country has great resolve in building a clean China both internally and externally. In this connection, we as a member of China should give this a high degree of support and recognition.
Over the years, our country has been developing gradually and stably towards a market economy, and many people agree that China has shown to be flexible, open and ambitious in some respects. For instance, the tremendous efforts made by our State to fight depravity and corruption in recent years do not only tie in with the development and needs of the country, but are also geared towards the aspirations of the people. While there are still some people who wish that our State can further speed up reforms in certain aspects, if we conduct an objective analysis, we will understand that China is a country with a population of 1.3 billion and it is necessary to adopt a step-by-step approach because haste simply does not work in many cases. In tandem with efforts made to facilitate the sustained and healthy development of our country in various aspects, I also hope that more people can appreciate and accept the issues that China needs to consider and the difficulties it has to overcome, as well as its differences with other countries and regions in terms of constitutional development. With a better understanding of the actual situation of the country, I believe it would be of positive help to exploring ways to take forward the overall national development.
14676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Looking back over the history and development of China in the last century, our country and people have gone through a lot of sufferings. In fact, it is difficult for the ruling regime of different eras to achieve perfection in everything it does. Our State now endeavours to combine the governance concepts of "fighting corruption and upholding integrity" and "governing the country in accordance with law". To the State, this is a long-lasting battle which is not easy to win. Every Chinese should staunchly support and work in concert with our State, with a view to helping the State in working in the fundamental directions of fighting corruption and building a clean government.
President, the rule of law and probity are the cornerstones underpinning Hong Kong's success, as well as the crucial competitive edges of Hong Kong. I believe Hong Kong with such edges will have the conditions to play an important role in the national development by serving as a model for reference and providing assistance to the State. Therefore, it would be of great benefit to both the State and Hong Kong for Hong Kong to maintain sound rule of law and a high degree of probity. However, it is regrettable that recently, some people have defied the rule of law deliberately and advocated disobedience of laws by occupying the streets illegally and damaging public property with malicious intent, undermining the rule of law by all kinds of law-breaking behaviour; and some individual organizations and persons have failed to make declarations as required by the relevant rules after receiving donations. Many people find such behaviour totally unacceptable because it has ruined the image of Hong Kong as a city where the rule of law and probity are upheld. As for cases in which some Members of the Legislative Council failed to make declarations for acceptance of donations recently, the way in which these Members handled the donations is considered undesirable by the public. Therefore, I think that Members of the Legislative Council should set a model and should not do anything that breaches the rules and laws. I hope the SAR Government and all strata of society can resolutely uphold the rule of law and probity. Law-breakers should be punished in accordance with law, and there is simply no room for concession. Otherwise, it will cause irrevocable, far-reaching consequences to Hong Kong or even to our country.
President, I so submit.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has already been over a month since 4 June this year, and it seems a bit outdated to debate "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" now. However, President, I think this debate is not at all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14677 outdated because I think the beliefs that "the 4 June incident be not forgotten" and "the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated" should be firmly upheld by us on each of the 365 days a year. Therefore, I thank Mr SIN Chung-kai very much for insisting on holding this motion debate, and this is admirable. Here, I express my gratitude to him once again.
President, when it comes to the 4 June incident, while many Hong Kong people will not forget it, I believe even the leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) will remember it all the time. Unlike us, they remember it certainly not in the hope that the 1989 pro-democracy movement could be vindicated as soon as possible. Rather, their reason is to constantly guard against large-scale social movements similar to the 1989 pro-democracy movement. They hope to find ways to counteract and suppress these internal conflicts among the people and attempt to solve the problems by means of maintaining stability and suppression. In fact, we can see that in recent years, they have often used a term to justify actions taken to vigorously suppress and crack down on all kinds of movements in the community and that is, they have done so in the name of "protecting national security".
As a matter of fact, President, the implementation of the National Security Law in the Mainland, which was mentioned by many colleagues earlier, is evidently the latest tool of suppression. In fact, the vow consistently made by the regime of XI Jinping to "rule the country according to law" is actually meant to step up the protection and defence of the communist regime through legislation, suppressing the people in the name of "national security". President, in fact, besides the National Security Law, the Chinese Government has recently formulated a series of laws or planned to draft some new laws, including a law on the management of overseas non-governmental organizations, the Cyber Security Law, and so on. From this series of laws we can see that the Chinese Government, on the other hand, seeks to further its dictatorship by way of legislation, using law as a tool to safeguard the so-called national security and uphold stability. All of these are only excuses, for its intention is to incessantly suppress the activities organized in the community.
President, we can see that in the National Security Law promulgated only recently, many of the provisions are indeed related to the 4 June incident. Take Article 1 as an example. It clearly states at the outset the need to safeguard national security and to defend the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. As we all know, the safeguarding 14678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 of all this is, in fact, just the opposite to the appeals for democracy and an open political system made by the people during the 4 June incident back then. Also, it is clearly stated that the current National Security Law only serves to defend the political regime as its primary objective. Actually, this also reflects that the CPC regime is often under the shadow of the 4 June incident, worried that the people would continuously challenge its regime. This is why it keeps on introducing laws such as the National Security Law for its own defence.
Let us take a further look at it. The National Security Law is interesting in that there is an article which I wonder if Members would consider strange and that is, Article 14. It stipulates that the 15th of April each year is designated as the national security education day. President, this is very interesting, and I wonder if Members have thought about why 15 April was chosen. What day is 15 April? Why is 15 April made the national security education day? I, therefore, tried to find out more about 15 April because I was curious about why this day was chosen. After some checking I found that 15 April was the day when former General Secretary HU Yaobang passed away. As we all know, the passing away of HU Yaobang actually triggered the 1989 pro-democracy movement. Now, it has gone so far as to designate 15 April as the national security education day, and this actually makes people think that the CPC regime has forgotten neither the 1989 pro-democracy movement nor the 4 June incident and instead, it keeps remembering this incident. Nevertheless, what does it remember? As I said just now, it does not want to vindicate the 4 June incident; nor does it want to do anything positive for this incident, but it is worried that the public would again put forward many more demands to the autocratic regime and that they would call on it to give up its power. Therefore, it keeps on making use of these laws, such as the National Security Law, to suppress the people.
President, many colleagues have mentioned just now that although the National Security Law has been implemented for a short time of only about a week or so, more than 100 human rights lawyers and activists have been arrested in such a short period of time. From this we can see that the ruling regime is scared, so scared that it has to enact legislation to maintain stability. Actually, to put it in another way, from this we can see that in order to safeguard its regime, it does not only resort to drawing up express provisions in law, but it has brought these provisions into effect. This gives people the feeling that this regime, especially XI Jinping's regime, feels that its security is being threatened, but while it feels to be under threats, it only reflects that it is scared, for it knows that its dictatorship or autocratic regime is not supported by the people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14679
President, therefore, it seems that the CPC itself is most unable to forget the 4 June incident but I think however hard they try to evade from dealing with the 4 June incident, their efforts would be to no avail no matter how many laws similar to the National Security Law are drawn up. It is because these problems have pointed to the fact that it is impossible to solve the existing social problems. As the saying goes, (The buzzer sounded) … let him who tied the bell on the tiger take it off. The ultimate direction for solving the problems is to return political power to the people …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): On 4 June 1989, I was a Year-3 student of the faculty of politics and administration of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. That "4 June incident be not forgotten and be vindicated" is the lifelong obligation of our generation. This cannot be let go and this cannot be forgotten. Some of the Members from the pro-establishment camp speaking earlier urged people to appreciate the good things of China and look more at the bright sides. As for the dark sides, such as the continual suppression and the dictatorial culture, we should just pretend to be blind, or we should be more understanding. If we do so, we will be no different from Judas who betrayed Jesus for medallions of gold, will we not? Such a practice is a betrayal of human nature and an insult of human dignity, which is done merely to make slightly more gain through intimidation and offer of incentives.
That the "4 June incident be not forgotten and be vindicated" is not a matter of time but that of the system, under which the authorities continue to adopt the dictatorial system and the totalitarian system, and impose stricter control. The skills, technology, tactics and strategies adopted in suppression are changing constantly to focus more on the targets and to be crueller. When we demand that the "4 June incident be not forgotten and be vindicated", we are calling for the ending of dictatorship to embrace human rights. This is the meaning of such call. After 1989, I visited Europe and Eastern Europe to conduct studies, and I rightly witnessed the good governance and chaos, as well as the rise and fall, of these communist regimes. I understand the powerlessness of people in Eastern Europe under dictatorial and totalitarian rule. These people do not have any 14680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 weapons with them. Today, we call them "the egg". In the face of the "high wall" of the Iron Curtain, how can they put up resistance? Yet, I am surprised and awed by one point, and I really appreciate it. They know they should not resort to force but by their perseverance in not forgetting and not abandoning their conscience. As the Czech writer Milan KUNDERA wrote in his famous book, "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting", for people who have no weapons, their struggles and resistance against totalitarian and autocratic dictators are sustained by their persistence to remember the history and the suppression, and not forgetting these tragedies, and this is also a choice to stop being forgetful, to stop muddling through and to stop cynicism.
As such, to demand that the "4 June incident be not forgotten and be vindicated" is the lowest moral requirement which every man, every man with conscience, should meet. Each year, candles are lighted in the Victoria Park or other venues we consider suitable; this is the candlelight of humanity which signifies that our humanity still exists. This is the power of hope, which is in stark contrast with the firework displays held to celebrate various events.
In gist, how can a nation move from dictatorship to democracy, and from darkness into light? It is by finding the truth. If the foundation is not founded on the truth, what is the point of having discussions on reconciliation and compromise. These will all be nonsense. In the face of autocratic dictatorship with blood-stained hands, where leaders refuse to reveal the truth, refuse to give a clear account of the incident, refuse to apologize, refuse to make compensation and refuse to admit to their fault, how can discussions on reconciliation be carried out? To date, the truth is still suppressed by the huge machinery of the State, the distortion of truth still continues and the authorities keep diverting the attention of the people. When more and more people want to tell the truth and speak the truth, the authorities will impose a series of arbitrary and unreasonable measures, be it the national security law, or the "seven rules for universities" or "seven topics not to talk about", to suppress them. As a university worker, what I dislike and hate the most is the work of these parties in universities. Why do they have to set so many forbidden zones, a forbidden zone for thinking, a forbidden zone for expression and a forbidden zone for work. If they do so, why do they still claim their universities to be prestigious institutions and compete with other universities? Why would they have failed to do the simplest and most fundamental thing and forbidden us to do so?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14681
It turns out that dictators are cowards and they fear the truth, so people telling the truth are really powerful. It is simple then. It only requires every one of us to undertake this fundamental moral obligation of telling the truth together. Only when the truth is revealed will there be hope for our nation and the ethics of our nation to be restored. In fact, under the CPC regime, the country is in a moral disaster. The calls for combat on corruption and depravity are merely incidental consequences resulting from certain power struggles. Why exaggerate the effectiveness then? In fact, the system as a whole is terribly corrupted.
Therefore, if the authorities hope to seek the so-called great reconciliation, it must find out the truth, conduct proper investigations, promulgate vindication, tender apologies and provide compensation. We have to draw reference from the experience of Germany. For it has turned the information collected during the rule of the communist party, that is the personal files of each citizen, into larger files under the State, so that everyone can check their own history, the history of individuals and the history of families. Hence, when the incident is vindicated and after we have achieved democracy, these tragic lessons should not be forgotten, and we must remember them. For only by doing so will the nation as a whole be prevented from making the same mistake and the revival of dictatorship be pre-empted. However, today, China has not yet achieved democracy, so everyone should persevere so that the "4 June incident be not forgotten and be vindicated". I so submit.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, it has been 26 years since the occurrence of the 4 June incident. One of our Honourable colleagues will propose the motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" around this time every year. The Liberal Party will certainly state our position seriously and prudently.
It has been more than almost a quarter of a century since the occurrence of the 4 June incident, and there have also been endless controversies over this incident long term. Views have all along been divided on the causes and consequences of the incident and why it ended up in tragic bloodshed. Different people have their own interpretations, making it hard to draw a conclusion.
14682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
The Liberal Party deeply believes that history will pass a fair judgment. We can be sure of one thing at this stage; that is, the 4 June incident is a tragedy. As Chinese people, none of us would like to see the recurrence of a similar incident in China. Instead of clinging to the past, we should look to the future and seize the opportunities presented by the development of the country, hoping that the country and Hong Kong will have increasingly better development in the future.
Over some three decades since the opening up and reform, the country has made achievements in economic and social development that have drawn attention worldwide. In 2014, China's GDP reached RMB 63 trillion yuan. It has maintained a GDP growth of about 7% despite the pressure of a global economic downturn, outperforming any developed countries in Europe and the United States in economic terms. In addition to the economic aspect, the country has also seen remarkable progress in such areas as infrastructure, military construction, space technology, research and development and cultural education. The comprehensive national power of China has been increasing, gaining recognition worldwide.
President, under the leadership of the fifth generation of Chinese state leaders headed by XI Jinping and LI Keqiang, emphasis has all along been placed on the need to deepen reforms. Also, they have dedicated great efforts to combating corruption and depravity and established a new anti-corruption bureau, insisting on cracking down on both tigers and flies, thus commanding support of the general public. This shows that while progressively deepening the economic reform, the State has gradually extended the efforts of reform to the political sphere. In the future, the country will have great potential and room for change in the economic, political and social aspects.
President, we appreciate and fully understand that over the years since the occurrence of the 4 June incident, many Hong Kong people still take it to heart. However, any political, economic and social reform needs to be launched on the basis of a stable political environment and social harmony. Only under such circumstances can we build a more democratic and prosperous China. Hence, the Liberal Party will, as in the past, abstain on the motion.
President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14683
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): It has been 26 years since the 4 June suppression. Over the past 20 or so years, the regime and many of its unconscientious supporters have kept saying that had the Government not decisively suppressed the riot back then, the type of social stability and economic development seen over the past two decades or so would not have happened, not to mention the peaceful rise of China. As I already pointed out in previous debates on the 4 June incident, what saddens us most is that those in power failed to address the demands raised in the 1989 pro-democracy movement and resolve the social conflicts arising from it through means of democracy and law, as proposed by ZHAO Ziyang. Rather, they took a massacre approach, which marked a big regression in terms of politics and human rights.
Over these 26 years, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has been through three generations of government headed by JIANG Zemin, HU Jintao and XI Jinping respectively. XI Jinping has succeeded as President of China and General Secretary of the CPC, yet the white paper released only emphasizes the importance of the right to live, an indication that people's right to clothing and food still needs protection. When it talks on political rights, it always refers to the rights with Chinese socialist characteristics under the CPC dictatorship. When it comes to the political reality, the rhetoric to outsiders highlights China as an emerging superpower, yet domestically, on the pretext of national security, any mass movement, demonstration or protest stemming from social conflicts will be oppressed high-handedly on the causal claim that such activities will threaten the regime and therefore must be nipped in the bud.
The CPC has been stepping up efforts in the maintenance of stability, including the employment of tens of thousand Internet police to ensure the so-called web security. After coming to power, XI Jinping proposed a policy on "seven topics not to talk about" ― as some Members mentioned earlier ― forbidding any open discussion in the community on universal values, freedom of the press, civil society, citizen rights, past mistakes in the CPC's history, the privileged bourgeoisie and judicial independence. In terms of social control, they now go so far as to set out anew "five black categories" and to pinpoint them. As Members know, during the Cultural Revolution, the old "five black categories" referred to landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and the rightists. Then who constitute the new "five black categories" nowadays? Unlike the class enemies in the past, the current new "five black categories" refer to human rights lawyers, underground churches, dissidents, opinion leaders on the web and, outrageously, the underprivileged. The CPC 14684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 staged a revolution originally for the well-being of the proletariat, but nowadays, many people are bullied by the rich and powerful to become the underprivileged. It is really deplorable that they are made one of the "five black categories" under the CPC reign.
Over the past 26 years, the CPC has been carrying out suppression on all fronts, ranging from Falun Gong human rights activists in various places to those petitioners in Beijing. As we can see, LIU Xiaobo, who calls for democratic constitutionalism, has been sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment; XU Zhiyong, who advocates a New Citizens' Movement, is also jailed; Ilham TOHTI, who advocates peaceful integration among races, is still behind bars; TANG Jitian, a human rights lawyer who went to Jiansanjiang, Heilongjiang to lead a protest exposing the existence of black prisons, has been beaten to serious injuries; GAO Yu, who revealed what truly happened in society and pointed out the truth of "seven topics not to talk about", has been sentenced to jail; GAO Zhisheng, who once fought for the rights of Falun Gong and the underprivileged, was also jailed for years and is still under house arrest after release recently.
President, many people have said rather pessimistically that under XI Jinping's rule, the worst is yet to come. Last Friday (10 July), a "black Friday", more than a hundred human rights lawyers and activists were arrested in a nationwide crackdown on no solid legal ground but the simple allegation that they had colluded to hype up issues. However, these lawyers merely wanted to unite themselves for sharing information and experience, and form a lawyer union to fight for the legitimate rights of the underprivileged and human rights activists. In front of a regime which lacks confidence and a sense of security, they have nonetheless become the targets of suppression. Charging the innocent with framed-up accusations is like a robber's way of law enforcement. These lawyers are unlikely to escape from the misfortune, and their families are under threat as well. This is how white terror of all kinds prevails in China.
As a matter of fact, in XI Jinping's "Chinese dream" and in a country allegedly ruled by the law, we still see a powerful state with powerless people, a distinct wealth gap between officials and the general public, collusion between authorities and business, disparity between the rich and the poor, as well as rampant corruption. Under such circumstances, what kind of "Chinese dream" is it? Is anti-corruption a cause driven by a bid to pursue ideals or uphold justice, or is it just an excuse used to eliminate enemies in a power struggle? If a sound legal system, judicial independence and lawyers who are able to freely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14685 practise their profession are out of our reach, how are we going to build a China which is genuinely ruled by the law? All reforms must start with vindication of the 4 June incident.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, "do not want to recall but dare not forget". Twenty-six years ago, on the night of 4 June, the Chinese people's army of China fired live ammunitions and massacred unarmed civilians, where streets were all covered by blood. China lost as a result of this the opportunity to carry out democratic reform. In order to maintain stability, the autocratic and bloodstained Communist Party of China (CPC) has no alternative but to endeavour to boost the economy in order to try to assuage the wound of society. However, the emphasis on economic development has resulted in increasingly rampant corruption and depravity. In the 4 June incident in 1989, students started a democracy movement calling for anti-corruption and anti-official profiteering, but they paid the price with blood. The movement indeed led to corruption and depravity which is even more knotty and deeply rooted in the government system. What an irony in history.
To commemorate the bloody massacre on 4 June 1989, Hong Kong people will light up every corner of the Victoria Park with candlelights every year to condemn the Central Authorities for the victims and to erect also for the victims a monument in memory of the heroes, signifying that the people have not forgotten. The bloody massacre taking place 26 years ago on 4 June plunged more than a million Hong Kong people into grief and prompted them to take to the streets. In view of the bloodshed in the 4 June massacre, Hong Kong people cherished and held dear to the promises of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" after the reunification made under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Within the promised framework, Hong Kong people strove for a democratic constitutional system, defended the core values of Hong Kong people and launched rounds of pro-democracy struggles.
The 4 June massacre is a bloody mirror reminding us of the sacrifices made by the victims for freedom and democracy. Hence, the meaning of the annual candlelight vigil is to tell the ruling regime, the autocratic CPC, that people have not forgotten the incident. No matter how hard the CPC tries to wipe out people's memory of the 4 June massacre or water it down by referring to it as a political turmoil, Hong Kong, which is under one country, will not forget it. Certainly, everyone may have his or her own way of commemorating the 14686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 incident, but the candlelight vigil in the Victoria Park still attracts the most attention. The brighter the candlelight in the Victoria Park, the more powerful it is in recalling the bloody crackdown by the CPC regime, which is a shameful episode in history.
After the reunification, the SAR Government has used various means and national education to try to adjust the facets of China which youngsters may access. The Government has even attempted to change youngsters' perception of the communist autocratic regime by emphasizing its achievements but evading its dark side. Do they think this will be effective? The CPC, by means of "red capital", has gradually influenced the editorial lines and stances of news media. This is a salient fact that we have witnessed. We have also witnessed the all-out efforts made by the CPC, the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp to water down the 4 June massacre. The candlelight vigil held on 4 June every year is meant to remind Hong Kong people that democracy is never a gift. The 4 June massacre reminds Hong Kong people that the CPC, the Hong Kong communists and the pro-establishment camp have been using different tactics to wipe away this bloody incident in history and the heinous crime they committed. Over the past 26 years, Hong Kong people have persistently exhausted all means, especially by joining the 4 June commemorative events held every year, to gather together to tell the CPC regime that they will not let their memories of this episode in history fade with the passage of time, nor will they forget the bloody lesson learnt in the rise of China, its economic reform and improved economy. We strongly believe that the 4 June massacre is a vital lesson in history. If China fails to reflect on this bloody historical event, the rise of the Chinese nation is only founded on quick sand.
Vindication of the 4 June incident. Never give up. Only by drawing lessons from history can the Chinese nation genuinely overcome the tragedy and prevent history from repeating itself. By then, the Chinese nation will rise as a true power and earn the respect of the world, for the Chinese nation emphasizes the due human rights and freedom of everyone. Only when we can be free Chinese people can we genuinely enjoy the honour brought by our vast country, for our country is not a mere economic lifeline to us. We cannot stand before the world with our economic achievements alone. Therefore, we must strive for vindication of the 4 June incident, and we will never give up.
With these remarks, I support the motion on the 4 June incident. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14687
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, this year marks the 26th anniversary of the 4 June incident, and over 130 000 people attended the candlelight vigil held at the Victoria Park to express their perseverance in not forgetting the massacre and remembering the compatriots killed in the incident, and to express their perseverance in demanding vindication of the pro-democracy movement in 1989. As in previous years, I was one of the participants.
Over the past 26 years, numerous pro-democracy activists have been forced to live in exile overseas, wasting their youth. They cannot return home merely because they hold different political views. Last year, the exile WU Renhua would like to visit his dying 86-year-old mother to fulfil filial piety, he thus decided to renounce his dignity of a patriot to apply for a passport of the United States. By luck, he managed to enter China with a false homophonic name. In many more cases, exiled activists who parted with their families in 1989 can never meet them again till they die. Some compatriots who persevere in opposing the injustice and suppression on human rights and freedom by the Government and ruling regime are still under house arrest or imprisonment in the Mainland.
On the evening of 3 June this year, CHENG Aihua, a pro-democracry activist from Sichuan, dressed in black and with the characters "六 四" (4 June) written on her face took to the street in Chengdu. She was immediately arrested and detained for the charges of "picking quarrels and provoking troubles" and "disrupting order in public places". Human rights activists have paid a heavy price in their lives in pursuit of democracy in China, yet they make no complaint and have no regret. We as Chinese take pride in this, but this is also our sadness. There are people who say emphatically that how good the Central Government is to Hong Kong and how well China economy fares, oppose the vindication of 4 June every year, and even accuse the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) of distorting the truth of the 4 June incident. In view of the pro-democracy activists in China and overseas, do they not feel ashamed?
President, apart from the pro-democracy activists who are unreasonably ostracized and subjected to surveillance, there are also parents deprived of the right to mourn their deceased children. DING Zilin, one of the Tiananmen Mothers who is already 80 years of age, is not only prevented from offering memorial sacrifices to her deceased son at the cemetery in Muxidi but is also put under constant surveillance. She is forced to travel and taping devices are 14688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 installed at her home. The intimidation faced by these elderly people aged over 70 or 80 exposes the ugly side of the autocratic regime. Despite that, DING Zilin still speaks up for GAO Yu, the 71-year-old female journalist in Beijing who was given a heavy sentence of seven years' imprisonment in April this year, and keeps calling for the unconditional release of GAO Yu. Anyone with a little compassion and conscience will not accept or tolerate the reoccurrence of these cases. Anyone who works for this autocratic, barbaric and bloodstained regime that uses violence against its people is indeed bringing more sufferings, corruption and depravity to society. These sins will be recorded in history.
"Not forgetting the 4 June incident" also mirrors the implementation of "one country, two systems". Human rights activists have been suppressed and gagged for years. Hong Kong has become the only place for them to appeal for justice and call for help from the international community. However, in recent years, it is often heard that Mainlanders attending the 4 June candlelight vigil in Hong Kong were subjected to surveillance, warned and arrested after returning to the Mainland. It is also not uncommon for people suspected to be officers of the Ministry of State Security to enforce law across the border. On 1 July this year, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed a new National Security Law, which included for the first time Hong Kong and Macao in the provisions. Veteran journalist CHING Cheong worried that people might violate the law by calling for an end to one party dictatorship in Hong Kong. When Hong Kong people can no longer light up the candle of democracy, it signifies the end of "one country, two systems". By then, we can neither insist on telling the truth for the victims nor defend justice and conscience. If the State cannot face up to its mistakes and reconcile with its people, this land will continue to decline. President, given this line of thought, it is important to Hong Kong and China to support the motion that urges "the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated".
Lastly, I wish to quote the remarks of two students killed in the 4 June incident. The first one is YE Weihang, who was 19 when he was killed. He left a note before leaving home that read: "Come what may, we should be cheerful towards life." The second one is WU Xiangdong, who was killed at 21. He left a note in Tiananmen Square before his death, which read: "Each one of us is responsible for the fate of our country! Even if I were to die in striking down bureaucracy and corruption, in trying to achieve democracy and freedom, I would have no regrets." I believe the younger generation will definitely continue to strive for democracy, people's livelihood and human rights with this attitude. I also believe that people's conscience will be awakened. I sincerely hope that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14689 new generation of Chinese can take the first step towards democracy, learning about the truth of the 4 June incident and vindicate the pro-democracy movement in 1989.
I so submit.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, the 4 June anniversary of this year is similar to but also different from the previous ones.
The similarity is that, Hong Kong citizens could still participate in the candlelight vigil hosted by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (the HKAlliance) in the Victoria Park, letting the sea of candlelight light up the entire Victoria Park to vent their grief and anger against the suppression of the 4 June incident by the Beijing authorities, to mourn the victims and to express consolation to the victims' families. On the Sunday preceding 4 June, citizens could march to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong as in previous years. Every step we took showed our unswerving perseverance over the past 26 years. Hong Kong people continue to make use of the freedom we enjoy to express the lamentation that is stifled in other places.
However, this year's 4 June anniversary is also different from the previous ones because of the Umbrella Movement. This is the first 4 June anniversary after the end of the Umbrella Movement. President, the Umbrella Movement has undoubtedly changed the public sentiment in Hong Kong, and citizens are no longer content with the moderate approach and passive acceptance of administration by the Government. On the other hand, the dictatorial attitude of the executive and the conflicts between the Police and the public have fuelled the scramble for public opinions by the localist, separatist and anti-communist factions. As a result, some people claimed on 4 June that the anniversary of 4 June had nothing to do with either Hong Kong or us, thus commemoration was unnecessary.
To people like us who have experienced the 4 June incident, we only find it heart-rending and helpless. It is because we know that the sea of candlelight glimmering on the anniversary of the 4 June incident every year is one of the most important collective memories of Hong Kong citizens. This memory has circled in our mind for as long as 26 years and it has profound impact on our previous, current or next generations. We also hope that such memory can be passed on to future generations.
14690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
As to the suppression of dissidents in the Mainland before and after 4 June, this year's atmosphere was surprisingly tense and uneasy. Last year was the 25th anniversary of the 4 June incident. Generally speaking, the atmosphere of those anniversaries of every five or 10 years would naturally be very tense and would subside gradually after the anniversary. However, the tense atmosphere has not subsided after 4 June this year. In the past, most of the dissidents arrested before 4 June would be released afterwards. This year, however, some arrested dissidents have to date not yet been released, more than one month since the anniversary, and some of them were even given severe punishment. Worst still, more innocent people were implicated this time. It was reported that a three-year-old child was once detained because the child's father was arrested.
This year, the Mainland has stepped up its crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists. As of noon yesterday, that is 12 July, 80-odd human rights lawyers and activists have been under residential surveillance, interviewed, summoned, taken away, subjected to "forced disappearance" and even detained on criminal cause. Three law firms have been searched and confiscation of articles has been launched. When the ruling party overrides the law, the rule of law cannot be upheld. At this time, only human rights lawyers can get justice done for the innocent and protect the rights to which the underprivileged are entitled. We assume that the ruling regime should become increasingly open-minded as the country opens up. But the reality is that each term of the Government on the Mainland adopts approaches harsher than the previous term. Under the governance of XI Jinping, the so-called vision "to rule by law and standardize judicial acts, so that the law will genuinely form a fair and just environment for ordinary people" is mere empty talk so far as we have seen.
While the Mainland regime tries hard to suppress human rights activists and conceal the truth of the 4 June incident for political purposes, Hong Kong people should not forget the incident even though we do not want to recall it. As such, President, the setting up of the memorial hall for 4 June incident is particularly precious.
The memorial hall of the 4 June incident in Hong Kong is probably the only mini-museum on Chinese soil that collects artefacts relating to the 4 June incident. Despite its small size, it houses memories of many of us. Nevertheless, this mini-museum has encountered numerous difficulties and incessant disturbance since the first day of its opening. I am not going to argue on the complaints against the museum made by the owner's corporation and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14691 related disputes. All I wish to say is that Hong Kong is a free city, so we should cherish this instead of ostracizing other people because of our preference in political stance. The pictures, the text or artefacts exhibited or the facts presented in this mini-museum are just episodes of history. These episodes of history may be a lesson or a memory to us, yet they are extremely important to the ruling regime, the people and the future generations. We as teachers should teach our next generation the relevant history.
I support the motion today. I so submit.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, vindication of the 4 June incident is a prerequisite for the continued advancement of the Chinese nation in history. After the 4 June incident in 1989, China has become so poor that only money is left of it. Arguing for the 4 June massacre and crackdown, many people will say that had there not been the firing of gunshots then, how could we have secured in return a golden age in the remaining quarter of the century? Had there been no massacre of the unarmed students then, how could we have emerged as a strong nation today?
It transpired that the tanks and bullets back in that year had actually made our nation pay a huge price. Using these reasons to exculpate those who slaughtered the unarmed students from the crime they committed will mean that our country has since that very time judged the achievement of a person and a country by how powerful and wealthy this person or country is.
However, President, if a nation or country no longer embraces young people who pursue their ideals and dare to dream, this country or nation is definitely hopeless. Many sarcastic remarks about the current national situation pale in comparison with this one: Only conmen are real in China nowadays; all the other things are fake." There are counterfeit powdered formula and fake university, and everything can be fake. Why has such a situation emerged? Because if you can argue for the crime of slaughtering the unarmed students back then by saying that a golden age could be secured and a strong economic power established in return, it means that this country or nation no longer has ideals and it no longer pursues any dream. It will only put money above everything and ultimately become so poor that only money is left of it.
14692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
President, in the 4 June incident then, what were the students at Tiananmen striving for? They called on the Government to implement an accountability system. They demanded the high ranking members of the Communist Party of China to eradicate corruption. They objected to profiteering by the officials. They demanded freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They demanded democracy. President, is the State President, Mr XI Jinping, not saying that corruption should be combatted rigorously? Is he not saying that all will be targeted, be it a tiger or a fly? There seems to be no difference with the demands for combating corruption and profiteering and for accountability by the Government put forth by the students who sacrificed their lives at Tiananmen Square back then. Why can President XI Jinping take these actions so righteously whereas the students had to give up their lives back then?
President, Hong Kong is the one and only place of the Chinese where the 4 June incident can be openly mourned and commemorated annually and a debate on the incident is conducted in the parliamentary assembly annually. Today we may find it very dark but this is often what precedes dawn. When history approaches its turning point, nobody will tip you off, but no one will be able to stop it. As this Council continues to debate the motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" tonight, actually history has long stood on our side. So long as we carry on, the day of victory will come with you and I definitely having a part to play in it.
I so submit.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr SIN Chung-kai for moving the motion "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" today. Although today's motion was not moved before 4 June, I think it is very important to move the motion in this Chamber no matter when because each year, our views on the 4 June incident of 26 years ago are put on record. Let us first put on record that only one Member of the pro-establishment camp is present and only two of them spoke just now. I think the motion is a demon detector. Back then, after the occurrence of the 4 June massacre, everyone, including the President, LEUNG Chun-ying and many pro-establishment Members, placed many advertisements to condemn the massacre. However, many of them reverted to their original positions a month later.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14693
Why was everyone's conscience and their expression of conscience so transient? On seeing the person in power, DENG Xiaoping, come out and say that the suppression had been carried out, all people reverted to their original positions immediately and continued to support the pro-establishment camp and the Communist Party of China (CPC). Why can everyone forget this incident so easily? Fortunately, Members of the pro-establishment camp in this Chamber do not represent the views of the Hong Kong public. Everyone can see that over the past 26 years, the people of Hong Kong have insisted on lighting the candles of conscience on 4 June to condemn the massacre committed by the CPC regime. This year, 130 000 members of the public turned up. Over time, more and more young people have joined the ranks of participants of the candlelight vigil to condemn the massacre in Beijing. In this regard, it can be seen that Hong Kong people are following the dictates of their conscience collectively.
However, in condemning the massacre in Beijing and pursuing responsibility for the massacre, we are not just talking about the 4 June incident in history, rather, the 4 June incident is actually happening every day and this is the most tragic thing of all. If one day, there are democracy and freedom in China, our mood in commemorating the 4 June incident will surely be very different from that now because at present, when commemorating the 4 June incident, we remember that for the past 26 years, the 4 June incident has been re-enacted on a daily basis because suppression, that is, the suppression of human rights, freedoms and democracy, is going on every day.
Let us see what has happened over the years. When XI Jinping came to power, we thought the son, just like his father, would be more open-minded. Who would have thought that the son is even more autocratic? Apart from abusing power and monopolizing power, all opinions and voices are suppressed, and the suppression is really severe. XU Zhiyong's New Citizens Movement is being suppressed; GAO Yu, despite being 71 years old now, was still arrested and imprisoned and this is already the third time she was given a sentence of imprisonment on account of freedom of the press; PU Zhiqiang went missing a year ago after attending a seminar on the 4 June incident, that is, the 25th anniversary of the 4 June incident. Subsequently, he was arrested and now, he has even been charged with subversion of state power. We can see many such instances. Moreover, there was also XU Zhiyong. Then, another scholar named Ilham TOXTI in Xinjiang was also sentenced to life imprisonment for publishing articles on the Internet. The further we enumerate, the more 14694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 frightening it becomes. Then, last week, some 80 people were suddenly arrested and some 20 of them have not yet been released. These people are all human rights lawyers on the Mainland.
It turns out that a regime can commit such excesses. Members may say these are political incidents but the same is true of matters related to people's livelihood as workers on strike were also arrested. At present, in many cities on the Mainland, as soon as workers go on strike, the Police or Public Security Bureau officers will move in to suppress the workers on strike by arresting the leaders, who will then be sentenced to imprisonment. Among them, someone called WU Guijun has been imprisoned for a year just for speaking up for workers. Therefore, not just political incidents were involved, rather, even non-political struggles were all suppressed.
Why is the CPC regime so apprehensive? Recently, I have looked at the entire new National Security Law. I found that unlike the past, when only the security of the regime was mentioned, there are now 18 realms of national security. Now, there are 18 areas, including cyber security, environmental security, cultural security, and so on. It turns out all these 18 realms are included in the new national security concept. In view of this, I wonder if XI Jinping is suffering from persecutory delusions. Or is the whole CPC suffering from persecutory delusions? No matter in what circumstances, they all feel that their security is being threatened, so they want to incorporate 18 additional realms into national security. They even see Hong Kong people as a threat to them, so they also want to include Hong Kong people in the National Security Law, saying that the latter have the obligation to safeguard national security. However, according to the Basic Law, Hong Kong people only have the obligation to comply with the laws of Hong Kong. But they have added a provision stating that Hong Kong people have the obligation to safeguard national security. What does this mean? I am aware that Mr Dennis KWOK told us not to worry because the Laws of Hong Kong are based on common law. I am aware of this point but the scariest thing of all does not lie in the Courts of Hong Kong applying Hong Kong laws but applying laws of China to deal with Hong Kong people. Will this happen? I do not know. So far, no clarification has been provided to me on one point about conduct of Hong Kong people in Hong Kong. If some members of the Hong Kong public are considered to have violated national security, would Chinese laws be invoked to deal with them when they go to the Mainland? No one knows and so far, no clarification has been provided to me on this point. Mr Rimsky YUEN, the Secretary for Justice, has all along LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14695 refused to answer this question, whereas Ms Elsie LEUNG simply could not answer it. What will actually happen in that event? As we all know, in the end, it will not be a matter of the rule of law but the rule of man. If they are suffering from persecutory delusions, they can really do anything. Therefore, I think Hong Kong people must defend their freedoms staunchly. In the end, we will use our freedoms to end one party dictatorship in China and move towards democracy and freedom. It is only by doing so that we will find a way forward (The buzzer sounded)…President, I so submit.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr SIN Chung-kai's motion, "Not forgetting the 4 June incident". Although 26 years have passed, most Hong Kong people will not forget, and perhaps they will not forgive, this massacre in Beijing. On thinking about the bloodshed 26 years ago, many people say they are now more and more worried as they do not know how many days of freedom are left. Recently, when I talked with some people about the incident related to the University of Hong Kong, some of them, who are perhaps insiders, told me that such incidents would "keep coming".
President, two Members of the pro-establishment camp, Mr Tony TSE and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, spoke just now and they both said that the current anti-corruption campaign on the Mainland was intended to build an honest and clean system. I think this is really news because a lot of people say that the system on the Mainland is very corrupt and no bureaucrat is immune from corruption, so why are both big tigers and small flies targeted now? Because those people are actually political enemies, not because they are corrupted. President, I believe you probably know more than we do, particularly given that many Members have been barred from visiting the Mainland for more than two decades, so it is impossible for them to get any first-hand information. However, Members have actually heard about or seen many of the problems on the Mainland. Many Members said just now that the recent frenzied arrests of human rights lawyers and activists was definitely a frenzy of white terror. Not only has it shaken many Hong Kong people to the core, it has also aroused great concern in the international community. I learnt that in Taiwan, apart from lawyers, many human rights groups and civil groups also issued statements of condemnation and in Japan, similar statements of condemnation were also issued. Press conferences were also held in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sydney to support these human rights lawyers and activists as well as condemning the Communist Party of China (CPC).
14696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
However, the question is: Why does the CPC suppress this group of people? This group of lawyers ― I must also declare that I am a member of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group ― these lawyers are the most moderate and rational people who abide by national laws and the Constitution. They fight for justice for the socially disadvantaged groups but why have these people met such a fate? Some lawyers are perhaps still in prison, while their family members are in exile overseas. If you say that an anti-corruption campaign is being conducted in China, it is necessary to have a legal system for doing so. But, now, even lawyers have been arrested, so how can it be said that the intention is to combat corruption? If the aim is to combat corruption, there should be free and independent media organizations to report on and expose the dark side. However, at present, Mainland media workers are still very miserable. They are often beaten half-dead and the situation in Hong Kong is also the same. The Hong Kong Journalists Association also held a press conference just now, stating that dozens of journalists were severely beaten up last year. They were beaten up by both police officers and protestors.
Therefore, President, we are indeed increasingly aligned with the Mainland and this is what makes Hong Kong people feel even more concerned. We can see that what they experience now is what is in store for Hong Kong and no matter if this is Hong Kong's future or not, we as Chinese should still speak up on seeing this kind of things. Therefore, President, I am really baffled. Why has your political party not uttered a word even though it describes itself as most patriotic? Is anyone willing to say something in all fairness? If it does not even have the courage to make impartial comments, how is it worthy of being the largest political party in Hong Kong? How can you face Hong Kong people and compatriots in Mainland China with a clear conscience? I think this is most ironic, and ridiculous too.
President, what wrong have these human rights lawyers done? Why were their homes raided and why were they arrested and locked up all of a sudden? If this goes on, when President XI Jinping visits the United States and the United Kingdom, how can he explain this to others? Would OBAMA or the Queen of England have the courage to ask him similar questions? I hope that those Western countries would not wax eloquent on righteousness and justice but are in reality also hypocritical. When they find that China will enable them to make money, they dare not say anything. All people would consider this most disgraceful.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14697
In November this year, the hearings of the United Nations Committee Against Torture will be held in Geneva to review the reports on China and Hong Kong. We in the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group will surely prepare a report in due course and may also send members to Geneva to tell the United Nations what persecutions these lawyers are subjected to and how miserable they are. If we do not even have the rule of law or an independent legal system, how can China say that it aspires to becoming a great country and how can it converge with the international community?
President, 26 years have passed and how many 26 years are there in a lifetime? However, so long as we are still here, the debate on this matter will continue. Mr SIN Chung-kai said he hoped that one day, the Legislative Council could pass this motion on vindication of the 4 June incident. Mr SIN Chung-kai is younger than me. I do not know how long he will stay in this Council but as I often say, even though we are no longer here, Mr Dennis KWOK is the baby of the pro-democracy camp. He will stay in this Council and some people even say that in future, he will become the Chief Executive. No matter what, I hope the Legislative Council can really pass this motion in future and Hong Kong can really become a national model as a truly corruption-free place practising the rule of law. However, President, our existing system is teetering at the brink actually.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, when this Council was discussing the motion on political reform, I said that the comments made in speeches were rather ironic. Today, this is the last time I speak in this Council and the subject matter happens to be "Not forgetting the 4 June incident". I find this most appropriate.
President, I hope you could forgive me for talking about my personal feelings in speaking here for the last time. When I was young and started my practice, I only thought about making money, no matter if I would succeed or not. That was my attitude towards life at that time. However, the 4 June incident awakened my concern about the importance of values of democracy and the issue of our country's future.
I must admit that in the first 10 years or so, I dared not face the issue of the 4 June incident. Not only did I lack the courage to go to the Victoria Park; I also dared not watch the news on 4 June. When I became the chairman of the Bar 14698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Association, I was still very naïve, and perhaps I am still so today. At that time, I said naïvely, "As chairman of the Bar Association, I do not intend to talk about politics." Sure enough, my remark turned out to be very true. In the next 10 years or so, as a Member of this Council, I felt considerable grief and anger over the 4 June incident. Each year, I spoke on the 4 June incident and many a time, I felt very agitated.
President, I am leaving this Council today. In respect of yet another debate on the 4 June incident this time around, in contrast, I feel calm in my heart. Perhaps this is because I have grown older, or on a more positive note, I have become more mature. Regarding the subject matter of the 4 June incident, I have already changed my perspective. President, I would like to share with Members three major reasons.
Firstly, history will not be forgotten. Every time we raised this subject matter, we would say "Forget not the 4 June incident". In fact, we do not need to say "forget not the 4 June incident" because historical facts will not be forgotten, nor will they disappear. No matter how great your power is or how much sway you hold, the 4 June incident is there forever. This is the first point.
Secondly, perhaps I have come to realize that violence and might cannot solve problems. No matter how many tanks and machine guns one has, in fact, this is all in vain. Tanks and machine guns definitely cannot change people's lot or public sentiments. I believe State leaders also understand this point. No matter if you take part in the activities commemorating the 4 June incident or are unable to take part in such activities on account of the political environment, or you are unable to rise and speak because of your political background even though you are sitting here, I definitely believe that the 4 June incident has left an impression on the hearts of all people permanently, nor can the 4 June incident be changed on account of any theory or might.
Thirdly, I firmly believe that the 4 June incident will surely be vindicated, and the timing or reason is irrelevant. President, I do not think that vindication of the 4 June incident means overturning a verdict in the legal sense, nor does it represent a political criticism or the demand that some people pay a price for their mistakes. President, I believe the vindication of the 4 June incident is something that the State must bring about and approve of for the sake of development of democracy or values of democracy, which are probably also important components in the growth of all civilized nations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14699
For these reasons, President, I do not consider it necessary to express any feelings of grief and anger or resentment and anger by shouting "vindicate the 4 June incident" at this moment. President, at least, I am not this kind of person, but I firmly believe that the 4 June incident will ultimately be vindicated, be it in our hearts (The buzzer sounded)… or as a matter of fact.
Thank you, President.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope Mr Ronny TONG will keep his perseverance up. We also believe that this spirit of upholding and defending social justice steadfastly will persist in this legislature. So long as we defend social justice steadfastly, "one country, two systems" will still be practised in Hong Kong, and we will still have "a high degree of autonomy". However, President, I am afraid the situation would grow increasingly difficult.
The 4 June incident has all along been a major issue of distinct right and wrong to me. To Mr Ronny TONG, perhaps it was an enlightenment in politics but in my case, I was in the United States back then and extremely shocked by it. While watching the television overseas, many Hongkongers and Mainlanders were seized by indescribable emotions and worries. Simply put, the 4 June incident was about the use of guns and tanks to kill unarmed students and people, so it is wrong and no matter what those people did, it is wrong. Do not come and tell me now how vibrant our economy is and how strong our country has become 26 years down the line, saying that this means the decision back then was correct ― it is a major issue of distinct right and wrong and a matter of black or white that could not be clearer. However, President, black and white are becoming increasingly indistinct in our times. Regarding deeds that are obviously, clearly and absolutely hideous and unacceptable by whatever moral standards, we often say, "We did it just for once and in future, we will do it in such and such a way" ― do not say such things anymore.
Nevertheless, we are very much concerned about the latest update released at 5.40 pm on the webpage of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, which claims that 120 human rights lawyers and their staff members were arrested and charged, taken away, held incommunicado, summoned or invited to discussions, or had their personal freedom temporarily restricted. The updates 14700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 of the webpage are refreshed continually. Just now, I went up to my office and talked briefly with LAU San-ching. He said he had never seen such an extensive roundup of dissidents since the nation-wide arrests made during the Democracy Wall incident. He is very concerned about what is happening in China. What does XI Jinping actually want? This arrest operation has not yet ended. What did these human rights activists do? Did they go out and clamour for an end to one party dictatorship? No, they did not. What they did was to defend the basic rights of people in China. What they pinpointed was the oppression of the people by cadres, the coercive seizure of land by high-ranking officials, the melamine incident, and the case of ZHAO Lianhai, who is also a human rights lawyer whose child was also a victim of the melamine incident ― all of these were related to people's livelihood. President, do you think they want to seize political power from the CPC regime? They do not, yet they have still met such a fate. What on earth is happening in China now?
Recently, the newly revised National Security Law of the People's Republic of China was passed and Articles 11(2) and 40(3) therein bring the Hong Kong and Macao SARs into its ambit by stipulating that compatriots in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan have the obligation to safeguard national sovereignty, and shall discharge the duty of safeguarding national security. So what is meant by national security? National security means the security of the regime, the security of the CPC. Since the primary concern in national security is the security of the regime, that means anything can be done. Given such a wide scope and such general principles, how can the law be enforced? How can we fulfil our duty and obligation of safeguarding national security? It is true that this piece of legislation is not included in Annex III to the Basic Law, so it will not come into operation in Hong Kong. However, legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law will surely come sooner or later, so what did the Vice-Chairperson of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, ZHENG Shuna, say? She said what law a person had violated depended on which jurisdiction he was in, that is, this would be the responsibility of the jurisdiction concerned. In that case, does it mean that national security would be compromised if we attend a vigil commemorating the 4 June incident in Hong Kong? Will we be arrested on entering Mainland China if we shout the slogan of "putting an end to one party dictatorship" during the vigil? No one can answer this. We asked LAI Tung-kwok this question in this legislature but he was unable to give an answer. No one can guarantee the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14701 safety of Hong Kong people. In case we need to visit the Mainland for purposes of academic and cultural exchanges or news coverage in future, what will happen to us on entering the Mainland as a result of what we have done in Hong Kong?
President, the situation of one-party dominance is becoming increasingly outrageous. I wonder if the President has ever watched the television drama series The Empress of China. The plots of two earlier episodes are quite well-written: As the story goes, Minister ZHANGSUN Wuji achieved reconciliation with WU Zetian before his death, and the last words he left were "checks and balances" ― it is "checks and balances", President. Be it the powerful and influential aristocracy from the Guanlong region or the syndicate of scholar-officials that rose from lowly origins, neither of them should be allowed to dominate; instead, checks and balances are necessary. Even the powerful and influential aristocracy in the Guanlong region created by him had to be destroyed because mutual checks and balances are exactly the way to achieve national security and stability. What we lack here is precisely checks and balances and what we find here is dominance by the pro-establishment camp and the Government; whereas in the Mainland, it is the dominance of the CPC.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, the 4 June incident is something ― 26 years have since passed ― we do not want to remember ― but dare not forget either. It has been 26 years since the 4 June incident. While it has not been an easy course travelled this far, the world situation has also undergone many changes. The economic power of China is ascending, yet material civilization has failed to bring spiritual civilization. Economic development accords political reform no room. Corruption and depravity persist with a wide gap between the rich and the poor, and the Government is still oppressing dissidents with no respect for human rights and freedom.
President, former Premier WEN Jiabao once said ― he did say it specifically ― that there should be political reforms, but in the end he was just an armchair strategist. The current Central Government adopts a dominating approach in governance which worsens the already imbalanced political and economic development. Besides, there is an absurd phenomenon in the development of China: the stronger the national strength and the more open the economy of China, the lower the confidence it has in itself. President, despite 14702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 the controversy over "desinicization" and even sharp criticisms about the so-called "Greater China morons" in Hong Kong in recent years, this year there were still 135 000 people who fearlessly and boldly said "no" to those in power and their overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. Not bothering about the localists' sarcastic ridicule, we went to the Victoria Park, lit up the candles and demonstrated to the world and all the Chinese communities our persistence, our denunciation of the authorities regarding the 4 June incident, and our remembrance of the victims.
President, I understand the localists' disapproval of the conventional commemorative activities for the 4 June incident. I can also understand why they go their own way and deliberately expound on the 4 June incident afresh with new arguments, disposing of the national sentiment that "blood is thicker than water" and discarding the idea of seeking our origin by interpreting the 4 June incident as simply one of the cases of trampling on human rights in the world. Why are they so eager to reposition the relationship between the Mainland and Hong Kong? Or why do they treat the 4 June incident as if it were a fishbone stuck in their throat or a prickle down their back which they wish to get over with expeditiously?
President, from the colonial era to the reunification, in respect of individuals, our origin and the political and economic relationship, our tie with China, like blood and veins, has all along been so intricate and deep-rooted that it should be impossible to sever and hard to rationalize. However, why are the Mainland and Hong Kong now each going to the extremes, seemingly in harmony but actually at variance? Why is there such a bizarre situation in the Mainland and Hong Kong? Despite the reunification, we have become more and more estranged from the Motherland; despite Hong Kong people's care and concern about the fate of our nation regardless of all the wind and rain year after year, their actions have always been regarded as opposing the political regime and unpatriotic. Such distortion of the concept of patriotism by the ruling regime just for the sake of hanging onto its power has made Hong Kong people angry and disappointed. President, the Central Government has distorted Hong Kong people's feelings and responses towards patriotism. Actually, did Hong Kong people take commemoration of the 4 June incident as a way to save themselves and do anything provocative?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14703
A wrong thought of those in power will turn the situation from being heaven to hell. To demonstrate the autocratic authority in their hands, the Central Authorities exercised the power of "one country" to the fullest and published the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" to proclaim their overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, completely smashing Hong Kong people's understanding of the principle of "one country, two systems". Apart from this, the Central Authorities went further to force Hong Kong people to accede to the proposal for the Chief Executive election under their manipulation, thus ultimately shattering the only remaining fantasy of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". Surely, I have yet to talk about that visible and invisible hand from the Mainland which manipulates Hong Kong affairs through economic and political means. This, coupled with the attitude of "689", who will only follow the lead of the Central Authorities and disregard the interests of Hong Kong people, has caused the collapse of the rites and decorum, thoroughly destroying the established core values in Hong Kong.
President, all these circumstances are driving Hong Kong people towards resistance and the adoption of a localist mindset for self-protection. As a matter of fact, under the localist ideology, it turns out that the greater the restraint, the greater the resistance. Do the people in power not understand that? Do they not know that? Yet they have acted with the mindset of "all powers being vested in their hands", resulting in the present situation. Should we all not seriously reflect on ourselves after the veto of the constitutional reform package? President, yet someone is seeking personal gains by continuously making up imaginary enemies in Hong Kong, in an attempt to cause chaos and fish in troubled waters, paving the way for his own interest in politics in the future at the expense of Hong Kong people's interests.
After all, President, concern about the fate of the nation, which is implicit in the commemoration of the 4 June incident, is a fundamental test of human conscience. There is one point that I hope Members can all see clearly: 26 years ago, we strove for vindication of the 4 June incident and release of the democracy activists; and even till this very moment, we have neither forgotten nor flinched.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
14704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, the 4 June incident happened because of students' demands to combat corruption and introduce democratic political reforms as a bulwark against corruption. That was a display of their love for the people but to our dismay, it ended up as a massacre. Some people say that the crackdown secured 26 years of stability and development. First of all, the demonstrations and rallies held by students could have been resolved through peaceful communication, and still less do we find it acceptable that a patriotic and democratic movement is regarded as a rebellion.
If we review the development of our country to date, we will find its economy has been developed and not only has it become a major economic power but also a major political power, and the international community cannot disregard the existence of China. DENG Xiao-ping said that some people could be allowed to get rich first and now, some people have indeed become rich, so much so that many people can now travel overseas and visit various countries every year but as it turned out, the Chinese are increasingly being perceived in a negative light by the people of other countries.
At present, our country plays a pivotal role in the international community but the legal protection and freedom of speech to which its people are entitled have fared worse than ever. Now, our country is capable of establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to counter the Asian Development Bank; promoting the "One Belt, One Road" initiative that, except North and South America and Russia, covers more than half of the globe. The power of our nation has increased but corruption, against which students initially voiced their opposition, has escalated as wealth increases.
In the 1980s, I had many opportunities to return to the Mainland on account of my work. I visited such impoverished places as Guangxi, Central China and Changsha. While travelling by train, I saw people dwelling in caves which were lit by very dim lamps. It suddenly dawned on me what "a lamp tiny like a bean" meant. Such a situation is no longer seen in big cities. The poverty in the past would only deprive people of their dignity. In the eateries in poor rural areas, people would fight over the leftovers at the next table. However, now that China has become rich, it turned out the pursuit of wealth has made some people vicious.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14705
Tainted food, tainted powdered formula, tainted cooking oil and frozen food that expired more than 30 years ago were all sanctioned by corrupt officials effecting connivance at various levels. People are being poisoned every day and even babies incapable of speech are not spared. With corruption, the taking of bribes and abuse of the law will surely follow and corrupt officials will surely pervert the law, or else they will not be able to escape sanctions in law. Because of their perversion of the law, ordinary members of the public have no channels of complaint, so their rights are infringed.
Much of the wealth on the Mainland is consumed by deeds related to abuse of power, harbouring of misdeeds and establishment of connections that do not yield any productivity whatsoever, but such deeds of power transfer and establishing connections cannot generate genuine wealth. What it can generate is just illegal "black money" and ill-gotten gains; at the same time, counterfeit goods and counterfeit foods poisoning the people emerge one after another incessantly. However, corrupt officials exercise all their powers to protect the cobwebs of corruption established by them because if their deeds come to light or they lose in a power struggle, not only will they lose the wealth obtained by them through corruption but their own lives will also be at risk, and this will even spell disaster for their families.
With the Chinese economy developing towards high-end financial activities, corruption and depravity has involved more high technology and become more pervasive, evolving into large-scale manipulations of the stock market. All members of the financial industry dare not assert by how much Mainland economic figures have been inflated. All that they know is they must not believe in these figures, and even Hongkong Bank no longer finds it advisable to take part in the compilation of the purchasing index of the Mainland. As Ray HUANG said, the China nowadays is still the same as that during the Ming Dynasty in that it cannot be governed according to figures. The bigger the financial bubble, the greater the damage done when the bubble bursts. If the entire country does not realize this and turn around but continues to cover up the truth by high-handed means, when the reality finally dawns, I am afraid even the stability of the regime can no longer be ensured.
It is known to all that corruption and depravity is a social scourge. Just now, Mr Tony TSE sang high praises of the determination of XI Jinping in fighting corruption but in my opinion, the anti-corruption campaign is only a means to deal blows to political rivals. Mr Tony TSE also mentioned the 14706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 improper ways in which political parties had handled the donations to them and our Labour Party is also one of the political parties involved. However, in the face of queries, we have been co-operative with the investigative efforts and we will also face up to the investigation conducted by the Legislative Council.
However, when we asked about the £4 million received by LEUNG Chun-ying when his company, Jones Lang LaSalle, was acquired by an overseas company and when we wanted to conduct an inquiry in the Legislative Council, the pro-establishment camp harboured him by preventing us from invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. When we wanted to investigate whether Mr Paul CHAN is involved in any conflict of interest in relation to the hoarding of land or "sub-divided units", we were also prevented from doing so.
This precisely shows that if any anti-corruption campaign is really meant for public good, the same yardstick should be applied. We have to trust the system, require all people to submit themselves to it, open themselves up and be accountable to the public, instead of making use of anti-corruption efforts as a means to deal blows to political rivals. If one really wants to combat corruption, the most important thing is to put in place greater freedom of the press and freedom of speech, so that ordinary people and the media can carry out monitoring together. More importantly, judicial independence must be assured, so that personal safety can be guaranteed when the public challenge the irregular and illegal practices of the State.
In Hong Kong, we still enjoy all kinds of freedom. We can voice our criticisms and spur the Central Government on. Even as we enjoy our rights and freedoms, we also need to fulfil the obligations dictated by our conscience and continue to fulfil our responsibility at the Victoria Park every year. In the Legislative Council, so long as the pro-democracy camp is still here, the debate on vindication of the 4 June incident will take place every year.
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the 4 June incident 26 years ago is a historical fact. I believe the students told the then Government not to be weak in combating corruption out of good intentions back then, as Members present said. But what we see today is most ironic. Now, it seems that XI Jinping's Government has not become slack in combating corruption and depravity, but this is just the case for corruption and depravity committed by its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14707 political rivals. I have no idea what the situation is like. Let me use the recent situation of the Mainland A-share stock markets as an example. According to conspiracy theories, hearsay or dinner party rumors, it is an incident resulted from political struggles. I dare not comment on this.
However, the fact is that over the past 26 years, corruption and depravity has never ceased in the Mainland. The occurrence of the 4 June incident is a fact. Students and pro-democracy activists were massacred on the spot by the troops, resulting in casualties at that time. I still remember the television footage broadcast that night and the remark made by that man called YUAN Mu the next morning. I was really so shocked that I fell over. How could he lie through his teeth? Nevertheless, although this pack of lies has been repeated for 26 years, no one dares admit the truth. Year after year, the Tiananmen Mothers are still put under house arrest and surveillance or forbidden from mourning their own children. What kind of government is it? I really cannot tell.
Nevertheless, is the application of these oppressive tactics tantamount to the elimination of corruption and depravity on the Mainland now? The 4 June incident is precisely a reminder to the ruling regime of China of how perilous corruption and depravity is, but the situation seems not to have seen any improvement so far. This tragedy in history is a fact. Will the next generation be kept in the dark or forget it as long as we mention or say nothing or keep people from talking about it, or no one mentions it at all in the Mainland and all human rights lawyers are arrested? Are they dreaming? I think this is a rather naïve way of thinking. I believe many people in the Mainland are not as lucky as Hong Kong people because the principle of "one country, two systems" is practised in Hong Kong. Be it good or bad, at least we have safeguards in freedom of speech and the rule of law. While some people dislike the Basic Law, it does state that we will not vanish on our departure after expressing our opinions in the Council.
Over the past 26 years, Hong Kong people have been holding an advantage, one that allows us to keep raising this incident no matter whether we are attending a rally at the Victoria Park or debating a motion in the Legislative Council. I believe we wish to do something more than just telling Hong Kong people about it ― certainly, this year, we have been branded as "Greater China morons" who repeat these things which are unpleasant to the ear and told to mind our own business. We do not care about such criticisms as long as we still have the freedom of speech that allows us to revisit this incident in Hong Kong. President, this is very important no matter whether those from the 14708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 pro-establishment camp have heard it or not. Even though the Government assigns public officers to attend our meeting and give a response every year and that only Members from the pro-democracy camp are present, this is still important.
Earlier on, someone sitting in the public gallery told me that he suddenly came up with this great idea, hoping that we could vote right now in order to catch the pro-establishment camp off guard, such that they could not make it back in time and that this motion could be passed. I told him that he was dreaming. It is impossible for this to happen, and it has never happened over the years. Although a fiasco has occurred this year and they are still wearing that pair of stupid-looking glasses, the same thing will not happen again, or they will be dismissed. Hence, it is impossible for this to happen.
President, this does not matter. What matters is that under the existing system, we still have a chance to revisit the tragic history of 4 June every year. Certainly, I do not know what will happen when the pledge that Hong Kong shall remain unchanged for 50 years expires. But now, we can revisit this incident in Hong Kong every year. Hong Kong is like an alarm clock of history which will go off loudly when the time comes. There may be some 100 000 people making a sound together in order to tell the public that this incident did occur. Afterwards, in the Legislative Council, there may still be one third ― I hope there can be more than one third ― of Members from the pro-democracy camp who will discuss this issue. When the alarm goes off, it serves to tell Hong Kong people that the 4 June incident did occur many years ago. When we find that the incident has yet to be vindicated in history and that the problem of corruption and depravity and the regime are still undesirable, we will continue to play this role of an alarm clock. This clock is very interesting in the sense that it needs neither batteries nor solar energy or renewable energy. As long as the alarm clock is produced at the right time, it will go off. I do not know when this alarm clock will cease to go off, but I am absolutely reluctant to see this alarm clock of Hong Kong fail to go off after being smashed by a hammer or having its buzzer removed some day. Nevertheless, I believe as a person whose conscience is still alive, we will still remember this tragedy in history which did really happen 26 years ago at Tiananmen. We absolutely will not forget it.
Thank you, President
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14709
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, Prof Joseph LEE said there is an alarm clock which will keep going off. Let me tell you how the CPC works: if you continue to set the alarm clock, they will cover you in a box, then people will be unable to hear you, right? Now they have already become more civilized. You want to set it ringing? They will let you do so. The alarm clock may continue to ring. Yet they will try every means to muffle the sound.
President, let the 4 June incident not be forgotten. Just look at how XI Jinping currently tries to save the party, not the stock market, violently. But this violent rescue of the party is also related to the violent rescue of the stock market, resulting in great chaos in the market. How could they not arrest the lawyers? There would be big trouble if the lawyers accused LI Keqiang of violent rescue of the stock market. After resorting to violence to save the stock market, they resorted to violence to save the party. The name list which I am holding is as long as The Book of Family Names. As long as one is holding the list of political prisoners in China, one will have no need to learn family names from the book, as the list already contains all of them.
I have glanced at this list. Can you tell me how we can forget the 4 June incident? A lawyer currently under arrest is named SUI Muqing. Back then, at the China University of Political Science and Law, there was always a group of people sitting there, reading law, which could be called the training class for cadres of the CPC, and Mr SUI Muqing was among those who were there back then, but now he has been arrested and charged with inciting subversion … not inciting subversion. He is charged with subversion. The man sitting with him in the same photo is called PU Zhiqiang, who has now been charged with picking quarrels and provoking troubles in an indoor forum on the anniversary of the 4 June incident last year. I wonder how he picked quarrels and provoked troubles. It should be that bunch of people from the Ministry of State Security who went there to pick quarrels and provoke troubles, so they should be the ones who should be arrested. Moreover, the people at the forum only talked about the 4 June incident. The next one on the list is Mr ZHENG Enchong, a lawyer who helped to demand justice for the civil rights activists in Shanghai ― now CHEN Liangyu has been arrested, but ZHENG Enchong is still being subjected to persecution ― ever since that incident, he has long been living under surveillance. Now he has even been taken away with his home searched and his property confiscated.
14710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Another one is named HU Shigen, who went missing when he was in Beijing three days ago, and now it has been 79 hours. After the 4 June incident, HU Shigen was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years because of an organization called the Chinese Liberal Democratic Party. Upon release, he was arrested again. Buddy, how can we forget the 4 June incident? Another one whom the President also knows is LI Wangyang. Tell me, how can we forget? If they want other people to forget their evil deeds, first they should stop doing evil. Do they understand that? They murdered people 26 years ago, and now they are committing murders again. How can they tell me to forget the past? Forgetting the past means forgetting the present, and forgetting the present means losing the future, right? It is very simple. Even triads have a practice of calling it quits. They will quit and withdraw from the underworld after washing their hands in a gold basin; but that is not the case with them. They did not wash their hands. They even touched my face with their bloody hands and said to me, "Long Hair, can you stop talking about blood?" What is right and wrong is easy to tell.
There is another problem. As Mr Fernando CHEUNG has mentioned earlier, now they are only upholding civil rights and assisting the disadvantaged, but the Government treats them as the main enemies and regard them as the new "five black categories" in the interest of the so-called national security. This demonstrates where the problem lies. Although they simply wish to resolve some personal humble issues in their own country, it may cost them their lives. Or, someone told them about his situation, and being lawyers, they found his situation really miserable, so they wished to offer some help, but that too would cost them their lives. This shows that the regime is corrupt and rotten. When those in power cannot manage their subordinates, or they themselves take part in oppressing others every day, such things will happen. Actually, do you think that in 1989, the people really wanted to overthrow the CPC? They wished to oppose profiteering by officials, collusion between the Government and the business sector and corruption and depravity. These were the slogans they chanted, buddy. Later, however, the people felt that the Government was becoming increasingly unwilling to listen to their views, so more and more people took to the streets. Today, the situation remains the same, right?
President, it is very simple. If it is said that there are the new "five black categories", then how about those people who do not belong to these five categories? They will not overthrow the Government. The problem is that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14711
Government itself has caused the emergence of crony capitalism under its one party dictatorship. Those accepting bribes in the streets are also related to the party because they are party members. The whole party must stay above the 1.3 billion Chinese people. If anyone among the 1.3 billion Chinese people finds something unfair and opposes such behaviour of these ordinary party members, those in power will attack him by escalating the issue to the political plane. President, they seek to safeguard national security. This is the mentality of "I am the state". Have Members heard of this saying? "I am the state." That is the case with emperors in the past. I, the Empereur, am the state. Whoever opposes the Empereur is opposing the state, and such people must die. Today, the CPC is the same, except that it says "the party is the state", which is already some sort of progress.
President, if the people at a certain place cannot learn who were right and who were wrong in the past, they will definitely be unable to distinguish right from wrong in the future. The significance of "not forgetting the 4 June incident" lies not only in our remembrance of those martyrs who sacrificed themselves for democracy, but also our obligation to prevent such things as the 4 June incident from ever happening again in China, which is of the greatest significance. To prevent such things from happening again, we must put an end to one party dictatorship. This is an inevitable conclusion. Hence, not forgetting the 4 June incident, we must put an end to one party dictatorship.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I think many of us have participated in the discussion on the 4 June incident here for 26 years. As we review the changes over these 26 years, we should remember the founding of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China back then, and how Hong Kong supported the students at Tiananmen and played a supportive role. As we look at these 26 years in retrospect, in those days, we thought that with the support of Hong Kong people for the students in Mainland China pursuing their ideal and fighting against official profiteering, such problems as corruption and depravity could be solved. But over these 26 years, the movements in the Mainland that we wish to support have been shattered into 14712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 pieces. And even for the Civil Human Rights Front established back then and the students or leaders of the democracy movement who have fled overseas, they are actually loosely organized.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Formerly under British rule, Hong Kong, as a base specifically for promoting revolutions in the Mainland, has returned to China for 18 years in the blink of an eye. Published last year, the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" shows that the Central Government is formally turning Hong Kong into another Tibet or Xinjiang step by step. To put it more bluntly, it attempts to make Hong Kong fall under communist control in all aspects. We have supported reforms in the Mainland but today, after 26 years, the base supporting revolutions in the Mainland is also be communized gradually. Friends, while we are still talking idiotic nonsense and discussing continually how to support patriotic democratic movements, we are actually unable to save ourselves from being disintegrated gradually.
I have just released a book which gives a tell-all account of my three-decade long career in politics, in which there is a section dedicated to an analysis of the evolution of the electoral machinery of the CPC in Hong Kong from some loosely organized amateur bodies three decades ago into the highly mobile, pervasive and ubiquitous state machinery. We are now countering a huge organization with significant influence and power. Hence, having said all this for 26 years, we seem to have become another "Eunuch Stephen LAM" acting as a "human tape-recorder", and keep repeating the things said over the past 26 years. I think this is like self-fulfilment. Perhaps we have developed senile dementia, repeating things that even we ourselves do not believe. Hence, using Hong Kong as the base, while we look back on our work over these 26 years, do we need to do some soul-searching to see if we should start afresh and rethink our role and work? While we have been repeating ourselves over these 26 years, why do we still find satisfaction in it?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14713
We may look at a number of examples in foreign countries. After years of changes and struggle under communist rule, people have finally got a way out and some changes. In Poland, under the leadership of the Polish trade union, the communist regime was eventually overthrown. And many years after the "Prague Spring", the communist rule was ultimately overthrown under the advocacy of Václav HAVEL in the Czech Republic. Certainly, on the soil of China, our LIU Xiaobo has been sentenced to 10-year imprisonment and is still in jail now, and many human rights lawyers and friends are still fighting for the cause. On the soil of China, we still have a lot of intellectuals and young people filled with aspirations, constantly struggling.
Therefore, those who have a passion for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong will definitely continue to walk together with the progressive forces in the Mainland to fight for their ideal. But here in Hong Kong, our priority task now is to counter the communist influence. In fact, I have repeatedly criticized China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited (China State Construction) in this Chamber, but got no attention at all. I notice that China State Construction has gradually obtained a number of large-scale works contracts after the reunification and become the largest construction company in Hong Kong step by step. This is part of the whole process of communization of Hong Kong. Under such manipulation, Hong Kong people are now forced to drink "lead-laced water". Not only are we forced to drink "faecal water" from Dongjiang in the Mainland, some of us are also forced to drink "lead-laced water". But those who are responsible for these plumbing works have reaped huge profits, making big money off of the suffering of Hong Kong people.
A period of 25 years marks the passage of a generation. I think it is time for Hong Kong to make a new start on this issue. Dr SUN Yat-sen once said that studying history means to understand the past and enrich the present, so as to look into or build the future. It is time we took root in Hong Kong and built up our own strength. But we must first counter communization, or Hong Kong people will just be forced to drink "faecal water" and "lead-laced water".
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
14714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in 1989, I was a Form Five student, and the 1989 pro-democracy movement happened to coincide with the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. Although we had to do revisions for the examination, we still watched the news on the television every day. We also went to Happy Valley to attend the "Concert For Democracy in China" and participated in the great march. When the massacre happened on 4 June, watching all those bloody scenes on the television, we kept crying. I believe those who experienced or witnessed the massacre in 1989, and even Hong Kong people who just watched it on the television, will never forget it in their lives. If they do, it is only selective amnesia. They just choose to forget it themselves.
One of the significant meanings of the 4 June incident in 1989 to Hong Kong people was the awakening from political apathy to care about Hong Kong's political future, to the need to defend our existing values and to the insistence on a democratic system. Only then can we maintain our way of life in Hong Kong.
Back then, we deeply detested the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party of China (CPC) and opposed the use of military force by the CPC to deal with the students. The right and wrong was crystal clear. Hong Kong people readily put themselves in the shoes of the Beijing students and sided with them in denouncing the butcher regime and fighting for democracy, freedom and human rights.
Sharing the same fate, Hong Kong encountered a series of events which happened in an almost identical pattern 25 years later. For the first time ever, there was no mention of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" in the session of the National People's Congress (NPC), and such words were replaced by notions of national security and maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. The State Council constructed the White Paper on "one country, two systems" in the Basic Law without authorization, and the NPC even imposed further restrictions on the constitutional reform by promulgating the 31 August framework, eventually forcing the university students in Hong Kong to go on a hunger strike, boycott classes and engage in Occupy actions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14715
I have watched a news programme of 1989 vintage in which Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr Jasper TSANG were the guests interviewed. In the programme, they praised the student leaders for being courageous, capable and practical. They opposed the news blackout by the Chinese Government as it would result in widespread hearsay and rumours which could easily mislead the students into making wrong judgments. When discussing WU'ER Kaixi's announcement of resignation from his position as a student leader, Mr TAM Yiu-chung said, to this effect "Some students considered a withdrawal better for it would ensure the safety of all the students, but some others held that if they withdrew from Tiananmen Square, they would be unable to occupy the place again and would lose their stronghold.". Mr Jasper TSANG said at the time that WU'ER Kaixi thought a withdrawal and retreat would cause confusions, so it would be unwise to do so. The story sounds familiar. Only the historical background and the characters have changed. If we change WU'ER Kaixi to Alex CHOW, Lester SHUM or Joshua WONG today, will the same logic apply? Both cases can be justified. Should they insist on staying or withdraw? Should they act in a radical or moderate manner? Who are humans and who are demons?
Be it in Tiananmen Square 26 years ago or Hong Kong last year, the student movements had aroused a lot of controversies. The difference is that the 4 June massacre instantly suppressed the Beijing students' cries for reform, but Hong Kong people's fight for democracy has moved forward step by step from 1989 to 1997 and then to 28 September, with old theories abandoned and new theories proposed. Everyone is looking for a way out for Hong Kong's future. Moreover, we do not only look at whether there will be universal suffrage in 2017 but also further envisage whether our principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" can remain unchanged in 2047 after the passage of 50 years.
I guess we all remember that on the night of 2 October last year, the situation was very tense. The Vice-Chancellors of two universities came forward and talked to the protesters outside the Chief Executive's Office and on Lung Wo Road, as there were rumours about the Police planning to open fire to disperse the occupiers that night. Both Vice-Chancellors called on the students and the Police to stay calm, and appealed to the students to pay attention to their personal safety. At that time some elderly people near me said the 4 June incident might repeat itself in Hong Kong. If the Police really fired, they would rather shield the students from bullets with their own bodies. Actually, the 14716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 words "not forgetting the 4 June incident" serve as some sort of a reminder and introspection for us who have experienced and witnessed the 4 June massacre. However, this group of students aged 10 to 20 today might not have been born yet or might not know much about the world then. They have no memory of the 4 June incident. To them, the 4 June incident is history as stated in the books and shown in the news clips. They wish to learn about the 4 June incident.
On 4 June this year, a boy ― actually not a boy. He is in his twenties ― who would usually only go after pleasures and did not care about politics sent me a text on Facebook: "Brother 'Slow Beat', do you have a 'lazy pack' about the 4 June incident?" In asking for a "lazy pack", he meant that he did not know about that matter and asked whether I could explain to him briefly what exactly it was about. I was very busy at the time because I had to prepare for the work that night, but I still spared some time and sent him a YouTube video which was probably produced by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union. That video was entitled "What the 4 June incident was about". Although this youngster did not care about this matter and thought it had nothing to do with him in the past, that day, on 4 June, he took the initiative to ask for a "lazy pack" to fill himself in, with a view to learning more about the matter and sharing it with his friends. I thought I should help him even though it would take me a while. It is because despite our discussions on "not forgetting the 4 June incident", we will age and die someday, so the matter will really depend on these young people. As I have heard those specious arguments like the rise of a great nation and stable development overriding everything in the speeches of Mr Tony TSE and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan tonight, it will indeed be terrible if our "lazy packs" for the young people are filled with such contents.
Hence, although we have debated late into the night today, we still have the opportunity to discuss the subject of "not forgetting the 4 June incident" in the Legislative Council and remind everyone how to understand the 4 June incident. In particular, for the youngsters and students, I think we being witnesses of the 4 June incident must take up this responsibility. Otherwise, those people who spread rumours, specious arguments and fallacies to mislead people ― fortunately, there are only two tonight, but I wonder if there will be more later ― we must be wary of them.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14717
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai, you may now reply and you still have five minutes 17 seconds.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank the 21 Honourable colleagues who have spoken. The first one I would like to thank is Mr Ronny TONG, who has made his last speech. In fact, I identify with what Mr Ronny TONG felt earlier. I felt peace in mind while reading out my speech, and I also believe that history will not and cannot be erased, so the 4 June incident will somehow be vindicated. Even though 26 years have passed, it may still be vindicated in the future, say another 26 years later. We get to see how history unfolds before we can tell when it will be vindicated.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Tonight, many Honourable colleagues have referred particularly to the National Security Law and human rights lawyers, and this is precisely why we need to propose a motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" here every year. In fact, although the 4 June incident has remained the subject of the speeches in each of the past 17 years, there are still some differences. This year, a remarkable number of Honourable colleagues have talked about whether the National Security Law will affect Hong Kong, as well as the issue of human rights lawyers. In recent years, human rights lawyers have emerged in the Mainland ― I dare not use the word "rise" ― but in fact, has it touched a raw nerve of the leaders of the regime, such that they have to resort to the National Security Law, a law aimed to maintain stability, so to speak, in order to fix these human rights lawyers?
I would like to respond to a couple of points made in Mr Tony TSE's speech. In his speech, Mr Tony TSE mentioned the fight against corruption and depravity, then touched upon Occupy Central, and finally mentioned the problems of donations to political parties and the need for investigation. Given his righteous character and strongly worded remarks, why did he not mention the 14718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
UGL incident of LEUNG Chun-ying? The incident involves $50 million but not $500,000, why did he not say a word about it? Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan is the most honest of all, saying that he would continue to abstain, as in the past.
President, vindication of the 4 June incident is a matter of time, but in recent years, the pro-establishment camp may have been used to remaining silent and opposing the motion in a most blatant manner. However, I hope that those in the pro-establishment camp can look at what is happening in the Mainland. As I mentioned earlier, Members may buy a copy of Boxun for a look. I am not sure if this is true, but the report quoted XI Jinping as saying the issue of the 4 June incident would be dealt with before the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. I have no idea how it is going to be dealt with. But the article, though not having crossed the line, seems to have suggested approaches different from the past.
Both Prof Joseph LEE and Mr Frederick FUNG have mentioned the term "Greater China morons", which I admit I am in every sense one of them, so I will go on "not forgetting the 4 June incident". As for the candlelight vigil held at the Victoria Park in each of the past few years, I arrived on the scene very early. At around 5 pm, I hurried to the same location, namely the entrance to the Victoria Park near Tin Hau Station, to assist in the fund-raising effort of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. In recent years, quite a lot of Renminbi has been received, indicating that many compatriots from the Mainland have come to the Victoria Park for the 4 June memorial events.
Our motion today is actually a very humble one, and let me repeat it, "That this Council urges that: the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated.". We urge that the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated.
With these remarks, I look forward to Honourable colleagues' support for the motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr SIN Chung-kai be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14719
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert HO rose to claim a division
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.
Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr TANG Ka-piu voted against the motion.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
14720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, eight were in favour of the motion, 14 against it and seven abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
END OF SESSION
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the last meeting in this Session. I now adjourn the Council.
Adjourned accordingly at 11.29 pm.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14721
Annex III
14722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14723
14724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14725
14726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14727
14728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015 14729
NEGATIVED
NEGATIVED
NEGATIVED
14730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 July 2015
NEGATIVED
NEGATIVED
NEGATIVED