LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1619
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
The Council met at Eleven 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 TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
1620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 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 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 ─ 18 November 2015 1621
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
1622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
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.
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 EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1623
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
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
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
1624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 5) Order 2015 ...... 225/2015
Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (Legislative Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 ...... 226/2015
Other Papers
No. 26 ─ The Legislative Council Commission Annual Report 2014-2015
No. 27 ─ Report of the Director of Audit on the Accounts of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the year ended 31 March 2015
No. 28 ─ Report No. 65 of the Director of Audit on the results of value for money audits - October 2015
No. 29 ─ Accounts of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the year ended 31 March 2015
Report No. 4/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1625
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.
Lands Reserved for Building Small Houses
1. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, under the small house policy, a New Territories indigenous male villager over 18 years old is entitled to one concessionary grant during his lifetime to build one small house. The Government indicated in October 2012 that, of the 1 300 hectares of idle land, 932 hectares had been zoned for "Village Type Development", and the planned use of such type of sites was mainly for the development of small houses by indigenous villagers. On the other hand, the general public have keen demand for residential housing (including public and private housing), but scarcity of land is a major factor restraining housing supply. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the estimated current number of New Territories indigenous villagers eligible for applying for building small houses, and the area of government lands reserved for building small houses;
(2) whether it has drawn up any plan to cope with the situation where there are not enough government lands for building small houses; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether it has plans to formulate policies and measures to reduce the area and proportion of lands planned for building small houses, so as to release more land for developing public and private housing; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, President and Honourable Members.
President, since this question is rather complicated, my main reply will thus be about one minute longer than usual.
1626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
President, the Small House Policy has been implemented since 1972. Under the Small House Policy, a male indigenous villager aged 18 years old or above who is descended through the male line from a resident in 1898 of a recognized village in the New Territories may apply to the authority once during his lifetime for permission to build for himself a small house on a suitable site within his own village. There are in total 642 recognized villages approved in the territory.
In general, land suitable for building small houses is confined to areas within Village Environs (VE). As a general rule, VE refers to a 300-feet radius from the edge of the last village type house built before the introduction of the Small House Policy on 1 December 1972. Applications for building small houses within this area by eligible indigenous villagers may be considered.
Separately, the "Village Type Development" zone ("V" zone) is a land use zoning under the statutory plans drawn up in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131). Generally speaking, the planning intention of the "V" zone, which covers recognized villages, is to designate the boundaries of both existing recognized villages and areas of land considered suitable for village expansion. The land within this zone is primarily intended for development of small houses by indigenous villagers, which usually overlaps with the VE.
Consideration may also be given to an application if the proposed small house site lies outside a VE but is located within a "V" zone on the relevant statutory plan, provided that the "V" zone concerned is surrounded by or overlaps with the VE. As regards sites within a VE but outside a "V" zone, depending on the requirements of the land use zone on which the proposed small house site lies, applications for planning permission may be submitted to the Town Planning Board.
Regarding the area of unleased or unallocated Government land within the "V" zones, the Government has clarified in its reply to a Legislative Council question on 17 October 2012 that the relevant figures were obtained simply by subtracting the leased or allocated areas under respective land use zonings from the total areas covered by such zones on the statutory plans. Of such areas, there are around 1 200 hectares of unleased or unallocated Government land within the "V" zones, scattered across the territory and covering over 500 recognized villages. The area also includes slopes, passageways, spaces between village houses and other fragmented sites generally not suitable for development, and so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1627 on. To facilitate understanding by the public, we have, since October 2012, uploaded the map of the then unleased or unallocated government land within the "V" zones to the website of the Development Bureau.
My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Lands Department is unable to compile statistics on or estimate the existing number of indigenous villagers in recognized villages, who are 18 years old or above and are eligible but have not applied for a small house grant. It is because the number changes with the birth, growth and passing away of indigenous villagers. Besides, whether or not an indigenous villager would apply for a small house grant is dependent on his own circumstances and wishes, and not all eligible indigenous villagers aged 18 years or above will submit an application.
In designating the "V" zones, the Planning Department will consider a series of planning factors including the VE of existing villages and recognized villages, the local topography, the existing settlement pattern, site characteristics and the surrounding environment, environmental constraints, as well as the estimate of demand for small houses in the coming 10 years, and so on. Areas of difficult terrain, dense vegetation, burial grounds, stream courses and ecologically sensitive areas are not included in the "V" zones where possible.
As aforementioned, the area of land zoned "V" is not equivalent to the land area available for small house development. For example, there are still a number of land areas with irregular shapes, or are passageways or spaces between existing small houses, the width or area of which is not large enough for building small houses. Furthermore, small house applications may be made at sites outside a "V" zone. Therefore, we are unable to provide information about the area of Government land reserved for building small houses.
(2) At present, the implementation of the Small House Policy is subject to the availability of land for building small houses, but does not aim at providing adequate land for applications by the estimated number of eligible indigenous villagers. As a matter of fact, the demand for 1628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
small houses may change with factors such as birth and growth of indigenous villagers. As aforementioned, whether or not an indigenous villager would apply for a small house grant is dependent on his own circumstances and wishes, and not all eligible indigenous villagers aged 18 years or above will submit an application. It is thus impossible for the Government to accurately estimate the land requirement for small house development. Given the prevailing policy, the Government needs to reserve a certain amount of land for applications for building small houses.
The Government recognizes the need to review the Small House Policy in the context of prevailing land use planning as well as optimal utilization of land resources. Such review will inevitably involve complicated issues in various aspects such as legal, environment, land use planning and demand on land, all of which require careful examination. The Government has not come to a stance yet on any suggestions with regard to the Small House Policy. We will keep an open and vigilant mind in examining every suggestion carefully, while maintaining dialogue with people from different walks of life.
(3) As aforementioned, the planning intention of the "V" zone is mainly to reflect existing villages and for small house development by indigenous villagers within recognized villages. The purpose of setting up the "V" zone is also to concentrate village type developments therein for a more orderly development. However, "V" zones are scattered across the territory and generally not suitable for large-scale development because they are too dispersed and usually constrained by the existing infrastructural and other ancillary facilities.
To cater for the needs arising from Hong Kong society's ongoing development, the Government has been proactive in implementing a series of new development areas and new town extension projects. Among these projects, quite a number are located in the rural New Territories in which existing villages, brownfield sites, squatter areas, agricultural land and land of other uses are scattered. Generally speaking, it is not feasible for the existing infrastructural and community facilities in these areas to cope with the demand arising from the future population growth or the further development LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1629
of the new towns. The Government's strategy for developing such areas is to conduct comprehensive planning with a view to examining the overall development constraints of the areas and the overall needs of society, and addressing the potential traffic, environmental and other impacts caused by the proposed developments. This will ensure sufficient infrastructural and community facilities for the future development, and at the same time improve land use and development patterns for the areas concerned. Such strategy for releasing suitable land for new development areas/new town extension is more effective than developing individual parcels of rural land, and can also better benefit the overall areas and society.
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, the land issue that Hong Kong is now facing is a very serious one, and the incumbent Government and Chief Executive have claimed many times that many problems are attributable to the land issue, and hence the land issue has to be resolved. However, on such an important land policy, the Government says that it is impossible for it to estimate the land requirement and it has not come to a stance yet. President, my supplementary question is: Why has the Government not come to a stance yet on such an important land policy, and what has the Government been doing?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Dennis KWOK for his supplementary question. President, as I have mentioned in the main reply, this subject is not like a piece of blank paper but has its own historical background. Besides, complicated issues in various aspects such as legal, environment, land use planning and demand on land are also involved. As a matter of fact, the Government has to examine and study all these issues carefully and communicate with different stakeholders in order to reach a consensus. Due to the complexity of the issue, it is indeed not easy to come up with, in the short to medium term, a proposal that is satisfactory to all parties. As referred to in the main reply, we are now handling these applications from the angle of land supply control, and as such, reviewing the Small House Policy is not an appropriate option if we are to quickly find land for building small houses in the short, medium and even long term.
1630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, after reading and listening to the Secretary's reply, I find that this Policy is basically a bomb which may explode anytime. Given that the Government has no idea as to the number of male indigenous villagers who may submit applications or whether there are enough land sites for allocation, the time bomb will explode anytime.
I would like to ask the Secretary through the President whether he knows that during the Chief Executive Election in 2007, the Heung Yee Kuk raised an issue about the possibility of building some multi-storey buildings to ensure that the male indigenous villagers could be allocated with housing units of a certain size, say, 2 000 sq ft or 1 800 sq ft, and then draw a line at that point and use this approach as a way out for the Small House Policy. I would like to ask the Secretary, from 2007 till now, has the Government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) ever considered following this direction in seeking to resolve the issue involving small houses and the concessionary rights of male indigenous villagers?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Alan LEONG for his question. President, just now Mr Alan LEONG referred to the question of bomb. As I have mentioned in the main reply, our policy objective is not to assess the number of indigenous villagers with small house concessionary rights and then find enough land sites to satisfy all the aspirations. Our objective is that while reviewing the situation, we will handle this issue by imposing limits on the supply of land sites. Hence, I believe the existing land supply control policy should be able to handle the bomb explosion that worries Mr LEONG.
Earlier on, Mr LEONG also mentioned that members of society, including the Heung Yee Kuk, had suggested the possibility of building some multi-storey buildings. This suggestion involves a number of factors that we need to take into consideration. During our meetings with Heung Yee Kuk in the recent past, our discussions would touch upon this aspect from time to time. First of all, what is meant by "multi-storey"? Should the original small house of three storeys be turned into a multi-storey building of six storeys, nine storeys, 12 storeys or even a few dozen storeys? We do not have any consensus in this regard.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1631
Second, if this suggestion is put into practice, should we give all the floor areas of the building to the male indigenous villagers, or should we allocate part of the floor areas to the overall society so that other members of the public can also use them? We do not have any consensus in this regard either.
Third, Mr Alan LEONG just mentioned that if this suggestion was put into practice, could a line be drawn there? As we understand it, there is no consensus in this regard among villagers. Just like what I have said earlier, legal questions will be involved in any review because the Basic Law has provided for matters in relation to this issue. Therefore, if we do not have any consensus, lawsuits will be inevitable. Besides, given the substantial interests involved, it is estimated that the case will have to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal, and the problem will not be easily resolved in five, seven or 10 years' time. Hence, for the time being, in regard to increasing land supply in the short or medium term, we will give priority to other issues.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, given that the small house concessionary rights of indigenous male villagers are protected under the Basic Law, to avoid any disputes, we should not place them in opposition to the housing needs of the general public, or even create some excuses to deprive the indigenous villagers of their rights. After all, the land available for resolving the small house issue is limited, and it presently takes a long time for each application to get approved. Hence, we earnestly hope that the Government can come up with some policies to help resolve the issue.
Of course, we are not satisfied with the reply given earlier by the Secretary, as it gives us the impression that the Administration is procrastinating in dealing with this issue due to its fear of legal challenges. I wish to ask the Secretary if he would consider rolling out a series of consultation exercises to discuss this issue in detail with the indigenous villagers or the Heung Yee Kuk, with a view to coming up with some solutions as far as possible. We have to resolve this problem anyway and this cannot be put off any longer.
1632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN Kam-lam for his supplementary question. President, we definitely are not sidestepping this issue for fear of legal challenges. This is by no means our approach to handling matters. If we should do it, we will do it. As I said earlier …
(A person in the public gallery made some noises)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the person in the public gallery please keep quiet.
(The person in the public gallery continued to make some noises)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Keep quiet immediately.
(The person in the public gallery still made some noises)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Security Assistants, please escort the person making noises out of the public gallery immediately.
(The Security Assistants escorted the person out of the public gallery)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please continue with your reply.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as I have said earlier, we are by no means sidestepping the issue for fear of the legal matters involved and the very long time required to address the legal matters. We definitely will not take this approach. We will certainly deal with the matters that require our actions. I would like to point out that this question involves complicated issues in various aspects such as legal, environment, and so on, and we will need quite some time to deal with it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1633
In regard to consultation with the residents, we welcome discussions with the residents. However, as we understand it, the views from the indigenous villagers and the community are rather divergent. We can say that we cannot find any mainstream opinion that is very conspicuous and acceptable to the entire society. Hence, we will take a target-oriented approach at this juncture. In the short and medium term, we will earnestly try to find more land sites to address our pressing need for land supply. For the various issues like the aforementioned consultation with the residents, I will only place them in the lower part of the work priority list.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, under the Small House Policy, each male villager is entitled to one concessionary grant to build one small house of three storeys on a piece of land of 700 sq ft. In my view, no matter how hard you try to find land, the problem just cannot be resolved, right? Even though the Policy itself is an open-ended policy, meaning that there is no ending date, the protection of the rights and interests of indigenous villagers under the Basic Law will come to an end in 2047. Under the Small House Policy, the Administration requires that an application can only be submitted by an indigenous male villager over 18 years old. Mrs Carrie LAM, Chief Secretary for Administration thus stated earlier that the Policy would no longer be implemented after 2029. While this statement of her has greatly displeased a lot of people in the New Territories and caused her to be condemned, the element of time is indeed involved in the small house concessionary rights of indigenous villagers.
For the sake of indigenous villagers, the Secretary should indeed deal with the issue as soon as possible. He should have discussions with the Heung Yee Kuk and the Central Government in advance on ways to resolve the issue. I cannot see how Hong Kong can have sufficient land to satisfy the aspirations of the so many indigenous villagers today. As I understand, there are already 10 000 applications pending to be processed. Even the Government dares not estimate the actual number of indigenous villagers, including those living overseas, who enjoy the small house concessionary rights.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question. As I have said in the main reply, our policy objective is not looking for sufficient land to satisfy all the aspirations of the people who enjoy the small house concessionary rights under the Small House Policy. In this regard, we will start with controlling the land supply. 1634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Hence, if they have their own land sites within the designated zone, their applications will of course have a better chance to get approved. Nevertheless, if they do not have their own land sites but have to apply for land sites from the Government, as I have mentioned earlier on, the applicants will have a chance if there is land within the designated zone. If there is no land, there are no other alternatives. It is from this angle that we seek to control the demand concerned.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, according to part (2) of the Secretary's main reply, "the Government recognizes the need to review the Small House Policy". Concerning the review of the Policy, I would like to ask whether the Government has laid down any timetable or has done any preparatory work to implement the relevant review.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, we have not worked out a specific timetable in this regard. As I have pointed out in my replies to the supplementary questions raised by a few Members earlier on, this question involves complicated issues in various aspects such as legal, environment, land use planning, and so on. Apart from conducting studies, we also need to communicate with different stakeholders in the interim, with a view to getting a mainstream opinion, if not reaching a consensus. All these various factors and needs cannot be handled comprehensively by the Government alone. Hence, concerning the work at the present moment, we will keep an open mind in reviewing the Policy, but since the Development Bureau is subject to the constraint of limited resources and has to address the urgent demand for land in the short and medium term, I do not take the Policy as an issue that requires imminent attention, and neither have I laid down a timetable in this regard.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, with the small house concessionary right, each person can build a small house with a maximum of three storeys on a piece of land of 700 sq ft. Just now, some other Members have also asked whether high-rise development was possible. Of course, the Secretary has referred to many problems, such as a consensus cannot be reached, and so on. However, from the angle and stance of the Heung Yee Kuk or the indigenous villagers, so long as there is no change in the interests that they can enjoy, they do not mind whether it is a high-rise development. The Government can even build a housing estate and then allocate a housing unit to each of them. They will not consider this a big deal …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1635
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): … Why will it be so difficult for the Secretary to reach a consensus with the Heung Yee Kuk or the indigenous villagers?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan for his supplementary question. The supplementary question of Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan is the same as the first part of the supplementary question raised by Mrs Regina IP, as both are about the interests of indigenous villagers in the New Territories. Nevertheless, President, I have to point out that from the stance of the Government, apart from taking care of the interests of indigenous villagers in the New Territories, we also need to take into account the overall interests of society and the overall demand for land from society. Therefore, in this regard, I can only seek to strike a balance. If we have to allocate more land sites for the development of small houses, will the community as a whole be benefited in the process? We should balance the different needs. Before we can reach a mainstream opinion and an option acceptable to all parties, I will handle the issue with the approach of controlling land supply and constraining the scale of development.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will you respond to the suggestion of high-rise development raised by Mr CHUNG?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Concerning the question of high-rise development, as I have said earlier, what is meant by high-rise development in the first place? Should it be six storeys, nine storeys, 12 storeys or a few dozen storeys? There is no consensus in this aspect. Second, if all the housing units of such high-rise development are used to satisfy the needs of indigenous villages, what about the overall interests of society? I need to consider this aspect. Unless these developments can cater for the needs of villagers and the entire society, I believe that it will be difficult to obtain agreement from different stakeholders and various parties of society. Therefore, in this regard, while our communication can go on, we do not have any intention to take on the said suggestion for the time being.
1636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I have a follow-up question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, this Council has already spent 24 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Second Question.
Impacts of the Mainland's Two-child Policy on Hong Kong
2. MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China held last month put forward the full implementation of the policy allowing one couple to have two children (two-child policy), in order to tackle the problem of ageing population on the Mainland. There are comments that the two-child policy, upon implementation, may impact on Hong Kong. For instance, people may once again flock to shops to snap up baby food and products such as powdered formula and diapers, and the demand for healthcare services, education, housing, etc. in Hong Kong may also be affected. Some university scholars have also pointed out that the two-child policy may give Mainlanders more incentive to come to Hong Kong to give birth. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(1) it has assessed if the implementation of the two-child policy will trigger a new wave of mainland pregnant women coming to Hong Kong to give birth; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the authorities' corresponding measures;
(2) it has assessed the specific impacts of the two-child policy, upon implementation, on the supply of and demand for powdered formula and other products for infants and young children, as well as on the demand for public and private healthcare services, education, housing, etc. in Hong Kong; if it has assessed, of the details; whether the authorities will discuss with the mainland authorities the ways to minimize the impacts of the policy on Hong Kong; and
(3) it will conduct a study to identify the benefits to and business opportunities for Hong Kong which will be brought about by the implementation of the two-child policy, such as whether it will give a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1637
boost to the development of the education and medical services industries, promote the growth in the retail industry and slow down the pace of population ageing; whether the authorities will join hands with the business sector to consider formulating relevant policies and measures promptly, so as to take advantage of such opportunities?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Government has been monitoring the development of various policies of the Central People's Government and assessing the impacts of relevant policies on Hong Kong. As regards the Mainland's announcement of the full implementation of the policy allowing one couple to have two children (two-child policy), the Government will closely keep in view the possible impacts of such policy on Hong Kong. Mr CHUNG's question straddles various bureaux and departments, the overall response of the Government is as follows:
(1) To ensure that local pregnant women are given priority for quality obstetric service, the Government has implemented a series of measures to limit the use of obstetric services by non-local pregnant women to a level that can be handled by the healthcare system in Hong Kong. Since the implementation of the "zero quota policy" on 1 January 2013, all public hospitals have not accepted any delivery bookings by non-local pregnant women, and private hospitals have also unanimously agreed to stop accepting delivery bookings from non-local pregnant women (including Mainland pregnant women) whose husbands are not Hong Kong residents since 2013.
For Mainland pregnant women, whose husbands are Hong Kong permanent residents or Hong Kong residents who came to Hong Kong on the Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (commonly known as "One-way Permit"), hope to give birth in Hong Kong, there is a consensus in the community that the Government should provide assistance to this group of expectant mothers as far as possible. In this connection, the Government has established a special arrangement with private hospitals to allow this specific group of women to make delivery bookings at local private hospitals on the production of the required supporting documents. Under the 1638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
special arrangements, private hospitals may issue a Confirmation Certificate on Delivery Booking based on the documents submitted by the couples concerned and the availability of obstetric services. The identity and martial relations between couples will be subject to stringent verification by the Government in order to forestall anyone posing as spouses of Hong Kong residents for delivery in Hong Kong. As for immigration and other complementary measures, the Immigration Department, the Office of the Licensing Authority of the Home Affairs Department and other law-enforcement agencies will step up interception and enforcement actions against Mainland pregnant women whose husbands are not Hong Kong residents. The measures include strengthening immigration examination of all Mainland pregnant women, combating illicit agency activities assisting Mainland pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong, and stepping up inspection and enforcement against suspected unlicensed guesthouses. These measures aim to deter Mainland pregnant women without prior delivery bookings from entering Hong Kong and gatecrashing the Accident and Emergency Departments (A&EDs), or entering Hong Kong early in order to evade immigration examination, and going into hiding and waiting to gatecrash the A&EDs.
Since the implementation of "zero quota policy" in January 2013, the total number of Mainland women giving births in Hong Kong has significantly declined from the highest of 43 982 babies in 2011 to 6 024 babies in 2014, of which the number of live births born to Mainland women whose husbands are not Hong Kong permanent residents (including Mainland people with less than seven years' residence in Hong Kong or non-Hong Kong residents) dropped from 35 736 in 2011 to 823 in 2014.
Once the two-child policy is in effect in the Mainland China, Mainland residents can give birth to two babies. We therefore believe that the incentives for Mainland pregnant women to give birth in Hong Kong will be reduced. We also noticed from local news commentary that some Mainland residents come to Hong Kong to give birth to their second child due to the restriction of the one-child policy. With the implementation of the two-child policy, Mainland citizens can give birth to one more child in their home LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1639
country, which would reduce their incentives to labour in Hong Kong. Couple with the fact that the "zero quota policy" has successfully prevented Mainland pregnant women whose husbands are not Hong Kong residents to come to give birth in Hong Kong, we believe that the two-child policy of the Mainland will not trigger a new wave of Mainland pregnant women coming to Hong Kong to give birth. The Government will continue to closely monitor the utilization of local obstetric services by non-local pregnant women, and will take actions to tackle the situation as appropriate.
(2) On the supply of powdered formula in Hong Kong, the Government has established a regular mechanism to monitor the demand and supply of local powdered formula. In face of the market situation, the Government will also continuously review and improve the supply chain with the industry and the relevant stakeholders to ensure efficient operation.
Hong Kong is a free, open and market-oriented economy. In general, the demand and supply of various commodities, including baby products, will be adjusted automatically to achieve an equilibrium.
As regards public healthcare, as our public healthcare services are heavily subsidized by the Government, it is necessary to ensure that our public healthcare services can meet public demand and at the same time can sustain in the long term within the limited financial resources. Therefore, we need to draw up eligibility criteria for receiving the heavily subsidized public healthcare services and accord priority to taking care of the needs of Hong Kong residents. Besides, the ageing population has further posed tremendous pressure to the demand of local healthcare services. Therefore, non-Hong Kong residents may only seek non-emergency public healthcare services when there is spare service capacity upon the payment of a fee at the rates of charges applicable to non-eligible persons.
As mentioned above, the "zero quota policy" can ensure that local pregnant women are given priority to local obstetric services. According to the estimates of the Hospital Authority (HA), the 1640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
estimated number of delivery is 41 720 in 2015, representing an increase of 5.4% over the number in 2014 (39 575); and the occupancy rate of the beds in the neonatal intensive care units in the HA is estimated to exceed 100%. Given the continuous high demand from local pregnant women for obstetric services and neonatal intensive care unit services in public hospitals, there remains no spare capacity in the public hospitals to provide obstetric services to non-local pregnant women.
The Government will, on the one hand, continue its investment and commitment to the public healthcare sector so that it will remain strong and robust and continue to perform its role as the cornerstone of Hong Kong's healthcare system. On the other hand, we will promote public-private partnership to strike a balance between public and private healthcare services.
On education, children born to Mainland couples in the Mainland are not Hong Kong permanent residents. Under the existing policy, Chinese residents of the Mainland generally will not be issued with a visa/entry permit to enter Hong Kong for study at kindergartens, primary and secondary levels. We thus do not see any direct impact of this new two-child policy on planning for provision of public sector school places or supply of private kindergarten places in Hong Kong.
On housing, according to the Long Term Housing Strategy promulgated in December 2014, the Government will conduct annual updating of the long term housing demand projection to take into account changes over time, and make timely adjustments on the rolling 10-year housing supply target where necessary. Any possible impact of the two-child policy on future housing demand will be reflected in future updates of the housing demand projection.
(3) Hong Kong thrives as a market economy. Developments of various industries, as well as the performance of retail business, are subject to market forces. The impact on different industries and retail sector in Hong Kong from the two-child policy will mainly depend on the magnitude of the increase in the Mainland's fertility rate, the economic development of the Mainland and the corresponding changes in the consumer patterns on the Mainland, which are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1641
difficult to predict at this stage. We will keep an eye on the potential impact on Hong Kong's economic activities. On the medical front, as mentioned above, the Government's policy is to ensure that the public and private healthcare systems can cope with emerging service needs.
Besides, attracting talent from outside helps tackle the challenge of an ageing population. Our strategy is to round up talent with skills and expertise that are required but not readily available in the local market to work and settle in Hong Kong. There are currently a number of talent admission schemes targeting different talent groups, including the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals for those from the Mainland. Upon a review of the existing schemes, the Government introduced refinements to these schemes in May this year to attract and retain talent more effectively. For the time being, we do not have plan to review our talent admission arrangements in light of the two-child policy.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the two-child policy may not necessarily impose negative impact on Hong Kong, as it may probably bring about a lot of business opportunities and many other chances. In this connection, will the Government commission research bodies such as the Economic Development Commission, the Commission on Strategic Development, and so on, to conduct studies expeditiously in this respect, so as to explore ways to seize such business opportunities? Besides, with regard to the proposal put forward last year for the construction of a border shopping centre in Hong Kong, could the Secretary inform us of the current progress of the project?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I have mentioned just now, the social development of Hong Kong as well as the performance of various industries and retail businesses are market-led. Hence, if the two-child policy should have any impact on the overall demographic structure and other aspects of the Mainland and, in turn, affect Hong Kong indirectly, we would conduct an overall assessment in this regard. I have already pointed out in the main reply that if the two-child policy should have any on Hong Kong, be it positive or negative, would be reflected in our overall assessment.
1642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, with the implementation of the two-child policy, I believe the Mainland will definitely see an increase in the number of newborn babies and an upsurge of demand for powdered formula. The highly controversial "powdered formula restriction order" introduced by the Government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) in 2013 has intensified the discord between Mainlanders and Hong Kong people. In fact, as we are aware, many senior officials on the Mainland are also displeased with this "powdered formula restriction order".
Here comes my supplementary question: It is the Government's responsibility to deal with the nuisance caused by parallel trading activities to the daily lives of Hong Kong residents and to ensure an adequate supply of powdered formula in the market. Time flies and two years have passed in the blink of an eye, a proactive government should have achieved some results in its work, and the problems concerning parallel trading activities and the supply of powdered formula should have been resolved by now. Hence, I would like to ask the Secretary if consideration would be given to abolishing the "powdered formula restriction order" to tie in with the two-child policy, which is a national policy.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, efforts have all along been made by the Government to clearly explain to the local community and Mainland people the policy implemented to regulate the export of powdered formula from Hong Kong, and I am sure everyone can clearly remember the background to the restriction order. The upsurge of demand for powdered formula at that time has led to frantic parallel trading activities and a large quantity of powdered formula in the local market was taken up by parallel traders and carried out of Hong Kong. Under such circumstances, and as stated by Dr LAM Tai-fai, we have a responsibility to tackle the problem. Indeed, we have taken up the responsibility jointly with the industry to enhance the supply of powdered formula in Hong Kong as well as the operation of its supply chain, so as to safeguard the local market from the problem of undersupply.
Nevertheless, as Members may recall, we could hard achieve any tangible results despite the efforts we had then been making. There were many factors behind the scene. However, one thing for sure is that the structure of the retail market in Hong Kong is indeed very unique, a large number of retail outlets for powdered formula are small-scale pharmacy stores; as such, the stock replenishment mechanism cannot be perfected despite the efforts made by suppliers. Presently, upon the implementation of the export restriction on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1643 powdered formula, the supply in the local market has become more stable and most Hong Kong parents can purchase adequate quantities of powdered formula for their infants and young children; however, we have noticed from some surveys that there is still a rather obvious supply shortage of certain brands of powdered formula in certain districts. Hence, our assessment at this stage is that if we should abolish or introduce amendments to the export restriction on powdered formula, the past problem might emerge again. As such, we do not have any time frame for revoking or changing the policy at the moment.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, we welcome the abolition of the one-child policy and the implementation of the two-child policy by the Mainland authorities because the one-child policy has given rise to the problems of gender imbalance and the killing of baby girls on the Mainland over the past many years. I am now going to raise my supplementary question on part (1) of the Secretary's main reply, which mentions about the policy to stop accepting delivery bookings from non-local pregnant women whose husbands are not Hong Kong residents. The policy has our support; nevertheless, I would like to ask the Secretary to give us the reasons for not allowing Mainland pregnant women who are non-local persons themselves but whose husbands are Hong Kong permanent residents to give birth in public hospitals in Hong Kong. There are a large number of cross-boundary marriages and families in Hong Kong, involving many grass-roots people. So, what are the reasons for the public hospitals to turn away babies whose fathers are Hong Kong residents? Does the policy involve any form of discrimination?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, at present, public hospitals do not accept delivery bookings by non-local pregnant women whose husbands are Hong Kong permanent residents for two major reasons. First, such pregnant women are not eligible for receiving the heavily subsidized public healthcare services according to Hong Kong's public healthcare policy. Second, due consideration must be given to the pressure on and capacity of public hospitals' obstetric services and pediatric services, and particularly their neonatal intensive care unit services. Judging from the current situation, there is no spare capacity in public hospitals for us to handle delivery bookings by this group of expectant mothers. Thus, special arrangements have been made for these Mainland pregnant women to give birth in private hospitals in Hong Kong through the established procedures.
1644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): The question I raised earlier is: Does it involve any form of discrimination? Many of them are from grass-roots families and cannot afford the fees of giving birth in private hospitals, what should they do then?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, you have already stated your follow-up question. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I have already given an explanation with regard to two major considerations, and I am not going to repeat myself here. As for the last part of Dr WONG's supplementary question, I can answer directly that it does not involve any form of discrimination.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, if members of the public are asked to name some good policies launched over the past three years or so since LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, "powdered formula restriction order" would definitely be one of them. Secretary, I understand that you were under pressure from various sides when the "powdered formula restriction order" was introduced; and with the recent implementation of the two-child policy by the Mainland authorities, it is only common sense that the demand for powdered formula from Mainland people would definitely be soaring.
Currently, while the business sector is continuously pressing the Government for a review of the "powdered formula restriction order", those who want to please the rich and powerful on the Mainland are also urging the authorities to abolish the "powdered formula restriction order". I am very pleased to hear the Secretary indicate just now that there is no time frame in this regard for the time being. Could the Secretary give a promise to Hong Kong parents and their infants once again that he will not yield to pressure and abandon the "powdered formula restriction order" lightly? Could the Secretary make an undertaking that a decision will not be made lightly to abolish the "powdered formula restriction order" even though there is an excessive demand among Mainlanders for powdered formula from Hong Kong, thus leading to panic buying of powdered formula or even the snapping up of powdered formula by Mainland tourists in different places all over the world?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1645
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, my thanks to Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. As a matter of fact, I have stated repeatedly the circumstances under which consideration will be given to amending or even abolishing the export restriction currently imposed on powdered formula. The most important principle is that we must be fully confident that after the policy has been revised … or perhaps I should put it this way: the primary principle is to ensure that Hong Kong parents can purchase adequate quantities of powdered formula for their infants and young children. Hence, when consideration is given to revising the policy, we should have full confidence that even the existing policy has been revised, assurance can still be given for Hong Kong parents to purchase adequate quantities of powdered formula for their infants and young children. Consideration will not be rashly given to revising or abolishing the policy if we are not fully confident about that.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I welcome the relaxation of the one-child policy by the Mainland authorities, which is an important decision to keep pace with times and to address the problems associated with the birth-rate pattern and an ageing population. In contrast, although neither one-child policy nor two-child policy is implemented in Hong Kong, the local fertility rate has all along been on the low side. According to the relevant statistics, the local fertility rate in 2012 was only 1.24. As we may recall, the former Chief Executive has indicated that measures should be adopted to encourage childbirth. That being the case, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary if consideration has been given by the Government to introducing any measures or policies to encourage childbirth in Hong Kong, so as to boost the local fertility rate and tackle the problem of an ageing population. I hope the Secretary could give a reply in this regard.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, The question you have raised is not related to the main question.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is related to the main question because Hong Kong is part of China and the two-child policy, though implemented on the Mainland, undoubtedly has something to do with the ageing population problem of Hong Kong. Therefore, I would like to ask the SAR Government what measure and policies are in place to address the problem?
1646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, according to the Basic Law, the childbirth policy of Hong Kong is not governed by Mainland policies. Let me see if the Secretary has any response to make.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I agree with your view. Nevertheless, perhaps let me provide for Mr WONG's reference some figures which are already set out in the main reply. As I have pointed out earlier, according to the estimates of the HA, the estimated number of delivery in Hong Kong in 2015 is 41 720, representing an increase of about 5.4% over the actual number of delivery in 2014 (that is, 39 575). Is a rising trend in the fertility rate in Hong Kong indicated here? Surely, it still remains to be seen.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 22 minutes on this question. Third question.
Overseas Tourism Promotion
3. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong dropped significantly from 4.55 million in February to 3.84 million in July this year. For September, the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong registered a year-on-year decrease of 4.6%, whereas the number of non-mainland visitors saw a drop of 1.6%. The authorities have pointed out that the spending pattern of visitors to Hong Kong has changed. Their consumer sentiment is weaker than that in the past. As a result, the business receipts of the retail industry have shown a downward trend. Some members of the tourism and retail industries have relayed to me that the Government should be more proactive in promoting Hong Kong so as to attract more visitors to Hong Kong and boost the consumer market. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Government granted at the end of September this year a provision of $10 million to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) for launching a one-off matching fund for overseas tourism promotion under which tourist attractions could apply for funding to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1647
conduct overseas promotion work in collaboration with sectors such as tourism, retail, hotels, etc. in the coming months till March next year, and HKTB has approved the applications from 10 tourist attractions involving 69 recommended promotion projects, whether the Government knows the relevant details, and how HKTB will assess the effectiveness of the promotion work supported by the matching fund, and whether HKTB will advise successful applicants on ways to optimize the use of funding under the scheme so as to enhance the quality and effectiveness of their promotion projects; if HKTB will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(2) given that Hong Kong lacks new tourist attractions while faces acute competition from neighbouring Asian countries such as Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, which have broadcast in recent years enchanting promotional video footages in overseas markets to attract tourists, whether the Government will liaise with HKTB about the production of more appealing promotional video footages on Hong Kong to be broadcast on overseas media so as to enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong's tourism industry; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, in the past decade, the number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong almost tripled from 21.8 million in 2004 to 60.8 million in 2014. In recent months, external factors such as the slowdown of the global and Mainland economies, volatile financial market, substantial depreciation of currencies of other popular destinations in the region (for example, Japan and Korea) against the Hong Kong dollar and relaxation of visa policies to Mainland visitors by other countries, have adversely affected the business environment of our tourism industry. After years of rapid growth, Hong Kong's tourism industry has entered into a consolidation period. In light of the above, further to the provision of an additional funding of $80 million to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) earlier, the Government set up a one-off $10 million matching fund scheme in late September 2015. The fund aims to encourage local tourist attractions to strengthen their promotion activities and launch attractive tour products and special offers through collaboration with the tourism trade. We hope that the 1648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 scheme can help attract more overnight and high value-added visitors to Hong Kong in the coming months and help enhance Hong Kong's profile as a dynamic tourist destination, thereby contributing to the overall Hong Kong economy.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
My reply to the two parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Government announced in late-September the setting up of a one-off $10 million "Matching Fund for Overseas Tourism Promotion by Tourist Attractions" (MFTA) to provide local attractions with dollar-for-dollar subsidies to enhance their overseas promotions. The HKTB has been tasked to process the applications and allocate the funding.
The application period was from 30 September to 14 October. The HKTB received applications from 12 local attractions, covering 79 promotion programmes. An assessment committee, comprising representatives from the tourism and related sectors, was formed to examine the proposals. The committee approved the applications of 10 local attractions, involving 69 proposed promotion items after critical examination. The approved promotion programmes cover 12 visitor source markets including the Mainland, short-haul and long-haul markets. The total amount approved is close to $10 million. Please refer to the annex for the amount of funds approved for each attraction.
All applications for the MFTA were assessed by the assessment committee with members who are very experienced in the tourism and related fields. In assessing the applications, the committee took into account a set of criteria including the effectiveness of the promotion proposals in enhancing the exposure for the tourist attractions and showcasing Hong Kong's diverse offerings; the soundness of the proposals in reaching out to consumers in the designated markets and raising their interests to visit Hong Kong; and the specific publicity contents of the programmes, and so on. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1649
These criteria aim to ensure the effectiveness of the marketing and publicity outcome of the approved promotions.
These 69 approved promotions vary in types and contents and aim at attracting overnight visitors to Hong Kong in particular. Apart from discounts on admission tickets and shopping privileges, there are joint promotions between attractions and promotions run in partnership with other trade partners, including local and overseas travel agents, online travel agents, airlines, hotels, and retail and dining merchants.
The HKTB will, based on the specific needs of the attractions, provide them with suitable support and advice for their promotions, including assistance from the relevant HKTB worldwide offices, with a view to achieving synergy in publicity to enhance the effectiveness of the promotions. For assessment on effectiveness, given that MFTA is a matching fund scheme, the attractions are required to invest at least the same amount of funds in their approved promotions. As such, we trust that the attractions also attach great importance to the outcomes and effectiveness of the promotions. To ensure the funding is well spent, the attractions are required to submit relevant documentary proofs, including invoices/receipts, samples of publicity items and media coverage, and so on, for HKTB's vetting. While it is difficult to quantify the results of the MFTA, we expect that the various offers and products to be launched by the various attractions under the MFTA, along with the overseas promotion work of the HKTB, would bring more visitors to Hong Kong and create a positive image of Hong Kong in the eyes of the overseas trade and visitors. This will benefit the Hong Kong tourism industry as a whole.
(2) The Government attaches great importance to promoting Hong Kong's image as a premier travel destination. We build up Hong Kong's tourism branding through production of promotional videos by the HKTB which complements its overall promotion strategy. Since 2014, the HKTB launched the "My Time for Hong Kong" global branding campaign. Broadcast through digital marketing, public relations initiatives and consumer shows, the campaign helps 1650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
promote the unique and exciting tourism experiences in Hong Kong with a view to raising global consumers' desire to get similar experiences in Hong Kong.
In producing the videos, the HKTB invited personalities from different walks of life, such as Michelin-starred chefs and renowned local musicians, to take viewers around town to experience different aspects of the city, including dining, shopping, city icons, local living culture, nightlife, outdoor activities, festivals and events, sports events, arts and culture, and so on. These videos have been broadcast on digital channels and regional TV channels in Southeast Asia, with the aim of attracting more visitors to Hong Kong.
The "My Time for Hong Kong" campaign and related promotional videos have won a number of international awards, including a gold award in the "Marketing ― Primary Government Destination" category in PATA Gold Award 2015, and a silver award in the "Campaigns" category in the ASTRID Awards 2015.
The HKTB also produced new videos for this year's Hong Kong Summer Fun campaign, which were broadcast on regional TV channels in various short-haul markets, including Southeast Asia, Taiwan and Korea.
The HKTB is currently reviewing the "My Time for Hong Kong" branding campaign based on the experience gained in the past two years. The HKTB will explore ways and means to further promote Hong Kong as a preferred travel destination. In the coming year, the HKTB plans to produce a new series of videos under the "My Time for Hong Kong" promotion campaign, which will target at different visitor segments by showcasing the unique and diversified tourism experiences Hong Kong offers as well as the stylish and dynamic side of Hong Kong. The videos will be broadcast through digital media, social media and regional TV channels to entice overseas consumers to select Hong Kong as their travel destination.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1651
Annex
MFTA Number of approved promotions and amount granted to each successful applicant
Number of Successful applicant Amount granted ($) approved promotions Hong Kong 3D Museum 2 232,750 Hong Kong Disneyland Resort 5 1,059,500 Madame Tussauds Hong Kong 9 1,279,250 Ngong Ping 360 14 1,770,000 Noah's Ark 4 162,000 Ocean Park Hong Kong 15 1,269,000 PMQ 1 235,438 Repulse Bay Visual Art Museum 2 515,000 sky100 Observation Deck 3 355,000 Peak Tramways 2 200,000 Joint promotions by attractions 12 2,876,750 Total 69 9,954,688
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am glad that the Secretary has agreed to enhance overseas promotion. I have watched all the promotional videos, including the "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos, mentioned by the Secretary. While those are award-winning videos, the visual effects and shooting techniques of the videos are in fact mediocre and conventional. For instance, in the promotional videos with the themes of "indulgence" and "renewal", what I have seen is only some performers standing in front of the camera and making their monologues, which are quite similar to the videos for promoting the election of the District Councils. The promotional video with the theme of "indulgence" recommends tourists to taste chicken feet and stirred fried flat noodles with beef. The idea of these promotional videos is absolutely incomparable to that of the promotional campaigns of our competitors, such as Malaysia's "Malaysia Truly Asia", Thailand's "Spirit of Thailand", Taiwan's "Time for Taiwan" and India's "Incredible India".
1652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
I wish to ask the Secretary if he will request the HKTB to hire some gurus to produce better quality videos that are innovative and unconventional. And, could the Secretary tell us the reasons why the videos are not broadcasted on the TV channels watched by overseas audience, such as the Discovery Channel, BBC, CNN, and so on? Indeed, this is what all our competitors have been doing?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mrs IP for her opinions. I will reflect the relevant views to the HKTB, so that we can continue to promote Hong Kong through the next series of "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos.
The personalities in the "My Time for Hong Kong" videos are in fact sharing their first-person experiences with tourists and overseas consumers. The video with the theme of "indulgence" mentioned by Mrs IP just now is an introduction of traditional dishes and local delicacies by a Michelin-starred chef. Many overseas tourists would like to receive information on food and dining, and that is why we have come up with a range of promotional themes, such as Exploring, Inspiring Rhythm, Expression, Action, Romance, Indulgence, the theme of Renewal as referred to by the Member just now, as well as Urban Escape. All these themes aim at attracting overseas tourists to visit Hong Kong. Of course, we will also make reference to other countries' promotional campaigns on their travel destinations, such as the videos for tourism promotion produced by Malaysia, Thailand or India. We will learn from their experiences and enrich the things what we can offer to tourists, so as to attract them to Hong Kong.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. If the promotional videos are so great as the Secretary has described, why do we not arrange them to be broadcasted on the Discovery Channel, BBC, and so on, like what our competitors are doing?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please give your reply.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we have already broadcasted the videos via various platforms, including digital media, social media, and so on. If the budget allows, we can consider broadcasting these videos on other platforms.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1653
MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I understand that the downward performance of Hong Kong's tourism industry is dealing a heavy blow to our retail industry. As such, I strongly support this measure on tourism promotion launched by the Government. Nonetheless, Hong Kong's tourism industry is not only facing a decline in the city's charm, it is also plagued by various destructive factors internally, including people who frequently cause nuisance to Mainland tourists in shopping malls and shopping areas, "arranged shopping" tours, and the traders that use undesirable practices to rip off tourists. Regarding the trades, we have repeatedly encouraged trade associations to keep a close watch on the practices of their members, and called on the trades to report to the Customs and Excise Department any operators suspected of ripping off customers or selling counterfeit products.
My supplementary question for the Secretary is related to these problems within Hong Kong, namely, causing nuisance to tourists, "arranged shopping" and traders employing undesirable practices. Could the Secretary tell us whether the Government has ever explored the possibility of resolving these problems through various means, such as legislation, stepped-up inspections and enforcement actions, and so on? In Korea, for example, all tours must submit their itinerary to the relevant authority for regulation. In addition, may I also ask the Secretary if the Customs and Excise Department will step up its efforts to inspect the traders participating in "arranged shopping"?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the several problems mentioned by Mr Vincent FANG just now have indeed affected Hong Kong's image as a travel destination. As pointed out by Mr FANG, the extreme activities staged by a small group of people could actually affect Mainland visitors' desire to visit Hong Kong. As such, we have to enhance the promotion of Hong Kong's hospitable image. We have organized a series of promotional activities focusing on this aspect to send out positive messages to tourists from the Mainland and overseas, and let them know that they are most welcomed to visit Hong Kong. This is of utmost importance to the retail, tourism, hotel and catering industries of Hong Kong.
In addition, Mr FANG has also talked about compulsory shopping. As Members are aware, we have implemented 10 measures since 2011 to strongly combat the problems stemmed from "arranged shopping" and "zero-/negative-fare tours". Let me take the unfortunate incident recently occurred as an example. The incident has aroused the suspicion that there were some "decoy tour 1654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 members" in the tour. They were neither the guide nor leader of the tour, they travelled to Hong Kong in the capacity of a tour member. In the light of this phenomenon, we have to step up efforts to combat the "decoy tour member" tricks. In this connection, we have advised the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong (TIC) to stay vigilant, and that it has adequate justifications to suspect visitors repeatedly joining group tours to visit Hong Kong within a short period of time as "decoy tour members" and take actions promptly to stop them. Last week, we briefed the China National Tourism Administration (CNTA) on the problems arising from "arranged shopping" and "zero-/negative-fare tours", and our latest measures to address these problems. The CNTA approved of these measures. We hope that the TIC can implement these measures expeditiously, so as to combat the newly emerged problems effectively.
Speaking of legislative means, inspection and enforcement efforts are in fact very essential as well. The Trade Descriptions Ordinance already has provisions that can effectively address and regulate these illegal activities. As such, we will communicate with the Customs and Excise Department closely to take enforcement actions to combat these undesirable business practices employed to cheat tourists.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have watched the "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos recently. I was not in Hong Kong when I watched it, I was in Southeast Asia then. I think these videos are great. Well, this is really a matter of subjectivity. I watched them from the angle of a layman, not someone from the cultural sector. The videos are down to earth, as they introduce to viewers the culinary culture in Hong Kong as well as the city's quality of life in various aspects. A number of my friends who have watched the videos do think that they should pay a visit to Hong Kong. As such, I have to express the views from another side for the Government's consideration after the meeting, in the hope that the authorities concerned will continue with their good efforts such as the "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos.
Regarding the $10 million fund from the Government, the supplementary question that I would like to raise is: Has the Government estimated the cost effectiveness of the fund, the number of visitors that can be drawn to Hong Kong, and the way the fund can contribute to our catering and retail industries? Could the Secretary provide the relevant data for us as well?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1655
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Vincent FANG for his approval of the "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos. We will keep putting in our best efforts and enrich the content of the next series of "My Time for Hong Kong" promotional videos to make them more appealing to tourists.
Concerning the effectiveness of this fund of $10 million, as I have already pointed out in the main reply, it will be difficult to quantify the effectiveness of the fund. In fact, this fund is used for the setting up of a matching fund, as the tourist attractions applying for subsidies have to secure an amount of fund equivalent to the sum applied for. As such, everyone is concerned about the effectiveness of this initiative in terms of quality and quantity. We will review the effectiveness of the fund after it has been running for a period of time. I think it will be difficult to assess the fund's contribution to the tourism industry basing on just the amount of subsidies granted, because we also attract tourists to Hong Kong through a range of other measures and incentives. Besides, the overall economic environment also has a direct implication on the number of incoming visitors. That said, we will keep a close watch on the effectiveness in this respect.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to part (1) of the Secretary's main reply, the applications from 10 local attractions, involving a total of 69 promotion items, are successful. However, I have noticed that all the approved applications are submitted by large-scale tourist attractions, including the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, Ngong Ping 360, Ocean Park Hong Kong, Noah's Ark, and so on. Small or medium sized tourist attractions are rarely found among the approved applications.
In my view, the operators of these large-scale tourist attractions already have sufficient financial resources for publicity and promotion, as their promotion initiatives can be found in various promotional events or campaigns. Some small or medium sized or indigenous tourist attractions, however, are incapable of doing so. To what extent can the resources provided by the Government be of help to the sector? In particular, regarding the small and medium sized tourist attractions which lack resources and organization, how is the Government going to help them? I would like the Government to briefly explain on this.
1656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in fact this round of application is open. When this programme was launched, we had extended invitation to numerous tourist attractions. Just now I have explained the criteria for assessing the applications, as for the amounts of subsidy come in a rather wide range, varying from $100,000 to $2 million. We adopt an open attitude in dealing with tourist attractions that are interested in applying for subsidies from this fund to support their promotion work.
We have strongly encouraged the sector and tourist attractions to apply for the fund. Among the 12 applications received this time, 10 applications (that is, 10 tourist attractions) have been approved. The remaining two applications are unsuccessful due to their incompliance with the instructions and requirements. As I said just now, the MFTA programme is very open. The programme this time mainly seeks to support tourist attractions with unique features, and attract visitors by way of package offers; besides, promotion tactics targeted at different markets will be employed to attract tourists.
Let me cite a few examples. Hong Kong Disneyland and Ocean Park focus on young family consumers from Thailand, and offer them ticketing, catering, shopping and accommodation concessions. Some other tourist attractions, such as the Ocean Park, sky 100 Observation Deck and Madame Tussauds Hong Kong, are collaborating with members of the sector to offer concessions targeted at the Malaysian market; in addition, they will also join hands with the seven major tourist attractions in Manila, the Philippines, to carry out tourist promotion work. All these teaming and collaborations are already a breakthrough in themselves. We also welcome Hong Kong's various tourist attractions to collaborate with each other in a bid to attract tourists from different markets, with a view to diversifying the profile of our tourists.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.
Air Pollution in Hong Kong
4. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been reported that air pollution has been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a "human carcinogen" (i.e. Group 1) which is definitely carcinogenic to humans. Over the years, the Government has implemented a number of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1657 measures to reduce air pollution. Although the concentrations of major air pollutants recorded in 2014 on the roadside at busy districts in Hong Kong were lower than those in 1999, the levels of nitrogen dioxide went up instead of going down. It has been reported that on average, 3 000 premature deaths are attributable to air pollution each year, and the annual associated economic loss is as high as $40 billion on average. A number of environmental groups have therefore called on the authorities to step up efforts to improve roadside air quality. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the various policies implemented by the authorities in the past five years to improve roadside air quality; if it has, of the outcome; whether it has studied the causes for the levels of roadside nitrogen dioxide going up instead of going down in recent years; whether it has identified the type of roadside air pollutants for which immediate improvement measures are most required, and whether it has explored new measures to reduce the levels of various types of roadside air pollutants;
(2) as it has been reported that the first super atmospheric automatic monitoring station on the Mainland, which will soon be completed in Changchun, can automatically analyze whether the ambient pollutants come from coal combustion, tail pipe emissions of motor vehicles or fugitive dust and hence can greatly help the authorities take corresponding measures, whether the Government will conduct studies on the introduction of such kind of system for real-time monitoring of the sources of various types of air pollutants, particularly the level of fine suspended particulates (PM2.5) which may be harmful to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that the authorities introduced last year a set of new Air Quality Objectives (new AQOs) which are more stringent than the previous ones, but the new AQOs will be broadly attained only by 2020, and they are less stringent than WHO's air quality guidelines (e.g. the 24-hour average concentration limit for PM2.5 under the new AQOs is 75 μg/m3, which is three times of that under the WHO guidelines, and the new AQOs allow nine exceedances per year, which are six more than those allowed under the WHO guidelines), whether the Government will expeditiously revise the new AQOs to 1658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
align them with the WHO guidelines and formulate more ambitious air quality improvement measures, with a view to attaining such objectives as soon as possible; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President,
(1) The HKSAR Government is committed to improving the air quality to safeguard public health. We have been implementing a series of measures to reduce emissions from major air pollutant sources and strengthening regional collaboration. Since 2005, we have been operating the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network jointly with the Department of Environmental Protection of Guangdong Province to monitor regional air quality. The data collected have provided us a good basis for analysing regional air pollution and formulating air quality improvement measures. As for improving roadside air quality, we implemented the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) taxi programme in 2000 and have progressively tightened statutory emission standards for vehicles and fuel quality standards. The current emission standards of newly registered vehicles and fuel quality are at Euro V level. Our air quality improvements measures targeting at roadside air pollution in the past three years include:
(i) Phasing out around 82 000 pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles (DCVs). Since its introduction in March 2014, the ex-gratia payment scheme has received very good response. By the end of this October, over 40% of the eligible vehicles were retired under the scheme; and about 90% of eligible pre-Euro DCVs had been phased out.
(ii) Completion of a subsidy scheme in replacing catalytic converters and oxygen sensors of some 17 000 LPG taxis and light buses last year to reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds. Starting from September 2014, we have strengthened the emission control of petrol and LPG vehicles by deploying roadside remote sensing equipment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1659
(iii) Retrofitting some 1 400 Euro II and III franchised buses with
selective catalytic reduction devices to reduce their NOx emissions. The retrofit programme is expected to complete by the end of 2016.
The above measures have borne fruit. Compared with 2005, the concentrations of the major air pollutants in 2014 recorded at roadside air quality monitoring stations of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) have decreased. During the period, concentrations of respirable suspended particulates (PM10), sulphur
dioxide (SO2) and NOx have decreased by 33%, 59% and 30% respectively, whereas the roadside nitrogen dioxide (NO2) remained at a relatively high level mainly due to the increase in regional ozone
(O3) concentration.
To further improve roadside air quality, we will set up three franchised bus low emission zones at busy corridors in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. We are also making preparations to tighten the emissions standard for newly registered motor vehicles to Euro VI and will consult the Panel on the Environmental Affairs of this Council on 27 November. We will also continue to collaborate with the Guangdong Government in tackling regional air pollution,
including the O3 problem.
(2) The EPD has a territory-wide air quality monitoring network which comprises twelve general and three roadside stations. These stations collect and disseminate to the public ambient and roadside air pollutants concentrations information real time, including fine
suspended particulates (PM2.5), PM10, SO2, NO2 and O3. We have also analysed the chemical composition of PM2.5 since 2000 to better understand its major emission sources.
Moreover, we have launched a local air quality supersites programme since 2011 to provide in-depth analysis of the formation and sources of particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and photochemical pollution (that is, ozone), develop related policies and measures and assess their effectiveness. Under the programme, monitors have been installed to automatically analyse the composition of PM2.5 in the Yuen Long general air quality monitoring station. To enhance 1660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
the supersites programme, we are now setting up a background station in Hok Tsui which will be equipped with automatic monitors for analysing chemical composition of PM2.5 and photochemical pollution.
(3) The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that different regions when formulating their air quality standards, should consider carefully their own circumstances and take into account their local air quality situation, practicable technologies, as well as economic, political and social factors. The WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs) also sets interim targets for governments to reduce air pollution in a progressive manner and achieve the ultimate air quality targets. Based on the WHO's recommendations, we updated the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) which took effect on 1 January 2014. PM2.5 was included as one of the parameters in the new AQOs.
As revealed from studies, about 70% of Hong Kong's suspended particulates come from regional emission sources. When setting the AQO of PM2.5, we have taken into account the fact that our PM2.5 level is under strong regional influence and therefore the ultimate WHO AQGs level of PM2.5 can unlikely be attained in the near future. The setting of the AQO of PM2.5 at AQG's interim target level is thus a pragmatic approach and in line with the WHO's recommendations.
Hong Kong has been working closely with the Mainland to improve the air quality in the PRD region. In November 2012, we reached an agreement with the Guangdong provincial government on a set of emission reduction targets for 2015 and 2020. Achieving these targets will help Hong Kong broadly attain the new AQOs by 2020 and in the long run, reduce substantially the concentration levels of air pollutants, including PM2.5.
It is a statutory requirement to conduct a review of the AQOs at least once every five years. We are making preparation for the review which will assess the effectiveness of those recently implemented air quality improvement measures, emission trend in the PRD region, development of emission reduction technologies, risk of air pollution LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1661
to health and proposals to further improve the air quality. We will report the work plan to the Panel on Environmental Affairs of this Council and the Advisory Council on the Environment early next year.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in order to tackle the air pollution problem, we must find out the pollution source; otherwise, we will only be trying out remedial measures indiscriminately. Members of the public are concerned that PM2.5 will, upon absorption by the human body, attack the bronchi, air sacs of the lungs and even the blood, thereby causing serious health impacts. In Korea, a long-term tracking survey using satellite mobile data is conducted to find out the right remedy for their air pollution problem. Hong Kong, however, has only two air quality supersites, one in Yuen Long and the other is still under preparation. The Government has started conducting chemical composition analysis on PM2.5 since 2000, but 15 years have lapsed since then and the Government is still unable to identify the sources of PM2.5. May I ask the Secretary what data did he use to formulate his policy? What are the sources of PM2.5 in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. In fact, regionally speaking, Hong Kong has achieved prominent results in terms of research in this aspect, including collaboration with universities. We also maintain close interaction with the Mainland. Hence, we have made considerable achievement in this aspect. Regarding Member's concern about PM2.5, its local sources mainly come from vehicle emissions. That is why in recent years we have stepped up considerable effort in implementing improvement measures on vehicle emissions, some of them through regulation and some by means of encouragement. At the same time, as I have also pointed out just now, two thirds of the PM2.5 may be attributable to some regional factors. Hence, we have sufficient basic understanding of the sources of PM2.5 which Members are very concerned about. Nevertheless, there are, of course, other sources as well, including electricity plants and industrial emissions which also generate PM2.5.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Secretary, Hong Kong's per capita carbon dioxide emission reaches 6 metric tonnes per year. We are far worse than the 3.32 metric tonnes of Paris, the 3 metric tonnes of Copenhagen or even 1662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 the 4.7 metric tonnes of London. Given that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas and also the culprit of climate change, when will the Government set an emission limit on carbon dioxide?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe this involves two issues. First, the impact of air quality on people's health. Mr LEUNG has referred to carbon dioxide emissions just now. At present, the world mainly focuses on global warming caused by climate change. Hence, we have released two documents this year. One is the "Energy Saving Plan for Hong Kong's Built Environment 2015~2025+", which is Hong Kong's first comprehensive document telling us how to reduce energy consumption and carbon footprint at source and in other aspects (including buildings, transportation, and so on). Meanwhile, we have just unveiled the Hong Kong Climate Change Report 2015, which outlines the Government's work in response to climate change, it efforts in carbon emission reduction, and so on.
Hong Kong's present target is to reduce our carbon intensity by 50% to 60% by 2020, using 2005 as the base year. We know that this is a rather short-term target. We will thus keep a close watch on the global trend as well as our country's trend in formulating targets in this respect. As we have said earlier, we will communicate with different sectors of society after the Paris Climate Conference to see how we are going to step up efforts in this regard.
However, I must also emphasize at the same time that our set target is to strive to lower our carbon intensity by 50% to 60% within this five years. This is a specific task that we will work on.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): As it is mentioned in the last paragraph of part (1) of the main reply that three franchised bus low emission zones at busy corridors in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok will be set up, we can see that emission is a serious problem in these districts.
May I ask the Government whether it will consider installing mid-air water sprinkling facilities or systems in highly-polluted districts or districts with very high suspended particulate concentrations, with a view to mitigating, to a certain extent, the risk of air pollution posed to residents in those districts?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1663
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his question. I believe we have different ways to counteract the problems concerned. While we will certainly take a multi-pronged approach, our major task at the moment is controlling emissions at source. Hence, the most effective and direct way is to control the emission quality of vehicles or the traffic flow in highly-polluted districts. That said, to a certain extent, it will also be helpful if people put forward other suggestions that can help to alleviate this problem.
However, I wish to reiterate here that controlling emissions at source is of paramount importance. For instance, we have taken forward bus route rationalization jointly with transport departments, used over $10 billion in phasing out old DCVs, and so on. These are the focal efforts we have made to tackle this problem at source.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned in his main reply that Hong Kong had been working closely with the Mainland to improve the air quality in the PRD region, and that we reached an agreement with the Guangdong Provincial Government in 2012 on a set of emission reduction targets for 2015 and 2020. This year is already 2015. As such, could the Secretary inform us of the details of the emission reduction targets and whether the plan for 2015 can be achieved? Is he confident that he can successfully achieve the target for 2020?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Ir Dr LO for his question. Basically, we will take an overall look at the situation in 2015, and that means we have to wait until the end of 2015, that is the end of this year, to spend some time on analysing the data collected. Hence, we can systematically proceed forward after 2015. We, the two sides, attach great importance to improving air quality. Hence, we will proceed forward after 2015 in accordance with our established work plan. We will analyse our corresponding data, after which we will exchange all information gathered and review the progress, and we will review at an appropriate time whether it is necessary for the two sides to adjust the emission reduction targets set for 2020. In short, this is what we have planned to do.
1664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the details of the emission reduction targets for 2015, the Secretary said just now that he needed to wait after 2015 before he could know whether the targets had been met. But what are these targets? Could the Secretary provide this Council with the relevant figures after the meeting?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you provide the figures after the meeting?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Okay. (Appendix I)
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, actually, I also wish to ask whether the emission reduction targets are met. I have with me the real-time data obtained through a government App. Let us take a look at Central District. It is indicated here that the Central District is below 10, which is roughly equivalent to a certain risk level. The risk levels are indicated in different colours. For example, 10+ is black in colour, but the Central District is now indicated in green colour in the diagram. I am thus puzzled. Does the Government use a basket of pollutant indicators or just PM2.5 to evaluate air quality? If the index reaches 10+, does it mean that the concentration is over 10 μg/m3? I am not sure if this is what it means. During the day, the majority parts of the Central District are standing at 10 μg/m3. Does it mean that it is at an alarming level? Of course, as the Secretary has said, the WHO's standard is 75 μg/m3 and Hong Kong's level is only 10 μg/m3, which is not that high. May I ask the Secretary to comment on whether ours is actually a high or low level?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, different air pollutants have different health impacts on the human body, some of which are relatively short-term and some are rather long-term. This is thus a complicated subject. In recent years, we adopted a new means to communicate with the public, which is the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI). The AQHI is in a scale of 1 to 10+ and is grouped into five different colours. To put it simply, the index aligns different air pollutants with different local health conditions, so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1665 as to disseminate better information to the public. For example, green and orange colours represent days of relatively better air quality, while brown and black colours represent days that people should stay alert to air quality, in particular, the elderly and people allergic to air pollutants should take extra care.
Of course, the AQHI contains other more refined data, but I think the general public may not need to look into such data. However, different pollutants under different circumstances do cause different health impacts.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): My question was about the index. As we all work in the Central District, let us take the Central District as an example. The index now shows that the level is standing at 3, which is represented in green colour. Regarding the PM2.5 which Mr CHAN Hak-kan has asked about in his main question, the Bureau's real-time information shows that its present level is standing at 10 or below 10. According to the prevailing standard, should people working in the Central District be worried about this level of PM2.5? If we just look at PM2.5, how does the Secretary find its present level as compared with the WHO's standard?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the air contains different pollutants. At different times of the day, the concentration of these pollutants may vary. Our notification system now seeks to correlate different pollutants with different health impacts on Hong Kong people. Hence, when the concentration of a certain pollutant is too high at a certain time of the day and poses a significant risk to our health, the AQHI will be in the very high or serious health risk category. Hence, PM2.5 or PM is only one of the factors affecting the colours of the AQHI. This is a rather complicated subject, but to put it simply, members of the public or those who work in the Central District, Mong Kok or Causeway Bay only need to pay attention to the different colours of the AQHI, which is a simpler and more direct way to understand the index.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.
1666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Retirement Protection
5. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2014 published by the Government on the 10th of last month indicates that after recurrent cash policy interventions, the number of elderly persons classified as poor accounted for 30% of the elderly population in 2014, and this percentage was similar to that of the year before. There are views that the current means-tested poverty alleviation measures are unable to resolve the problems concerning elderly poverty and retirement protection. Meanwhile, the Government has announced that it will conduct a public consultation on retirement protection at the end of this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the establishment of a universal retirement protection scheme will be more effective in resolving the problem of elderly poverty than the implementation of means-tested poverty alleviation measures; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) of the approach to be adopted for conducting the aforesaid public consultation; the specific details of the various retirement protection options to be included in the consultation paper and whether universal retirement protection options will be included in such options; if such options will be included, of the timetable for implementing the relevant options; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that while the Research Report on Future Development of Retirement Protection in Hong Kong was published by a team led by Professor Nelson Chow way back in August last year which put forward universal retirement protection options, but the Government has not implemented any of such options so far, whether the Government will shoulder the financial and political responsibilities arising from the delay in implementing a universal retirement protection option; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, according to the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2014, 293 800 elderly persons (that is, aged 65 or above) were identified as poor after recurrent cash policy intervention, with a poverty rate of 30%, which was 0.5 percentage point LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1667 lower than that of 2013. It is noteworthy that one of the limitations of the poverty line is that it takes household income as the single indicator for measuring poverty without considering the amount of assets. As the population continues to age rapidly, a considerable number of elderly persons who have retired and are lacking employment income will easily be identified as poor.
Comparing the effectiveness of various recurrent cash benefits in alleviating elderly poverty in 2014, the Old Age Living Allowance, which is targeted at elderly persons with financial needs, had the largest impact. It led to a reduction in the elderly poverty rate by 7.2 percentage points. This was followed by the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme with a reduction of 6.8 percentage points. As regards the non-means-tested Old Age Allowance, it reduced the elderly poverty rate by 1.3 percentage points.
My consolidated reply to Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's question is set out below:
The Commission on Poverty (CoP) further deliberated on the framework and main content of the consultation document on retirement protection at the meeting held on 22 July 2015 and reached consensus on some areas, including those set out below:
(i) CoP members considered that the core issue to be addressed in the public consultation was whether the Hong Kong community should adopt a so-called universal retirement protection proposal (or simply "universal proposal", that is, regardless of the financial needs of the elderly persons, and without means testing) or a non-universal proposal (that is, for those with financial needs and with means testing) to provide better protection for the needy elderly in old age. Hence, the consultation document should set out both the universal and non-universal policy proposals for public consideration;
(ii) To facilitate public understanding on the characteristics of the universal proposals and non-universal proposals, the consultation document should provide a simple and easy-to-understand framework to compare one universal proposal against another non-universal proposal in terms of the overall and extra financial commitments required during the projection period as well as the additional subsidy amount received by different groups of elderly persons. The "Demo-grant" proposal from the consultancy team 1668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
led by Prof Nelson CHOW should be used as the basis for analysing the universal proposals. As to non-universal proposals, an example would be put forward for comparison after making reference to the two non-universal proposals covered in the report submitted by the consultancy team;
(iii) The consultation document should address the issue of "who foots the bill". Given limited resources, the community should discuss how much more resources we are willing to invest in retirement protection without affecting the sustainable development of other policy areas. The issue of how to increase public revenue cannot be avoided in discussing retirement protection; and
(iv) CoP members expressed understanding that the consultation document should explain clearly the Government's stance on the future development of retirement protection. Having regard to the sustainability of the universal proposals and their impact on public finance, as well as the guiding principle that allocation of public resources should be directed to help the under-privileged, the Government has reservation on these universal proposals. Nonetheless, the Government acknowledges that there is room for improving the existing multi-pillar retirement protection system. The community should focus on discussing how to consolidate the existing system and improve and strengthen each pillar with a view to providing more appropriate assistance to the needy elderly persons in their old age. As such, the consultation document should review the situation of each pillar and put forth possible ideas for improvement based on CoP's deliberations in the past meetings.
At the CoP meeting held on 23 September 2015, members agreed that the public consultation period should last for six months, running from December 2015 till June 2016, to allow sufficient time for the community to have in-depth discussion and build consensus on the issues concerned. To tie in with the work of the public consultation, CoP members acknowledged the need to promote in-depth, informed, objective and rational discussion of various sectors of the community on retirement protection issues in order to collectively explore and identify options that suit the circumstances of Hong Kong. To this end, the CoP agreed to enhance community understanding of issues on retirement protection through Announcements in the Public Interest on television and radio, posters and leaflets, as well as a thematic website, and so on. At the same time, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1669
Government would use various channels to promote public engagement, including canvassing the views of the Legislative Council and District Councils; organizing public consultation sessions targeting at members of the public; arranging focus group meetings to collect views of stakeholders and think tanks; and organizing consultation sessions with government advisory bodies and stakeholders.
Retirement protection is a very important social issue. The Government looks forward to rational and pragmatic discussions with a view to arriving at a community consensus. The Government agrees that protection for needy citizens after retirement should be improved. To demonstrate its determination and commitment, the Government has earmarked $50 billion to provide for future needs.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government has entrusted the Commission on Poverty (CoP) with a study on retirement protection. This gives us an impression that the Government has long been perceiving retirement protection with a focus on helping elderly persons get out of poverty, or identifying solutions to resolve the problem of elderly poverty. However, the general public do not see retirement protection in this way. They consider it not only a means of eliminating poverty, but also a repayment to the elderly for their contribution to the society. Therefore, if the Government really opts to continue using the categorization of "universal" and "non-universal" in consulting the public and the consultation result indicates support for a non-universal scheme, I wish to ask the Government, as far as the elderly persons who have gone through means-testing but are considered as non-eligible are concerned, how will the Government repay these elderly persons for their past contribution to the society? If the result supports a universal scheme, will the Government then undertake to implement a universal protection scheme accordingly? At the same time, what are the approaches and methods to be adopted in conducting the consultations, collecting opinions, and arriving at a final decision?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that Members may raise only one question in asking supplementary questions. Secretary, you can choose to answer one of the questions.
1670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr LEUNG for the supplementary question. Retirement protection is indeed an extremely complicated issue, covering financial support offered to elderly people in cash, as well as other forms of relief, such as healthcare, elderly service and housing. Retirement protection is certainly not solely the Government's responsibility. It is also a collective responsibility as members of the public have a duty to keep money for a rainy day and make plans for their own retirement lives. That said, we must offer help to those in need. Hence, the consultation to be conducted will be a comprehensive one. We will start with objective reviews on the facts, statistics and justifications, and we will then have to receive public views, thus rendering it necessary for us to have a six-month consultation period. We hope the people can clearly understand the entire issue, and therefore the consultation document will contain very detailed information. It is not the kind of casually or loosely produced document. We have made in-depth analysis. The CoP has been working conscientiously and increasing meeting hours to prepare the draft document, and to examine and review the texts paragraph by paragraph in most cases.
Let me now respond to the supplementary question made earlier: If a universal proposal is not adopted in the future, what will the Government do to repay the elderly persons have made their contribution to society? In fact, the existing social protection system offers a payment of $1,235 as Old Age Allowance (commonly referred to as "fruit grant"). Assuming that the relevant statistics remain unchanged, the amount will increase by $50 at the minimum on 1 February next year, an increment of 4.2%. At present, 200 000 of our elderly persons aged over 70 are Old Age Allowance recipients, and as a show of respect to the elderly, any Hong Kong resident who has reached the age of 70 is eligible to receive a symbolic amount of "fruit grant" without any eligibility requirement.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary questions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have raised three questions in total, and the Secretary has answered one of them. Mr Fernando CHEUNG, please ask your supplementary question.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1671
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, even if the Secretary has chosen to reply just one of the questions, he has not given a complete answer. Therefore, I need to raise a follow-up question.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already raised you question to the Secretary.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Even if it is the question that the Secretary has chosen to reply, he has not fully answered it.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I have not raised my follow-up question yet, how can the Secretary add anything?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have raised three supplementary questions, and I hold that the Secretary has already given his answer.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): However, in respect of my supplementary question about repaying the elderly people for their contribution to society, he has only mentioned about elderly persons aged over 70 in his reply, but not those aged over 65.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please be seated.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, he has not answered my supplementary question.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please be seated.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, will you let the Secretary continue answering?
1672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please be seated first, so that I can ask the Secretary to answer the question.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): In this case, please let me raise my follow-up question first.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already pointed out that the Secretary has not answered you supplementary questions. I repeat, you have raised three questions in total. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to add briefly that, apart from "fruit grant" (that is, Old Age Allowance), if an elderly person is not eligible for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance because of his possession of a small amount of assets, the easiest alternative is to apply for the existing benefits under Old Age Living Allowance (OLA), which is a successful example. Currently, 420 000 elderly OLA recipients are receiving a payment of $2,390 each month. The amount will at least increase by $100 to $2,490 on 1 February next year. Singleton elderly persons may own assets up to $210,000, and they are allowed to earn a monthly income of not more than $7,000. Also, their owner-occupied properties are not included in our calculation. The elderly persons in such circumstances are eligible to receive OLA. Therefore, Members have to look at the whole picture. To a certain extent, we have already set up a mechanism to repay the elderly.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in his main reply the Secretary has mentioned about the need to further deliberate on the choice between a "universal" or "non-universal" proposal during the consultation in the coming six months, and he has also spoken of the issue of "who foots the bill". However, the report prepared by Prof Nelson CHOW has already mentioned clearly that the non-universal proposals, which are the two proposals that the Secretary said he would refer to, are indeed the proposals introduced respectively by the New People's Party and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). It is indicated in the DAB's proposal that the amount of government expense will reach $689 billion in 2041, while in the proposal of the New People's Party, the amount will amount to $604 billion. All these expenses will be borne by public money. Comparing with the system at present, both proposals will result in hundreds of billions of additional cost.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1673
On the contrary, no extra expense is incurred under a universal protection scheme, and it will even produce a surplus of $127 billion in 2041. The report submitted by Prof Nelson CHOW also concludes that a non-universal proposal will involve a huge amount of extra expense. Therefore, his team believes that such proposals are not the best choice. It is already stated expressly in the report. I have no idea why the Government still chooses to go on conducting research and consultation even after it has taken note of Prof CHOW's unequivocally written document. If it really wants to consult the public, why does it not do so on the basis of the universal retirement protection proposal, that is, the proposal which will produce a surplus of $127 billion? Secretary, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, indeed, I have attended all the meetings of the Subcommittee on Retirement Protection under the Panel on Welfare of the Legislative Council over the past few months, and have updated the Panel on the progress each time. I will briefly explain the related background here, as Members may not have many opportunities to attend the meetings.
The background is as follows. The projection made by Prof Nelson CHOW in his report covers the period up to the year 2041. Owning to the constraint of statistics, we cannot make any projection beyond 2041. As the Census and Statistics Department (CSD) has earlier conducted a population projection covering a 50-year period anyway, so we have decided to wait for the statistics compiled by the CSD. We will then examine the latest statistics to project the sustainability of the proposals up to 2064, with the statistics in the report submitted by Prof Nelson CHOW's team as reference. This is an important step to make.
Moreover, if Members can still recall, six different proposals have indeed been introduced by the community in the last few years, and Prof CHOW has commented on these proposals in his report too. The first type of proposal is the one from two political parties; the second type involves three proposals, including one from a political party to which some Members of the Legislative Council belong, one from the community group known as the Alliance for Universal Pension, one from another organization, as well as the annuity proposal from Prof LAW Chi-kwong. We will apply the latest population projection up to 2064 to study the financial sustainability of each proposal for further analysis in the future consultation report. In other words, we will illustrate the universal proposals with an example to enable the people's easy understanding. For 1674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 instance, we will bring forth the "Demo-grant" proposal from the report prepared by Prof Nelson CHOW's team, and that proposal is a universal proposal. On the other hand, the non-universal proposal will be a mock-proposal mainly used as a basis for discussion. In fact, this does not mean that the Government will recommend any particular proposal. Another proposal will be formulated with reference to the proposals from the New People's Party and the DAB, as both proposals are of the same nature that require means-testing to make assessment on financial needs. We will formulate a mock-proposal according to these features to demonstrate the related financial effect, sustainability and viability, and so on. Also, we will conduct comprehensive analysis of the six proposals from the community in the light of the latest statistics, and the relevant outcome will be set out in the annexes.
Therefore, I hope Members can understand why we have to consider thoroughly. These are the reasons. We will comprehensively look into the questions raised by Members just now in the consultation.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all I must state clearly that …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has mentioned about a subcommittee, and said that sometimes I may not be able to attend …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you can only point out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … This is wrong. We have conversations at the last meeting of the Subcommittee. I believe that the Secretary may have some problems with his memory.
However, what he has just said is that, although Prof Nelson CHOW has already compiled the required statistics, he has to do the calculations afresh. The statistics from Prof Nelson CHOW have gone through the CSD and are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1675 derived from actuarial calculations, yet the Government does not accept the outcome now and wants a recalculation …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please be seated. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have nothing to add. Thank you.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, throughout my lifetime, discussion of this subject has been going on time and again for decades in this society, spanning from the colonial days to the present days after the handover. In these few decades, the society has gone through consultations after consultations, and has responded to similar questions repeatedly, questions such as whether retirement protection should be implemented by the Government under a universal scheme, or should an asset tested system be established? Over the course of the arguments, the discussion would have certainly touched upon the question of "who foots the bill". One of the six proposals mentioned by the Secretary just now is proposed by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, in which I have candidly presented my opinions formulated after decades of rational deliberations. However, the Government has opted to conduct another round of consultation for six months. OK, I do not know if it is an attempt of the Government to procrastinate or avoid something by putting forward another round of consultation for six months. I just want to ask the Secretary about the situation at the moment: Is this a genuine consultation, or a fake consultation? The Government has spread a message throughout the community that any non-asset tested proposal is not financially viable. Secretary, even though the consultation has not yet been commenced, the Government already has its own views. Despite the uncertainties of the way forward, the Government has adopted its perspective long ago.
Deputy President, the Government's consultation document will change a few wording used in the community's proposals, in which "universal non-asset tested" and "asset tested" will be changed to "with financial needs" and "without financial needs". This is tantamount to dividing the people into two categories. After all these twists and turns, what kind of road the Government is leading the 1676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 elderly people to take? So, I want to ask the Secretary if the Government has in fact finalized its decision. Is the consultation not a genuine one, but a fake one? Or, is it truly the case as replied by the Secretary earlier that they still have to collect many more statistics? A few decades has passed, how come the Government is still unable to extract the statistics it needs? From the Government's funding allocation of $5 billion in the early-1990s to an amount of $50 billion today …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, have you raised your supplementary question?
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will raise my supplementary question, but I wish to elaborate further …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the question session. This is not the time for expressing views.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): OK. I now raise a question to the Secretary. After the Government's twists and turns throughout the decades, from a funding demand of $50 billion proposed by the society in the beginning to the present requirement of $100 billion, if the Government still refrains from implementing the proposal, the problem will only get worse in the end. I want to ask if the Government really wants to provide retirement protection.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): We are very serious about the upcoming consultation which takes exactly six months' time. As I have explained in the main reply, we have a range of tasks to work on, and will take this chance to enable an informed discussion among the people, as some of them are still having no idea on the subject. Therefore, I consider that we must allow sufficient time for consultation.
The Government holds an open attitude. Despite our open-mindedness, we have to honestly state that proposals without specific targets, which do not concentrate on allocating public resources especially to the needy people, indeed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1677 deviate from our point of view. We have to candidly illustrate this. However, this does not imply our refusal to receive Members' views, as this is also helpful for Members to understand the Government's perspective. The Government will maintain an open mindset to refer to relevant statistics and justifications, and this is what we called informed, objective and unbiased discussion.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I just wish to raise two simple supplementary questions to the Secretary. As I have always visited the community …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, you may raise only one question.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): One supplementary question that involves two aspects. (Laughter) OK, as I have frequently met many elderly persons in the community who eagerly wish to inquire if the Secretary would consider extending the age limit on asset test for "fruit grant". For the first part of my question, as the Secretary has said that the "fruit grant" is a show of appreciation, and many people in Hong Kong now retire at around the age of 60, can the Secretary distribute the "fruit grant" earlier? Can he allocate the "appreciation grant" in advance? Regarding the second part, OLA is a means-tested measure, and as we intend to subsidize the retired elderly, can the Government reduce the age limit for exemption of asset test and extend the asset limit, as many elderly people in their sixties are living an impoverished life?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Dr CHIANG for her supplementary question. Regarding the first part of the supplementary question, Dr CHIANG has mentioned about asset test for "fruit grant" just now, yet no asset test is required for "fruit grant". Any Hong Kong resident aged over 70 is eligible for the grant. However, elderly persons aged between 65 and 69 under the Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme are required to undergo means-test. In other words, means-testing is required for elderly persons residing in Guangdong, but similar arrangement is not applied to the elderly persons living in Hong Kong. The elderly in Hong Kong are all covered by the OLA, so if an elderly person holds 1678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 assets valued at $210,000 or less and earns a monthly income of $7,000-odd or less, such as rental income, he is eligible for application.
Moreover, the asset limit will be adjusted regularly according to the relevant index. On 1 February next year, the amount will be adjusted upward with the index under a mechanism approved by the Finance Committee. The limit of OLA is in fact not stringent at all, as financial supports from children or owner-occupied properties without generating rental income, and so on, are all excluded from the calculation. We have addressed the issue in a very accommodative manner. At present, 420 000 elderly persons are currently receiving OLA, while another 200 000 elderly persons are recipients of "fruit grant". Therefore, there are 600 000 elderly beneficiaries in total, accounting for around 60% of elderly population. This is not a small figure at all.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.
Regulation of Registered Medical Practitioners by Medical Council of Hong Kong
6. MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, last month, a Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court handed down a judgment on a judicial review case, criticizing the lamentable state of affairs of the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK) in handling complaints; the protracted and cumbersome process and procedures for handling complaints; the handling of complaints by MCHK members on a voluntary and part-time basis; the inadequacy in administrative support and personnel to handle the volume of complaints; as well as the lack of appropriate guidelines (including guidelines on declaration of interests) and structure for handling complaints. Regarding the regulation of registered medical practitioners by MCHK, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the secretariat service provided by the Department of Health to MCHK incurs a public expenditure of approximately $25 million each year, and yet MCHK's efficiency in handling complaints has repeatedly been criticized by various sectors, and the aforesaid judgment criticized that it was both excessive and unreasonable for the Preliminary Investigation Committee of MCHK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1679
to take two years to handle the complaint concerned, how the Government supervises and assesses the work performance of the MCHK Secretariat; whether the Government will make reference to the aforesaid judgment and conduct a comprehensive review of the staff establishment, the complaint-handling procedures and the work efficiency of the MCHK Secretariat to ensure the proper use of public money;
(2) as the aforesaid judgment has pointed out that MCHK has not formulated general guidelines on the topic of conflict of interests of its members and on the declaration of interests in relation to a complaint, and that MCHK should address this matter immediately, whether the authorities will make reference to the judgment and examine amending the Medical Registration Ordinance, including increasing the proportion of lay members of MCHK and improving the mechanism for declaration of interests by MCHK members, so as to forestall the public perception of "doctors harbouring each other" in the handling of complaints by MCHK; and
(3) given that in the five-year period from 2009 to 2013, MCHK received on average 470 complaints a year against registered medical practitioners, of which only about 60 cases involved medical practitioners employed by the Hospital Authority and, in other words, complaints involving private medical practitioners accounted for 87% of the total number of complaints, whether the authorities will step up efforts in regulating private medical practitioners with a view to preserving public confidence in the medical profession?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government attaches great importance to the professional competence and ethics of healthcare professionals. A fair, impartial, open and effective mechanism for handling complaints involving healthcare professionals is necessary to ensure the quality of healthcare services and safety of patients, protect the interests of patients and foster mutual trust between patients and healthcare professionals.
On regulation of medical practitioners, the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK) is an independent statutory body established under the Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap. 161) for handling matters relating to the regulation 1680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 of medical practitioners in Hong Kong. It handles complaints against medical practitioners, conducts investigations and inquiries into allegations of professional misconduct and takes disciplinary actions.
The MCHK handles complaints against medical practitioners in accordance with the relevant regulations. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) of the MCHK will conduct preliminary investigation into the case. If the PIC determines that there is a prima facie case, it will refer the case to the MCHK for a formal inquiry. If the MCHK finds that a medical practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct, it can impose punishment by issuing him/her disciplinary order or even revoke his/her professional registration.
My reply to the three parts of the question raised by Mr Vincent FANG is as follows:
(1) The Government provides secretariat service through the Department of Health to support the MCHK in discharging its duties. Currently, the Medical Council Secretariat has a 16-strong establishment. Over the past year, the Food and Health Bureau has been discussing with the Medical Council Secretariat on the ways to improve the procedures and enhance efficiency in handling complaints, including reviewing the manpower and resource requirements of the Secretariat, with a view to ensuring proper use of public funding.
(2) Lay involvement, openness and transparency, as well as avoidance of conflict of interest are important elements of the composition as well as complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism of the MCHK.
Firstly, the current composition as well as complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism of the MCHK have a certain degree of lay involvement to ensure its objectivity and credibility. The MCHK comprises 24 registered medical practitioners and four lay members. In addition, the quorum of a PIC meeting includes at least one lay member. The quorum of a disciplinary inquiry meeting is five MCHK members, or no less than three MCHK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1681
members and two assessors, with at least one of whom must be a lay member.
Secondly, on the openness and transparency of the complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism, it should be noted that the inquiries of the MCHK are open to the public. The relevant judgments of the inquiry will be gazetted in accordance with the Medical Registration Ordinance for public access. The MCHK will also upload the relevant judgments onto its website.
Thirdly, to ensure fairness and impartiality of the complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism, sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Medical Practitioners (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulation require PIC members to declare their interest upon receipt of a case. A member with conflict of interest must not participate in any deliberation or decision regarding the case.
The Government maintains communication with the MCHK and reviews its regulatory framework and operation from time to time in order to keep its operation abreast of the time and public expectation. The Government agrees that there is room to improve the mechanism for complaints investigation and disciplinary inquiry, including increasing lay involvement in the composition as well as complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism of the MCHK, further enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the mechanism and avoiding conflict of interest in a more effective manner, with a view to increasing the credibility of the mechanism, safeguarding public confidence and shortening the processing time for handling complaints and disciplinary inquiries.
(3) According to the Medical Council Secretariat, in the past five years (from 2010 to 2014), about two thirds of the complaint cases handled by the PIC were considered as either frivolous or related to allegations which did not constitute professional misconduct, which were dismissed with no inquiries required. A considerable number of these complaints were to do with aspects like doctors' communication skills and attitude falling short of the expectation of the patients.
1682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
On the handling of complaints against doctors in public hospitals, the Hospital Authority (HA) has a two-tier complaint handling mechanism in place. The first tier is at the hospital level which is responsible for handling complaints lodged for the first time. If a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of his/her complaint at the hospital level, he/she may appeal to the second tier, namely the Public Complaints Committee of HA. Moreover, we are conducting a review on the regulatory regime for private healthcare facilities (PHFs). Among other objectives, we hope to ensure, through premises-based regulation, that PHFs attach adequate importance to major issues including corporate governance, clinical quality and price transparency, as well as to establish a committee for handling relevant complaints, with a view to enhancing the public's confidence in the quality and reliability of private healthcare services.
In view of the ageing population and public expectation for quality healthcare services, the Government has set up a steering committee to conduct a strategic review on healthcare manpower planning and professional development in Hong Kong. On professional development, the steering committee has particularly looked at issues relating to the functions and composition of regulatory bodies, complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism, as well as training and development. The review is expected to complete in the first half of 2016. Upon the completion of the review, the Government will take forward the recommendations accordingly.
MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary is a medical practitioner and two Legislative Council Members are also practising private medical practitioners. I know they lay emphasis on professional autonomy but right now, I am not asking the Government to interfere with the jurisdiction of the MCHK or to establish an independent body to handle medical complaints. I am only asking for the monitoring of the efficiency of the publicly-funded Secretariat. For example, I would like to how long it will take for the complaints received by the Secretariat to be submitted to the relevant committee under the MCHK for examination. Would MCHK members find the cases frivolous, thus rendering it unnecessary for the Secretariat to do anything?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1683
Deputy President, I share the complainants' feeling. Last year, the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party jointly produced a "Proposal for alleviating the shortage of medical practitioners in the public healthcare system of Hong Kong" (紓緩香港公共醫療系統的醫生不足問題建 議), which was submitted to both the Secretary and the HA. They took it seriously and expeditiously arranged a meeting with us to give us their response and discuss with us about the feasibility of the proposals. At the same time, I also submitted the Proposal to the MCHK and asked for a meeting with the Chairman or other members. Now, more than a year and a half has passed but I still have not heard from the MCHK, not even a simple notice informing me of the receipt of the Proposal. Thus, I doubt very much the existence of the Secretariat. Given the circumstances, has the annual funding of $25 million from the Government been properly used?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just as what I have said in the main reply, the Government "has been discussing with the Medical Council Secretariat on the ways to improve the procedures and enhance efficiency in handling complaints, including reviewing the manpower and resource requirements of the Secretariat, with a view to ensuring proper use of public funding".
As regards Mr Vincent FANG's earlier question on how long the PIC takes to decide, or how it decides whether a case is frivolous or cannot be substantiated, I can explain briefly.
The PIC has a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman. If the Chairman considers that a complaint is frivolous based on certain information provided by the complainant or that the nature of the complaint is unrelated to the functions of the MCHK (that is, the professional conduct of medical practitioners), he has to consult the Deputy Chairman and a lay member and secure their approval to arrive at the conclusion that the complaint concerned is frivolous or groundless, and then decide that the MCHK will not conduct a disciplinary inquiry.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, at the moment, the ratio of professional and non-professional members of the MCHK stands at 6:1, which the Secretary has also mentioned in the main reply earlier. In other 1684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 words, most members of the MCHK are medical practitioners. This composition together with the inadequate transparency of the MCHK in its handling of affairs, have always given the public the impression of "doctors harbouring each other".
I would like to ask the Secretary: Would the Government increase the ratio of non-professional members or include representatives of patients' organizations? We are aware that a Member of the Legislative Council intends to table a Member's Bill in this respect. Rather than having a Member raise the proposal, would the Government make changes proactively? This will have a positive effect on enhancing the transparency of the MCHK and the efficiency of handling complaints. Does the Government agree?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just as I pointed out in the main reply earlier, the Government has set up a steering committee to conduct a strategic review of Hong Kong's future healthcare manpower planning and professional development, including a look into the framework for regulating medical professional personnel (medical practitioners inclusive). As pointed out by Mr TAM Yiu-chung earlier, Mr Tommy CHEUNG has expressed at the Panel on Health Services that he will table a Member's Bill.
In principle, the Government agrees that there is further room for improvement with regard to the MCHK's complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism and its composition. The MCHK should boost lay involvement to further enhance the transparency and efficiency of the mechanism, and should also avoid conflict of interest to enhance the credibility of the mechanism and maintain public confidence in the MCHK. Moreover, the MCHK should also shorten the time for handling complaints and conducting disciplinary inquiry. All these have been included in the review currently undertaken by the steering committee. It is expected that the review can be completed in the first half of next year, followed by specific recommendations. I believe Members' views brought up just now, such as increasing the ratio of lay members, will be included in the recommendations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1685
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe those who have assisted complainants to the MCHK will have a deep sense of helplessness.
Deputy President, just now, many Members have pointed out the problems with the existing mechanism, the practice of "doctors harbouring each other" and the issue of conflict of interest, as well as the failure of the Secretariat to properly utilize resources; however, these are only minor problems.
Secretary, now that the Government has set up a steering committee to conduct reviews, would the authorities consider establishing a body similar to The Ombudsman to handle complaints on medical negligence in an independent and professional manner, so as to address the problem of "doctors harbouring each other"?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in general, the public will feel that lay members will loosely classify the discontent and complaints involved in the course of treatment. Yet, if we analyse these complaints carefully, we will know that they actually involve different issues. Therefore, in my opinion, a more appropriate approach is to handle complaints of different nature by the existing different mechanisms. Sometimes, the complainants are the patients or their family members, who will consider that the harm done results from negligence in the course of treatment. Their purpose is to claim damages and the complaints will be handled by the civil courts.
Under the HA's complaint mechanism, there is the Public Complaints Committee, members of which include community members and patients' representatives. The Committee is responsible for handling second tier complaints which very often involve communication breakdown between patients and healthcare staff or hospital administration.
As regards the MCHK, it will handle complaint cases that are related to professional conduct. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of professional conduct, with the first involving individual conduct of medical practitioners, and the second involving the neglect of professional duties on the part of the medical practitioner while treating the patients. Therefore, complaints of different nature will be handled by different mechanisms.
1686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
However, just as I mentioned earlier, I agree that there is room for further improvement to the complaints handling and disciplinary inquiry mechanism. Nonetheless, it must be achieved by improving the MCHK's disciplinary inquiry mechanism and further boosting lay involvement. If lay involvement can be expanded, two goals can be achieved: first, the public will think that complaints against medical practitioners are not only handled by themselves; second, the number of complaint cases handled by the entire system can be increased.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Would the steering committee consider establishing a Medical Ombudsman in its review?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): The steering committee will wrap up its review next year. If there are concrete recommendations, we will surely inform the public as soon as possible. Speaking of the complaint procedure, I forgot to tell Members just now that outside the medical system, there is The Ombudsman. As far as I am aware, it also handles many complaints pertaining to medical institutions or that are medically related.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding medical complaints, even if there are people like myself who are willing to provide voluntary legal assistance, there must be people with medical background to provide voluntary assistance before we can take the initial step to follow up. Yet, we do not have such a mechanism at present. My purpose of proposing to establish a Medical Ombudsman is to help the public secure a report from the hospital first before moving on to take legal action. In this connection, would the Secretary consider extending more assistance to the grass-roots people so that they will not be left with no way to have their grievances redressed?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I said earlier, I think the nature of complaints pertaining to medical procedures varies, and the existing approach of handling complaints of different nature by different mechanisms is more appropriate.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1687
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Storage of Dangerous, Inflammable or Prohibited Articles in Mini-storages
7. DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that as quite a number of mini-storages currently available for rent by members of the public boast about their respect for customers' privacy, their staff will not inspect the articles stored by hirers and allow hirers to store and retrieve their articles by themselves. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the setting up (including the locations) of mini-storages is subject to the regulation of any existing legislation;
(2) whether it knows the current total number of mini-storages in Hong Kong as well as their geographical distribution;
(3) how the Government prevents such storages from being used for storing dangerous, inflammable or prohibited articles; and
(4) of the means through which the Government knows at present whether dangerous/inflammable articles are being stored in mini-storages and the types of such articles, so that appropriate fire-fighting methods can be adopted in case of fire in such mini-storages?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, having consulted relevant Policy Bureaux and department, my reply to the various parts of DrLAU's question is as follows:
(1) and (2)
At present, there is no specific legislation for regulating mini-storages in Hong Kong and no requirement on the locations of such storages. The Government does not have statistics on mini-storages.
(3) The Fire Services Department (FSD) has approached certain operators of mini-storages to understand their operations. In general, mini-storages mainly provide tenants with smaller-scale 1688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
storage services. Tenants of mini-storages are generally required to sign an agreement with the operators and these agreements typically contain conditions restricting the keeping or storage of explosives, dangerous goods, chemicals, flammable substances and compressed gases, and so on.
Besides, in order to enhance public awareness of safe storage of dangerous goods, the FSD will from time to time remind operators of different industries about the importance of safety management of dangerous goods. For example, the FSD issued letters to logistics and freight forwarding companies in September 2015 to remind them of safety measures requiring their attention during daily operations, and the statutory requirements set out in the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295) that no person shall store, convey or use any dangerous goods exceeding exempt quantity.
The FSD will continue to combat illegal activities regarding over-storage of dangerous goods through enforcement actions. The Department has set up a "Fire Protection Task Force" which carries out investigation within 24 hours into complaints relating to over-storage of dangerous goods in order to ensure public safety.
(4) Upon arrival at the fire scene after receiving fire calls, fire personnel will immediately conduct multi-faceted risk assessments and develop a fire-fighting strategy. During fire-fighting, fire personnel will observe changes in circumstances and conduct dynamic risk assessments. On the other hand, the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations (Cap. 295B) specify the requirements for the marking, labelling and packaging, and so on, of various dangerous goods. In general, fire personnel can, through examining the markings, labelling and packaging during incidents involving dangerous goods, make an initial assessment of whether and what categories of dangerous goods are involved. In addition, fire personnel can obtain relevant information as well as the Material Safety Data Sheets of the stored goods by inquiring the responsible persons at scene or persons in charge of the storages concerned.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1689
Enhancing Productivity of Hong Kong
8. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Chinese): President, according to the Productivity Brief 2015 recently released by the Conference Board, an American think tank, the average annual growth rate of global labour productivity in 2014 was 2.1%, a level similar to that in 2013, but was lower than the relevant growth rate of 2.6% for the period from 1999 to 2006. The Brief projected that the average annual growth rate of global labour productivity in 2015 would further drop to 2.0%, and pointed out that the average annual growth rate of global total factor productivity had remained stagnant in the past three years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has concrete measures in place to enhance the labour productivity in Hong Kong; if it does, of the contents of the measures (including the industries involved and the effectiveness expected); if not, whether it will expeditiously formulate such measures; and
(2) whether it has compiled statistics on the total factor productivity in Hong Kong; if it has, of the statistics compiled in the past 10 years; if not, whether it will consider compiling such statistics?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the two parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Government attaches great importance to economic development, and the labour productivity of Hong Kong is one of the factors affecting economic growth. To ensure that the population quality of Hong Kong can promote the sustained economic development of Hong Kong, the Government is committed to improving education and training, as for example, by providing through the Vocational Training Council different advance education choices for school leavers and working adults to acquire knowledge and skills for lifelong learning and enhanced employability, so as to promote the manpower development of various industries.
In addition, the Hong Kong Productivity Council (HKPC) is committed to enhancing productivity for various industries. Though providing integrated support across the value chain, 1690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
including product development, consultancy, training and technology transfer services, and so on, the HKPC promotes businesses' more effective utilization of resources to increase the value-added content of products and services, with a view to increasing competitiveness and sustainability.
The Government also attaches importance to diversifying industries, thereby meeting the needs of Hong Kong people for start-up initiatives, investment and business operation, and for more choices in employment to put their abilities to full play, so as to maintain the productivity of Hong Kong in the long run. Established since 2013, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) personally led by the Chief Executive has been providing visionary direction and advice on the overall strategy and policy to broaden Hong Kong's economic base and to enhance Hong Kong's economic growth and development; and to explore and identify growth sectors or clusters of sectors which present opportunities for Hong Kong's further economic growth, and recommend possible policy and other support measures for these industries.
The Working Groups under the EDC (namely, the Working Group on Transportation; the Working Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism; the Working Group on Manufacturing Industries, Innovative Technology, and Cultural and Creative Industries (MICWG); and the Working Group on Professional Services) have progressively submitted many specific recommendations on promoting the development of industry sectors concerned, which have been endorsed by the EDC and accepted by the Government. For example, the MICWG have submitted a number of specific recommendations, covering further improving the Innovation and Technology Fund, supporting the film post-production sector, and promoting the sustainable development of the fashion industry, and so on.
The Government will continue to collaborate with the Working Groups of the EDC to study the possible directions to support relevant industries and submit specific recommendations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1691
(2) According to the Productivity Brief 2015 issued by the American think tank Conference Board, the measurement of total factor productivity covers all inputs in the production process, including labour, innovation and technology application, and so on. We understand that different economies will, taking account of their economic structure and development, and so on, compile relevant productivity indicators.
For Hong Kong, the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) regularly compiles the Labour Productivity Index (LPI), as an indicator of how efficiently labour input is used for generating real output. The labour input adopted by the C&SD is measured by the person-hours worked, which is based on the Composite Employment Estimates of the whole economy and the average actual hours of work enumerated from the General Household Survey. Over the past 10 years (2005 to 2014), the LPI for the Hong Kong economy increased at an average annual rate of 3.3%.
Although the yearly movement of Hong Kong's labour productivity may be influenced by fluctuations in business cycles, Hong Kong's economy has been developing towards the high value-added and knowledge-based direction. With the flourishing development of information and communication technologies since the mid-90's, business operations have more generally adopted new elements of technologies and innovations. At the same time, the continuous quality upgrade of Hong Kong's labour force has been increasing labour productivity and brought many benefits to the Hong Kong economy.
Homework for Primary School Students
9. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Chinese): President, quite a number of parents of primary school students have relayed to me that their children have to complete considerable and difficult homework daily, resulting in their children lacking playtime. Some parents have even completed some of the homework for their children to avoid their children being deprived of sufficient rest time. As 1692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 revealed by some surveys, primary school students currently have to complete on average seven to 10 assignments daily. Some lower primary students have even been given 23 assignments before the weekend break, who therefore have to work until midnight on Sunday to complete those assignments. Also, 90% of the parents are of the view that the current homework load has exerted pressure on their children. There are views that one of the reasons for the ever-increasing amount of homework for primary school students is that the Education Bureau (EDB) removed the upper limits on the amount of homework for primary school students when it updated the Basic Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6) in 2014. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, in the past three years, it conducted any comprehensive study on whether primary school students have been given homework of an appropriate amount and level of difficulty, and assessed the impacts on primary school students' psychological and physical health caused by the pressure generated by the requirement to complete all the homework; whether it has assessed if the situation of giving considerable and difficult homework to students is contrary to the authorities' objectives for implementing the education reform; if it conducted such a study and made such an assessment, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that in the updated Guidelines on Homework and Tests in Schools issued by EDB to schools in October this year, there is a guideline stating that schools should try to arrange time within lessons as far as possible for students to complete part of their homework under teachers' guidance, whether EDB has conducted any extensive survey of the primary schools across the territory in respect of the implementation of this guideline; if EDB has, of the details (including the number of schools which have implemented that guideline); if not, whether EDB will conduct such a survey; and
(3) whether it will, in the light of the outcome of the aforesaid surveys, state afresh in the relevant guidelines the upper limits on daily homework, e.g. the time for lower primary students to complete all their homework (including homework in formats such as written work, online exercise, oral practice, etc.) should not exceed 30 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1693
minutes a day, and that for upper primary students should not exceed 60 minutes; if it will, of the implementation timetable; if not, what measures the authorities will take to alleviate the pressure of homework on primary school students and their parents?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, in view of the public concerns over the amount of homework for primary students, the Education Bureau issued the "Guidelines on Homework and Tests in Schools ― No Drilling, Effective Learning" Circular (the Circular) on 31 October 2015 to reiterate and urge schools to formulate an appropriate and transparent school-based homework policy and conduct regular holistic reviews on it. Schools have to co-ordinate the amount of homework at different class levels so that students can have sufficient time to rest, play and develop their interests.
In actual fact, the Education Bureau always lays emphasis on the quality rather than quantity of homework. As stated in Chapter 8 "Meaningful Homework" of the "Basic Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6) 2014" (2014 Guide), the life-like, interesting and varied design of homework can promote reading and stimulate thinking. It can also cater for the different learning needs of students. Meaningful homework can consolidate what is learnt in class, extend students' reading or help them prepare for lessons. Homework must never be used as a means to fill up students' spare time after school. If exercises with focus on mechanical drills are used as homework, it will stifle students' motivation and their learning progress.
With regard to Mr TIEN's enquiry, my reply is as follows:
(1) The Education Bureau always attaches importance to the physical and psychological health, as well as the whole-person development of students. Over the years, the Education Bureau has conducted random-sampling surveys to collect information of school measures on the implementation of various curriculum reforms. The 2008, 2011 and 2015 surveys have asked respondents (Primary School heads/curriculum leaders/teachers and students) to provide their views on the quality and quantity of homework.
1694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Responses of Primary School Heads/Primary School Curriculum Leaders
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Report of the Report of the Report of the Survey on Survey on Survey on Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Reform 2015 Reform 2008 Reform 2011 (Under Preparation) We have devised 99% (Agreed) 99% (Agreed) 98% (Agreed) a whole-school homework policy The amount of 99.7% (Agreed) 100% (Agreed) 100% (Agreed) homework and tests is appropriate Sampling size 156 131 100 (Number of primary schools)
Responses of Primary Six Students
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Report of the Report of the Report of the Survey on Survey on Survey on Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Reform 2015 Reform 2008 Reform 2011 (Under Preparation) Give us different 78% (Agreed) 87.2% (Agreed) 89% (Agreed) kinds of homework Give us an 63% (Agreed) 68.8% (Agreed) 69% (Agreed) appropriate amount of homework Sampling size 5 033 4 947 8 260 (Number of Primary Six students) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1695
According to the results of the 2008 and 2011 Surveys, around 30% of students had doubts about the statement, "Give us an appropriate amount of homework". This indicated that there was variation among schools in implementing the homework policy. Based on this observation, the Education Bureau, when formulating the 2014 Guide, has included clear guidelines on designing meaningful homework and devising homework policy in Chapter 8, namely "Meaningful Homework", for the school management (including both school leaders and teachers) as reference for policy implementation. Starting from the 2013-2014 school year, schools are invited to share their experiences in the regular "Professional development programmes set for primary school curriculum leaders on whole-school curriculum planning". In the workshop, experiences on meaningful homework and the importance of regular reviews on homework policy are shared.
As the 2015 Survey is still in progress, follow-up actions will be duly taken once the findings have been consolidated.
(2) In 2000, the Education Bureau implemented the education reform to foster students' whole-person development and lifelong learning. The curriculum reform was also launched with the aim of developing students' interest in learning and learning to learn capability. In the same year, the Education Bureau issued the "Guidelines on Homework and Tests in Schools" to explain the principles and measures of meaningful homework. Undoubtedly, homework and assessment merit key considerations in curriculum planning.
The purpose of "meaningful homework-consolidating learning, deepening understanding and constructing knowledge" is explicitly stated in the "Basic Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 to Secondary 3) 2002". The frequency and amount of homework, ways of adopting a whole-school approach in devising homework policy and the role of parents are duly suggested as a blueprint for implementation in primary schools and as a reference for the general public.
1696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
At the same time, the Education Bureau has constantly reminded and monitored schools in their effective implementation of the Curriculum Guide through different channels and means (including external school reviews, focus inspections, school development visits and curriculum development visits, and so on). Professional advice, support and reports are provided on school practices and students' learning needs. Timely professional advice and support will also be given to individual schools that have difficulties in formulating a school-based homework policy according to the guidelines set out in the Circular.
On 31 October 2015, the Education Bureau issued a revised circular to schools, reiterating that meaningful homework can facilitate students to consolidate and extend learning, as well as to prevent the situation of inappropriate quantity of homework and excessive drilling from continuing or getting worse. When "doing homework" is pleasurable and rewarding for students, it is regarded as an effective learning activity. On the contrary, mechanical drills can hamper students' motivation and learning progress. Schools, when formulating their homework policy, should consider their school context and students' learning needs, and should arrange, as far as possible, lesson time for students to complete part of their homework under teachers' guidance. Meanwhile, schools should make good use of the home-school communication channel, for instance the parent-teacher association, parent meetings at class level and other social activities, to collect the view of parents about the quality and quantity of homework, so as to improve their homework policy.
Every year, all local schools are required to submit the school timetable to their Regional Education Office. For all the school timetables submitted in the 2015-2016 academic year, a majority of schools have arranged tutorial/class teacher periods for homework guidance within school hours. In order to ensure the successful execution of the respective measures as outlined in the Circular, the Education Bureau has engaged the collaboration of different divisions to take the following steps:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1697
(i) Focus Group Interviews with School Leaders
Starting from the end of November 2015, views of school sponsoring bodies, school supervisors and school heads will be collected through regular communication and collaboration in various annual meetings, focus group interviews and daily contact. This will help to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the Circular.
(ii) Collaboration with and Monitoring of Schools
Starting from December 2015, school visits will be conducted to assist schools in formulating an appropriate homework and assessment policy. Professional advice, support and reports on school practices and students' learning needs will be provided accordingly to enhance schools' self-improvement.
(iii) Professional Development of the School Management Team
Starting from January 2016, identical professional development programmes will be organized in four district regions to share with primary school leaders the good practices of implementing the school-based homework policy and assist them to effectively carry out the new measures as outlined in the Circular.
(iv) Close and Transparent Home-school Partnership
The Education Bureau urges schools to discuss the Circular in the coming meetings with its parent-teacher association so that parents can be involved in their children's learning and collaborate with the school to further improve its homework policy.
Under the principle of transparent and effective communication, parents are encouraged to proactively reflect to the schools of their children or the Education Bureau the adverse conditions found in excessive homework and over-drilling so that appropriate follow-up actions can be taken to realize the spirit of the Circular. 1698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(3) In June 2014, while the revision of the 2014 Guide was in progress, the Education Bureau conducted a number of focus group interviews to collect views on the amount of written homework from various stakeholders, including representatives of the Curriculum Development Council, school heads, teachers, parents and principals' associations as outlined in Chapter 8, "Meaningful Homework". Through several rounds of deliberation, a shared view was reached that the types of homework today have become more open-ended and diverse. Since students nowadays can make use of information technology to complete their learning tasks, homework is not confined to "pen-paper" written work only. Therefore, it is not practicable to set for all schools a strict upper limit on the amount of homework to be assigned. Instead, schools can exercise their professional judgment in devising school-based meaningful homework and co-ordinating its quantity at the respective class levels according to the essential principles in the curriculum guides, their school context, as well as students' abilities, interests and needs. It is also stated in Chapter 8 of the 2014 Guide that schools should regularly collect views from stakeholders, including parents and students, and continue to develop a quality homework policy through timely reviews and updates.
The Education Bureau strongly reiterates that every year, schools should formulate an appropriate school-based homework policy to regulate the quantity of homework assigned at different class levels and conduct holistic reviews so that students can have sufficient time to rest, play, develop their interests, and establish good relationships with their family members and peers. The Circular clearly spells out the principles of meaningful homework and the adverse effects of over-drilling to student learning. A variety of measures are also provided for school heads and teachers as reference.
Further discussions and information collection would be needed to support the formulation of long-term strategies and measures on homework issues (including homework time, types and quality of homework, and so on). At this stage, it is too hasty and inappropriate to propose "a strict upper homework limit" for all schools as this may undermine the existing effective school administration and teaching practices in most schools. Education Bureau officers will continue to strengthen their communication with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1699
stakeholders through different channels and means to enhance schools' self-improvement and sustainable development on homework policy, in the light of keeping abreast with societal changes.
Safety of Drinking Water from Wall-mounted Kettles
10. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, in the past two months, drinking water samples taken from the wall-mounted thermostatic electric kettles (kettles) in several kindergartens were found to have a lead content exceeding the provisional guideline value of the World Health Organization. In reply to my written enquiry, the Customs and Excise Department has advised that as kettles are electrical products, which are not subject to the regulation of the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456), issues relating to the safety of kettles are not within the purview of the Customs and Excise Department. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether there is any existing legislation regulating the safety and use of kettles; which government department(s) is/are responsible for the relevant regulatory work;
(2) given that several drinking water samples taken from the kettles of kindergartens were found to have excessive lead content, whether the authorities will require kindergartens to replace those kettles which have not obtained international certification on safety compliance; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that when kettles are not in use at night, lead released from the lead-containing components of kettles may accumulate in the water stored therein, and hence the authorities have advised users to first drain the water stored in the kettles before using them every morning, fill them with fresh supply of water and heat it before drinking, whether the authorities have assessed the number of users who will follow such a recommendation; if they have assessed and the outcome is that only a small number of people will do so, whether the authorities will put forward other safety recommendations that are more practicable; if they will, of the details? 1700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, with the assistance of the Water Supplies Department (WSD), the Education Bureau has started the water sampling tests in phases for all participating kindergartens in Hong Kong on 10 September 2015. As at 16 November 2015, tests for the 1 329 drinking water samples taken from 657 kindergartens had been completed. They included 1 025 samples taken from the inside service, 24 from drinking fountains and 280 from wall-mounted kettles. Except for the 10 samples taken from the wall-mounted kettles of eight kindergartens, all the remaining samples conformed to the provisional guideline values for lead in the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.
The following is the consolidated reply of the Development Bureau to the written question from Dr WONG, after consultation with the relevant bureaux/departments.
(1) Installation and use of a wall-mounted kettle involves two parts, namely power supply and water supply. In respect of power supply, the fixed electrical installation must be installed by a registered electrical worker in accordance with the safety requirements as specified in the Electricity (Wiring) Regulations (Cap. 406E).
As for the part of water supply, installation of a water using apparatus(1), such as a wall-mounted kettle, and connection of its inlet hose to inside service requires the approval of the Water Authority under the Waterworks Regulations (Cap. 102A) to prevent water backflow and contamination to the inside service. But the safety of a water using apparatus is not regulated by the Waterworks Regulations.
As regards the overall safety regulation for wall-mounted kettles, we consider that there is no dedicated provision under the existing legislation for regulating wall-mounted kettles based on our preliminary understanding from relevant bureaux/departments.
(1) Other water using apparatus includes washing machines, dishwashers, ice makers and coffee machines, which are connected to the inside service. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1701
In view of excess lead found in drinking water samples taken from the wall-mounted kettles, a joint investigation into the matter by the Development Bureau, the WSD and other relevant departments are already underway. They will also look into the related regulatory issues.
(2) In light of excess lead found in drinking water samples taken from the wall-mounted kettles of kindergartens, the WSD has made recommendations on the installation and use of such kettles and reminded consumers to choose products with international certification (for example, the WaterMark of Australia or the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme of the United Kingdom) when purchasing wall-mounted kettle. The Education Bureau has forwarded these recommendations to the schools for reference on 29 September 2015.
(3) The amount of lead released by lead-containing components of a wall-mounted kettle will increase if the components are in contact with hot water over the whole night when the kettle is not in use. Therefore, we recommend that the power supply to wall-mounted kettles should be disconnected during the night to stop the kettle's automatic reheating and keep-warm functions. The unused water in wall-mounted kettles should also be drained away every morning for other use. The recommendation is not complicated. We have not conducted any assessment on the number of users who would adopt our recommendation.
Growth Enterprise Market
11. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in recent months, the share prices of quite a number of companies newly listed on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) were abnormally volatile in the early stage of their listings, especially those of the companies listed by way of placement of securities by issuers. The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has expressed concern about the situation and advised that SFC would follow it up under the existing review mechanism. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
1702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(1) in each of the past five years, the number of companies listed on GEM (i) by way of placement of securities, and among such companies, (ii) the number of those whose share prices rose by 100% or more in comparison with their issue prices within the first two weeks after listing (set out in the table below);
2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 (up to October) (i) (ii)
(2) the number of companies listed on GEM whose major shareholders reduced their shareholdings, in each of the past five years, within the first six months after the listing of their companies, as well as the average percentage of their reduced shareholdings;
(3) how SFC currently follows up the situation in which the share prices of the companies listed on GEM are abnormally volatile, and whether SFC found irregularities (such as manipulation of stock prices) in the past three years;
(4) whether the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) is currently reviewing the arrangements concerning the listing of companies on GEM by way of placement of securities; if so, of the direction of the review, and whether SEHK has drawn up a timetable for implementing the various recommendations to be put forward in the review report; and
(5) whether SEHK has plans to conduct a comprehensive reform of GEM's existing modus operandi, so that emerging enterprises with genuine interests in business development can raise funds by way of listing on GEM; if SEHK does, of the details?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, our response to the five parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The number of companies listed on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) by way of placement of securities, and the number of those LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1703
whose share prices rose by 100% or more in comparison with their issue prices within the first two weeks after listing in each of the past five years are as follows:
2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 (up to 31 October) (i) Number of GEM 12 11 23 18 27 companies listed by placing only (including offer for sale) (ii) Number of GEM 0 1 11 15 23(2) companies whose share price rose by 100% or more within the first two weeks of listing(1) Number of newly listed 13 12 23 19 27 GEM companies
Source of information: The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK)
Notes:
(1) The daily closing price for the first two weeks is used as the basis for computation.
(2) The volatilities of Hang Seng Index, Hang Seng MidCap Index and Hang Seng SmallCap Index (calculated based on the difference between the relevant highest closing index minus the lowest closing index during the relevant period divided by the lowest closing index) in the first 10 months of 2015 (38%, 58% and 65% respectively) are significantly higher than those in 2014 (20%, 15% and 17% respectively). In addition, there are significantly more newly listed GEM companies in 2015.
(2) Under GEM Rule 13.16A(1)(a), controlling shareholder(s) are not allowed to dispose of shares in the newly listed companies during the first six months of listing. According to the SEHK's record, there was no disposal of shares in the first six months of listing by controlling shareholders in any GEM issuers from 2011 to October 2015.
(3) The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) regularly monitors, through its surveillance programme, untoward price and volume movements of securities listed on the SEHK including equities listed on the GEM. The SFC makes enquiries under section 181 of the 1704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) into share dealings, shareholdings and also background enquiries and then assess each case on the information received and other available information to decide whether the case merits further investigation.
Over the last three years, the SFC has enquired into/investigated a total of 98 cases of untoward movement/potential market manipulation in stocks listed on the GEM of which 41 cases are still ongoing.
(4) and (5)
To ensure that the Listing Rules address developments in the market and represent acceptable standards which help ensure investor confidence, the SEHK reviews the Listing Rules (including those under the GEM regime) from time to time. The Listing Committee (LC) and the SFC are also supplied with periodic reports on the GEM by the Listing Department (LD) covering, amongst other things, salient vetting and listing statistics; general observations on GEM applications; and media commentary. The major reviews on the GEM regime undertaken by the SEHK are set out below.
(i) The SEHK launched the GEM in November 1999 as a Venture Board for smaller and emerging technology companies' stocks. In January 2006, the SEHK published a discussion paper setting out, for discussion and comment by the market, options for further development of the GEM. As a result of this consultation exercise, the SEHK considered that the proper way forward was to reposition the GEM as a second board, under which the GEM would largely retain its existing structure and be positioned as a stepping stone towards the Main Board.
(ii) In order to implement the plans to develop the GEM as a second board, the SEHK published in July 2007 a consultation paper on the GEM setting out a number of proposed changes to the GEM Listing Rules. The proposed changes mainly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1705
aimed to codify the existing practice on the GEM and to streamline procedures. Specifically, issuers would be allowed more flexibility in the choice of the offering mechanism (including 100% placing) but they have to comply with new admission requirements including minimum public float of at least 25% of total issued share capital(3) and an expected market capitalization in public hands of HK$30 million at the time of listing, as well as minimum shareholder spread of 100 public shareholders and not more than 50% owned by the three largest public shareholders. Consultation conclusions were published in May 2008 and the revamped GEM Listing Rules came into effect on 1 July 2008.
(iii) The SEHK conducted a review of the procedural matters of the listing process, including the delegated approval process, for GEM applications in 2014 and published the details in the Listing Committee Report 2014 available on the website of the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. In summary, in May 2014, the LC considered it unnecessary to change the current delegation of the GEM listing approval to the LD. However, the LC requested the LD to provide, in its future periodic reports on the GEM, the types of issues the LD faced during the vetting of GEM applications. The LC also considered that the new sponsor regime should be allowed to operate for a period of time before considering the delegated approval process further. In November 2014, the LC considered a periodic report on the GEM and reconsidered the delegation of the GEM listing approval ― it expressed support for reviewing the delegation in due course. The LC also requested that GEM cases involving more complex issues should be brought to the LC for guidance. The SEHK will continue to monitor the operation and development of the GEM.
It should be noted that approval of the SFC is required for any Listing Rule amendments proposed by the SEHK.
(3) Subject to adjustment to between 15% and 25% in the case of listing applicants with a market capital of more than HK$10 billion. 1706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Roadworthiness of Franchised Buses
12. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, in recent years, I have received complaints from quite a number of members of the public that quite a number of franchised buses look very dilapidated and have poor performance. For example, some buses run upslope at a speed of less than 20 kilometres per hour (km/h) only, which is far below the general speed limit (i.e. 50 km/h) on roads. They are concerned whether it is safe to ride on these buses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows, in respect of the fleet of each franchised bus company, (i) the current average age of the buses and (ii) the respective numbers of buses aged 10 years or below and those aged above 10 years;
(2) whether it knows the reasons for some buses running upslope at a speed of less than 20 km/h only; whether it has assessed if the horsepower of these buses meets the relevant requirements; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the reasons for the authorities to allow these buses to run upslope at a low speed; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, the reasons for the authorities to allow these buses to run on roads; and
(3) whether it will adopt measures to urge franchised bus companies to introduce buses of greater horsepower for plying routes with more upslope and downslope road sections, so as to shorten the bus journey time and enhance the protection of the safety of bus passengers; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the road safety of vehicles. The existing legislative requirements on the construction and maintenance of vehicles are imposed on such basis. My reply to various parts of Mr Albert CHAN's question is as follows.
(1) It is the prevailing arrangements for a franchised bus to be retired before it turns 18 years old. At present, the bus fleet of individual franchised bus companies generally has an average age ranging from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1707
around six years to over 11 years. Please refer to Annex for details. With the bus replacement cycle entering its peak during 2016 to 2019, it is anticipated that about 35% of buses in the existing fleets (that is, around 2 000 buses) will be phased out during this period. The average age of bus fleet will further decrease accordingly.
(2) and (3)
Currently, the Transport Department (TD) has a set of established arrangements to regulate the performance, repairing and maintenance of franchised buses. Every new franchised bus model has to undergo a type approval process. Its design and construction must comply with the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374A) so as to ensure that such vehicles are roadworthy (including when they go uphill and downhill). Actual vehicle speed may, however, vary according to road conditions. For instance, a bus may ascend slower along an uphill road if there are frequent bus stops. Nevertheless, it is uncommon to see buses going uphill at a speed slower than 20 km/h.
Apart from the type approval process, each franchised bus has to undergo an annual examination to ensure proper functioning of its mechanical parts. Meanwhile, the franchised bus operators have to carry out regular and proper maintenance as required by the TD to ensure that the buses are in safe and good conditions for various road conditions. The TD also conducts surprise inspections to supervise the proper maintenance of franchised buses. Overall speaking, the TD is satisfied with the existing maintenance condition of franchised buses.
Our law has not prescribed any minimum speed for vehicles driving uphill or downhill. Yet, a vehicle should not without good reason be moving so slowly to the extent the other road users are being put at risk. A heavy-duty vehicle (such as a bus) generally climbs uphill at a slower speed under loaded situations. As mentioned above, the driving speed of a bus will be subject to factors such as road conditions (for example, whether the bus has to frequently stop and then restart on an uphill road, the distance between stops, as well as road gradient and curvature, and so on). With passenger safety 1708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
being the paramount consideration, a bus captain will need to exercise judgments based on road conditions and control his/her driving speed appropriately.
Franchised bus companies will take into account the overall operational and development needs of their bus networks when procuring new buses. They will draw up technical specifications of new buses and acquire appropriate bus models having regard to factors such as the nature of the bus routes concerned, conditions of the road segments and patronage. The TD encourages the franchised bus companies to acquire buses which are not only safe, but are also with better performance so that the vehicles can satisfy the general aspiration of passengers with respect to vehicle performance on uphill roads. In doing so, the fare level should be kept at a generally stable level. Franchised bus companies also deploy suitable buses to provide appropriate services having regard to the operational conditions of individual routes in different periods.
Annex
Average age and respective numbers of buses in the fleet of each franchised bus company
(as at end October 2015)
Number of buses at or Number of buses Average under 10 years old above 10 years old Franchised bus company age of (as percentage of (as percentage of buses its fleet) its fleet) The Kowloon Motor Bus 9.7 1 688 2 170 Company (1933) Limited (44%) (56%) Citybus Limited 6.4 562 185 (Franchise for Hong Kong (75%) (25%) Island and Cross-Harbour Bus Network) Citybus Limited 8.4 101 81 (Franchise for Airport and (55%) (45%) North Lantau Bus Network) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1709
Number of buses at or Number of buses Average under 10 years old above 10 years old Franchised bus company age of (as percentage of (as percentage of buses its fleet) its fleet) New World First Bus 11.4 242 467 Services Limited (34%) (66%) Long Win Bus Company 5.8 152 34 Limited (82%) (18%) New Lantao Bus 7.9 88 33 Company (1973) Limited (73%) (27%)
Thefts on Board Aircraft
13. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Police received 45 reports of thefts on board aircraft in the first seven months of this year, representing a 50% increase over the same period of last year. The total amount of money involved was as large as $3 million, exceeding that for the whole of last year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in each of the past three years, of (i) the number of reports of thefts on board aircraft and the total amount of money involved, (ii) the number of persons arrested on suspicion of stealing on board aircraft, with a breakdown by their country/place of origin, and (iii) the penalties generally imposed on the persons convicted of theft on board aircraft;
(2) whether it has studied the reasons for the significant increase in the number of thefts on board aircraft in recent years, and the related modus operandi of the offenders; if it has, of the details; and
(3) whether it has assessed if the number of thefts on board aircraft will continue to rise along with the development of the aviation industry; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the authorities' counter measures in place; whether it will review (i) the effectiveness of the current publicity and educational efforts on prevention of such crimes, and (ii) whether the current manpower resources are sufficient for combating such crimes; whether it will consider amending the legislation to increase the relevant penalties?
1710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the three parts of Mr WONG's question is as follows:
(1) Figures on thefts on board aircraft from 2012 to September 2015 are at Annex. From January to September 2015, persons who were convicted by court for thefts on board aircraft have been sentenced for a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment ranging from 30 days to 13 months.
(2) The Police are concerned about the rising trend of thefts on board aircraft in recent years. Thefts on board aircraft mainly occurred when offenders stole the property of passengers inside the luggage cabin while posing as placing luggage into the cabin before take-off. Offenders also committed theft when passengers left their seats or were taking rest at their seats during the flight journey. The Police have noticed that thefts on board medium- and long-haul flights over five hours have increased. The Police believe that this is due to the fact that cabin lights would usually be dimmed on these flights so that passengers could take rest, and offenders made use of such opportunity to commit theft.
(3) The Police will continue to exchange intelligence with airlines, the Airport Authority, the Aviation Security Company Limited, as well as Mainland and overseas law-enforcement agencies, and so on, and strengthen intelligence-led enforcement operations in order to interdict thefts on board aircraft. At the same time, the Police will continue to closely liaise with the aviation industry and enhance the vigilance and alert of industry practitioners including flight attendants against such crimes through crime prevention seminars and other means. The Police will also continue to disseminate information about the modus operandi of thefts on board aircraft, and so on, through the mass media and "Police Magazine", and so on, so as to strengthen the crime prevention awareness of the public.
The Police appeal to travellers to carefully look after their property, particularly their cabin luggage. Travellers must properly safe keep their valuable property and must not place any cash or valuable property inside the luggage cabin of aircraft so as not to give any opportunity to thieves.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1711
For persons suspected of committing theft on board aircraft, the Police will typically institute prosecution by invoking the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210) or the Aviation Security Ordinance (Cap. 494). The Government will continue to closely monitor the latest developments regarding the subject.
Annex
Figures on thefts on board aircraft from 2012 to September 2015
2015 2012 2013 2014 (January to September) Number of cases 71 37 48 60 Amount involved $1.86 million $1.46 million $2.61 million $4.45 million Number of 60 26 33 31 arrested persons*
Note:
* All arrested persons are non-Hong Kong residents.
Improving Implementation of Territory-wide System Assessment
14. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) is designed to gauge students' attainment of the basic competence in the three subjects of Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics at the end of the three key learning stages (i.e. Primary 3, Primary 6 and Secondary 3). The Government has advised that TSA data help the Government review policies and provide appropriate support to schools, and schools may make use of the school-level report to devise plans for enhancing learning and teaching. In recent years, some stakeholders such as education groups and parents have been greatly concerned about over-drilling students by schools for the purpose of TSA and have requested the Education Bureau (EDB) to abolish the Primary 3 TSA. Moreover, some private schools have decided not to participate in TSA any longer. Some school sponsoring bodies have relayed to me that as the academic standards of some students allocated to the schools are unsatisfactory and TSA questions have become increasingly difficult, it is 1712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 quite normal that the performance of schools in TSA varies greatly. However, as EDB often takes the TSA performance of a school as an indicator of the school's competence in and quality of education provision without taking into consideration the school's actual circumstances, schools are put under immense pressure. On the other hand, the Secretary for Education has recently indicated that the Coordinating Committee on Basic Competency Assessment and Assessment Literacy has been established to review the content for assessment, assessment items and operational problems of TSA in the coming three months. EDB has also issued updated guidelines to all schools in the territory to request them not to drill students for TSA. The Secretary for Education has reiterated that TSA is presently the only assessment that objectively reflects the basic competencies of students in Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics, and the decision to abolish TSA should not be taken lightly. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it reviewed the effectiveness of TSA in the past three years; if it did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether it reviewed, in the past three years, what problems had arisen in the course of implementation of TSA; if it did, of the details, as well as the number of such reviews conducted;
(3) of the numbers of public hearings and seminars organized by the authorities in the past three years to gauge stakeholders' views on TSA, as well as the respective numbers of attendees who were parents, teachers, school principals, students and representatives of school sponsoring bodies;
(4) whether it held discussions with individual schools or their sponsoring bodies on the TSA data of the schools in the past three years; if it did, of the objectives of such discussions, and whether it made requests or suggestions to the relevant schools on improving their performance in TSA; if it did, of the details (including the number of schools involved); if not, the reasons for that;
(5) whether it has forwarded the TSA data of schools to external reviewers for reference; if it has, of the details, and whether it has assessed if such a practice will affect the independence, fairness, and impartiality of external reviewers in conducting their reviews;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1713
(6) whether it has examined if the TSA questions, set by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority in the past 10 years, were increasingly difficult; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(7) whether it has assessed if the existing TSA questions are overly difficult and the relevant assessment items too complicated and tricky, rendering students unable to answer them; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(8) whether it has invited independent professionals to conduct analyses and comparisons of the TSA questions used in the past years; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(9) of the other uses of the TSA data by EDB, in addition to the provision of such data to schools for enhancing learning and teaching;
(10) whether it has used the TSA data as indicators to judge schools' competence in and quality of education provision; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(11) whether it will conduct a consolidated analysis of the TSA data together with the academic standards achieved by students when they were admitted to the schools, so as to assess the schools' competence in and quality of education provision in a more accurate manner; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(12) whether EDB has ensured that the TSA data of individual schools are kept in strict confidence; if EDB has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(13) whether EDB has issued internal guidelines to specify the time limit for keeping the TSA data confidential and that the data are not meant for other uses (such as being used as the basis for school quality assessment, closure of schools, etc.); if EDB has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
1714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(14) whether it will ensure that the right to use the TSA data be surrendered to schools and that the data will only be used by schools as reference to help improve teaching and learning; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(15) whether it will ensure that the various units under EDB will not use the TSA data (i) to assess the performance of schools, and (ii) as grounds for directing schools or their sponsoring bodies to implement reforms; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(16) whether EDB will change TSA into internal assessments conducted by schools and take samples from such assessments to conduct a territory-wide comparison, so as to provide reference benchmark for schools; if EDB will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(17) of EDB's justifications for not considering the abolition of the Primary 3 TSA for the time being;
(18) whether it will consider combining the Primary 6 TSA with the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test, or abolishing either one of those public examinations; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(19) whether it will consider the suggestion of holding the Primary 3 TSA in alternate years; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(20) whether it will consider inviting more stakeholders to join the aforesaid Coordinating Committee to help enhance the Committee's recognition; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(21) whether it has made reference to and comparison with overseas assessment systems; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(22) given that the Secretary for Education is unable to attend the public hearing on TSA to be held by the Panel on Education of this Council scheduled for the 29th of this month due to personal reasons, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1715
whether the Secretary will change his itinerary so as to attend the public hearing and to listen to stakeholders' views directly; if he will not, of the reasons for that; and
(23) whether the Secretary for Education will attend another public hearing to be held by the Panel on Education of this Council scheduled for the 5th and 6th of next month; if he will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) is designed to gauge students' attainment of the basic competencies (BCs) in Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics at the end of Primary Three (P3), Primary Six (P6) and Secondary Three in order to progress to higher levels of learning. While the territory-wide assessment data help the Government review policies and provide focused support to schools, individual schools can make use of the school-level report to devise plans for enhancing learning and teaching.
The TSA is a low-stakes assessment that does not assess and report performance of individual students. Neither does it affect advancement in education nor allocation of school places for admission to Secondary One (S1). The data is not used for ranking or classifying schools. It is not an index for imposing measures on schools to cease operation.
In response to the recent discussions on TSA in the community, the Coordinating Committee on Basic Competency Assessment and Assessment Literacy, established in October 2014 under the Education Bureau will study and review the operation and different implementation arrangements of TSA in the next few months. At the same time, the Education Bureau will continue to collect views of different stakeholders, including school sponsoring bodies, principals, teachers and parents, and so on, through various channels to facilitate the review on TSA. In addition, the Education Bureau updated and issued circulars in late October this year to urge schools to monitor issues related to drilling and homework load. Schools should make clear and accessible to parents their homework and assessment policy as well as the types of homework.
1716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
The reply to the questions raised by Dr LAM Tai-fai is as follows:
(1) to (4)
Since the implementation of TSA at P3 in 2004, the Education Bureau and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) have been attending to and collecting views and suggestions on the TSA from various stakeholders, including their concerns of workload for teachers and impact on students and schools.
The Education Bureau announced in November 2011 that the TSA would be reviewed to examine areas including the implementation arrangements, reporting functions, coverage and question items. During the course of review, communication with stakeholders was maintained through different means:
(i) In 2012 and 2013, the HKEAA collected opinions from schools in focus groups regarding the TSA assessment design, the benefits of TSA on learning and teaching, the impact on students' learning performance, the implementation of the enhancement measures, and the alternate-year arrangement of P6 TSA. Participants included principals and vice principals of primary and secondary schools, primary school curriculum leaders, panel heads and subject teachers. Schools which voluntarily joined the P6 assessment reflected that the "Item Analysis Reports" were of reference value for them to understand the learning needs of students and plan the curriculum.
(ii) In 2013, with a view to facilitating thorough deliberations among different stakeholders and soliciting their views and suggestions on other possible enhancement measures for the TSA, the Education Bureau consulted and met with the primary and secondary schools councils, the Committee on Home-school Co-operation, the Federation of Parent and Teacher Associations, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, the Education Commission, the Curriculum Development Council, as well as the TSA Concern Group.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1717
Consultation work and views of stakeholders were presented in the paper for the meeting of the Panel on Education on 13 January 2014.
Taking into consideration the views of stakeholders collected through consultation, the Education Bureau announced the results of the review on TSA and the related enhancement measures (including not disclosing attainment rates to primary schools, administering P6 TSA in alternate years and removing the TSA from the Key Performance Measures for primary schools, and so on) in April 2014, and continued to maintain close communication with all stakeholders. In support of the TSA enhancement measures, a series of seminars were held to inform schools of the implementation of the enhancement measures and listen to the views of the front-line personnel. In August this year, the HKEAA organized focus groups to consult primary school teachers who served as markers for their views on the enhancement measures for the TSA. Majority of them welcomed the enhancement measure of launching the interactive platform for online reporting and considered it of value for providing feedback to learning and teaching.
In order to enhance understanding of schools regarding policies and arrangements for the TSA, the Education Bureau arranged a seminar on 30 October 2015 for principals, curriculum leaders, teachers and representatives of school sponsoring bodies. Around 380 participants attended the seminar to share the effective use of assessment data to enhance student performance, making use of the interactive reporting platform to facilitate curriculum planning, designing tasks for assessments as well as making selection of quality textbooks and curriculum resources. Suggestions made by participants reflected that they recognized the merits of the TSA reports in helping them to identify students' strengths and weaknesses, develop curriculum and make adjustments to learning and teaching. Other than sharing their positive views on the enhancement measures implemented in 2014, the participants also expressed their opinions on further enhancement measures on the design of assessment papers (for example, number of items, length of texts), the coverage and the enhancement of professional support for teachers.
1718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Since curriculum, pedagogy and assessment should be well aligned, schools should make effective use of different assessment information including data from tests, examinations, assignments, students' classroom performance and TSA data, and so on, to adapt the curriculum, improve the effectiveness of learning and teaching as well as provide constructive feedback to students. Through different channels and means of communication including school visits, inspections, daily contact, and so on, the Education Bureau has been providing advice and support to schools on various aspects of school operation and learning needs of students so as to promote schools' self-improvement and sustainable development.
(5) Under the School Development and Accountability framework, the Education Bureau promotes evidence-based school self-evaluation (SSE) complemented by External School Review (ESR) to enhance the effectiveness of SSE for schools' self-improvement and sustainable development. While schools need to make use of different information and data to conduct own SSE, external reviewers also make reference to such information to review different aspects of school performance from a holistic perspective. In April 2014, the Education Bureau announced the results of the review on TSA and related enhancement measures. The TSA has been removed from the Key Performance Measures for primary schools. However, in conducting SSE, schools can still make use of the TSA item analysis report as one of the references in reviewing student performance. In the process of ESR, the Education Bureau officers will conduct professional dialogue and discussions with school personnel on how schools use the assessment information and data to feedback learning and teaching and to enable improvement in student learning.
(6) to (8)
The assessment items of TSA are developed by the TSA Moderation Committee for each subject at each level as established by HKEAA in accordance with curriculum documents, curriculum guides and Basic Competency documents. The TSA Moderation Committee consists of an academic from the tertiary sector, curriculum experts, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1719
local teachers (including native-speaking English teachers for the English Language), managers from the HKEAA and curriculum officers from the Education Bureau, and so on. Meetings are conducted regularly to deliberate on the items in terms of the level of difficulty, item types and marking criteria to ensure that the assessment coverage is in line with the curriculum and related to students' learning experience, and the items are pitched at BC levels not being excessively difficult.
After the release of the TSA results, the HKEAA will arrange meetings for the TSA Paper Review Focus Group for each subject and each level to review the assessment content, level of difficulty, types of items, rubrics of assessment and the overall percentage of correct responses (such as rate of correct responses being too high or low), and so on. Their comments are forwarded to the Moderation Committee for the development of the TSA papers in the following year. Where possible, members of the focus groups do not come from the Moderation Committees to keep the review objective.
(9) to (11) and (15)
The Government can make reference to the TSA data to formulate related policies and measures, such as developing appropriate learning and teaching resources to cater for learner diversity, promoting "Reading to Learn" so as to enhance reading culture in school, and so on. At school level, the TSA data can help teachers understand students' performance against BCs and identify areas for improvement for provision of timely support, which would enable enhancement of learning and teaching strategies, and improvement on students' learning effectiveness. The Education Bureau seeks to understand different aspects of schools by adopting a holistic approach and TSA data is only one of the many references in the process. It is not an indicator for evaluating the effectiveness of school operation and school performance. Neither will it form a basis for imposing measures on schools nor school sponsoring bodies for reform.
1720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(12) to (14)
The TSA school level report is a confidential document. Viewing of related data is confined to the school management personnel and teachers concerned. Schools should agree and follow the protocol for using the TSA data. The protocol requires that schools keep confidential all TSA data. They should not release all or part of the assessment data via any means (for example, printed matter, school websites, and publications). The protocol also states clearly that the TSA data provided are reference materials for schools to devise learning and teaching plans to meet the school development needs.
We have been stressing that TSA is a low-stakes assessment which aims to provide schools with assessment data for teachers' reference to facilitate curriculum planning and adjust teaching and learning plans. As such, the Education Bureau will not use the TSA data as a basis for imposing measures on schools to cease operation. Evaluation of school performance is conducted according to the framework and guidelines set for the purpose. Reference is made to a range of data rather than the TSA data as the only source of reference. In April 2014, we removed the TSA from Key Performance Measures for primary schools to dispel worries of schools.
(16) As part of our continual dialogue with different stakeholders, we have been soliciting their opinions on conducting the TSA using a sampling approach. There was no consensus on the approach to be adopted. While supported by some stakeholders, the proposed approach was deemed ineffective in alleviating stress on schools and fairness was also a concern.
In addition, regardless of the particular sampling method adopted, the school level report will no longer be available. Teachers will lose access to objective assessment data which could otherwise be used as a basis for adjusting curriculum planning. There is a need for more research and consideration as far as the adoption of a sampling approach is concerned. The issue will be considered in the current review.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1721
(17) and (19)
On different occasions where stakeholders were consulted, there was divided opinion on the implementation plans for P3 TSA (for example, cancellation, alternate-year implementation, adoption of sampling approach, and so on). No consensus has been achieved. In the current review, we will carefully examine the feasibility of different implementation arrangements to ensure that timely feedback can be provided to schools and students.
(18) In weighting the proposed merger of the P6 TSA and Pre-S1 Hong Kong Attainment Test (Pre-S1 HKAT), we have to take into consideration the objectives, essence, contents and operation of the two assessments. First, unlike the TSA which provides information on students' attainment of BCs in the three subjects of Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics, the Pre-S1 HKAT only provides information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of students in these three subjects to facilitate secondary schools to plan in advance the learning and teaching of their S1 students. A large number of P6 students participate in the Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) System each year. While stakeholders in general consider overreliance on academic performance at the stage of basic education (including having a high-stake examination) for the purpose of admission to secondary schools and hence possible distortion of the primary school curriculum should be avoided, they appreciate that a mechanism is required to differentiate the performance of P6 students to determine the order of allocation when the number of students choosing a school exceeds the S1 places of the school. Having balanced the views of various stakeholders, we have adopted the Pre-S1 HKAT which seeks to differentiate students' performance in schools. Besides, the Pre-S1 HKAT is conducted in a secure manner to scale the internal assessment results of the following cohort of P6 students progressing to S1 with a view to minimizing incentive for drilling.
When the Working Group on Review of P6 Assessment Arrangements explored the feasibility of different modes of operation for the TSA from 2010 to 2011, it pointed out that if the different objectives of the TSA and Pre-S1 HKAT are to maintain, the assessment upon the proposed merger, as compared with the 1722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
existing assessments, would result in a much larger quantity of assessment items with more complicated contents. In addition, more rigorous pre-tests and careful calibrations, and so on, are required, which would involve a longer period. As such, the proposed merger fails to alleviate the pressure arising from the TSA of some primary students. Worse still, it may affect the stability of the SSPA System.
(20) The Education Bureau established the Coordinating Committee on Basic Competency Assessment and Assessment Literacy (the Committee) in October 2014. The terms of reference of the Committee are to advise on the direction relating to the development of the Basic Competency Assessment project (including the Territory-wide System Assessment and Student Assessment) as well as the enhancement of assessment literacy in schools. The Committee is composed of academics from the tertiary institutes, principals and teachers. We will consider the participation of parent representatives. Review meetings are scheduled in the next few months to consider and discuss different implementation arrangements.
In the meantime, the Education Bureau will continue to collect views from stakeholders including school sponsoring bodies, principals, teachers and parents, and so on, to facilitate the review on TSA.
(21) We have been making reference to assessment practices in other countries. Care has been taken to observe the differences in national contexts, curriculum requirements and academic structure of a particular assessment. Direct comparison or replication may not be appropriate. However, these system assessments share the same objective, which is to provide an objective and quality assessment tool. Such tool can provide objective information to facilitate appropriate allocation of education resources, ensure teaching quality and equal learning opportunities for students. A more important mission is for providing timely feedback to improve learning and teaching effectiveness. With learning strengths and difficulties identified, schools can implement early facilitations for students so as to lay a better foundation for their progressing to the next stage of learning.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1723
(22) and (23)
The Secretary for Education (SED) values and holds in high regard the opportunities to communicate with different stakeholders. SED seeks out for opportunities in his schedules to keep in touch with different parent groups to understand their views. In attending school functions such as ceremonies on Speech Day, SED holds discussions with parents. He also seizes the opportunities of meeting parents when he participates in large scale events.
SED and colleagues of the Bureau are willing to keep up the communication with all stakeholders to understand their views. As no prior notice regarding the date for the public hearing has been given to the SED office, it is unfortunate that SED has not been able to accommodate the meeting. The Education Bureau will arrange personnel appropriate for attendance. If necessary, SED can arrange to attend a meeting on 13 December.
Conservation of Country Park Enclaves
15. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Chinese): President, when designating certain sites as country parks in the past, the Government has excluded villages and agricultural lands as well as some adjacent government lands as the buffer area from the boundaries of country parks. There are currently 77 such country park enclaves (enclaves) in Hong Kong. In recent months, some members of the public discovered that land formation works had been carried out in an enclave (namely Wong Chuk Yeung located near Ma On Shan Country Park). The works involved eradicating the plants and soil on a large piece of wetland and felling thousands of trees. They are worried that such kind of disorganized development will ruin the ecology of those lands, disrupting the balance between development and conservation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the specific location, size and current land use of each enclave, and set out the information by District Council district;
(2) whether the authorities received any application for altering the planned uses of enclaves in the past five years; if they did, of (i) the number of applications approved by the authorities, (ii) the locations 1724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
of the sites involved in the approved applications, together with their original and altered planned uses, and (iii) the number of approved applications for rezoning for residential use;
(3) whether it has regularly assessed the ecological value of the various enclaves; if it has, of the details (including the assessment criteria adopted); if not, the reasons for that;
(4) of the number of inspections carried out and the number of prosecutions instituted by the authorities in each of the past five years to combat works or developments carried out in enclaves and Green Belt sites that violated their permitted land uses;
(5) whether it is an existing practice of the authorities to designate the enclaves, Green Belt sites and lands within the country parks near the sites for sale as "designated areas" in the Conditions of Sale and stipulate therein that works may be carried out by lessees in the designated areas; if so, of the specific approach and the criteria for determining the size of the "designated areas"; and
(6) given that the authorities have indicated that they adopt certain criteria (including conservation value, landscape and aesthetic value, recreation potential, size, proximity to existing country parks, land status and land use) in assessing whether the enclaves should be incorporated into country parks, of the quantitative indicators of such criteria; the measures to be taken by the authorities to ensure that the ecology around the enclaves will not be ruined by the development projects carried out in the vicinity?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,
(1) The relevant information is at Annex.
(2) There are 77 country park enclaves (enclaves) across the territory, of which 23 had already been covered by Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) before the Sai Wan Incident. As committed in the 2010-2011 Policy Address, the Government would either incorporate the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1725
remaining 54 enclaves into country parks or cover them by statutory town plans. The Planning Department (PlanD) has completed the preparation of statutory town plans for enclaves in 2014, in that 22 Development Permission Area (DPA) plans covering 30 enclaves with an effective period of three years have been gazetted. The PlanD has taken steps to prepare OZPs to replace the DPA plans. There were 14 DPA plans replaced by OZPs as at mid-November 2015.
In the past five years (that is, from November 2010 to October 2015), the Town Planning Board (TPB) did not receive any applications for amendments to the land use zonings of the above 53 enclaves covered by statutory plans. During the same period, TPB received a total of 102 planning applications not involving rezoning in the areas covered by relevant statutory plans, among which 40 cases were approved by TPB with conditions, including 31 applications for residential uses (with the major applied uses being New Territories Exempted House, that is, small house, and redevelopment house).
(3) We will assess the ecological value of the enclaves as and when necessary. For example, in assessing whether an enclave is suitable for incorporation into a country park or to be covered by statutory plan, we will consider a number of factors including its conservation and ecological value. With regard to the assessment of its ecological value, we will adopt the established criteria which include species and habitat diversities, degree of naturalness, presence of rare species, and so on.
(4) The enforcement power of the Planning Authority under the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO) (Cap. 131) is only confined to areas previously covered by DPA plans in the rural New Territories. The PlanD will conduct site inspections in DPAs regularly to identify unauthorized developments under TPO.
In the past five years (that is, from 2010 to 2014), the breakdown of site inspections carried out and the prosecutions taken by the 1726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Planning Authority against the unauthorized developments in the 46 enclaves incorporated into DPAs(1), and areas zoned "Green Belt"(2) are provided below:
Enclaves Green Belt Summons Laid Summons Laid Year Number of Site Number of Site (Number of (Number of Inspections Inspections Cases) Cases) 2010 29 5(1) 606 20(6) 2011 33 - 664 39(8) 2012 58 - 701 40(8) 2013 44 - 694 24(14) 2014 61 1(1) 707 9(14)
The enforcement work carried out by the Lands Department (LandsD) against unauthorized developments in enclaves and "Green Belt" sites involves unlawful occupation of land; illegal excavation of land; and illegal removal earth, turf or stone from Government land (all of which above are land control actions in respect of Government land) and breaches of land lease in respect of private lots (that is, lease enforcement actions). Regarding land control actions in enclaves and "Green Belt" sites, the LandsD, in response to complaints or referrals, carried out a total of 578 inspections and initiated 11 prosecutions (comprising five prosecutions against illegal removal of earth, turf or stone, two prosecutions against illegal excavation of Government land and four prosecutions against unlawful occupation of Government land) from 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2015. Of the 11 prosecution cases, seven have led to conviction. As for lease enforcement actions in respect of private land, the LandsD, in response to complaints and referrals, carried out a total of 44 inspections and issued 24 written warning during the same period.
If any suspected illegal development is detected in the enclaves when the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) conducts regular patrol in country parks, the AFCD will
(1) Among the 53 enclaves already covered by statutory plans, the enforcement power of the Planning Authority is only confined to those 46 enclaves incorporated into DPAs.
(2) They only include the "Green Belt" zones outside the enclaves. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1727
report to the relevant departments such as the LandsD and the PlanD for their attention and follow-up action. In the past five years (that is, 2010-2014), the numbers of patrol involving enclaves by year are 139, 2 224, 2 172, 2 188 and 1 619.
(5) When drafting the Conditions of Sale, the LandsD will consult the relevant government departments regarding the appropriate terms to be included. Where the professional departments concerned, in the light of needs, request that certain studies or measures (collectively referred to as "measures") be undertaken on Government land outside the lot for sale by the future owner, the relevant land would be marked as designated areas on the land sale plan and the requirements of the professional departments will be set out the Conditions of Sale.
In the event that the area outside the lot for sale where measures considered necessary by the professional departments are to be implemented involves country park, the LandsD will, when drafting the Conditions of Sale, consult the AFCD, and relevant conditions will be incorporated with the consent of the AFCD. In implementing the measures according to the procedures stated in the Conditions of Sale (for example, to obtain prior approval from government departments) the lot owner is still required to comply with the controls of the Country Parks Ordinance. Designated areas involving land within the "Green Belt" zone under the OZP are subject to TPO. If the lot owner is required to undertake measures within the designated areas under the Conditions of Sale, the lot owner must ensure that such measures are in compliance with the requirements of the relevant legislation.
(6) The AFCD adopts established principles and criteria, which include the conservation value, landscape and aesthetic value, recreation potential, size, proximity to existing country parks, land status and land use compatibility and other relevant considerations, to assess whether a site is suitable to be designated as a country park. In the course of assessing the ecological and conservation values, the AFCD will assess its species and habitat diversity, degree of naturalness, presence of rare species, and so on. Although there are no quantitative indicators for the assessment criteria, the AFCD will 1728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
make reference to the past experiences in designating country parks and exercise professional judgment before recommending those enclaves that meet the assessment principles and criteria for inclusion into country parks. The AFCD will consult the Country and Marine Parks Board and the relevant stakeholders on the country park designation proposals before commencing the statutory procedure under the Country Parks Ordinance.
During regular patrol of AFCD staff at country parks, if any suspected illegal development is detected in the enclaves, the AFCD will report to the relevant government departments such as the LandD and the PlanD for their attention and follow-up action.
Annex
77 Country Park Enclaves
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Shap Yi Wat Sha Tin 3 Agriculture, Country Park, Village Type Development, Green Belt Mau Ping, Mau Ping Lo Uk, Mau Sha Tin 45 Conservation Area, Village Ping San Uk, and Wong Chuk Type Development Shan Kam Shan* Sha Tin 1 - Site near Ngau Wu Tok Sha Tin 5 Unspecified Use Wong Chuk Yeung Tai Po 37 Conservation Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Sha Lo Tung Tai Po 56 Conservation Area, Green Belt, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Village Type Development Sham Chung Tai Po 32 Agriculture, Conservation Area, Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1729
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Ping Shan Chai Tai Po 15 - Chau Mei, Tai Tong, Chau Tau Tai Po 26 Unspecified Use, Village Type and Sha Tau Development Pak Tam Au Tai Po 14 Agriculture, Conservation Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development To Kwa Peng Tai Po 9 Conservation Area, Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Chek Keng Tai Po 31 Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community Tai Tan, Uk Tau, Ko Tong, Ko Tai Po 67 Unspecified Use, Village Type Tong Ha Yeung Development Tung Sam Kei Tai Po 4 - Ko Lau Wan, Mo Uk, Lam Uk, Tai Po 33 Coastal Protection Area, Green Lau Uk and Tse Uk Belt, Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community Hoi Ha Tai Po 8 Conservation Area, Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt (1), Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community Pak Sha O, Pak Sha O Ha Yeung Tai Po 29 Unspecified Use, Village Type Development Nam Shan Tung Tai Po 5 - Lai Chi Chong Tai Po 16 - Yung Shue O Tai Po 32 Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community Cheung Sheung Tai Po 16 Unspecified Use Tai Hom Tai Po 5 - Wong Chuk Long Tai Po 4 - Site near Wong Mau Kok Tai Po 3 - Site near Tai Po Mei Tai Po 6 Unspecified Use Shui Mong Tin Tai Po 2 Country Park, Site of Special Scientific Interest 1730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Kai Kuk Shue Ha, Ho Lek Pui and North 8 Agriculture, Conservation Ham Hang Mei Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Ho Pui, Tin Sam, Sam Ka Tsuen, North 98 Conservation Area, Green San Uk Tsuen, San Uk Ha, Lo Belt, Village Type Wai, Leng Pui and Kau Tam Tso Development Hung Shek Mun Tsuen North 10 - Lai Tau Shek North 10 - Sam A Tsuen North 23 Agriculture, Conservation Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Sai Lau Kong North 2 - Siu Tan North 20 Conservation Area, Green Belt Kop Tong, Mui Tsz Lam and Lai North 91 Agriculture, Conservation Chi Wo Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community So Lo Pun North 29 Agriculture, Conservation Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Kuk Po San Uk Ha, Kuk Po Lo North 64 Unspecified Use, Village Type Wai, Yi To, Sam To, Sze To and Development Ng To Fung Hang North 9 Unspecified Use, Village Type Development Yung Shue Au North 18 Unspecified Use, Village Type Development Fan Kei Tok North 5 - Wong Yi Chau and Hei Tsz Wan Sai Kung 9 Conservation Area, Country Park, Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development Pak Tam Chung Sai Kung 2 Country Park, Green Belt, Village Type Development Tsak Yue Wu Sai Kung 15 Conservation Area, Green Belt, Village Type Development, Country Park Tai Long, Lam Uk Wai, Lung Mei Sai Kung 46 Conservation Area, Site of Tau, Tai Wan and Ham Tin Special Scientific Interest, Village Type Development LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1731
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Pak Tam Sai Kung 5 Green Belt, Village Type Development, Recreation, Country Park, Government, Institution or Community (1) Shek Hang Sai Kung 3 Green Belt, Village Type Development Tai Mong Tsai, She Tau, Ping Sai Kung 126 Conservation Area, Green Tun, Tit Kim Hang, Tam Wat, Tai Belt, Residential (Group C) 1, Po Tsai, San Tin Hang, Tso Wo Residential (Group C) 2, Hang, Wong Chuk Wan and Residential (Group C) 3, Wong Mo Ying Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community, Country Park, Recreation Wong Keng Tei and Tsam Chuk Sai Kung 36 Country Park, Coastal Wan Protection Area, Coastal Protection Area (1), Green Belt, Recreation, Village Type Development Pak A Sai Kung 11 Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Residential (Group C), Village Type Development, Other Specified Uses Tung A Sai Kung 10 Coastal Protection Area, Government, Institution or Community, Green Belt, Open Space, Village Type Development Pak Lap Sai Kung 6 Agriculture, Conservation Area, Village Type Development, Government, Institution or Community Sai Wan* Sai Kung 17 - Fan Lau Tsuen Islands 24 Country Park, Green Belt, Village Type Development Pak Fu Tin Islands 3 Country Park, Green Belt Lung Mei and Tai Long Islands 28 Country Park, Green Belt, Residential (Group C), Village Type Development 1732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Ngong Ping Islands 103 Conservation Area, Government, Institution or Community (1), Government, Institution or Community (2), Green Belt, Open Space, Other Specified Uses, Recreation, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Village Type Development Lai Chi Yuen Islands 5 Country Park, Green Belt Shui Tseng Wan Islands 2 Green Belt Yi Long Islands 7 Country Park, Residential (Group C) Shui Hau Wan Islands 1 Country Park, Green Belt Luk Wu, Upper Keung Shan, Islands 155 Agriculture, Government, Lower Keung Shan, Cheung Ting Institution or Community, and Hang Pui Green Belt, Government, Institution or Community (1), Village Type Development Tsin Yue Wan Islands 4 - Ngau Kwo Tin Islands 7 Green Belt, Government, Institution or Community (1) Tei Tong Tsai Islands 15 - Yi Tung Shan Islands 7 - Man Cheung Po Islands 2 - Site near Nam Shan Islands 6 - Site near Peaked Hill Islands 5 - Tai Ho and Site near Wong Kung Islands 277 Site of Special Scientific Tin Interest, Unspecified Use, Village Type Development Yi O Islands 23 Green Belt, Agriculture, Village Type Development, Coastal Protection Area Site near Chuen Lung Tsuen Wan 10 - Site near Tso Kung Tam Tsuen Wan 9 - Tsing Fai Tong Tsuen Wan 26 - Sheung Tong Tsuen Wan 10 - Sheung Fa Shan Tsuen Wan 26 - Yuen Tun* Tsuen Wan 19 - LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1733
Approximate Name of Enclave District Area Zonings on Statutory Plans (in hectares) Tin Fu Tsai Tuen Mun, 53 Conservation Area, Green Yuen Long Belt, Village Type Development Ngau Liu and Kwun Yam Shan Ngau Liu: 72 Agriculture, Conservation Sai Kung Area, Government, Institution Kwun Yam or Community, Green Belt, Shan: Sha Village Type Development, Tin, Wong Site of Special Scientific Tai Sin Interest
Note:
* Enclaves already incorporated into respective country parks under the Country Parks Ordinance with effect from 30 December, 2013.
Chinese People's Victory in War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression
16. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the Chinese people's victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. Apart from designating 3 September this year as an additional statutory holiday and general holiday, the Government has also organized a number of commemorative activities, including an official commemorative ceremony, exhibitions of relics and pictures, seminars, film shows, commemorative stamp issue and guided tours of war heritage sites, etc., enabling members of the public to remember firmly this episode in history. Some members of the public have relayed to me that the history of the three years and eight months of Japanese occupation in Hong Kong is very important, the Government is therefore duty-bound to set up a memorial hall of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, so that the future generations can have a deep understanding of the deeds of resistance against Japanese aggression and the wickedness of Japanese militarism. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has plans to set up a memorial hall of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression in Hong Kong; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
1734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(2) whether it has plans to regularize the various commemorative activities organized this year; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that some family members of those guerrillas and martyrs who had participated in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression in Hong Kong have compiled and published the relevant deeds, whether the authorities have plans to take the initiative to contact them, so as to collect and preserve more information about this episode in history, with a view to enabling such historical records to pass down the generations; if they do not have such plans, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (the Anti-Japanese War), the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government launched various activities on 3 September this year to introduce the history of China's and Hong Kong's war of resistance to the public. The Government recognizes very much the need to continue promoting history of the Anti-Japanese War among the public for their greater understanding of China and its modern history and a heightened sense of belonging to their country.
Our reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Hong Kong Museum of History (HKMH) and the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence (HKMCD) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) present at their permanent exhibition galleries history of the Anti-Japanese War, including Japanese invasion of China, Chinese people's war of resistance, Japanese military occupation of Hong Kong, East River Column's resistance against the Japanese Army, and life in Hong Kong under Japanese occupation. Thematic exhibitions on the Anti-Japanese War are also held at the two museums from time to time, with recent ones including the East River Column and the Hong Kong-Kowloon Independent Brigade (2013), Pictorial Exhibition on the Nanjing Massacre (2014), and Fighting as One: Reminders of the Eight Years' War of Resistance in Guangdong and Hong Kong (2015).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1735
The HKMCD is converted from the former Lei Yue Mun Fort, an important battlefield in Hong Kong during the Anti-Japanese War in December 1941. The Museum, with wartime sites preserved, has naturally become a venue for commemorative ceremonies in relation to the Anti-Japanese War. For example, the SAR Government held on 13 December 2014 a ceremony at the HKMCD for the Nanjing Massacre National Memorial Day in deep memory of the victims. The commemorative ceremony will be held at the museum again this year.
The HKMCD is planning to renew its permanent exhibition by expanding existing exhibition space, enriching exhibits for display and enhancing presentation content. Also in the pipeline is an expansion of the galleries in relation to the Anti-Japanese War, with a view to introducing history of the Chinese people's resistance against Japanese aggression in a more focused and comprehensive manner. On another front, in its renewal plan of the permanent exhibition, the HKMH will integrate history of the war of resistance into relevant exhibition themes. To tie in with the exhibition on the Anti-Japanese War, the HKMH will conduct more educational and learning activities in different forms for teenagers to facilitate their understanding and remembrance of this episode in history.
Given that there are permanent exhibitions on the Anti-Japanese War at the two museums and plans are in place to renew exhibition content, we currently have no intention to establish another museum of the same theme.
(2) Last year, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress officially designated 3 September as the Victory Day of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. The SAR Government held official commemorative ceremonies at the City Hall Memorial Garden both last year and this year, inviting representatives of various sectors of the community to attend. In addition, the SAR Government encouraged and mobilized local organizations to hold commemorative activities. In collaboration with community organizations, the Home Affairs Department launched commemorative events for the public on Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories in the past two years. We 1736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
will continue our initiatives in this regard to enhance public understanding about history of the Anti-Japanese War. Also, the LCSD will organize special memorial activities, such as the 70th anniversary promotional series, in major commemorative years.
(3) To preserve information on the Anti-Japanese War for passing down relevant historical records across generations, the HKMH completed in 1997 an oral history research project on the period of Japanese invasion of Hong Kong. Nearly 300 prisoners of war, veterans and anti-Japanese guerrillas during Japanese occupation were interviewed, and a mass of valuable historical materials was collected. In 2001, the HKMH further conducted an oral history research project on the Hong Kong-Kowloon Brigade of the East River Column with 31 veterans of the Column interviewed. A book titled The Defence of Hong Kong: Collected Essays on the Hong Kong-Kowloon Brigade of the East River Column was compiled in March 2004, documenting history of Hong Kong's war of resistance and promoting relevant research work. Such oral history records and researches are of paramount importance to preserving and promoting stories of resistance against Japanese aggression.
Provision of Pneumococcal Vaccination for Elderly Persons
17. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, according to the information from the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) under the Department of Health, between January and August this year, the patients of more than half of the reported cases of invasive pneumococcal disease were elderly persons (i.e. persons aged 65 or above). Besides, the number of deaths from pneumonia increased from 3 026 in 2001 to 7 502 in 2014 and among those who died from such disease in 2014, 7 072 were elderly persons. On the other hand, elderly persons may receive pneumococcal vaccination under the Government Vaccination Programme or the Elderly Vaccination Subsidy Scheme (collectively referred to as "subsidy schemes") at present. Also, CHP announced in February this year that, as a one-off measure, with effect from 2 March this year, doctors who participated in the related subsidy scheme under the Childhood 13-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) Booster Vaccination Programme, if they had remaining doses of government-supplied PCV13, could provide such LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1737 vaccination for those elderly persons who had never received subsidized pneumococcal vaccination. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the aforesaid two subsidy schemes and conducted studies on boosting the rate of elderly persons receiving pneumococcal vaccination; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) of the number of the elderly persons who have received the vaccination under the aforesaid one-off measure so far and its percentage in the elderly population; and
(3) whether it will consider implementing pneumococcal vaccination programme for elderly persons on a long-term basis; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, pneumococcal vaccination is one of the safe and effective measures to prevent pneumococcal diseases. The Department of Health (DH) has all along been implementing pneumococcal vaccination programmes based on the recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the Vaccine Preventable Diseases (SCVPD) under the Centre for Health Protection.
Based on the recommendations of the SCVPD, the following regular vaccination programmes have been implemented since October 2009 for eligible elderly persons:
(i) "Government Vaccination Programme" (including "Residential Care Home Vaccination Programme") which provides free pneumococcal vaccination for eligible elderly persons aged 65 or above; and
(ii) "Elderly Vaccination Subsidy Scheme" which provides subsidized pneumococcal vaccination for elderly persons aged 65 or above through private doctors who have joined the scheme.
Apart from the above regular programmes, the DH launched a one-off measure in March 2015 to provide eligible elderly persons who have never 1738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 received pneumococcal vaccination before with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) so as to utilize the remaining stock under the one-off "Childhood PCV13 Booster Vaccination Programme".
More than 379 000 elderly persons aged 65 or above have received pneumococcal vaccination through the above measures, accounting for about 34% of the age group concerned.
Eligible elderly persons may join the above vaccination programmes any time throughout the year. Implementation of vaccination programmes is indeed one of the Government's long-term and sustained measures in prevention of pneumonia. The DH will continue to monitor the pneumococcal vaccination figures, coverage of vaccination programmes and occurrence of pneumonia among the elderly persons, and pay close attention to the SCVPD's recommendations and the latest development, so as to review the arrangement of pneumococcal vaccination for the elderly.
The SCVPD will convene a meeting at the end of this year and conduct a timely review on the recommendations on pneumococcal vaccination according to the latest local data, scientific information and international recommendations. If the SCVPD has any updated recommendations, the DH will adjust the prevention strategies and arrangements accordingly.
Child Care and After-school Care Services
18. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that quite a number of dual-income parents have an acute demand for child care and after-school care services. Although the authorities have allocated additional resources for the provision of such services in recent years, the service places are still in short supply and service recipients are confined to grass-roots families. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in each of the past 10 years, (i) of the respective numbers of non-profit-making organizations which provided child care and after-school care services, and (ii) the number of places, the number of applicants, the queuing time and the fees charged for each of the services (with a breakdown of (i) and (ii) by District Council district);
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1739
(2) in each of the past 10 years, (i) of the number of schools which provided after-school care services, and (ii) the number of places, the number of applicants, the queuing time and the fees charged for the services (set out the names of schools as well as a breakdown of (i) and (ii) by District Council district);
(3) given that subsidized child care and after-school care services are available for application only by recipient families under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme and families receiving full rate grant or half rate grant under the School Textbook Assistance Scheme, whether the authorities will consider relaxing the eligibility criteria to include new arrival families, single-parent families and low-income families; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) given that quite a number of dual-income parents cannot pick up their children after school every day because of work, whether the authorities will consider improving the existing after-school care services provided in schools, including extending their service hours to cater for the needs of dual-income parents; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(5) given that in the past 10 years, the Social Welfare Department did not operate any child care centres in new towns such as Ma On Shan, Tseung Kwan O, Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung, resulting in a prolonged lack of such services for young couples living in those new towns, whether the authorities will consider including child care centres as necessary infrastructure when planning new towns in future; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(6) given that the fee levels and quality of child care and after-school care services provided by private organizations vary greatly, whether the authorities will step up the regulation of such services; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(7) as there are comments that while the Labour and Welfare Bureau is currently responsible for formulating policies relating to child care services, the day-to-day regulation is under the purview of the Social Welfare Department and the Education Bureau respectively, coupled with the lack of co-ordination among those policy bureaux and 1740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
government department, and the effectiveness of such services has been affected as a result, of the authorities' improvement measures to rationalize the situation?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Education Bureau, my reply to the seven parts of the question raised by Dr Elizabeth QUAT is as follows:
(1) and (2)
As regards child care services, information on the numbers of places and service charges in the past 10 years (that is, from 2005-2006 to 2014-2015) is at Annex 1. The Social Welfare Department (SWD) does not have information on the numbers of applications and the waiting time of various types of child care services. In 2014-2015, there were 132 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing child care services. The SWD does not have information on the relevant numbers in past years and the numbers by district.
On the After School Care Programme (ASCP), the SWD has kept information on the numbers of NGOs providing such services by district and the numbers of places in the past nine years (that is, from 2006-2007 to 2014-2015), as detailed at Annex 2. The SWD does not have information on the number of applications, waiting time and service charge in respect of the ASCP.
In addition, schools and NGOs participating in the School-based After-school Learning and Support Programmes (the School-based Programmes) run by the Education Bureau are provided with funding for organizing school-based and district-based after-school activities respectively for the disadvantaged students to facilitate their whole-person development and personal growth. In the 2015-2016 school year, the total funding provision for the Programmes is about $240 million, with the provision for school-based and district-based after-school activities about $120 million each. The respective numbers of NGOs and schools participating in the Programmes in the past 10 school years are at Annex 3 and Annex 4 respectively.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1741
The Education Bureau has also provided funding to schools and NGOs for organizing extended after-school activities for Primary One to Secondary Three students from low-income families under the Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme. The Scheme runs from the 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 school years and seeks to enable students to consolidate their classroom learning and relieve parents of the pressure of getting their children to do homework. In the 2015-2016 school year, over $32 million has been allocated to 29 NGOs as well as 60 primary and secondary schools participating in the Scheme. It is expected that the Scheme will benefit about 10 400 students. The respective numbers of NGOs and schools participating in the Scheme in the past four years by district are at Annex 5 and Annex 6 respectively. Low income families participating in the after-school activities offered under the School-based Programmes and the Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme basically do not need to pay any fees.
(3) Children from low-income families receiving full-day child care services may apply for Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme from the Student Finance Office of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency. The SWD has all along been providing fee waiving or remission to needy families for other child care services (including the Occasional Child Care Service (OCCS), the Extended Hours Service (EHS), the Mutual Help Child Care Centre (MHCCC) and the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project (NSCCP)). When assessing the eligibility for the fee waiving or remission of child care services, the income of the applicant and his/her family members of the same household will be taken into account. Service units providing child care services may also exercise discretion in processing the applications of families with social needs. Besides, the SWD provides the Fee Waiving Subsidy Scheme (FWSS) for ASCP for low income families. Apart from the consideration of financial condition, ASCP operators also may, with reference to the families' special needs, exercise discretion to provide ASCP places with fee waiving or remission for children. The present mechanism has already taken care of the needs of different kinds of families (including new-arrival families, single-parent families and low-income families).
1742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
In addition, the Government, in 2015, injected $400 million into the Partnership Fund for the Disadvantaged, with $200 million earmarked as dedicated fund to provide more after-school learning and support programmes for primary and secondary school students from grass-roots families to facilitate their whole-person development. The SWD received 89 eligible applications in the first round of invitation, involving a total commitment of business contribution of over $50 million. The overall funding for the after-school learning and support programmes will amount to $100 million if they are all matched with the dedicated fund. Among them, over 70 programmes have commenced from the start of the 2015-2016 school year, whereas the rest are also expected to commence within the 2015-2016 school year. It is estimated that about 20 000 primary and secondary school students from grass-roots families (including new-arrival families, single-parent families and low-income families) would benefit from these programmes.
Besides, since the 2014-2015 school year, the Education Bureau has been providing funding as an incentive to schools with a utilization rate of grant at 80% or above under the School-based Programmes, and has increased the discretionary quota for schools from 10% to 25% so that they can support other needy students who do not meet the eligibility requirements of the Programmes, for example, students from new-arrival, single-parent or working-parents families. Schools and NGOs participating in the Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme also have a discretionary quota of 25%.
(4) There are various ASCP sessions from Monday to Friday. In general, the morning session runs from 8 am to 1 pm; the afternoon session from 1 pm to 6 pm; and the late afternoon session from 3 pm or 4 pm to 7 pm or 8 pm. To strengthen the support for those parents who work longer, irregular hours and work at weekends, or those who intend to join the work force so as to improve the financial condition, the SWD has since December 2014 provided additional resources to some ASCP operators to provide additional LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1743
fee-waiving and fee-reduction quotas in the territory and extend the services hours on weekday evenings, Saturdays, Sundays and non-school days. The hours of extended service are generally from 3 pm to 9 pm from Monday to Friday; eight hours' day service on Saturdays and Sundays; and 10 hours' day service on non-school days.
The Education Bureau has been encouraging schools to extend their service hours to cater for the needs of students and parents. After-school activities organized by schools participating in the School-based Programmes usually end at 5.30 pm or 6 pm. The After-school Care Pilot Scheme implemented by the Community Care Fund since the 2012-2013 school year aims at encouraging schools and NGOs to extend the duration of their existing after-school support services. Schools participating in the After-school Care Pilot Scheme normally extend their after-school support services to 6 pm or 7 pm.
(5) To respond to the community demand for child care services, from 2015-2016 onwards, the Government will increase by phases the provision of EHS places at aided child care centres (CCCs) and kindergarten-cum-child care centres (KG-cum-CCCs) in districts with high demand (including new towns), increasing the total provision of places from about 1 200 by 5 000 to about 6 200 places. The Government expects to provide about 100 additional aided long full-day child care places for children aged below three in Sha Tin in 2018-2019. Besides, the Government invites NGOs participating in the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses to, when making use of their land for redevelopment, expansion or conversion, consider establishing work-based CCC as appropriate. Two NGOs have responded positively by proposing to provide a total of about 100 self-financing places. The Government will also explore, on a pilot basis, the feasibility of providing about 100 NGO-operated child care places for staff members in the proposed Government Complex in Tseung Kwan O.
1744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
In respect of medium- and long-term planning, the Government will commission a consultancy study in 2015-2016 to advise on the long-term development of child care services.
(6) At present, the registration and operation of standalone CCCs and CCCs attached to KG-cum-CCCs have to comply with the Child Care Services Ordinance (Cap. 243) and Child Care Services Regulations (CCSR) (Cap. 243A), and are under the regulatory control and regular inspection by the SWD's Child Care Centres Advisory Inspectorate and the Education Bureau's Joint Office for Kindergartens and Child Care Centres respectively. As stipulated in the CCSR, CCCs should collect the service charge according to the approved level of inclusive monthly fees. The operating organizations cannot increase the inclusive monthly fees without obtaining prior written approval from the Director of Social Welfare.
On the other hand, since the ASCP service operated under the SWD's FWSS for ASCP is provided by NGOs on a non-profit and self-financing basis, and the scope of services provided (including service hours and meal arrangement, and so on) may be different. The service operators can set a reasonable service charge in accordance with the operating cost of the service and the financial status of the service users. The SWD's District Social Welfare Offices maintain close liaison with the ASCP centres in the districts to review the service provision and to ensure service quality.
(7) In respect of pre-primary service, the SWD and the then Education Department (Education Bureau at present) jointly formed the Working Party on Harmonization of Pre-primary Services in 2000, which advised the Government on matters related to harmonization of pre-primary services. Upon consultation with sector representatives and adoption of the recommendations from the Working Party, the harmonization measures have been implemented since 2005. Moreover, the SWD has been maintaining close liaison with the Education Bureau to discuss and co-ordinate after-school care services.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1745
Annex 1
Table 1 ― Service Charge and Number of Places(1) for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2005-2006 to 2009-2010)
CCCs attached Standalone to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP(4) CCCs(2) KG-cum-CCCs(3) Year Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of Fee of Fee of Fee of Fee of Fee Fee of Places Places Places Places Places Places(5) 2005- No information 2006 Aged 0 to 2: $3,842 2006- to 686 1 244 550 305 2007 $4,385 Aged 2 to 3: $2,315 Not Applicable Aged 0 to 2: $5 $3,842 to $13 2007- to 666 1 244 549 305 per 2008 $4,390 Whole hour Aged Day:
2 to 3: $64 $13 $2,520 Half Not Available per Aged Day: hour 0 to 2: $32 $3,842 2 hours: 2008- to $16 682 1 244 548 314 440 2009 $4,470 Aged 2 to 3: $13 $2,648 to $24 Aged per 0 to 2: hour $3,842 $5 2009- to to $18 690 1 230 545 314 440 2010 $4,470 per Aged hour 2 to 3: $2,685
Notes:
(1) The SWD does not have the information on the number of places by district from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, and only has the total number of places by year.
1746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(2) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs. As regards the period from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, the SWD only has the number of places of aided standalone CCCs.
(3) The information is provided by the Education Bureau.
(4) The service of NSCCP commenced in 2008-2009.
(5) The operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
Table 2 ― Service Charge and Number of Places by District for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2010-2011)
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee $3,842 to $1,070 to $13 Half $5 to $18 $13 to $24 District $4,650 $11,280 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $2,700 $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Central and Western 40 2 879 124 55 67 40 Southern Islands Eastern Wan 96 3 713 152 39 0 40 Chai Kwun 0 1 378 122 56 56 40 Tong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1747
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee $3,842 to $1,070 to $13 Half $5 to $18 $13 to $24 District $4,650 $11,280 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $2,700 $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Wong Tai Sin 0 2 557 140 63 14 40 Sai Kung Kowloon City Yau 144 3 215 124 60 14 40 Tsim Mong Sham 62 636 76 33 51 40 Shui Po Sha Tin 70 1 746 82 38 0 40 Tai Po 48 1 760 124 49 14 40 North Yuen 64 1 145 70 40 42 40 Long Tsuen Wan 102 2 011 138 71 14 40 Kwai Tsing Tuen 64 1 264 78 41 28 40 Mun Total 690 22 304 1 230 545 300 440
1748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Notes:
(1) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs. The SWD only has the number of places of aided standalone CCCs.
(2) The information (as at September 2010) is provided by the Education Bureau.
(3) The operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
Table 3 ― Service Charge and Number of Places by District for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2011-2012)
CCCs Aided CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP Standalone KG-cum-CCCs(2) CCCs(1) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee District $3,842 to $1,100 to $13 Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 $4,700 $12,918 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $3,040 $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places(3) Places places(4) Central and Western 40 3 057 124 42 67 120 Southern Islands Eastern Wan 96 3 556 152 31 0 80 Chai LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1749
CCCs Aided CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP Standalone KG-cum-CCCs(2) CCCs(1) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee District $3,842 to $1,100 to $13 Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 $4,700 $12,918 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $3,040 $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places(3) Places places(4) Kwun 0 1 427 122 49 56 40 Tong Wong Tai Sin 0 2 814 140 55 14 80 Sai Kung Kowloon City Yau 144 3 468 124 47 14 80 Tsim Mong Sham 62 712 76 25 51 40 Shui Po Sha Tin 70 1 796 82 29 0 40 Tai Po 48 1 533 124 35 14 80 North Yuen 64 1 175 70 35 42 40 Long 1750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
CCCs Aided CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP Standalone KG-cum-CCCs(2) CCCs(1) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee District $3,842 to $1,100 to $13 Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 $4,700 $12,918 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $3,040 $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places(3) Places places(4) Tsuen Wan 102 2 096 138 55 42 80 Kwai Tsing Tuen 64 1 082 78 31 14 40 Mun Total 690 22 716 1 230 434 314 720
Notes:
(1) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs. The SWD only has the number of places of aided standalone CCCs.
(2) The information (as at September 2011) is provided by the Education Bureau.
(3) The number of places of OCCS had been changed since September 2011.
(4) The minimum number of places of NSCCP had been increased to 720 since October 2011 upon the extension of service to 18 districts. Besides, the operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1751
Table 4 ― Service Charge and Number of Places by District for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2012-2013)
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee $3,842 to District $1,110 to $13 Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 $7,950 $12,918 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $1,680 to $16 $8,200 Number Number Number Number Number Minimum of of of of of Number of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Central and 52 14 14 40 Western 300 3 461 Southern 58 16 42 40 Islands 14 12 11 40 Eastern 96 19 - 40 Wan 489 3 028 56 12 - 40 Chai Kwun 216 1 444 122 49 56 40 Tong Wong 84 34 14 40 Tai Sin 42 2 810 Sai Kung 56 21 - 40 Kowloon 66 25 - 40 City Yau 1 228 3 987 Tsim 58 22 14 40 Mong 1752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Monthly Fee Fee Whole Aged Day: 0 to 2: Monthly Fee Fee $64 Fee Fee $3,842 to District $1,110 to $13 Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 $7,950 $12,918 per hour Day: per hour per hour Aged $32 2 to 3: 2 hours: $1,680 to $16 $8,200 Number Number Number Number Number Minimum of of of of of Number of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Sham 62 739 76 25 37 40 Shui Po Sha Tin 70 1 897 82 29 - 40 Tai Po 66 15 - 40 48 1 634 North 58 20 14 40 Yuen 64 1 157 70 35 42 40 Long Tsuen 50 18 14 40 Wan 298 2 156 Kwai 88 37 42 40 Tsing Tuen 138 1 276 78 31 14 40 Mun Total 2 955 23 589 1 230 434 314 720
Notes:
(1) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs.
(2) The information (as at September 2012) is provided by the Education Bureau.
(3) The operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1753
Table 5 ― Service Charge and Number of Places by District for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2013-2014)
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Fee Monthly Fee Whole Aged 0 to 2: Day: Fee Fee $3,864 to Monthly Fee $64 Fee $13 $10 to $8,050 $1,100 to Half $8 to $18 District per $24 Aged 2 to 3: $12,918 Day: per hour hour per hour $1,680 to $32 $8,300 2 hours: $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Central and 202 1 162 52 14 14 40 Western Southern - 1 661 58 16 42 40 Islands - 1 081 14 12 11 40 Eastern 449 2 713 96 19 - 40 Wan 40 748 56 12 - 40 Chai Kwun 216 1 456 122 49 56 40 Tong Wong 42 829 84 34 14 40 Tai Sin Sai - 2 221 56 21 - 40 Kung Kowloon 1 168 3 106 66 25 - 40 City Yau Tsim 88 1 245 58 22 14 40 Mong Sham 62 732 76 25 37 40 Shui Po 1754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Fee Monthly Fee Whole Aged 0 to 2: Day: Fee Fee $3,864 to Monthly Fee $64 Fee $13 $10 to $8,050 $1,100 to Half $8 to $18 District per $24 Aged 2 to 3: $12,918 Day: per hour hour per hour $1,680 to $32 $8,300 2 hours: $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Sha Tin 70 2 091 82 29 - 40 Tai Po - 976 66 15 - 40 North 48 704 58 20 14 40 Yuen 64 1 087 70 35 42 40 Long Tsuen 238 1 144 50 18 14 40 Wan Kwai 60 1 138 88 37 42 40 Tsing Tuen 138 1 481 78 31 14 40 Mun Total 2 885 25 575 1 230 434 314 720
Notes:
(1) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs.
(2) The information (as at September 2013) is provided by the Education Bureau.
(3) The operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1755
Table 6 ― Service Charge and Number of Places by District for Standalone CCCs, CCCs Attached to KG-cum-CCCs, EHS, OCCS, MHCCCs and NSCCP (2014-2015)
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Fee Monthly Fee Whole Aged 0 to 2: Day: Fee $3,864 to Monthly Fee $64 Fee Fee $13 $8,050 $1,100 to Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 District per Aged 2 to 3: $12,918 Day: per hour per hour hour $1,680 to $32 $8,730 2 hours: $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Central and 202 1 318 52 13 14 53 Western Southern 0 1 492 58 18 42 53 Islands 0 1 094 14 13 11 53 Eastern 464 3 040 96 22 - 53 Wan 48 749 56 10 - 53 Chai Kwun 216 1 555 122 50 56 53 Tong Wong 42 807 84 34 14 53 Tai Sin Sai Kung 0 2 321 56 20 - 53 Kowloon 1 144 3 708 66 22 - 53 City Yau Tsim 128 1 262 58 22 14 53 Mong Sham 62 720 76 26 37 53 Shui Po 1756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
CCCs Standalone CCCs attached to EHS OCCS MHCCCs NSCCP CCCs(1) KG-cum-CCCs(2) Fee Monthly Fee Whole Aged 0 to 2: Day: Fee $3,864 to Monthly Fee $64 Fee Fee $13 $8,050 $1,100 to Half $8 to $18 $10 to $24 District per Aged 2 to 3: $12,918 Day: per hour per hour hour $1,680 to $32 $8,730 2 hours: $16 Minimum Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of Places Places Places Places Places places(3) Sha Tin 70 2 237 82 30 - 53 Tai Po 0 1 011 66 17 14 53 North 48 728 58 16 14 53 Yuen 64 1 087 70 34 42 53 Long Tsuen 238 1 185 50 20 14 53 Wan Kwai 60 1 192 88 34 42 53 Tsing Tuen 64 1 506 78 33 - 53 Mun Total 2 850 27 012 1 230 434 314 954
Notes:
(1) Standalone CCCs include aided standalone CCCs and non-profit-making/private standalone CCCs.
(2) The information (as at September 2014) is provided by the Education Bureau.
(3) The minimum number of places in NSCCP has been increased to 954 since October 2014 upon the enhancement of service. Besides, the operator has the flexibility to increase the number of places provided by child carers on top of the minimum requirement set by the SWD to meet the actual service demand.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1757
Annex 2
Number of service operators and places for ASCP by District
Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
NGOs NGOs NGOs NGOs Places Places Places Places Centres Centres Centres Centres Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number District Central and 3 3 135 3 3 130 3 3 129 3 3 126 Western Southern 6 8 247 6 8 225 6 8 234 6 9 283 Islands 4 4 188 4 4 189 4 4 181 4 4 147 Eastern 7 9 617 7 9 528 7 9 522 7 9 489 Wan Chai 3 3 232 3 3 181 2 2 178 2 2 195 Kwun 8 10 421 8 10 414 8 9 370 8 9 373 Tong Wong Tai 10 11 658 10 11 668 10 11 630 10 11 574 Sin Sai Kung 3 5 135 3 5 133 3 5 133 3 5 138 Kowloon 5 5 254 5 5 210 5 5 160 5 5 162 City Yau Tsim 4 4 195 4 4 191 4 4 185 4 4 199 Mong Sham Shui 7 7 290 6 6 229 6 6 227 6 6 232 Po Sha Tin 13 16 672 13 15 649 13 15 630 13 15 623 Tai Po 4 4 216 4 4 206 5 5 207 5 5 189 North 4 5 222 4 6 220 4 7 409 4 7 426 Yuen 9 12 452 10 13 489 10 13 409 10 14 453 Long Tsuen 5 5 167 4 4 120 4 4 109 4 6 175 Wan Kwai 8 11 443 8 11 434 8 12 462 8 11 438 Tsing 1758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
NGOs NGOs NGOs NGOs Places Places Places Places Centres Centres Centres Centres Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number District Tuen Mun 10 11 450 10 11 450 11 12 402 11 12 419 Total 50 133 5 994 49 132 5 666 49 134 5 577 49 137 5 641
Number of service operators and places for ASCP by District (continued)
Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Centres
District Number of NGOs of Number Number of NGOs of Number Number of NGOs of Number Number of NGOs of Number Number of NGOs of Number Numberof Places Numberof Places Numberof Places Numberof Places Numberof Places Numberof Centres Numberof Centres Number of of Number Numberof Centres Numberof Centres
Central and 3 3 116 3 3 90 3 3 93 3 3 103 3 3 98 Western Southern 6 9 277 6 9 260 6 9 266 6 9 280 6 9 277 Islands 4 4 162 4 4 178 5 5 228 5 5 240 5 5 254 Eastern 7 9 473 7 10 481 7 10 476 7 9 457 8 10 477 Wan Chai 2 2 183 2 2 181 2 2 180 2 2 180 2 2 188 Kwun Tong 8 9 364 8 9 359 8 9 353 8 9 371 10 11 448 Wong Tai 10 11 528 9 10 502 9 10 453 9 10 463 9 10 429 Sin Sai Kung 3 5 127 3 5 121 3 5 121 3 5 116 3 5 114 Kowloon 5 5 158 5 5 150 6 7 190 6 7 173 6 8 178 City Yau Tsim 4 4 203 4 4 179 4 4 180 4 4 196 4 4 179 Mong Sham Shui 6 6 237 6 6 238 6 6 239 6 6 239 7 7 252 Po Sha Tin 13 15 619 13 15 621 12 14 476 13 16 583 13 16 567 Tai Po 5 5 190 5 5 180 5 5 164 5 5 164 5 5 187 North 4 7 434 4 7 456 5 8 474 5 8 345 5 8 318 Yuen Long 10 14 453 9 13 432 9 13 424 9 13 428 9 13 422 Tsuen Wan 4 6 167 4 6 166 4 6 162 4 6 159 4 6 153 Kwai Tsing 8 11 422 8 11 415 9 12 469 10 13 522 10 13 530 Tuen Mun 12 13 441 13 14 479 13 14 478 13 14 463 13 14 445 Total 51 138 5 554 51 138 5 488 50 142 5 426 51 144 5 482 53 149 5 516
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1759
Annex 3
1760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Annex 4
School-based After-school Learning and Support Programmes Number of Participating Schools from 2006-2007 to 2015-2016 School Years
SY 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 District Central and 19 16 19 19 20 21 22 22 22 21 Western Wan 17 16 17 16 16 20 21 22 23 24 Chai Eastern 56 51 51 51 44 50 49 51 52 52 Southern 31 33 32 34 30 32 31 30 30 30 Islands 27 27 26 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 Kowloon 45 42 46 44 47 52 55 51 54 54 City Kwun 70 70 67 72 71 69 67 68 67 67 Tong Sai 52 51 49 47 44 47 48 47 46 46 Kung Sham 56 58 57 55 51 51 51 51 52 52 Shui Po Wong 60 61 57 57 55 53 52 53 52 53 Tai Sin Yau Tsim 42 42 38 37 37 35 36 36 35 36 Mong North 64 61 52 51 48 47 48 48 49 49 Sha Tin 92 89 83 83 76 77 78 77 79 81 Tai Po 48 46 47 48 42 42 41 41 41 42 Kwai 75 72 73 71 65 67 66 66 67 67 Tsing Tsuen 29 26 25 26 24 25 28 30 29 29 Wan Tuen 83 86 80 77 72 72 74 73 74 73 Mun LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1761
SY 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 District Yuen 94 92 82 84 86 86 86 85 86 87 Long Total 960 939 901 896 853 871 879 877 884 889
Note:
Schools offer students a wide array of choices for their after-school activities under the programmes to meet their needs. There is no waiting time for such activities. Target students (including those under the discretionary quota) can participate in the activities free of charge. The funding is supplementary in nature. Information on the number of participants of each of these activities is not available.
Annex 5
Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme Number of Participating NGOs and Students from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 School Years
SY 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of NGOs of NGOs of NGOs of NGOs District Students Students Students Students Central and 1 30 1 30 1 28 1 30 Western Wan 1 40 2 95 2 104 1 50 Chai Eastern 4 328 3 302 2 241 2 263 Southern 0 0 2 64 3 145 3 114 Islands 2 500 0 0 1 54 0 0 Kowloon 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 City Kwun 1 40 1 62 2 245 2 260 Tong Sai Kung 1 25 1 45 1 32 1 62 Sham 3 424 3 316 3 397 3 390 Shui Po 1762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SY 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of NGOs of NGOs of NGOs of NGOs District Students Students Students Students Wong 2 54 2 58 2 59 2 59 Tai Sin Yau Tsim 4 299 3 132 7 553 5 468 Mong North 5 180 3 171 2 137 2 130 Sha Tin 4 604 1 60 2 100 1 60 Tai Po 1 30 1 40 1 30 1 30 Kwai 0 0 1 646 3 160 2 140 Tsing Tsuen 1 100 1 80 1 132 1 140 Wan Tuen 4 331 3 309 1 30 1 30 Mun Yuen 5 403 2 88 2 124 1 62 Long Total 39 3 388 31 2 513 36 2 571 29 2 288
Note:
NGOs participating in the Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme organize a wide variety of after-school support activities to meet the needs of students. There is no waiting time for such activities.
Annex 6
Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme Number of Participating Schools and Students from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 School Years
SY 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
of of of of of of of of
Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students District Central and 0 0 1 142 1 112 1 122 Western LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1763
SY 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
of of of of of of of of
Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students District Wan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chai Eastern 2 89 2 251 1 50 1 61 Southern 0 0 1 52 2 125 2 75 Islands 0 0 3 664 2 542 2 462 Kowloon 2 166 1 114 1 80 1 105 City Kwun 1 33 3 459 4 698 4 608 Tong Sai 3 354 4 140 4 631 4 500 Kung Sham 0 0 2 343 4 465 3 370 Shui Po Wong 2 83 1 24 2 52 2 45 Tai Sin Yau Tsim 2 173 3 323 2 253 2 246 Mong North 0 0 2 133 3 609 2 528 Sha Tin 1 115 8 906 6 606 6 542 Tai Po 2 118 1 175 1 100 1 100 Kwai 6 604 6 868 8 1 109 8 1 145 Tsing Tsuen 1 78 3 385 3 443 3 394 Wan Tuen 7 1 242 13 1 710 10 1 189 10 1 088 Mun Yuen 5 397 8 2 363 8 1 619 8 1 682 Long Total 34 3 452 62 9 052 62 8 683 60 8 073
Note:
Schools participating in the Community Care Fund ― After-school Care Pilot Scheme organize a wide variety of after-school support activities to meet the needs of students. There is no waiting time for such activities.
1764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Problem of Fresh Water Pressure in Some Public Housing Estates Being too Low
19. MISS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, in recent months, quite a number of tenants living on the upper floors of decades-old public housing estates have complained to me that the fresh water pressure in their flats is too low. Due to a low flow of water supply caused by the low water pressure, it takes them more time to do the laundry and when they are taking a bath, there is no hot water supply as the heat-generating devices of town gas water heaters cannot be activated. These situations have caused great inconvenience to their daily lives. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the minimum standard set by the authorities on the water pressure of fresh water supplied to public housing flats; the number of public housing flats across the territory in which the fresh water pressure did not meet that standard in the past three years (with a breakdown by housing estate);
(2) of the number of complaints received in the past three years by the authorities from public housing tenants that the fresh water pressure in their flats was too low; the approaches adopted by the authorities for handling such complaints; the number and percentage of cases in which fresh water pressure in those flats met the minimum standard after the complaints had been handled;
(3) whether the authorities adopted in the past three years measures to improve the situation in which the overall fresh water pressure in public housing estates was too low; if they did, of the details; and
(4) whether it has formulated plans to check if the fresh water pressure in public housing estates across the territory meets the minimum standard and to carry out improvement works for those estates with fresh water pressure not meeting the standard; if it has, of the details (including the timetable); if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to various parts of the question by Miss Alice MAK is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1765
The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) endeavours to provide good living environment for Public Rental Housing (PRH) tenants by carrying out proper maintenance and providing good management services. In line with the gradual enhancement in the living standard of PRH tenants, the Housing Department (HD) has in turn increased the level of water supply pressure of PRH estates to meet tenants' daily needs. Generally speaking, the prevailing water supply pressure is sufficient for the operation of household equipment, such as, gas water heaters and washing machines.
However, ageing, damage or blockage of water pipes and relevant plumbing fixtures may give rise to insufficient water supply pressure in individual PRH units. Hence, upon receiving enquires from PRH tenants in respect of insufficient water pressure in their PRH units, staff of the HD will commission works teams to conduct inspections at the units concerned. If the above-mentioned problems are found in the water pipes and their associated parts, the HD will instruct works contractors to carry out repair and replacement works and the water supply pressure will improve under normal circumstances.
Upon the completion of the mentioned repairs, if water supply pressure remains low, and the same problems are found in other units on the same floor of the same building, the HD will study the feasibility of installing additional booster pumping system in that building, with a view to improving the water supply pressure thoroughly. Indeed, the HD has installed booster pumping systems in over 200 blocks in some 40 PRH estates in response to reports by PRH tenants on cases of insufficient water supply pressure.
While the HD does not maintain centralized records of tenants' complaints about insufficient water supply pressure in their PRH units for the past three years, according to the HD's survey with all estate offices in September 2015, some 190 cases of insufficient water supply pressure were reported since January 2014. The situation of about 100 cases (that is, 52%) has shown some improvements after the repair or replacement of water pipes and associated parts.
Also, according to the HD's records, for 68 blocks in 15 PRH estates, water supply pressure remains low after repair and replacement of water pipes and associated parts. Details are at the Annex. For these 68 blocks, the HA has commenced preparatory work for installing new booster pumping system, including conducting feasibility studies, planning and system designs, and so on.
1766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Concerning the question about a territory-wide check of the water supply pressure in PRH estates, low water supply pressure in PRH units on upper floors has all along been an important matter of the HD's concerns. The HD conducts feasibility studies on the installation of booster pumping systems in PRH blocks with reference to their repair records, age profiles and building types, with the view to improving the water supply pressure and tenant's living standard. At the moment, the HD has already installed booster pumping systems in over 200 blocks in some 40 PRH estates. Since the installation works to a large extent involves alternations of buildings and requires approvals from the relevant departments, a longer time span would be required for the study and planning of such works.
According to the HD's survey with all estate offices in September 2015, cases of low water supply pressure pending follow up only involve 68 blocks in 15 estates among the total of 1 186 blocks in 172 PRH estates under the HA. Despite that, the HD is arranging a systematic inspection of PRH blocks which have not been installed with the booster pumping system, with an aim to formulating an improvement plan to solve the problem of low water supply pressure in PRH units on upper floors.
Annex
PRH Estates Involved in Insufficient Water Pressure
Item Number of blocks District Name of Estate Number involved 1 Tuen Mun On Ting Estate 6 2 Yau Oi Estate 11 3 Butterfly Estate 6 4 Wong Tai Sin Chuk Yuen (South) Estate 1 5 Kwai Tsing On Yam Estate 8 6 Kwai Shing (West) Estate 6 7 Sham Shui Po Lai Kok Estate 8 8 Tai Hang Tung Estate 1 9 Kowloon City Ma Tau Wai Estate 5 10 Kwun Tong Wo Lok Estate 3 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1767
Item Number of blocks District Name of Estate Number involved 11 Sha Tin Sha Kok Estate 4 12 Lung Hang Estate 1 13 Sun Chui Estate 3 14 Eastern District Yiu Tung Estate 4 15 Model Housing Estate 1
Revitalizing Nullahs and River Channels
20. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, in the 2015 Policy Address, the Government proposed to apply the concept of revitalizing water bodies to nullahs and river channels when carrying out large-scale drainage improvement works and drainage planning for new development areas, striving to achieve efficient drainage and, at the same time, promote greening, biodiversity, beautification and water-friendly activities (revitalization works). The Government has indicated that it will engage a consultant to study the proposal for exploring practicable options for revitalizing water bodies. In connection with revitalization works, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of large-scale drainage improvement works commenced in the past five years, and set out in a table the names, expenditures, contents and anticipated completion dates of the various projects;
(2) whether it has set safety levels for the various nullahs across the territory according to their drainage capacities; if it has, of the details;
(3) of the average monthly displacement of the various nullahs across the territory, as well as the months with the highest and lowest displacement in each of the past five years;
(4) of the factors and conditions based on which the authorities decide whether or not to carry out revitalization works;
(5) whether it will make reference to overseas experience in revitalizing nullahs and river channels, including the construction methods and the arrangements for post-revitalization management; of the 1768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
examples of the overseas experience introduced by the authorities into the various completed and ongoing large-scale drainage improvement works, and set out the information by project name in a table;
(6) of the current numbers of completed and ongoing large-scale drainage improvement works which have incorporated, or have planned to incorporate, water-friendly activities, and set out the information by project name; the management models for various types of water-friendly activities;
(7) of the work progress of the aforesaid consultancy study;
(8) whether it has drawn up a priority list for various revitalization works; if it has, of the details; of the number of revitalization works to be commenced in the next five years, and set out in a table the names, contents and anticipated commencement dates of the various projects; and
(9) as Tai Wai Nullah is the upstream channelized section of Shing Mun River, and a number of residential areas are located on both sides of the river, whether the authorities will consider according priority to the revitalization work of this nullah, so as to enable residents living nearby to experience the pleasure of water-friendly activities; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in the 2015 Policy Address, the Government proposed to conduct a consultancy study for exploring the practicable options for applying the concept of revitalizing water bodies to nullahs and river channels when carrying out large-scale drainage improvement works and drainage planning for new development areas, so as to building sustainable drainage facilities and providing a better living environment. This is aimed at promoting greening, biodiversity, beautification and water friendliness in addition to achieving effective drainage.
My reply to the nine parts of Mr TANG's question is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1769
(1) In the past five years, the Government commenced the following large-scale drainage improvement works:
Approved Project Actual/Anticipated Major Scope Project Title Estimate Date of Completion of Works ($ million) Drainage 26.8 2014 To widen and Improvement in deepen the Northern New existing Territories ― culvert Construction of underneath Box Culvert Castle Peak underneath Castle Road Peak Road at San Tin Reconstruction and 159.4 2014 To construct Rehabilitation of a box culvert Kai Tak Nullah underneath from Po Kong Prince Village Road to Edward Road Tung Kwong East Road ― Stage 1 Reconstruction and 1,602 2017 To Rehabilitation of reconstruct Kai Tak Nullah and from Po Kong rehabilitate a Village Road to section of Tung Kwong Road about 600 m long Kai Tak River Reconstruction and 1,244.3 2017 To Rehabilitation of reconstruct Kai Tak Nullah and from Tung Kwong rehabilitate a Road to Prince section of Edward Road about 500 m East ― Major long Kai Tak Works River 1770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Approved Project Actual/Anticipated Major Scope Project Title Estimate Date of Completion of Works ($ million) Liantang/Heung 595.1 2017 To construct Yuen Wai a section of Boundary Control 4.5 km Point and Shenzhen associated River from works ― works for the regulation of confluence of Shenzhen River River Ganges Stage 4 to Pak Fu Shan Happy Valley 1,065.8 2018 To construct Underground a 60 000 m3 Stormwater Storage underground Scheme stormwater storage tank and a pumping station Kai Tak 2,488.2 2018 To Development ― reconstruct reconstruction and and upgrade upgrading of Kai about 1.3 km Tak Nullah project long Kai Tak River
(2) The drainage systems in Hong Kong (including nullah) shall be designed and constructed according to the flood protection standards prescribed in the "Stormwater Drainage Manual" published by the Drainage Services Department (DSD) to ensure that newly constructed drainage systems have sufficient drainage capacity to withstand designed peak flow. Each nullah has individual characteristics and the design of its hydraulic capacity is to be determined based on factors, such as catchment characteristic and anticipated rainfall.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1771
(3) The DSD does not install device to capture the flow data for each nullah. Nevertheless, the DSD will ensure clearance of drainage channels by way of inspections, desilting and maintenance works conducted before the onset of wet season and on a regular basis.
(4) The primary function of drainage systems is to convey and discharge the stormwater so as to alleviate the flood risk. The DSD regularly reviews the drainage capacity of nullahs and carries out drainage improvement works as required. During the planning and design of such drainage improvement works, the DSD will conduct a study to identify suitable revitalization measures for incorporation and implementation with the drainage improvement works with due consideration of a number of factors including geographical location, aesthetics, ecological value, degree of public enjoyment, technical feasibility, and so on.
(5) The DSD promulgated the Practice Note "Guidelines on Environmental and Ecological Considerations for River Channel Design" this year which describes that, in the design of drainage systems, the ecological value of drainage channels should be enhanced to its largest extent in addition to fulfilling the flood control requirements. The Practice Note introduces the measures and considerations in the design of green channels, appends with the case studies on the revitalization projects of Korea's Cheong Gye Cheon and Singapore's Kallang River. The Practice Note also lists out a number of representative local and overseas papers, design guidelines and reports, and so on, for reference.
In a number of completed drainage improvement works, the DSD has introduced various revitalization elements for improving biodiversity and enhancing ecological value, including construction of fish shelters and deflectors along river banks, construction of fish ladders in river channels, using natural substrate for river bed and planting suitable species within the river, and so on. The experience is valuable and helps further promote the concept of revitalizing water bodies. In particular, the drainage improvement works to Tai Po's Tai Po River (upper stream) and Lam Tsuen River (upper stream), Sai Kung's Ho Chung River, and Fan Ling's Kwan Tei River and Tan Shan River are successful examples completed in recent years. 1772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(6) With steep terrain and high rainfall intensity of Hong Kong, water level in nullahs and river channels would rise quickly during heavy rainstorms. For safety consideration, the existing nullahs and river channels that use "flood mitigation" design concept may not be suitable for public access and conducting water-friendly activities.
In recent years, the Government has been promoting water-friendly culture with a view to providing a better living environment for the public. Hence, the DSD will conduct a consultancy study to explore how to revitalize nullahs and river channels for promoting near-water activities in addition to achieving effective flood prevention. Reference will be made to relevant experience in the Mainland and overseas in formulating the management approach for these activities.
The large-scale drainage improvement works currently under construction with near-water activities is Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Kai Tak Nullah. The design concept of Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Kai Tak Nullah is to revitalize the nullah through adopting landscaping measures and ecological features, with a view to constructing a green channel for the community and for public enjoyment.
(7) The DSD is currently conducting the tendering exercise for the feasibility study on revitalizing water bodies, which is expected to commence in December 2015 for completion by end 2017.
(8) In the above-mentioned consultancy study, the DSD will review the major river channels in Hong Kong and evaluate their revitalization potential including geographical location, aesthetics, ecological value, degree of public enjoyment and technical feasibility, and so on, so as to explore practicable revitalization proposals. The results of the study will serve as a reference for the future large-scale drainage improvement works and planning drainage networks for new development areas. The Government currently has no detailed plan to revitalize the nullahs and river channels of adequate drainage capacity.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1773
(9) According to the preliminary results of the ongoing Drainage Master Plan Review Study for Sha Tin conducted by the DSD, there is no need to carry out any drainage improvement works to Tai Wai Nullah. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned consultancy study will review the site-specific characteristics of Tai Wai Nullah to formulate some practicable revitalization options for reference when drainage improvement works are considered necessary in future.
Provision of Parking Facilities by Redevelopment Projects
21. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, at present, standards on parking provision for residential developments, community facilities, commercial facilities, industrial developments and business developments are set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. It is learnt that there are quite a number of redevelopment projects in developed areas (e.g. Kowloon City district) with small site areas, and yet they have to provide for car parks in order to meet the relevant provision standards for private parking spaces. As such, quite a number of the street-front ground floor spaces in those redevelopment projects have been taken up by car park entrances, resulting in a reduction in the number of street-level shops to be built. A high density of car park entrances in those districts also cause inconvenience to pedestrians. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government will consider providing private parking spaces in comprehensive parking facilities built by the Government or public organizations (e.g. the Hong Kong Housing Society and the Urban Renewal Authority) in districts where there are relatively more small scale redevelopment projects, for purchase by developers of redevelopment projects in the districts, so that those projects do not have to provide for parking facilities; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(2) whether it reviewed the standards on parking provision set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines in the past three years; whether it has plans to lower the relevant standards applicable to redevelopment projects; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
1774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to Mr WU Chi-wai's questions is as follows:
The standards concerning parking spaces as stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) aim to provide guidelines for individuals and organizations participating in development projects, as well as Government departments in respect of the parking demand and supply for development projects.
The Transport Department (TD) has commissioned a consultant for the "Review of Parking Standards for Private Housing Developments in Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines" between 2009 and 2012. The review results showed that the overall utilization of private car parking spaces in private residential housing was about 70%. The supply was generally satisfactory, among which the utilization rate of small and medium-sized units of private residential housing (that is, flats of area smaller than 100 sq m) was relatively low, while the supply of private car parking spaces for large units of private residential housing (that is, flats of area not smaller than 100 sq m) was inadequate.
In order to better utilize the newly developed lands for private residential housing and to reduce the overall vacancy rate of private car parking spaces in future, the Government has revised, in February 2014, the standards and guidelines concerning the provision of private car parking spaces in private residential housing in the HKPSG according to the review findings. The revisions were mainly to revise the parking facilities standards to cater for the latest situation, taking into account various factors such as the various flat sizes of private residential housing, distances between the residential developments and railway stations, and the development densities, and so on.
The revised planning standards and guidelines are applicable to new developments, including redevelopment projects. Depending on the types of application involved in a project (for example, modification of land and planning use, or lease modification), the approving authorities will determine the number of parking spaces that have to be provided in the development project after taking reference from the standards concerning parking spaces stipulated in the HKPSG and consulting the TD and relevant authorities. If the requested parking facilities at the development project cannot be provided due to factors such as site restriction or the limited road capacity within the district, and so on, the developer can apply to the relevant approving authorities. The TD and relevant departments will flexibly consider the request depending on the circumstances. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1775
The Government currently has no policy of providing comprehensive parking facilities for private developers to purchase for private development or redevelopment projects.
Review of Investment Arrangements Under MPF Schemes
22. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, Standard Chartered Bank has recently announced a substantial loss in the third quarter of this year, causing the Singaporean sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings (Temasek), one of its major shareholders, to suffer huge losses. The Exchange Fund (EF) of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) recorded a loss of $63.8 billion in the third quarter of this year. Amid the downturn of the international investment environment, the investment returns of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) schemes have fallen accordingly. Employees not only suffer the losses from the MPF investments but also have to pay exorbitant management fees. There are comments that while EF recorded the highest ever loss in the third quarter of this year, the losses from the MPF investments for the same period are far more substantial, with the loss of the former representing about 1.9% of its total fund size, while the losses of the latter as high as 12%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the total amount of contributions made to the MPF schemes, the fund investment performance, the average rate of investment returns, the total amount of fees charged and the average percentage of such fees in the total amount of contributions, since January this year;
(2) given that the share price of Standard Chartered Bank, one of the note-issuing banks of Hong Kong, has recently fallen by nearly two-thirds as compared to the level in 2010, causing losses to the long-term investment of national sovereign wealth funds like Temasek, and that EF which has engaged many investment experts has also failed to withstand fluctuations in the investment market, whether the Government has reviewed if the following practice is still appropriate: mandating employees to make contributions to the MPF schemes and transferring their contributions to fund managers for investment in the hope that the returns can provide retirement protection for the employees; if it has, of the details; if not, whether it will conduct such a review expeditiously;
1776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
(3) given that some members of the public have all along criticized that fund managers charge excessively high fees which have gnawed the investment returns of the MPF schemes, whether the Government will conduct studies on allowing employees to make their own investment arrangements for their contributions, such as employees using their contributions to subscribe directly for passively managed funds which charge lower administration fees (such as the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong), so that they are not required to pay the fees of funds under the MPF schemes;
(4) as some members of the public have queried that the Government's purpose of implementing the MPF schemes is to protect the income of fund managers but not to provide retirement protection for employees, how the Government removes such a perception among members of the public, so that they are willing to make contributions on a long-term basis; and
(5) given that the Commission on Poverty will launch a six-month public consultation on retirement protection in December this year and will, at that time, also consult the public on the arrangement under which an employer may use the accrued benefits derived from the contributions he made for an employee to an MPF scheme to offset the severance payment or long service payment payable to the employee under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) (commonly known as "the offsetting arrangement"), whether the Government will consider including in the scope of consultation the proposal of completely abolishing the MPF schemes to enable members of the public to make their own saving and investment arrangements for retirement?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(1) According to information received by the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) from approved trustees, net contributions received during the period from January to September 2015 is $34.9 billion, and as a result of recent market volatility, the annualized internal rate of return (net of fees and charges) during the period from January to October 2015 is -1.7%, and the latest average LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1777
Fund Expense Ratio (FER) at 1.60%. We have to emphasize that Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), as one of the sources of retirement savings, is a long-term investment. As the investment period will span across a period of more than 40 years, returns during this period will inevitably fluctuate with economic cycles, global economic growth and short-term market volatility. Scheme members should not focus on short-term market fluctuations.
(2) and (3)
After almost 30 years of deliberation on the design of Hong Kong's retirement protection system, the MPF System was eventually introduced in the form of mandatory private retirement schemes. The MPF System aims to assist the working population in saving for retirement by mandating them and their employers to make contributions during employment, such that public resources can be focused on assisting those in need.
Under the System, MPF schemes are established as trusts and run by professional approved trustees which are responsible for handling administrative tasks, such as collecting employers' and employees' mandatory contributions from employers, recovering default contributions, making regular reports to the MPFA and scheme members, appointing investment managers, managing accrued benefits and assisting scheme members in withdrawing accrued benefits, and so on. To safeguard scheme members' accrued benefits, approved trustees must appoint investment management companies that are registered with the Securities and Futures Commission as investment managers to manage the investment in the schemes.
MPF schemes are composed of constituent funds (CFs) and designed as pooled (or collective) investment structures, which are efficient for amassing small contributions for investment. Compared with individual investments, the pooled investment model of MPF reduces the administrative burden and costs for small and medium-sized enterprises for participating in MPF schemes, achieves better economies of scale, have lower investment costs, and better protect scheme members' interests.
1778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
If individual scheme members make their own investment instead of joining an MPF scheme through approved trustees and having their accrued benefits managed by qualified investment managers, they would have to take up the aforementioned administrative tasks and investment work which would not be economically efficient. In addition, the pooled investment model can also better diversify investment risks.
At present, scheme members may invest their accrued benefits in dedicated MPF CFs that track a particular index. As of September 2015, there are 27 CFs that are index funds, including 12 that invest in the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong.
The MPFA has been striving to drive down MPF fees. Since 2007, the average FER has already been reduced by more than 20%. Among all existing approved CFs, some 40% are low-fee funds (that is, with FER ≦1.3% , or management fees
(4) To protect scheme members' accrued benefits more directly, we and the MPFA will introduce an amendment bill into the Legislative Council on 25 November, mandating each approved trustee to provide a regulated, highly-standardized and fee-controlled Default Investment Strategy (DIS, formerly called "Core Fund") that is consistent with the objective of long-term retirement savings. The proposed fee cap level of 0.75% of the net asset value of each DIS CF will be further lowered in the long run. On the whole, we envisage that the DIS will become a benchmark for CFs to drive competition and fee reduction so as to further strengthen the role of MPF System as one of the pillars of retirement protection in Hong Kong.
(5) The Commission on Poverty will launch a six-month public consultation on retirement protection in December this year. The scope of the consultation covers how to strengthen the functions of each pillar in our retirement protection system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1779
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions.
Proposed resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to extend the period for amending the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order, which was laid on the Table of this Council on 28 October 2015.
I now call upon Ms Cyd HO to speak and move the motion.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
At the House Committee meeting on 30 October 2015, Members decided to form a subcommittee to scrutinize the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order.
The Subcommittee already held two meetings, including the meeting with deputations yesterday to listen to their views on matters related to the 2016 Population By-census. In order to allow the Subcommittee more time for deliberation, I move, on behalf of the relevant Subcommittee, that the scrutiny period of the above instrument be extended to 16 December 2015.
Deputy President, I urge Members to support this motion.
Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that in relation to the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 208 of 2015, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 28 October 2015, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 16 December 2015."
1780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Cyd HO 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 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.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance to extend the period for amending the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences, which was laid on the Table of this Council on 28 October 2015.
I now call upon Mr Kenneth LEUNG to speak and move the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1781
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 37B(4) OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE
MR KENNETH LEUNG: Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
At the House Committee meeting held on 30 October 2015, Members decided to form a subcommittee to study the technical memorandum. The Subcommittee held two meetings on 10 November and 17 November 2015 to examine the instrument. To allow more time for the Subcommittee to consider the technical memorandum and report its deliberations to the House Committee, I call upon Members to support the motion on extending the period for scrutinizing the technical memorandum to 16 December 2015.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I urge Members to support the motion. Thank you.
Mr Kenneth LEUNG moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that in relation to the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences, published in Special Supplement No. 5 to the Gazette on 23 October 2015, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 28 October 2015, the period for amending the technical memorandum referred to in section 37B(2) of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311) be extended under section 37B(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 16 December 2015. "
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Kenneth LEUNG be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
1782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Kenneth LEUNG 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 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.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the mover of the motion may speak, including making a reply, for up to 15 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The motion debate on "Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy".
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Mr Steven HO to speak and move the motion.
REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HAWKER POLICY
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1783
I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy (the Subcommittee), which was formed under the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene. During a year-and-half period between April 2014 and early October 2015, the Subcommittee held nine meetings to study overseas hawker policies and deliberate the issue with the Government. It also held two public hearings to receive views from about 80 deputations and individuals. Moreover, Members had rather fruitful exchanges with the Administration on issues concerning the hawker policy at a brainstorming session as proposed by the Secretary for Food and Health.
Members urged the Administration to formulate the hawker policy from the development perspective instead of adopting an approach of management and control to regulate hawking activities. They recommended that the Administration should recognize that the hawker policy was closely related to the grass-roots economy and people's livelihood and that the hawker policy should be overhauled to treat hawkers as an integral part of Hong Kong's development towards modernity, sustainability and better living.
Members generally supported the eight principles for policy formulation and the five recommendations proposed by the Administration subsequent to the brainstorming session, in particular the principle of mooting local bazaars and night markets under a bottom-up and district-led approach. They considered it the correct direction for the development of the hawking trade as it could serve different purposes according to district needs, such as promoting small businesses, providing social welfare, alleviating poverty or serving as tourist attractions, and so on.
Members also urged the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) to change its hawker management philosophy in order to tie in with the principles proposed by the authorities, so as to maintain food safety and environmental hygiene at a reasonable standard and to educate and support hawkers in meeting these two requirements, thereby eliminating local objection to hawking activities. Otherwise the hawker policy will become nothing but old wine in new a bottle if the Administration advocates a bottom-up approach on the one hand but actually cares only about matters relating to food safety and environmental hygiene on the other.
The Subcommittee has discussed the five recommendations made by the Administration. Members in general support the proposal of issuing new fixed-pitch hawker licences, so as to replenish vacated hawker stalls under the 1784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 five-year Assistance Scheme for Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Areas (the 5-Year Scheme). Some Members suggested that a reasonable number of such licences be open to registered hawker assistants for priority review and approval of licence applications in accordance with their years of experience. As to the licensing conditions, there were also views that the Administration should relax the requirement for elderly licence holders to man the hawker stalls, and allow newspaper hawkers to sell a greater varieties of goods.
As to enhancing the operating environment of existing hawker areas, members requested the Administration to review and enlarge the size of the fixed-pitch, be more lenient in enforcement and set up more streets with uniqueness to promote tourism. There was concern that the Administration should review and update the legislative framework regulating hawking activities.
Members noted that there were voices against the Administration's proposal of issuing new "Dai Pai Tong" licences on a pilot basis. Meanwhile, some members considered that on-street hawking activities should be preserved as they belong to a spontaneous street culture. Therefore, they have reservations about the proposal of converting existing public markets of low occupancy rate into off-street cooked food centre, as they considered that both on-street hawking and off-street public markets should be developed in parallel.
Some members have expressed concern about the mechanism to moot open-air hawker bazaars and night markets and requested the Administration to provide more user-friendly and focused assistance to the proponents. Some suggested that the Administration should consider setting up bazaars and night markets during urban redevelopment or new town planning. The Secretary for Food and Health expressed that he had briefed the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of all 18 District Councils on the Administration's proposal for setting up bazaars. Members hoped that there would soon be successful new bazaars or night market projects to set a role model for a bottom-up approach in the development of local bazaars.
Some members considered that the suggestion of obtaining District Council support as a condition for issuing new "Dai Pai Tong" licences or taking forward a bazaar proposal would prevent the implementation of any relevant proposal. Some members considered that the Administration should set up district-based committees or communication platforms for stakeholders to exchange views about hawking activities and resolve any conflicts caused by such hawking activities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1785
Although members noted that the Food and Health Bureau was prepared to play a facilitator's role among bureaux to promote the trade's development, they still hoped that a designated cross-bureaux/departments working group could be established for managing the hawker portfolio and implementing the hawker policy.
Prof NG Mee-kam and Prof LUI Tai-lok were invited by the Subcommittee to give their views during the discussion process, and they provided valuable inputs to the Subcommittee and the Administration on the development of the hawker policy. I wish to express my appreciation to the two professors. Prof NG pointed out that hawking should be based on a "people-oriented" approach which should give regard to the needs and expectation of people in the community, and community kitchens could be set up in converted cooked food centres. Prof NG highlighted the concept of place-making, the importance of community planning and the benefits of the principle of reciprocity, which could make the utilization of space meet the needs of the community without depending on market power.
Prof LUI considered hawking a kind of space re-using, such as using vacant space for developing bazaars and optimizing space found in existing bazaars for further usage. It was necessary to appreciate the characteristics of the space before determining the best matching of the nature of businesses and its mode of operation. Moreover, space re-using should be practised with flexibility. The Subcommittee hoped the Administration would draw reference to the above concepts in the development of the hawker policy.
Deputy President, after listening to the views of academics and deputations, the Subcommittee made 32 recommendations and the details are set out in the report. We hope the Administration will take them into careful consideration and follow them up actively. The Subcommittee expressed appreciation to the support of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the proactive responses of the Secretary for Food and Health.
Before concluding the report on behalf of the Subcommittee, I wish to express my appreciation to the people who have made tremendous contributions to the Subcommittee, that is, the entire crew behind the Subcommittee, including the staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat. They have been very meticulous in supporting the work of the Subcommittee, which ranged from inviting academics to the writing up of papers and the report. As seen from the way in 1786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 which they discussed with me twice a very common correspondence, it was evident that they were careful about every detail when they dealt with other documents. As the public or society may not see these painstaking efforts, I wish to extend the gratitude to all staff of the Secretariat on behalf of the Subcommittee, and I also wish to thank everyone who has made contribution to the report, including government officials, the two academics, as well as members of the public who have taken part in the discussion. I wish to thank you all.
I would now like to present views on the hawker policy on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).
The hawking trade has a long history in Hong Kong. Regardless of the harshness of regulation by society, it existed in the past and still exists now. And, I believe it will continue to exist in the future. Nevertheless, we have one consensus, that is, society at large generally recognizes that the hawking trade has its own characteristics, and is very popular among members of the public and tourists. Inevitably, there are some negative voices in every local community. Anyway, they are of development value and will make certain contributions. For that reason, the DAB supports the Government's proposal of developing the hawking trade, and it holds the following views on the hawker policy.
First of all, the hawking trade involves many policy areas, and these policy areas are under, or not under, the purview of different government authorities, namely the Food and Health Bureau, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Home Affairs Bureau as well as the FEHD, the Planning Department, the Home Affairs Department, the Fire Services Department and the Lands Department under these Bureaux. Why do I say "under or not under"? We can see that the FEHD is currently making the hardest efforts, because it has to take charge of the regulatory work in environmental hygiene. However, it happens too often that no one is in the lead. When everyone is the boss or everyone is not the boss, when everyone is not subordinated to others, the promotion of the hawking trade will be hindered and it is quite likely that the discussion of the policy this time around will die a quite death. For that reason, the DAB strongly suggests that the Administration should take the helm during the development of the necessary policy and co-operate with the relevant Policy Bureaux for the provision of appropriate support and planning initiatives. Moreover, the absence of the necessary planning and complementary measures for the trade, the absence of the necessary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1787 attractiveness of the hawking trade and the conflict between the trade and environmental hygiene authorities are mainly caused by the fact that the authorities dealt with the trade under the regulatory framework in the past. For that reason, all government departments should have a positive attitude when they deal with the trade and formulate the appropriate regulatory and support measures for the development of the hawking trade, instead of focusing on regulating the trade and the hawking activities. In so doing, the hawking trade may be able to stride forward with the help of the powerhouse effect of the Subcommittee's report and the future measures to be implemented by the Government.
Secondly, we agree to the proposals of issuing new fixed-pitch hawker licences and improving the operating environment of existing hawker areas. However, we also hope the authorities will continue to issue a reasonable number of licences, as hawker assistants suffer greater impact because of the 5-Year Scheme. For that reason, we hope the Government will devise a mechanism to help hawker assistants, which should cover giving registered hawker assistants priority review and approval of applications, so as to help them resolve the livelihood problems they are facing or may face in future.
Furthermore, we agree that district-led open-air hawker bazaars, night markets can be set up, or even "Dai Pai Tong" can be revitalized on condition that food safety and environmental hygiene are not compromised and public passageways are not obstructed. The bottom-up and district-led approach should tie in with the aspirations of the local communities as well as its residents. Nevertheless, relevant departments should also provide appropriate support to assist in the setting up of local bazaars which can meet local needs. In addition, the DAB also hopes that patronage and supplementary facilities should be taken into consideration when the Administration allocates a site for setting up local bazaars and night markets, so as to prevent wasting the relevant development policy and causing any kind of obstruction to the local districts concerned.
The DAB also notes and welcomes the Administration's intention of launching a pilot scheme. First of all, we agree to the proposal of converting existing public markets of high vacancy rates into cooked food hawker bazaars (CFHBs) and to study matters relating to the issuance of new "Dai Pai Tong" licences with District Council support. In fact, there are CFHBs and night markets in Taipei, Bangkok and Singapore, and they are very popular among tourists, including visitors from Hong Kong. We agree that the authorities may 1788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 make reference to the practice of these regions and actively promote local cuisines, with a view to maintaining Hong Kong's reputation of being a gourmet paradise. In addition, the Government has also put forward a food truck proposal. However, can this proposal help members of the public to engage in small business as well as to enhance the characteristics of local hawker trade? This verbal pledge ― it was written down in the policy address, but we find that there are certain discrepancies in the relevant proposal, the current legislation and the expectation of the public. Some people opine that the relevant policy may end up in the domination by major consortiums, thus losing the function of revitalizing the grass-roots economy. Of course, the food truck proposal may yield many results, and revitalizing the local grass-roots economy is perhaps one of them. It can also give impetus to other activities in view of its benefits, but it will put the Government to the test insofar as the Government's competence is concerned, because it depends on how well the Government can strike a right balance and how it can set up a platform of communications between itself and the public.
In this connection, DAB hopes the Administration will continue with the study and conduct extensive consultation, with a view to removing obstacles and restrictions, or even limiting the business to a designated area. It should also launch a pilot scheme in a designated district, and if the outcome is good, then it can be promoted in another district or the Government can launch another phase of work. As to the food truck proposal I mentioned just now, why do I talk about the fear that it may be dominated by major consortiums? The reason is that we have received some information, and members of the public have discussed whether the cost of constructing a food truck is higher than buying a flat or it is harder to build a food truck than purchasing a flat. If members of the public have to spend a big sum of money before they can do the business, then can it induce the public to participate? If the majority of the public are unable to do so, and only major consortiums with more financial resources can engage in the business, then can members of the public really share the fruit of economic success? We have also heard views in local districts that hawkers who sell beef offal, fish ball or "put chai ko" (sticky rice pudding) are also deemed a part of the local economy. How exactly can we preserve the traditional mode of business operation? Of course, we also understand that it is still doubtful if the development of these traditional food carts can continue in the future. But if we suddenly raise the threshold of doing small business to a few million dollars, then can society at large adapt itself to the sudden change? Will there be anything in between for members of the public to choose?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1789
Lastly, hawking activities will indeed cause some environmental and hygiene problems, but as long as the law-enforcement agency is able to take appropriate management actions and to provide the corresponding and appropriate support, it will not only help to revitalize the local economy and provide employment opportunities, but will also help to promote the development of the tourism industry and add some special features to the market conditions of Hong Kong. As to what I have said just now, I have already taken into account how the Government should strike a balance among various views, thereby coming up with a long-, medium- and short-term proposition. I hope the Government can take on board the views of the DAB in the course of implementing and promoting the hawker policy. Thank you, Deputy President.
Mr Steven HO moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council notes the Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Steven HO be passed.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to extend my gratitude to Mr Steven HO for his motion. I am also thankful to members of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy for discussing the way forward for the hawker policy with the Government in the past one year or so, and for expressing a lot of precious comments over various issues. Taking this opportunity, I would also like to respond to the major recommendations made in the report of the Subcommittee.
It is always controversial as to how best to regulate hawking. On a macro level, street hawking provides job opportunities. Some of the goods for sale feature traditional characteristics, and customers may find a cheaper source of goods. However, residents living close to hawking areas may have some other considerations. They may have more concern that street hawking may lead to obstruction of passageways, have an impact on environmental hygiene and create fire hazards. Neighbouring business operators who have to pay rents will naturally be concerned whether hawking will bring about competition. The Government's hawker policy always seeks to strike a reasonable balance among 1790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 all the various considerations. As the specific situation in each district differs in some ways, the views of the District Council will of course be taken as one of the most important factors in our consideration.
The Government's present-day hawker policy is implemented under eight principles. These principles set out in detail all the considerations I mentioned just now. Having very elaborately explained the principles to the Subcommittee, I am not going to repeat them here. Now, in a nutshell, I will only say that on the premise that food safety and environmental hygiene are not compromised, we are going to dovetail, in terms of policy and operation, with district-led proposals on local bazaars, and we see considerable benefits of a bottom-up model. The Government is going to provide full support to any organization which is able to identify suitable sites for putting up a bazaar, and is able to secure local support from the district concerned as well as from its District Council. Members of the Subcommittee and the two professors who were invited to the meeting also suggested that the Government formulate hawker management policies with different positioning with regard to different districts, so as to meet their needs.
In the meetings of the Subcommittee, many Members repeatedly advised that Hong Kong should learn from the experience in overseas places such as Taiwan and Singapore, regarding the implementation of hawker policy on the district level. We would also like to point out that in the light of various factors, different cities would adopt certain ways to manage hawking at different points in time. The development process and current situation of Hong Kong are different from those of other places, so we will certainly draw reference from the experience of hawker policies in those places, but not copy them directly. Having regard to different variations in Hong Kong society, different stakeholders will have their own considerations. The eight principles that we have put forward are formulated after researching on overseas experiences and taking into consideration the present-day Hong Kong situation. A policy that balances the interests of various stakeholders must be made in accordance with the unique local situation, and cannot be an exact replication of the policies in foreign countries.
Indeed, we have received from different districts proposals on local bazaars. Among them, an organization from Sham Shui Po successfully executed their bazaar proposal on a trial basis in the district on several Sundays in August 2015, after having secured the consent of the Sham Shui Po District LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1791
Council. From the early mooting of the proposal, to its submission and actual operation by the organization, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and other relevant departments have been working closely together to explore its feasibilities and other notable features. Colleagues from the FEHD have provided professional comments and support for the application with regard to the types of licences needed and considerations on environmental hygiene. They have also strived to help the project proponent in liaising with the relevant government departments. We are quite happy to see the success of the proposal.
Recently, some other organizations have also put forward proposals to set up bazaars in the North District, Tung Chung, Tin Shui Wai and Sham Shui Po. We noted these proposals. Now, it happens to be the election period of the District Council, and the new term of District Councils will begin on 1 January 2016. We hope that organizations can raise the issues for discussion on district-level platforms as early as the first quarter of 2016.
The Government is positive towards all concrete proposals with regard to development of the hawking trade at any place. So long as the relevant proposals will not affect food safety and environmental hygiene or cause obstruction of public passageways, and are able to secure support from the community and the District Council, the Government is definitely going to provide them with assistance. We understand there are views that the Government should have a specific set of mechanism to handle bazaar proposals. In our opinion, the actual mooting of proposal may vary in the light of the specific situation in each district. However, it may run counter to the district-led and bottom-up approach that I mentioned just now if the Government puts in place another set of mechanism, another communication platform other than the District Council. Mr HO suggested a moment ago to put up communication platforms at various districts. But I have to state upfront that with regard to a communication platform, I believe that district administration indeed should not deviate from the District Council platform under the existing District Council framework.
Apart from these, the Subcommittee has also suggested the Government to promote hawking activities of on-street hawkers and off-street public markets, instead of aiming at relocating on-street hawkers to public markets. We have to make it clear that it is not the Government's policy to eradicate hawking. We would rather like to strike a reasonable balance between regulation and support, 1792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 under the overarching principles of safeguarding food safety and maintaining environmental hygiene and cleanliness. Among the eight principles and five proposals that we put forward, three proposals can actively respond to the call from the community for promoting on-street hawking, including reviewing the issue of new fixed-pitch hawker licences, considering the issue of new on-street "Dai Pai Tong" licences and the setting up of district-led open-air hawking bazaars.
Additionally, to reduce the risk of fire hazards, we have introduced a five-year assistance scheme for hawkers, under which financial assistance will be provided to 4 300 hawkers in 43 fixed-pitch hawker areas, in order to expedite either the relocation of their stalls to new pitch spaces or the reconstruction of their stalls in-situ. With co-operation from various parties, up to the end of October 2015, more than 95% of hawker stalls which obstructed staircase discharge points of old buildings or access to fire appliances have been vacated.
Having regard to the Director of Audit's recommendation on improving the fire safety measures of Cooked Food Markets, the FEHD has worked with relevant departments to actively carry out fire safety improvement works in the remaining Cooked Food Hawker Bazaars in accordance with the actual situation. Where technological consideration allows, the 39 cooked food centres under the FEHD have implemented appropriate and practicable stipulated measures for fire safety. In the months to come, emergency lighting and manual fire alarms are arranged to be installed in Cooked Food Markets where the facilities concerned are not yet in place. Regarding those fire safety measures which have yet to be installed due to technological consideration, the FEHD will continue to work with the relevant departments to discuss their feasibility.
However, with regard to snack-selling itinerant hawkers, there are certain dissenting views. As they are quite likely to cause obstruction and problems in environmental hygiene in areas with heavy pedestrian flow, they very often become a subject of complaint. When itinerant hawkers who operate without a licence dodge our enforcement operations, they might also pose potential risk to the safety of passers-by occasionally. The Government does not have plans to re-issue itinerant hawker licences at this stage.
About issuing new fixed-pitch hawker licence and the question regarding hawker assistants, many members have in the past held that when issuing new fixed-pitch hawker licences, registered hawker assistants should be given priority LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1793 in their applications. We are now closely monitoring the implementation of the five-year Assistance Scheme for Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Area and will subsequently conduct a review to determine if and how new fixed-pitch hawker licences should be issued. By then, we will also consider how to tackle the call for giving priority to registered hawker assistants in licence application. With regard to the implementation of the former scheme, we are going to report to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene within this year.
We also agree to provide room for development for traditional and creative cultural activities or handicrafts, and will follow up on the issue of licences to unlicensed street tradesmen with characteristics reminiscent of our local culture and heritage, such as cobblers, watch repairers, locksmiths, knife sharpeners, Chinese facial cosmeticians, letter writers, and so on. Provided that food safety and environment hygiene are not compromised, public passageways remain unobstructed, consultation with other departments has been sought and support from the relevant District Council has been obtained, the Government will choose appropriate sites and consider issuing licences to some specific hawking trades, so as to let them operate under lawful conditions.
Lastly, let me say a few words on the issue of food trucks. We understand that a lot of Members are interested to know the progress of the food truck policy. The policy about food trucks of course falls under the portfolio of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. But as far as we know, the Tourism Commission is going to report to the relevant Legislative Council panel on the progress of the relevant measure in December 2015.
Deputy Chairman, with these remarks, I have responded briefly to the major recommendations made by the Subcommittee and mentioned by Mr Steven HO a while ago. I will continue to listen to the speeches of all the Members and appropriately provide supplementary responses in a moment. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion debate on "Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy" today actually has its own origin and history behind. I clearly remember that the previous Legislative Council and also the last Government discussed the hawker issue on 11 April 2012. Back then, the Government proposed to revoke all hawker licences, and I 1794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 dismissed it as the "death penalty" for hawkers. At that particular meeting, I moved a motion, and it was passed. The motion reads, "That this Panel urges the Government to cancel 'the mechanism for cancellation of hawker licences' and to formulate as early as possible a comprehensive and consummate hawker policy." At the time, the stance of the Government and the responsible departments was that they wanted to abolish the hawker licence regime.
After the passage of the motion, and thanks to Members' efforts, the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene held another discussion on 9 July 2013, at which it endorsed the setting up of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy (the Subcommittee). However, it was not until 15 April 2014 that the Subcommittee held its first meeting as it must wait for a time slot. In the year following this meeting, the Subcommittee held totally nine meetings, two of which were closed meetings, and one was a brain-storming session involving the Secretary. This was how the present five government proposals came about.
Looking back at this process, I feel very delighted, and I also want to take this opportunity to thank and salute the Secretary. Why? Deputy President, I started out as a hawker. For around eight years since I was 10 years old, I sold goods on the streets together with my parents. I grew up on the streets; I helped my parents run our hawker stall on the streets; I did my revision on the streets; and I slept on the streets. I experienced the ordeals of individuals running a small business and the plight of hawkers.
The current Government ― especially Secretary Dr KO Wing-man ― has impressed me with the courage and commitment it has shown in addressing the issue of hawker policy. The reason is that the British-Hong Kong administration in the past and also the previous SAR Governments never attached any importance to the hawker policy. They only wanted to ban and eliminate all hawkers. But the present SAR Government has abandoned its stance of banning hawkers and changed in the direction of recognizing their status and the need to revitalize, support and develop the small hawking businesses. For this reason, I once again wish to salute and thank the present SAR Government and Secretary Dr KO most heartily.
Deputy President, due to time constraint, I wish to relay the views of the Federation of Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Hawker Associations (HKFHA) on the five recommendations put forth by the Subcommittee and the Government. Representing around 70 hawker associations from various districts LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1795 of Hong Kong, the HKFHA is a large and highly representative organization. They have put forth four proposals. First, the Government should issue hawker licences again and give consideration to existing hawker assistants on a priority basis, so as to avoid plunging them into unemployment; second, the Government should maintain the operation mode of "setting up stalls during trading hours only" currently adopted for Women's Street and Temple Street, as this mode has proven effective; third, the HKFHA agrees to the conversion of public markets with low occupancy rates into off-street cooked food centres for revitalization purposes; and fourth, the Government should further revitalize the existing open-air bazaars with local colour (such as morning bazaars) and seek to enable such bazaars to operate legally. These are the four proposals they have put forward. Due to time constraint, I can just relay their demands briefly. Actually, they have already put forth specific written proposals to the Government, in the hope that the Government can follow them up thoroughly.
Finally, the Secretary raised several points at the end of his speech just now, such as revitalizing and developing existing "Dai Pai Tongs", and re-issuing hawker licences to people with crafts that dying out and also to traditional creative handicrafts. In my view, this shows that the authorities are creative and willing to show commitment. The Governments in the past were all unwilling to show any commitment. Speaking of food trucks, I think the most important thing is to prevent monopoly by consortiums.
Deputy President, at the end of my short speech, I wish to talk about Mr LAW Kwong-ching, a 65-year-old who was drowned to death in a river in Tin Shui Wai while trying to flee from arrest on 26 June 2006. He was an unlicensed hawker living in Tin Shui Wai. I want to comfort his soul in heaven (The buzzer sounded) … by telling him that his sacrifice has not ended up in vain.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please sit down.
MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a lot of contradictions exist between the wholesale and retail trades. Wholesaling and retailing are basically two separate industries. While there are many disagreements between distribution agents and parallel goods traders, there are even more arguments between shop owners and street hawkers. Whenever it is a District Council Election year, street hawkers will invariably be caught in the middle of two 1796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 contending forces. It is because residents naturally do not want any hawkers shouting downstairs. Besides, street hawkers may even affect environmental hygiene. All this basically explains why the Government has been actively phasing out itinerant hawkers and fixed-pitch hawkers, and continuously reducing the business area of hawker stalls over the past few decades.
I have received many related complaints and requests for assistance. Some shop owners who pay high rents for their shops complain that hawker stalls are blocking their shop entrances. Hawkers, on the other hand, also seek assistance, saying that the operating area of three feet times four feet designated by the Government is too small, to the extent that they can set up their stalls only during trading hours. Besides, they also complain that during peak hours, they cannot set up stalls at crowded areas. Since Hong Kong is a diversified society, it should be able to accommodate diversified economic patterns. Diversification is even more necessary in retail trades for the purpose of satisfying the consumption needs of different social strata and adding to the variety of their own goods. As hawkers need not pay shop rental and invest in shop renovation and they can handle procurement and selling all alone, the entry threshold of hawking is low. Hence, hawking is very suitable for the grassroots and prospective business-starters.
Of course, after obtaining experience and grasping the know-hows of business operation, a hawker can even upgrade himself into a small-scale wholesaler. Besides, hawkers can draw more people to their districts. Provided that the quality and price levels of the goods sold are well co-ordinated, the flows of people in the districts concerned can be boosted to the benefit of all. Hence, despite some retailers' dissatisfaction with hawkers, I have always supported the existence of hawkers, whether they operate in municipal services buildings and on the streets. Moreover, I moved a motion on "Retaining and supporting the development of commercial districts and bazaars with local characteristics" in the Legislative Council before last. I hoped that the Government could formulate special management rules and regulations for the purpose of striking a balance between the necessity of retaining such commercial areas and bazaars and the needs of urban development and environmental hygiene. I also hoped that the Government could study the practices of major cities in the Mainland and overseas, such as Singapore's Chinatown, London's Covent Garden and Shunde's Old Town district, and provide support and assistance through various Policy Bureaux for the continuous development of such distinctive commercial districts and bazaars, so as to enhance their vitality, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1797 promote the local community economy and ensure the continuation of our local characteristics.
However, it is unfortunate that for all these years, the Government has been unable to formulate any hawker policy even though the trade consists only of merely 6 500 licensed hawkers. The only exception was in 2011, when the hawker stalls at Fa Yuen Street caught fire at midnight and nine lives were lost. This brought forth an opportunity and the Government agreed to subsidize the facility improvements for fixed-pitch hawkers. It is true that due to the request of most political parties and groupings for the retention of hawkers and open-air bazaars, the Food and Health Bureau responsible for hawker management has emphasized that the Government has no intention to ban the hawking trade. However, as the Subcommittee often said, in the management of hawkers, the Food and Health Bureau should not focus only licence inspection, prosecuting hawkers for street obstruction and issuing penalty tickets. Instead, it should formulate a plan and designate a specific department and manpower for conducting a comprehensive review on the management and development of the hawking trade. I am not asking the Government to increase the number of licences. Nevertheless, when there are gaps in the whole line of hawker stalls along a street, they must somehow be filled. If not, how can the stalls at the end of the street sustain their business? Are they supposed to perish on their own?
Secretary, you are the government official with the highest popularity rating because you are very nice person who will respond politely and urbanely to the views put forward by all sides. You will never rule out the possibility of further studies. I really hope that the Secretary can consider the proposals of the Subcommittee and study how they can be implemented. I believe that if the Secretary needs more resources or needs some people to persuade the Chief Executive to set up an inter-departmental working group, he will get overwhelming support from the Legislative Council.
With these remarks, I support this report. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the report says that the viability of licensed hawkers should be enhanced because the Government and the subcommittee respect the role played by licensed hawkers in the past and also their contribution to the development of our economy. Nowadays, the business environment of hawkers must be appropriately adjusted to tie in with the needs of modern society and the expectations of people.
1798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
I am thus of the view that the Government should seriously consider the idea of adjusting hawker stall sizes, particularly the size of licensed hawkers. The sizes of hawker stalls are really too small and should be adjusted, so as to suit the goods they sell, their trading needs and the surrounding setting. Only this can meet the needs of a modern-day society.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
However, in respect of improving the hawking environment, while the Government and the subcommittee both think that the hawking trade should continue to be regulated under a licensing system, I hold a different view. In my opinion, one feature of the hawking trade is easy entry and exit. All of us do not want to see a high entry threshold for the trade and hope that hawkers can have the room and environment for spontaneous development. We all hope that there can be easy entry and exit for anyone interested in running a hawker stall, whether he wants to engage in hawking as a transition arrangement or to do an experiment on starting a small business.
However, when there is a licensing system, there will often be a high entry threshold. In other words, if I am fortunate enough to get a hawker licence, I can be a licensed hawker; if not, I will be an unlicensed hawker forever. I think this runs counter to the very essence and nature of hawking because the hawking trade emphasizes easy entry and exit.
Hence, I hope that in the policy formulation process, the Government can carefully consider whether licensing is really a desirable hawker management policy. Or, it should ask itself whether its advocacy of licensing is actually based on the bureaucratic perspective of achieving easy control over the number of hawkers and the locations of hawking. But under such a licensing system, can hawkers still be called hawkers? Can the locations of hawking still be regarded as bazaars? Are these the kind of open bazaars we wish to see? Obviously, the answers are in the negative.
An example I can share with you all is the Morning Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai. Hawkers at the Morning Bazaar start to operate very early in the morning and will leave around 7 am or 8 am because this is the period of time with the largest flows of people. This is precisely the feature of hawking. They will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1799 take account of district characteristics and then choose the places and times with the largest flows of people. However, what has happened to the bottom-up approach of identifying hawking locations, which we talk about so often? The Tin Sau Bazaar can be used as an example to explain my point. The Tin Sau Bazaar was designed by a non-profit making organization selected by the Government. Its location was not chosen by hawkers, but was probably chosen by the authorities or the persons-in-charge in a top-down manner for the sake of easy management. As a result, the resources invested in the Tin Sau Bazaar failed to bring about the effect of a bazaar.
Hence, in the subcommittee's discussion or past discussions on the hawker policy, I repeatedly pointed out the feature of the hawking trade should be easy entry and exit, and that we should not turn individual licensed hawkers into a privileged class. I thus hold that the new policy should introduce something similar to traditional Chinese bazaar days. In other words, hawking activities should be allowed on a mobile basis. For example, one or two days in a week can be designated for hawkers to trade in places with high pedestrian flows in each District Council area. The chosen places must be with high pedestrian flows; otherwise, it will only be a waste of effort for hawkers to trade there.
Hence, I hope that in the next stage of formulating the hawker policy, the Government can base its consideration on introducing something like traditional bazaar days. One feature of traditional bazaar days is that hawkers are not designated any fixed locations for selling. This can save the Government the need to put them under long-term management or regulation. In fact, many undesirable problems arising from the Hawker Permitted Areas in the past have already surfaced. Over time, some hawker licence holders no longer operate their stalls. Instead, they have sub-let the stalls to others. This in turn leads to many other undesirable problems. Such a situation runs counter to the major principle of our hawker policy.
I certainly agree to the essence and overall direction of the report, but I wish to raise two points in this debate today. First, I hope the Government would not use licensing as a means of dealing with hawkers, particularly new entrants. It is because a licensing system itself is a threshold for hawkers and a hindrance to people who wish to become a hawker to gain business operating experience or to make a living.
1800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Secondly, in dealing with the hawker issue, the Government should make extra efforts to identify places with high pedestrian flows in the 18 districts and let hawker markets operate like mobile traditional bazaars, so as to resolve the conflict between both sides, and let business operators and residents them adjust (The buzzer sounded) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): … to each other. Thank you, President.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I do not know if you, the Secretary and other government officials have ever bought any snacks from hawkers. I believe they must have done so, and not only once. They must have bought all sorts of snacks like fish balls, siu mai, faux shark's fin soup, sticky rice pudding, egg waffles and dried goods.
I have been patronizing hawkers since my childhood. When I was getting home late after having fun, chatting or doing homework at my schoolmates' homes ― in those hours, basically all shops were closed ― the sight of workers was forever such great happiness. When you are arriving back home and your own neighbourhood by bus, you see a bunch of people waiting for you and greeting you warmly. These people know what you want to eat and can give you what you want to bring home. You may even have a bite to eat right there, chat with them about what is going in the community, tell each other how difficult life is and even share various experiences in life. They are just like your old friends in a way.
For that reason, since I became a legislator, one thing has been making me rather unhappy. Every now and then, even licensed hawkers will come to my office and seek my help. They come to me mainly because they think that the policy of the authorities is to regulate and control hawkers (This is also the view of the Subcommittee chairman), and this makes them feel that they have been discriminated against and oppressed in many ways. At the same time, they feel that not only the authorities' policy but also the community at large have been discriminating against them.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1801
As Secretary Dr KO has hinted, residents may find the hawking activities in the neighbourhood and outside their buildings a great nuisance and they will lodge strong complaints with their local District Council members or the relevant government departments. As a result, the hawkers concerned will be banned and driven away. As time goes by, such treatment will naturally make hawkers feel that they are being marginalized, discriminated against or even treated as vermin. This is actually not a healthy development.
Hawking is an important social phenomenon in the economic or social transformation of Hong Kong. It is a major economic activity that can meet people's livelihood needs, one which is very grass-roots, local, down-to-earth and pragmatic. However, in the midst of socio-economic development, social planning and the transformation and upgrading of building or urban planning, we seem to have forgotten our roots. We have brushed them aside or simply forced them to undergo some rejuvenation experiments in remote places. The Tin Sau Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai is an example. Worse still, since the establishment of the Tin Sau Bazaar, there has been a total lack of co-ordination among all government departments, and this Market thus has to drag along amidst difficulties. As a result, the stall operators have failed to earn even a subsistence income up to this moment. They can only cling miserably to their business, thus giving people the feeling that the Market is just a social service, a welfare benefit and a measure meant to offer poverty relief, compensation or alleviation. Actually, this is not the original intent of the bazaar, but it has been distorted to this extent.
Another thing is that many front-line staff members of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) are caught between hawkers and the Government in their conflicts. I have received lots complaints that the fixed penalty tickets issued by the FEHD to hawkers have led to clashes between the public and the Government. In fact, many front-line law-enforcement officers of the FEHD say that they sometimes really do not want to take any enforcement actions because the hawkers are after all acquaintances that they see every day. But then, they are forced to do so and cause disruption to their business. I have been receiving complaints or requests for assistance practically every day from hawkers, both licensed and unlicensed. Or, sometimes they just come and vent their grievances. They usually lament that they are helplessness and have lost a month's income again, because the front-line law-enforcement staff of the FEHD must be answerable to their departmental supervisors and ticket them for their over-sized stalls after receiving complaints. However, in that case, hawkers and news-stand hawkers are caught in a dire situation.
1802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Therefore, in regard to the conclusion of the Subcommittee, I hope the SAR Government or Secretary Dr KO Wing-man can continue to make more efforts to co-ordinate the various government departments. I hope that through a serious paradigm shift, a change of mindset, they can explore how best they can achieve bottom-up social planning.
As to bottom-up social planning, I have formed a think tank on community planning with a group of university lecturers and professors of public policy studies, and the goal of the think tank is to precisely the building of a new culture of bottom-up social planning.
Secretary Dr KO emphasized the importance of District Councils (DCs) just now. I believe nobody will say that we do not need DCs or DCs are obstructing our development. No one thinks so. Recently, the Hong Kong Council of Social Service has even forwarded a number of policy recommendations to candidates running in the DC Elections. One of the recommendations is to encourage a pilot scheme on setting up bazaars. The emphasis of this scheme is on the development of community economies or local community economies through the flexible use of vacant lands in the local communities for setting up different types of bazaars on a pilot basis. The function, positioning and effectiveness of different types of bazaars will be assessed. On the basis of the experience gained, the scheme will be expanded to other districts and cross-district exchanges will be made with a view to promoting economic activities in the local communities. The aim is to enable the various districts to enjoy sound development. In fact, this should be a major trend.
A lot of DC members or people engaging in community services for many years may not be quite so familiar with this bottom-up culture of social planning. They need to know more about this new mindset and have more exchanges of experience. In particular … The kind of experience sharing I have in mind is not about going to a certain seminar out of courtesy and just having some casual discussions. What I hope to see is … Actually some urban planners, professionals, community figures and I have already met with the Government and held concrete discussions.
Bottom-up planning needs resource support, which is why my think tank on community planning also recommends that Secretary Dr KO should hold discussion with the Secretary for Home Affairs on the allocation of resources to all the 18 DCs. In this way, they will have the resources and manpower to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1803 formulate professional and impartial community planning under their purview, DC members will not have to fight like a lone soldier in urban warfare. Without resource support, bottom-up planning can never be possible.
We hope that after today's debate, the authorities can adopt a mindset led by development and based on community planning and the needs of residents. It is hoped that the hawking trade, which has made significant contributions to the development of our community, society and economy, can have a new start and find for itself brighter prospects a better positioning Hong Kong, while meeting the need of society. I so submit.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to make three points on the hawker policy. The entire hawker policy is fossilized and out-dated both from the management perspective and the policy point of view. As a result, the existence of hawkers has led to a waste of public resources and hawkers have been unable to perform their due role and functions. The Government must spend billions of public funds every year on implementing its hawker policy. Years ago, the peak spending of the two former municipal councils on hawker-related matters even amounted to more than $2 billion per year. President, the expenditure on hawker management also amounts to nearly $1 billion this year, meaning that we have to spend $1 billion every year on hawker management alone. I think it will be better for us to hand out this sum of money to the poor, offer assistance to street sleepers and the needy, or allocate the funds to the Hospital Authority to meet the need of some patients for specific types of drugs. Moreover, this sum of money covers hawker management only, and land costs and other expenses are not included.
President, I think there are three aspects to a reform of the hawker policy. First, it is the mode of hawker management. As a matter of fact, I have been criticizing the present mode of hawker management for over 20 years. Actually, I have been criticizing the authorities since 1986, so it has been 30 years, to be precise. I have always dismissed the present mode of hawker management as very stupid. The authorities adopt the mode of "station and arrest", meaning that Hawker Control Teams (HCTs) will station at a particular location and arrest the unlicensed hawkers operating there. Let me illustrate my point using illegal parking as an example. If the Police must also detain the vehicles concerned and send them vehicle pounds when taking enforcement actions against illegal parking, they will be unable to cope even with 10 times the present level of 1804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 manpower. Therefore, this is a very silly and out-dated mode of management. Even the Police Force has altered its management mode. In the past, the Police set up a Neighbourhood Policing Unit (NPU) in every housing estate, but NPUs have gradually disappeared, and small teams each of two or three police officers are now deployed on tactical patrols. However, the mode of "station and arrest" is still employed for hawker management, and each HCT consists of as many as 10 officers. Just imagine how unsightly it is when 10 able-bodied officers try to arrest an elderly hawker. But then, they do not dare to arrest triad members with tattoos all over their bodies. The mode of "station and arrest" is actually very backward and not cost-effective. We did some sort of calculation in the early 1990s and found that the cost of arresting one hawker at that time was over $10,000. I once accompanied HCTs in an inspection during the small hours from 1 am to 2 am. On that occasion, nearly 10 vehicles and a total of 130 HCT members were deployed, but only three hawkers were arrested in the end. This management mode is both backward and ridiculous, and reform is thus needed. The Government may make reference to the enforcement against illegal parking or spitting and introduce legislative amendments to simplify the relevant procedures by issuing fixed penalty tickets.
The other two issues are modernization and local colour, and they will involve the overall hawker policy. It is simple to introduce modernization. The Government should allow the use of modern materials and designs for hawkers' handcarts and temporary stalls, and provide electricity and good locations. As a matter of fact, many temporary venues of goods sales all over the world are very beautiful in design, but the situation in Hong Kong is really deplorable. News-stands are an example. The tobacco industry has been providing strong financial support for the renovation of news-stands. But for various reasons, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has approved some of the designs only. As a result, news-stands are now the eyesores in our cityscape. Hence, I think hawkers must be allowed to make improvements to the designs of their stalls.
On modernization, I must talk about the dry goods stalls in markets in particular. Actually, over 10 years ago, I already held discussions on one idea with some owners of dry goods stalls. I pointed out as an example that dry goods stalls should stop confining the goods they sold to slippers priced at $10 a pair or underpants at $5 each. The location of the dry goods stalls on the third floor of Yeung Uk Road Municipal Services Building, for example, is just excellent, right? Actually, these dry goods stalls should switch to the selling of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1805 some local brand-name products. Although this can definitely comply with the rules, no one has done any co-ordination and offered any assistance. Well, those elderly hawkers aged 60 or even 70 have been selling dry goods for 30 years. They have been selling underpants and slippers, so how can they be expected to look for suppliers on their own and switch to selling higher-priced products that meet market needs? If the Government can help these stall owners organize their efforts and promote the idea to them, many stall owners selling dry goods would be able to transform their businesses into more economically viable industries which are conducive to the economic development of Hong Kong.
Finally, a few words on the issue of local colour I mentioned just now. The Government may actually assist all types of hawkers in selling goods with local colour, be they dry goods hawkers, itinerant hawkers, cooked food hawkers or stall hawkers. It may be stated as a licensing condition that the licence holder is permitted to sell Hong Kong-made products only. Since there is also the problem of dry goods stalls selling fake goods such as T-shirts or toys, it may also be stated that fake goods must not be sold. If the Government can encourage and help them to switch to the selling of locally produced goods, the economy of Hong Kong will be benefited.
I would like to emphasize especially that those street-side snacks we enjoyed when we were small, such as fermented bean curd, fish ball, maltose syrup, and so on, could in fact be further promoted as local snacks of Hong Kong through a licensing system. This can promote tourism and at the same time promote the employment of local residents. And, the public will be given a chance to enjoy and learn about (The buzzer sounded) … the food and products produced locally in Hong Kong.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I strongly agree to most contents of the Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy. Particularly, its recommendations on, for example, the future review of the hawker policy, the adoption of a "bottom-up" hawker policy and also the arrangements for hawker permitted areas have provided very good directions for the debate today.
As explained by many colleagues, the existing hawker policy was formulated several decades ago, and actually, it is already outdated now. The issues pointed out by Mr Albert CHAN just now are the exact focus of our 1806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 discussion today. Setting up hawker bazaars in various districts, resolving the nuisances caused by unlicensed hawkers, and reducing the Government's management expenses in this regard are precisely the main topics we should discuss today.
The hawker industry has long been in existence in China, including Hong Kong, and it is one of the oldest industries. What are the features of the hawker industry? It is market-oriented, in the sense that hawkers will sell whatever people like. Therefore, places with heavy people flows will naturally see the presence of hawkers.
At present, the Government's regulation of hawkers is very stringent. But after nightfall or after Hawker Control Teams have left, hawkers will show up at main passageways of housing estates and sell cooked food, such as fish balls and rice paper rolls. Such food is sold at many places, such as shops in shopping arcades. That hawkers can make a living by selling such food is proof … A salient feature of hawkers is that they will seek to sell all their goods as quickly as possible in places with heavy people flows. Therefore, the authorities must conceive new measures when exploring the setting up of hawker bazaars in various districts.
In his earlier reply, the Secretary talked about the need to resolve the issue of environmental hygiene and deal with local residents' opposition. Actually, I remember that several decades ago, the Government already set up hawker permitted areas. But some of the hawker permitted areas closed down after several months of operation, because hawkers did not want to operate in these hawker permitted areas. This involves an important question, the very question of whether people flows are sufficient in the places selected by the Government.
If the several conditions mentioned by the Secretary just now must be met before a hawker bazaar can be set up, it will be very unlikely to find a suitable place in a district. True, setting up hawker bazaars in remote districts is no difficult task, but then doing so in places with heavy people flows will definitely arouse opposition from most local residents. I think the authorities must strike a balance and refrain from adopting the criterion of "obtaining everybody's support". In my view, adopting this criterion alone will not achieve any success at all, and many arguments will ensue in District Councils (DCs). Therefore, I think the Government should take up the responsibilities of consulting local residents and explaining to them the reasons behind.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1807
I believe the most important thing in the hawker issue … As I said a moment ago, the "bottom-up" approach is very desirable. But DCs may hold a "wait-and-see" attitude, meaning that they will first look at what the Government will do before following suit. I think the Food and Health Bureau should hold discussions with the Home Affairs Bureau as soon as possible, so as to explore how to expeditiously convey the useful policy of setting up hawker bazaars to DCs for implementation. And, DCs should form working groups responsible for identifying suitable sites for this initiative and holding discussions with community figures, hawker organizations and stall owner organizations on how to implement it.
Last night, I held a forum with some residents. Some of them asked if it was possible to set up a hawker bazaar at a suitable place in the housing estate (such as a ball court, as it was not used during certain periods), so that residents could manifest their talents by selling handicraft products in the bazaar and in turn revitalize the economy of the district. This requires co-operation among various government departments, including the Housing Department, the Home Affairs Bureau and the Development Bureau. The Government must not say, "Our job is over once we have referred the matter to you for consideration. You only need to follow the law, and all will be fine."
In examining this issue, the Government should show commitment. But the Government cannot backtrack in the process. By "backtrack" … The Tin Sau Bazaar and the Gala Point in the past are apt examples of failure resulting from too much government intervention. No commercial elements should be mixed into the poverty alleviation policy. Similarly, operating the Gala Point under a profit-making principle eventually led to its failure.
The Kweilin Street night market and the Morning Bazaar are still in operation. What are their main features? I hope the Government can learn some experience. While the operation of the two is unlawful, they are of great significance as they have shown us how they have managed to survive up until now. For this reason, I hope the Government can draw experience from such unlawful hawker bazaars.
I support the report as it has pointed out certain directional issues. Thank you.
1808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, hawker areas can be found in every part of the world, and they are scenes that can enable tourists to understand the local cultures of the host countries. Hong Kong is no exception. In the past, there were wooden food carts on sidewalks, and there were people carrying bucketful or basketful of things and crying their wares, but all of these have vanished now. Nevertheless, we can still see that rows of roadside metal-sheet shacks at Ap Liu Street, Fa Yuen Street, Tai Yuen Street, Jardine's Crescent and Chun Yeung Street are attracting large numbers of tourists every day. It is thus evident that hawkers are a great attraction to tourists.
Besides tourists, hawkers can also attract local people. Local street snacks such as beef offals, Cheung Fun (rice rolls), fish balls, egg waffles or baked sweet potatoes are considered savoury snacks of the old Hong Kong, and a lot of people still have fond memories of these snacks. I admire Taiwan for having so many night markets which sell delicious food, and Thailand for having a lot of riverside seafood stalls. Local people there may take a stroll in a night market, looking for their favourite dishes to ease their work pressure. However, in a densely populated place like Hong Kong, setting up a night market is not an easy task at all.
A lot of people will say that they support the idea of rebuilding night markets, but they will mostly say to themselves that "it is best not to set up one downstairs". This is very natural. In fact, we can all imagine the situation: there is a row of "Dai Pai Tong" in the neighbourhood, where eaters will drink beer and chat loudly every night, and the emission of the greasy fumes and cockroaches and rats will cause great threat to environmental hygiene. For that reason, if the Government wants to rebuild night markets, the project should be launched in a bottom-up manner and led by District Councils, as they are familiar with the situations of the districts concerned. It is only in this way that it is possible to forge a consensus on rebuilding night markets. If not, a lot of problems will result.
President, the hawker trade is unique. It is commercial and profit-making in nature. It can create job opportunities for the grass-root people, and it can also offer the masses commodities of good quality at reasonable prices. Therefore, instead of perceiving the hawker trade purely as an economic activity, we should also look at it from the perspectives of social welfare and poverty alleviation. This was actually the established hawker policy of the two former municipal councils. We hope this policy will continue after the scrapping of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1809 two municipal councils. However, it is a pity that the eight principles in the report completely rule out the positioning of the hawker trade as a form of social welfare for the disadvantaged or for poverty alleviation. I already expressed my clear objection to this in the meetings of the Subcommittee.
Today, many hawkers are grass-roots people and they rely on their small businesses to support their families. In addition, many of their customers are also grass-roots people. Therefore, the hawker trade today still shoulders the mission of aiding the disadvantaged and the poor. The Government should acknowledge this and preserve the trade.
Since we are talking about the hawker policy, I also wish to air the grievances on behalf of some stall owners. The existing policy is extremely rigid. For example, the size of a fixed-pitch hawker stall is only three feet by four feet, which is even smaller than the President's desk. Can this size limitation keep abreast of the times? At present, there are a great variety of goods being sold on the market, and a stall measuring three feet by four feet is basically inadequate. I hope the Government can conduct a review as soon as practicable and permit an appropriate expansion of stall sizes, so as to allow the hawker trade to develop.
Moreover, many licensed hawkers will hire hawker assistants to help them run their businesses. However, when stall owners are old, retired or deceased and their offspring have no intention to take over, the Government will revoke their licenses and prohibit the hawker assistants to take over the business. This will take away the means of livelihood from hawker assistants, who have been engaging in the hawker trade for their entire lifetime. It will also cause a lot of problems in the family of these hawker assistants. Therefore, we hope the Government will review the policy and allow hawker assistants to keep on doing the business on certain conditions. Actually, the former Urban Council also made a proposal that hawker assistants working for over 10 years should be allowed to inherit the stall owners' licences.
Lastly, the Subcommittee has also discussed the Financial Secretary's food truck proposal. I have grave reservation about the proposal. Hong Kong's street food vendors have made it into this year's Michelin Guide, so it is thus evident that Hong Kong's street food has its edge and has proven itself to be a gourmet's choice. Nevertheless, wooden food carts and sampan cuisines at typhoon shelter in the early years have gone for good. Should we consider 1810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 bringing local cuisines to new heights, instead of using too many resources and manpower to copy the food truck culture of the west? Will tourists who come to Hong Kong still patronize a food truck for some hamburgers? When they come to Hong Kong, they should be looking for local street snacks, right?
Therefore, we hope the Government will spend more time on considering the issuance of licenses to push-cart stalls and to the re-launch of typhoon shelter cuisines, in particular the restoration of "sampan noodles" in typhoon shelters which embodied the charms of a fishing village that both tourists and local people have been yearning for. The Government has stopped issuing licences for environmental hygiene reasons, but this is only a minor management issue which can be resolved. I hope the Government will take full advantage of our inherent edges by addressing these problems directly, instead of adopting the approach of banning.
Thank you, President.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung pointed out just now that hawking activities had a history of several thousand years. This is indeed true because depictions of hawkers can be seen in the Qingming Scroll. I was a member of the Regional Council, and I also discussed the hawker issue 30 years ago. Hence, although I am not a member of this Subcommittee, I am still familiar with many of the points made in the Report. Thirty years have passed but it seems that little progress has been made, though I understand that something has already been done, such as the recovery of licences.
The rationale behind several proposals in the Report is quite innovative. But unlike members of the Subcommittee, I will not give them unqualified support, and this may have something to do with my unpleasant experience. About 20 years ago, I found a cockroach in the food I bought from a fishball hawker in Hung Hom. Then, for the past 20 years, I have never bought anything from hawkers again. Therefore, as mentioned by Secretary Dr KO, regardless of any policy changes, there must be no compromise on hygiene. This point must be made perfectly clear. I am not quite like other people in one way; even when I go to Taiwan, I seldom patronize any night markets. I will go to these markets, but my purpose is just sightseeing. I seldom buy any food there because most of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1811 the foods sold in night markets are oily and deep-fried, running counter to the dietary policy of "less oil and less salt" championed by Secretary Dr KO. I therefore rarely patronize any night markets.
Speaking of the Report today again, I would think the last proposal should be the most desirable, and the first four are simply much too creative and imaginative. The fifth proposal is on the establishment of district-led open-air hawker bazaars and night markets; I think the latter part is not important, and it is the idea of "district-led" that counts. Having to persuade local residents and secure their support is truly a very big headache. That is why I very much appreciate the approach mentioned by the Secretary just now ― District Councils should first be asked to hold discussions, and if a consensus could be reached, the idea can then be tried out.
A successful bazaar first needs a high flow of visitors. Second, it must not cause any nuisance to local residents. There must also be water and power supply, and the venue must be kept clean. I wonder where we can find such a site. As a matter of fact, it is very difficult to find an appropriate site which can meet all these requirements in local communities. But in case a site can be identified, I think it is also a good idea to put the recommendation into practice, and I will have no objection anyway. But where can we find such a site? Past experience tells us that there was a successful case, and the Secretary can look up the relevant records later. The Dragon Market set up a few years ago was indeed a very successful example because its operation was supported by a sufficient flow of visitors, and no adverse impact was caused to local residents. In this way, with government financial assistance, the Dragon Market thrived. But in the end, the shopping mall tenants behind this bazaar lodged many complaints, because large numbers of customers were drawn away by the bazaar, thus affecting their business.
In case the Government wants to subsidize such activities with public money, it must provide sufficient justifications. The Report points out that there are several thousand licensed hawkers at present. Actually, all these hawkers were unlicensed at the very beginning, and hawker licences were issued to them by the Government only subsequently. However, by definition, a hawker must be unlicensed, and the most successful hawkers are usually those who manage to "hit and run", right? Last night, for example, when I went to watch the football game, I saw hawkers selling stickers, football shirts and a full range of related products outside the stadium. Those who wanted to exchange football shirts 1812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 could instantly do so. All these hawkers must be unlicensed. Why? Because they had all left when Hawker Control Teams finally arrived after the start of the game, by which time there were no longer any customers. Such hawking businesses will definitely succeed because they can be started very quickly in times of festive events and in response to demand.
The Government therefore faces a big headache now. And, we cannot totally gainsay the value of hawkers either, because when we look at the matter from another angle, and as I observed when serving on the Hong Kong Tourism Board, there must be some tourist attractions or spots which can reflect the life of the masses in Hong Kong. When my foreign friends visit Hong Kong, I will also recommend Tung Choi Street or Fa Yuen Street to them. Thus, the issue of hawking should be handled with a certain degree of flexibility.
I am not a member of the Subcommittee. Regarding the five proposals in the Report, I would not go so far as to say that I have reservation, but I must at least say that my stance is undecided. I should perhaps talk about the setting up of new "Dai Pai Tongs" as an example. Hong Kong is already full of eateries, and the "Dai Pai Tongs" in the past were food stalls erected along the two sides of a road. Nowadays, in places such as Fukuoka, one or two rows of noodle stalls under tent-like covers can also be found along the two sides of major roads. This is part of the cityscape and should not be removed. Nevertheless, I think while we may allow existing stalls to continue operation as a local community feature, we should look at the issuance of new licences as a different issue. Frankly speaking, it is always easy to issue licences but difficult to recover them. If we are to discuss licence issuance before working out any licence recovery arrangements, I must advise caution. Moreover, the proposal concerning morning bazaars should only be implemented with the support of local communities.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about Proposal 4: Convert public market into off-street cooked food centre. It has been pointed out in various value for money audit reports that currently, the problem of very low utilization rate exists in a number of markets or municipal services buildings under the management of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), such as the third floor of Yeung Uk Road Municipal Services Building as mentioned earlier. I wonder if the Government can change the use of such premises and convert some of them into hawker bazaars so as to stimulate demand and boost the utilization rate. I welcome the idea of converting them into hawker bazaars LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1813 or cooked food centres. In case both are not possible, can the Secretary instruct the FEHD to conduct studies on the feasibility of organizing certain functions in such places, such as barter trade fairs on Saturdays or Sundays, with a view to achieving the optimal use of them? Since their utilization rate is far too low, the Government should take these suggestions into consideration in order to address the problem.
I so submit in response to the Report.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, after hearing the Secretary's opening remarks and the report made by Mr Steven HO, Chairman of the Subcommittee, it occurs to me that both the Government and fellow Members want to revitalize the hawker policy and explore ways to implement initiatives in this regard.
Mr SIN Chung-kai has spoken highly of the Dragon Market just now but there is one point I would like to clarify: efforts were only made by the Government to facilitate the setting up of the open bazaar but no financial assistance was provided back then. Given the economic downturn at that time, the operation of the Dragon Market did earn the support of some enterprises. However, this is thought-provoking because in the absence of such start-up support, would it still be possible to set up a relatively modernized and manageable open bazaar? This is open to question but nothing has been mentioned by the Government about this.
The Secretary suggested earlier that a district-led approach has to be adopted, and that government support would be granted if a consensus could be reached by the relevant District Councils (DCs) on the site selected and the mode adopted for operating an open bazaar. However, what kind of support would be granted? Would a sum of money be provided as financial assistance as in the case of the Tin Sau Bazaar? As far as we know, such a promise has never been made by the Government and this is the first point. Secondly, it is the hope of the Government that DCs would have a role to play. But what kind of role would it be? Would DCs be tasked with the setting up of open bazaars? This would probably be very difficult since all DC members are elected members and DCs thus formed are merely consultation platforms.
1814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Who should take care of the project to set up an open bazaar if DCs are not tasked with the work? Should the Government take the initiative to select the operator through an open invitation by a certain responsible department (such as the Home Affairs Bureau or the Home Affairs Department) as in the case of the Tin Sau Bazaar? Or should the task be given to the organization which volunteers to operate the bazaar? The issue of "impartiality" should first be addressed even if an organization claims that it has the ability to operate an open bazaar, and an undertaking is given by the Government to provide the resources required for the supply of water and power. Moreover, since there may be certain commercial interests or political connections behind some organizations, how should the issue be handled? These are questions which require prior clarification.
I am a member of the Islands DC and have always pointed out that the problem of Tung Chung requires attention since there is no open bazaar and market in the district. Mr SIN Chung-kai has mentioned just now the revitalization of markets with low utilization. But when the setting up of open bazaars and markets is discussed, the matter should be considered from the angle of addressing the specific needs of individual districts. Eateries can of course be found everywhere in urban Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, where there are streets and even old buildings to offer abundant commercial opportunities or business spaces. However, there is only integrated development in the four major new towns, where there are only shopping centres under the central control and management of the Link Asset Management Limited (the Link) and large consortiums with no street level shop.
Worst still, the Government is now reluctant to build municipal markets and thus, residents in Tung Chung, Tin Shui Wai, Ma On Shan and Tseung Kwan O are boiling with discontent, particularly those living in Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai. The Secretary has mentioned that as far as the sale prices of goods are concerned, the setting up of open markets will help to provide special commodities at reasonable prices but I really want to know how this can actually be achieved, in particular in the four districts as mentioned above.
Let me take Tung Chung, which the Secretary has mentioned, earlier as an example. Large-scale renovation works will once again be carried out later in the greatest and major market in the district, that is, the market in Yat Tung Estate which is under the management of the Link. This is of course a good thing but the renovation costs will definitely be passed on to the rents of commercial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1815 premises, and the level of rents will surely be reflected in the sale prices of goods. The whole market in Yat Tung Estate will be closed for renovation works since the middle of March 2016 and by then, the main place where 100 thousand residents living in Tung Chung go for grocery shopping will no longer be available. Can the Government provide us with a response plan at once and tell us how we can solve the problem during those three months when the market is closed? Can the Government's support be granted immediately for the provision of a temporary market, or the setting up of an open market in the long run or even the building of a municipal market? This is a clear example of district issues.
I remember that when the Secretary first assumed office, views were exchanged between us and I told him that the local community economy of Tung Chung left much to be desired. In particular, if the consumer pattern is too much oriented by the behaviour of visitors and the middle class, sale prices of goods in grass-root residential areas will rise to reach the middle class level. I have enquired about the possibility of setting up an open market since there is a reserved site in the peripheral zone of the North Lantau Hospital (NLH), and no one knows if the site with an area of three hectares will be put into use in 10 and even 20 years' time after the commissioning of the NLH. Such being the case, can the site be used for setting up an open market for the time being? The Food and Health Bureau firmly rejected the proposal then, claiming that the land was a hospital site. However, we all know that a decision will not be made by the Government lightly to construct a hospital and with the commissioning of the NLH not long ago. It is not likely that an expansion of the hospital will be required in just a few years' time. Why can't the Government seize the time and do something? Hence, I hope the Secretary would pay special attention to the situation in Tung Chung. As far as I know, a site visit has been conducted to find out if it is really very difficult to find an eatery which is open for business at night in Tung Chung.
Therefore, I can clearly point out that our discussion today is very important as far as the functions and participation of DCs are concerned. I do have expectation of the ability of DCs to perform the functions as mentioned by the Secretary in the new term. However, despite the expectation, a pressing problem does exist in Tung Chung, that is, starting from 16 March 2016, the market in Yat Tung Estate will be closed for three months and by then, 100 thousand residents will have no place to go for grocery shopping, not even for food items of higher prices. How will the problem be tackled and can anything be done to help the people living there? As the new term of DCs will 1816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 soon commence under normal operations, what expectation will the Government have of DCs and what functions it intends to give to DCs? How will the Government address the problems raised by me just now? Will a seed fund be established to offer financial assistance to the setting up of open markets? If so, which organizations can be assisted financially? All these are questions that have to be answered.
I understand that the Secretary has a good intention and it now seems that he also wants to break down barriers. Thus, how can this objective be achieved? Perhaps we have to be patient but the problem of Tung Chung is so pressing that I cannot wait but ask the Government to take the matter forward with priority. As mentioned just now, starting from 16 March 2016, the market in Yat Tung Estate will be closed for three months and 100 thousand people will have nowhere to go for grocery shopping. I hope attention will be given by the Secretary to the problem. Thank you.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy (the Subcommittee) and I believe quite a number of Members share the same intention as mine in joining this Subcommittee. We all consider that the Hong Kong Government should seriously formulate its hawker policy. Over all these years, we have had no hawker policy in Hong Kong and what we have is just a hawker control policy, but not a policy on developing the hawker trade.
As the Food and Health Bureau and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) only try to regulate hawkers from the perspectives of environmental hygiene and safety, it is always our worry that under the existing hawker control policy in Hong Kong, hawkers will be "dried up" or even driven away completely and ruthlessly. I am very happy to learn from the Report of the Subcommittee that among the eight principles put forward by the Government, it has been pointed out from the very beginning in the first principle that there should not be a policy bent on eradicating hawking. The policy in this regard has already been made very clear but is that really the case when things are put into actual practice? I will try to elaborate on this point later. It is the hope of the Subcommittee that a policy can be formulated by the authorities on developing the hawker trade.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1817
When it comes to the policy on developing the hawker trade, I have repeatedly pointed out both inside and outside this Council that it would be very difficult to implement the policy if the work is led only or mainly by the Food and Health Bureau. Secretary Dr KO is of course a very competent Bureau Director. He is always in the forefront, ready to take full responsibility and has assumed the role of the leading government official in the work of the Subcommittee. Nevertheless, as witnessed by the operations of the Subcommittee over the past year or so, I am quite disappointed that the participation of other Policy Bureaux is relatively passive. The formulation and promotion of the policy on developing the hawker trade would definitely straddle various bureaux and departments and as pointed out by Secretary Dr KO in his opening remarks, the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for the introduction of food trucks. Hence, how can the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau be missed out when a discussion is held on the policy on developing the hawker trade?
Secretary Dr KO is responsible for the regulation of restaurants but I am now asking for the development of a food street, and so there is really no reason to hold him responsible for the job. Matters concerning the fishery industry are within his scope of duties but I do not think he should be asked to promote the provision of a fisherman's wharf or a facility similar to the Tsukiji Market in Japan. Therefore, President, if the Government is not willing to establish an inter-bureaux/departmental working group, it would not be possible to implement the policy on developing the hawker trade. Hence, I have suggested long ago that an inter-bureau working group led by the Financial Secretary should be established since he is currently the one with the highest popularity rating among the Chief Executive and the three Secretaries of Departments. I believe our work in this regard will stand a chance of success if the Financial Secretary is willing to take full responsibility.
This Council and the general public have very high expectation of the work of the Subcommittee, as revealed by the fact that a total of 16 Members joined the Subcommittee and nearly 100 deputations and individuals expressed their views during consultation meetings. However, as usual, although the Report submitted has touched on a number of issues, it has failed to hit the nail on the head and respond directly to the views voiced by those who have expectation of the hawker policy of Hong Kong.
1818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Let me first talk about the eight principles which I generally accept, with the exception of the second one. As described by Mr Christopher CHUNG just now, under the second principle, we should avoid positioning the hawker trade as a form of social welfare for the disadvantaged. As for the question about whether the hawker trade is a form of social welfare, further discussions may be required because once the issue of social welfare is involved, assets and income limits have to be prescribed and the whole thing will turn into an issue of labour welfare or a policy on poverty alleviation. However, it is true that the activities of the hawker trade are by nature channels for the grassroots to earn a living and chances for the general public to buy quality goods at low prices.
At the meeting of the Subcommittee on Poverty held last month, the policy on bazaar economic activities was brought up and a discussion of the policy was held from the perspective of poverty alleviation, exploring ways to assist members of the public and the poor to help others and develop their self-help abilities. Members have received two submissions respectively on the setting up of a pilot weekend hawker bazaar/market in Tin Shui Wai and the trial scheme for the setting up of an open bazaar in Sham Shui Po, and the restriction of prescribing an income limit is included in both submissions. I consider that as far as the hawker policy is concerned, it would not be necessary to rigidly specify that it should not be positioned for poverty alleviation or for assisting the disadvantaged. Further discussions should be allowed on whether the hawker trade should be regarded as a form of social welfare.
Besides, Proposals 1 to 4 among the five proposals set out by the Government seek to improve the existing operations of hawking activities and I would like to focus my discussion on Proposal 5, which recommends the setting up of district-led open-air hawker bazaars and night markets. This is just a direction, and neither a roadmap nor a timetable is available. Actually, our biggest wish is to have night markets set up in Hong Kong as in Taiwan and to elaborate further, why can't a place like the Chatuchak Weekend Market in Thailand, which is a must-go for everyone visiting Bangkok, be provided in Hong Kong?
According to the Report, the Government claims that it will keep an open mind towards the proposal and is willing to play a co-ordinating role, while the proposal will be implemented through a bottom-up approach. In this connection, although the Government should not be criticized for looking on with folded arms, its attitude is somewhat passive. In other words, as long as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1819 proposals are put forward by interested parties in the local communities, mooted under a district-led approach and discussed thoroughly at the district level, hawker bazaars and markets may be set up without obstruction and with the assistance from the Government. However, the Government should not be the one to blame if such proposals are not premised on the conditions as set out above. It is my expectation that the Government would be appropriately proactive in formulating the overall direction when the proposal of setting up night markets is considered, which will then be mooted under a district-led approach. The point in question is: an overall direction has to be formulated by the Government. Let me use the setting up of an open bazaar comparable to the Chatuchak Weekend Market in Thailand as an example. A general direction and an objective have to be worked out by the Government first so that the local communities, the commercial sector or the general public can act accordingly.
Finally, as my speaking time is running out, I would like to say something about the ways adopted by the FEHD in taking arrest actions against hawkers. It is revealed in the Report that according to the Government, stringent enforcement actions will be taken against the selling of prohibited or restricted goods or cooked food and also against hawking activities which cause serious obstruction, but hawking activities falling outside the above scope will be accorded a lower priority in enforcement. This means that hawkers will not be ruthlessly and completely driven away. I originally intended to illustrate with some information obtained from the Internet how hawkers in the local communities have been driven away by the FEHD ruthlessly and completely in recent years. It has also been pointed out by some fellow Members that as the current year is a District Council (DC) election year, the FEHD has been forced by some DC members to take action and "sweep away" hawking activities in their districts. However, these DC members have also approached the affected stall owners later, showing sympathy and indicating their wish to plead mercy for them. I hope attention would also be given by the Secretary to such incidents.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have always …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please wait a moment. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
1820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think a quorum is not present. No one is listening to his speech now.
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 Tommy CHEUNG, please speak.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, lest Members may have any misunderstanding, I must clarify that it was Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung who requested a headcount just now. But I think Secretary KO would very much like to thank Mr LEUNG because he could thus take a rest of several minutes outside the Chamber.
President, the Liberal Party and I have always supported the formulation of a hawker policy, so that we can give room for survival and healthy development to small traders and diversify the modes of business operation in Hong Kong to prevent market domination by chain-enterprises. In fact, as early as 17 March 2010, I already moved a motion entitled "Supporting the Market for Traders Running Small Businesses", and it was passed with cross-party support from Members. Hence, I basically approve of the report submitted by the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy under the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene. The proposals raised in the report are very familiar to us. The report urges that instead of approaching the hawker issues only from the angle of management and control, the authorities should think more from the angles of development, facilitation, or even steering. It is said that an even more desirable approach is to follow the concept of diversification, and restructure hawker markets according to a range of factors, including tourism, creativity and art, traditional features, cultural legacy, and so on, so that these markets can continue to develop in a healthy manner.
President, this motion has honestly stirred up mixed feelings in me. Though we have been discussing the formulation of a hawker policy for years, Hong Kong has not drawn up any effective policy and measure on hawker LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1821 markets, and the development of hawker markets is still unsatisfactory. For example, the Tin Sau Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai once strongly promoted by the Government is a project led by the Home Affairs Bureau, and run and managed by the Tung Wah Group. However, the problems of sparse visitor flow and high vacancy rate have remained unresolved ever since its commencement in February 2013. This is indeed disappointing.
President, things are usually tough at the start. I hope the Administration will conduct a serious review, learn a good lesson and keep up with their efforts without giving up easily. First of all, the Administration should give more consideration to creating opportunities for public-private partnership, rather than avoid working with the private sector for fear of being accused of colluding with the business sector. Frankly speaking, both the Government and non-profit-making organizations are not business-oriented, so it is very probable that the markets run by them may fall through. A market operated in the form of public-private partnership can still win public support as long as it is strictly monitored by the Administration with enhanced transparency to prevent any possible corruption.
Secondly, the relevant government departments must enhance communication and interaction among themselves if they want the hawker policy and related measures to yield any effectiveness. Most importantly, the various departments concerned should abandon the bureaucratic attitude of only looking after their own business and shunning responsibilities. In fact, the hawker policy may involve revitalization work, hygiene management, transportation support, road traffic control, publicity and promotion work, and so on. All these efforts will cut across the portfolios of different departments and Policy Bureaux. It will be difficult to get the work done smoothly without any active co-operation among the departments concerned.
Thirdly, on licensing, the Food and Health Bureau in charge of the issue should adopt a flexible and open mindset, keep its policies abreast of the time, lower the application threshold and revise the licensing requirements in response to the development needs of hawker markets. For example, the Administration should consider issuing new fixed-pitch hawker licences to registered hawker assistants, so that they can run small businesses in the restructured and newly planned fixed-pitch hawker areas. This will not only bring a new impetus to hawker markets and enliven the overall market, but will also create employment.
1822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
In addition, the Administration should consider issuing new licences to cooked food stall hawkers (commonly known as "Dai Pai Tong"). As early as late 2005, I already said in this Council that the Administration should provide support to cooked food stall hawkers that offered unique and traditional tastes, so as to help these stalls carry on their business in compliance with environmental hygiene and safety requirements, and in line with tourism development planning. However, I have not seen the Administration make any progress in this respect so far. President, the Secretary at that time was Dr York CHOW, whereas the incumbent Secretary is Dr KO Wing-man, whom I have great expectation on. Back then when we had the debate, there were still 31 or 32 cooked food stall hawkers, but now only 24 remain. If this continues, I am afraid the remaining "Dai Pai Tong" will vanish with the lapse of time.
I understand there are strong opposition in the local communities. But as Hong Kong is a densely populated city with limited land resources, any development projects, particularly those for busy areas, will inevitably cause inconvenience to the neighbourhood and face opposition. Hence, we should proactively seek feasible solutions instead of holding back. For example, consideration can be given to bringing in advanced facilities and innovative modes of operation in order to minimize possible environmental impact. Or, we may allow hawkers to provide concessions to local residents in a bid to weaken the resistance from the neighbourhood.
Fourthly, the Government may consider providing incentives to small start-up businesses, such as the provision of tax concessions, exemption from the business registration fee and permission for carrying out hawking activities at low and affordable rent. All these incentives can induce the grassroots in the district to try starting up and running a small business, through which they may be able to make their own living. This will be of help to the development of the local community economy, as well as to the creation of employment for the locals.
Lastly, I would like to talk about food trucks. The Administration should be commended for thinking out of the box and coming up with the idea of introducing food trucks, a form of eateries very popular in other countries. I only hope that this project would not start off loudly and enthusiastically but finish poorly and quietly. Food trucks will certainly bring opportunities to start small business to Hong Kong people. Despite the many difficulties found in the objective environment of Hong Kong, the Administration should try to overcome these unfavourable factors by all means. Meanwhile, I and the colleagues of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1823
Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene will proactively work on the preparatory arrangement for a duty visit to the United States. I will share with Members our observations and findings during the visit in order to speed up the implementation of the food trucks proposal.
President, I so submit.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I believe when we talk about hawkers, the people of Hong Kong will recall several unfortunate incidents. The first incident happened early this year. Mr WU Kwong-sum, a Hawker Control Officer of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), was pushed onto the ground by a hawker of Indian or Pakistani descent while on duty in Central and died afterwards. The second incident also happened early this year. The Government cracked down on a traditional Lunar New Year bazaar ― the Kweilin Street night market. Third, the Government set up the Tin Sau Bazaar in Tin Shui Wai in 2013 with huge sums of public money. The several examples I have quoted can aptly show that the existing hawker policy of the Government is a complete failure.
In fact, hawkers in many districts form an important part of society. Owing to the very serious wealth gap and exorbitant land prices in Hong Kong, it is totally impossible for most small business operators to ever think of renting a proper shop or stall. In particular, many shops in public housing estates which were used for small business operation in the past are now monopolized by the Link for profiteering.
Despite all these circumstances, the mindset of the Government remains totally unchanged. It has never sought to work out any solutions from the angle of grassroots and disadvantaged hawkers. Instead, it has adopted some high-handed measures against them. In the end, not only hawkers but also government law-enforcement personnel are victimized. This should never have happened in the very first place. Secondly, from the incident of the Kweilin Street night market, we see that the mindset of the Government is rather rigid and its policies are also inconsistent. Of course, I must add that as reported by the media, the Kweilin Street night market was raided on Chinese New Year's Eve upon the request for strict enforcement made by some District Council members belonging to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. This was not the only case. In fact, in several other districts, the 1824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Hawker Control Teams of the FEHD used five tiers of mills barriers during the Chinese New Year ― five tiers of mills barriers, President ― for setting up a mills barriers barricade in Yau Oi Estate in Tuen Mun in order to prevent hawkers and all others from stepping inside the area. This is very deplorable.
Members all know that in many Asian or European cities … Many colleagues mentioned Taiwan earlier on, but they have missed Singapore in fact. There are many hawker markets or hawker centres in Singapore. The Government there sets up hawker centres at new housing estates or public housing areas, and the people in the areas are welcome to operate business there. In contrast, what has our Government done? Our Government has done nothing. It only eliminates hawkers and old markets ruthlessly. And now, only the malls under the Link and a few old markets are left.
A lot of people mention Taiwan. The night markets of Taiwan have already become one of the characteristics of Taiwan cities. Over the past two years, over 5 million people have made special trips to the night markets. Many Members say that there is nothing much to see in Hong Kong. They are right. There is truly nothing much to see in Hong Kong because many markets have been eliminated and only shopping malls are left now. In fact, such shopping malls are also found in many other cities or the Mainland. Basically, tourists do not need to visit the famous brand-name shops of Europe and America in Hong Kong, as they also have such shops back home. It is thus unnecessary for them to visit these shops in Hong Kong.
Members may remember the Poor People's Night Club many years ago. President should still remember this place. Tourists would visit this place, and not only this, Hong Kong people also thought that it was a vibrant place full of vitality, characteristic of the transition of Hong Kong from tradition to modernity. We can imagine many people would go to the Poor People's Night Club back then. Nowadays, probably very few similar places are left, and the only examples are Temple Street or Tung Choi Street. But the nature of these places has already changed. They are now under modern management, with a lot of stalls under subletting. The few remaining stall owners are quite well off and are not grassroots.
This rigid approach of the Government has wiped out the local colour of Hong Kong and the means of livelihood of the grassroots. The Government's proposal of following the outcomes of District Council discussions as put forward LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1825 by the Secretary sounds very appealing. But President, let me tell Members that this approach simply will not work out. Which District Council will agree to the presence of hawkers anyway? How will this ever happen? Our Government is so smart as to use this as an excuse. Even if this proposal is put forward again 10 years later, there will likewise be no chance of any success, because each district only cares about its own business. You may just ask the candidates running for the District Council Election whether they will support setting up hawker areas within the district. This is reality.
The Government will always look for excuses to justify its inaction. If it really wants to resolve the problem, it basically does not need to look for any excuses or forge any consensus, because there are lots of vacant land, short-term tenancy sites, and places with no vehicular traffic at night in Hong Kong, and they can all be used for hawking. Many other government policies have in fact been taken forward without any consensus, and the policies of the Secretary are not consistent either. This is just a very simple issue, so how can the Government say that it does not have a direction? If the Secretary's bureau and department, he himself and the Government do not have any direction, the hawker policy in Hong Kong will remain stagnant, and it is pointless have any discussion here.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, in February this year, the Food and Health Bureau submitted a hawker management proposal to the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy (the Subcommittee) of this Council. The document is just about 10 pages long, but the words "management" and "managing" appear 13 times. This fully demonstrates the Government's "management-above-all" attitude, that is, a belief that everything should be put, and ought to be put, under its management.
The history of hawkers in Hong Kong is a story about the micromanagement of municipal services by bureaucrats. All the relevant measures, ranging from the housing of on-street hawkers inside municipal services buildings as far back as the 1970s to the active reduction of the itinerant hawker population, and to the implementation of the Voluntary Surrender Scheme for Itinerant Hawker Licences as an incentive, are meant to restrict the number of hawkers to a specific level in the name of Hong Kong's cityscape and 1826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 public hygiene. President, since 1973 when the Government suddenly refused to issue any new hawker licences, the number of licences has been dropping. There were some 20 000 licences in the 1980s, but in 2014, only fewer than 6 000 fixed-pitch hawker licences were left. Hawking has become a sunset industry on its deathbed as result of government planning. President, the above is a macro view of the Government's policy of hawker management. However, when we look at the policy more closely from a micro-perspective, we will wonder whether the authorities' hawker management needs to be so detailed and rigid. Should a hawker be required to obtain approval from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) even when he just wants to have a rest day or holiday? Owing to the policy of imposing management control over everything, the establishment of the FEHD must expand continuously. Rigid and excessive management control over far too many trivialities and matters is the reason for the manpower and budgetary increases of the FEHD year after year. Hawking is the greatest economic activity of the local communities and grassroots in Hong Kong, and it should not be managed in such a rigid way. Rigid management control will only deprive the grass-roots economy in Hong Kong of its vigour and life.
We basically agree to the eight policy principles of hawker development set out in the paper submitted by the authorities to the Subcommittee. In particular, we agree that in the process of policy formulation, a bottom-up approach should be adopted as far as possible to gauge the views of residents and local communities. After securing the support of local residents and the endorsement of the District Councils concerned, the Government may then proceed with the work of development.
After discussing with the Subcommittee, the authorities now say that there is a need to consider if new fixed-pitch hawker licences should be issued. It looks like they are finally willing to make a small concession. Though we cannot tell the outcome or whether there will be any result, such a step still deserves our encouragement. As to whether new "Tai Pai Dong" licences should be issued, the Democratic Party is of the view that the authorities must properly consult local residents beforehand and hold extensive discussions with the District Councils concerned before anything can be achieved. As for the idea of establishing open-air hawker bazaars and night markets with unique district features, I think we can give it a try if there is support from local residents and the relevant District Councils.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1827
The Report also discusses food trucks. The Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene once planned to have a duty visit to the United States in summer this year to study the operation of food trucks. The visit did not take place for some reasons. In case a visit can take place during Easter next year, I still maintain that we must also hold discussions with the United States Food and Drug Administration on food import testing in the United States. Only a duty visit with such discussions is worth pursuing and meaningful.
President, I want to set aside a few moments for discussing "Pang-tsai" (棚 仔) in Sham Shui Po. I am not sure if Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is aware that the FEHD is going to brush aside all opposition and demolish the Yen Chow Street Temporary Hawker Bazaar, commonly known as "Pang-tsai". This has led to the discontent of hawkers and the public. Even teachers and students the fashion design departments of various institutions and also those from departments of drama, have to seek help from legislators, because the Government has decided to expel the cloth hawkers in Sham Shui Po. On the surface, this is another clash between conservation and development, but upon close analysis, we will see that it also bears out the ossified hawker policy and the crisis of shrinking livelihood faced by common masses nowadays.
In mid-August this year, without any prior consultation with the District Council, the FEHD made a sudden and unilateral announcement that it would recover the site of the cloth market from 21 licence-holders (reduced to 20 in September) in "Pang-tsai" in Sham Shui Po. Why does the Government want to recover the market site? It turns out that the site is planned for a Home Ownership Scheme development project.
President, if the cloth stalls in "Pang-tsai" must be relocated, the Government should relocate all the cloth hawkers en masse to one single location instead of moving them to different locations. This is same as separating the stalls and chopping the whole market into pieces. Breaking up the whole market like this will deal a severe blow to the hawkers' survival and business, driving them out of existence altogether. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau says that Hong Kong should encourage the development of apparel design and the innovative sectors, but how come the Government now intends to drive out the providers of cloth patronized by design practitioners? How can they carry out fashion design if they cannot even purchase the cloth they need? The Government is stifling not only the livelihood of the cloth hawkers but also the development of the entire fashion design sector. Why doesn't the Government (The buzzer sounded) … rationalize its policies?
1828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, your speaking time is up.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, in our present discussion on the need for reviewing our hawker policy, there is the expression "district-led open-air hawker bazaars". I cannot help laughing when seeing this expression because the cloth market in Sham Shui Po is precisely a cloth market formed many years ago during a spontaneous and natural process in the district, and it now has a history of 30 to 40 years. Local residents usually call it "Pang-tsai" (棚 仔), but its official name is Yen Chow Street Temporary Hawker Bazaar, which does not contain the word of "cloth". And, the sneakiest thing is that on the planning map of the Planning Department, the cloth market is just represented by a tiny and faintly-coloured dot and referred to as 373 Lai Chi Kok Road. One would not know what it is without examining the information carefully. But then, this is the site of the cloth market in Sham Shui Po.
It is also stated expressly on this map here that at the end of this year, the site will be used for the construction of public housing (for the building of Home Ownership Scheme flats, as clarified later). But it is not mentioned who have made the decision and whom they have consulted. Almost no one knows what is happening, and staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) simply notify stall operators when they have to move out. I have written at least two letters to the FEHD, and they have replied to me very politely, yet the responses lack any concrete substance. I have merely asked for some basic information. Why do they say that the cloth market in Sham Shui Po must close down at the end of this year? Have the hawkers in the market been consulted in advance?
The hawkers have been protesting almost every day for quite some time, and recently they have come to the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council. The FEHD has never given the hawkers any formal notification. My enquiry regarding some basic information, such as time, land use, future arrangements, and so on, have not yielded any reply from the FEHD. They have said that the letters have been received and discussions will follow.
First, what makes the cloth market so special is that it can reflect the local colour of Sham Shui Po. The piece goods for sale there are no ordinary dry goods. Piece goods must be stored in very good conditions, totally free from any moisture and even any odour. They must never be stored next to the fish LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1829 stalls or meat stalls in wet markets. More importantly, the cloth hawkers have been supporting each other throughout the years. If a stall cannot offer the right kind of silk pieces a customer is looking for, the hawker would refer the customer to another stall in the market, say stall Number 19. They have been operating their businesses with such co-operation for more than three decades. Today, they are suddenly asked to move. They just want to know if there will be any compensation and resettlement programme, but the Government has merely replied that a certain crossroads in Sham Shui Po may well be used for resettlement. However, has the Government held any serious discussions with the hawkers currently operating in the market? No. The hawkers have made it clear that the Government cannot force them to operate in a totally outdoor environment, nor can it require them to set up their stalls during trading hours only. The reason is that unlike other light merchandise such as rubber duck toys or electronic components, piece goods are very heavy. The practice is not feasible.
The biggest problem is that the hawkers who operated in the market at the very beginning were all licensed hawkers, but these licensed hawkers have grown old or even passed away with the passage of time. Some of the hawkers operating in the market now are registered hawker assistants, but even such licences are gone now. I would not say that they are left to perish on their own, but over all these years, no one, not even local triads, has ever interfered with their business. They have been operating in a little community of their own. The Government now has a new plan, but it will only look after those who hold a hawker licence. The hawkers understandably cannot voice any objection lest they may even lose their assistant licences. It looks like government officials are simply saying that the hawkers should already be grateful since they are not charged for unlicensed hawking and illegal occupation of Government land.
These hawkers once also wanted to apply for hawker licences, but then the Government simply stopped issuing such licences. Therefore, they have had to operate their businesses with invalid assistant licences over all these years. Meantime, no one has ever bothered about their unlicensed operation or given them any reminder. However, the Government now comes up with this sudden idea and wants to expel them. Worse still, it even refuses to offer any compensation simply because they do not hold any hawker licences. This is downright annihilation, something that is totally beyond our imagination. I hope the Food and Health Bureau, as the authority immediately above the FEHD, can explain clearly what is going on. As I have mentioned just now, the hawkers 1830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 have lodged a complaint with the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council, and according to government papers, the market will be demolished and relocated at the end of this year. The hawkers have made it very clear that they reject both relocation and demolition. This at once reminds me of the Choi Yuen Tsuen incident. I would say this is exactly the sequel to the Choi Yuen Tsuen incident. As they have turned to the Legislative Council, we must inquire into the issue with the Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD. Since it is already well past mid-November now, I cannot see how the Government can possibly demolish "Pang-tsai", that is, the Sham Shui Po Cloth Market, in December. Therefore, this so-called "decision" must be shelved. Thank you, President.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, the Government has finally agreed to review the way forward for the hawker policy in Hong Kong. We welcome this move. The case of "Pang-tsai" mentioned by some Members can show that in the absence of a hawker policy, the Government can simply ignore the hardship and opposition of hawkers and insist on its own will when the Housing Department (HD) says that it needs land for housing construction.
Actually, these hawkers endured lots of hardship before they managed to build up the present aura and prosperity of the place. But the Government now wants to get rid of them. Since different departments are responsible for matters in this regard, we can hear the Government talk about the need for a hawker policy review on the one hand, and see its continued elimination of hawkers on the other. Actually, does the Government understand why a hawker policy should be formulated? Or, does the Government merely want to quieten us by proposing a review, so that we will stop asking it to boost the local economy and create employment opportunities for the grassroots and people with creativity? Since the Government has not formulated a proper hawker policy, we can hear it talk about the need for a hawker policy review on the one hand and see it continue to eliminate hawkers on the other. This honestly makes us feel very uncomfortable.
President, during the post-war period from the 1960s to the 1970s, many hawkers in Hong Kong engaged in various street-level economic activities. Like us, many people often saw in their childhood how others sold glutinous rice dumplings and Chinese sweet soups at their homes. Such economic activities nourished many families, or even people of one or two generations. Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1831 once went through this stage of development. This reflects that such economic activities have their value of existence. Are such economic activities still in existence today? We can still see many people patronize street hawkers. But the Government does not give them any allowance. Whenever it sees that hawkers are well somewhere, it will seek to eradicate them. The HD thinks that this is the most desirable, while the Link thinks that this can avoid any adverse impact on their business.
I wonder why a highly popular Bureau Director like Secretary Dr KO should implement such a hawker policy. Does he feel any qualms when hearing all this? Well, the Secretary's ancestral home is Chiu Chow. Chiu Chow people have honestly done a good job in this regard. I once visited a Chiu Chow restaurant in Kowloon City together with the Secretary. Their restaurant began as a small stall and has nourished several generations of the family.
Is the Hong Kong economy in good shape now? No. Are there many employment opportunities in Hong Kong now? No. Is Hong Kong in a state of peace and stability now? No. When Hong Kong was in difficult times, I promoted the setting up of the Dragon Market ― thanks to my colleagues for reminding me just now. At the time, Mr TUNG supported our efforts of setting up the Dragon Market. But sadly, owing to the absence of a hawker policy and the opposition from nearby places as pointed out by Mr SIN Chung-kai just now, the succeeding official closed down the Dragon Market. We worked very hard to offer experience to the Government and the District Council. But sadly, owing to the absence of any government policy at the time, the Dragon Market must still be closed down in the end despite the then Secretary's support for us.
I have no hawking experience. At the time, I was a Legislative Council Member, and my only intention was to help people during the SARS outbreak when the unemployment rate stood high. Such bazaars could really help people in some way. The Government adopted a hawker policy of driving hawkers to the mainstream economy in times of economic prosperity and to the streets in times of economic downturn as a means of adjusting the labour force on the market. This was a common practice adopted by the Government in the 1970s and the 1980s.
President, I talk about the old days because I want to remind this highly popular Bureau Director ― well, I think he also has good intentions ― that when 1832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 the Government implements the hawker policy today, it should not adopt the approach of eliminating hawkers as in the case of "Pang-tsai" while talking about the development of hawker bazaars. This honestly makes us feel uncomfortable.
President, I think that the Government should address three issues when implementing the hawker policy. The first issue is "soil". I agree that too much regulation is unnecessary, but "soil" is the key to success. By "soil", I mean the Government should issue hawker licences again, or issue a limited number of licences, so that the hawker industry can gradually develop again. Besides, the Government should recognize the status of hawker assistants. The reason is that they have engaged in this business for several decades, so they should no longer be regarded as "assistants". Re-launching such policies is very important, and I strongly hope that the Government can consider these aspects. The local culture, the economy and the creative industry are closely related to hawker licences. And, hawker licences are likewise required for operating certain high-end hawker stalls and business start-ups. Such hawker licences are not normal hawker licences as we understand it, because the latter type of licences has undergone a long period of development. I hope the Government can first consider the recommendations mentioned above.
I welcome the Financial Secretary's proposal on introducing food trucks. But I want to point out that food trucks are also a kind of hawkers, and a licence is required for operating a food truck. How can a person operate a food truck without any licence? A policy necessarily involves various interlocking segments, and I think this is likewise very important. The Government should re-examine the whole licensing regime, or else this proposal will become fruitless. At present, many types of business ― the sale of food and toys, or business start-ups ― all require a hawker licence.
The second issue concerns land. In this regard, I might have done something quite "unprecedented". At the time, I said somewhat furiously, "This is not possible, and that is not possible either. Then, use the spaces below flyovers!" To my surprise, the effect is quite good. The Planning Department is now using the space below the Kwun Tong Bypass to implement a programme, with a view to energizing Kowloon East. This reflects that our officials have improved and are able to do concrete things. And, the programme has been taken forward gradually. In my view, we do have the required venues, and the question is whether our officials are willing to do real thinking. The setting up of night markets and bazaars only depends on whether our officials are willing to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1833 do real thinking. If the Government wants to draw reference from past experiences, the FTU can provide a whole box of documents for its reference. Our documents record our preparations for the setting up of the Dragon Market years back, and how we managed, within 90 days, to persuade the disgruntled shop operators nearby that the Dragon Market means good business for them within 90 days. If the Government could make people understand this, it could clear many obstacles. When implementing the hawker policy, the Government must also take account of all these factors. Actually, we have accumulated lots of experience.
In recent years, I have visited many places to get a grasp of their local economic activities, including Japan, Taiwan and the Mainland. I have found that they have honestly made the best use of their resources and lands. In Taiwan, many bazaars are set up under flyovers. I do not think I need to go into the details. So, can we find such bazaars in Hong Kong? Yes. Speaking of a recent football match, I saw many people gather under a flyover and watch the match enjoyably over some beer and snacks.
I wish to point out the last condition. Apart from "soil" and land, an environment is also required. From a magazine and also from a friend who returned from South Korea not long ago, I have leant of a place called COMMON GROUND. It is a special bazaar built from containers where many economic activities take place, such as the sale of creative products, food and toys. I will skip the details.
If the Secretary intends to develop the hawker industry, I hope he can learn experience from those Chiu Chow people with whom he is most familiar, so as to understand how they could nourish their families by running a small stall at the beginning, and how they envisage their room for development. He can then identify the main direction for development. I hope the Government can issue licences again, provide lands and create the environment.
Thank you, President.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the hawker problem is easily the greatest concern of local communities. If we look at hawkers from a negative perspective, we will say they cause many problems, such as traffic congestion, pavement obstruction or even problems of environmental hygiene and 1834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 noise nuisance ― all of which give rise to the grievances of many people. But despite public complaints, all these problems simply persist, and so do hawking activities.
Why has the hawker problem remained unresolved despite the incessant hawker-control operations of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD)? This is mainly because hawkers offer commodities of good quality at reasonable prices, and hawking can be a means of livelihood to the grassroots, especially those who are unskilled. Besides, hawking hours are relatively flexible and hawkers can thus take care of their families at the same time. This explains why the grassroots will cling to hawking no matter what happens.
As the saying goes, "wild grass will revive as soon as the spring winds start to blow again after a prairie fire." The hawker problem has been in existence for many years. I therefore think that the Government must give more thoughts to the problem and work out a viable hawker policy that can bring forth a win-win situation. By a win-win situation, I mean that the policy should be able to offer the community with commodities of good quality at reasonable prices on the one hand, and to help the grassroots earn their living or look after their families on the other.
Many organizations in the community have been putting forward various recommendations to the Government in this regard. Regrettably, apart from showing lukewarm responses and ignoring these recommendations, the Government even adopts a repressive approach. For example, as mentioned by many Members just now, these organizations have been advocating that the establishment of more morning bazaars and night bazaars can help grass-roots people in local communities earn a living, in addition to breathing life into the communities. Yet to our disappointment, the Government has only replied by repeatedly putting up hurdles, or even suppression.
I myself also assisted some organizations in applying for permission to hold morning bazaars or open bazaars in public parks. However, both the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and the FEHD imposed many conditions that served to hinder rather than facilitate the holding of these events, thus making it difficult to achieve any results. The Government should really reconsider how it can bring forth development in this respect, shouldn't?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1835
The next problem is about a number of markets operated by the FEHD. The biggest problem with these markets is that they are operated and managed so badly that some stall-operators would rather give up their stalls in the markets and turn to unlicensed on-street hawking. What is the main reason for this?
It is because these markets are too old. On the one hand, the stalls are too small for goods storage and display. If stall-operators put their goods outside their stalls, the FEHD will issue penalty tickets to them or even revoke their licences. This makes it difficult for stall-operators to operate their business. Besides, the poor ventilation and sultriness inside these old markets also deter visitors.
Once a resident passed out in Kwai Fong Market because of the heat and had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance. This situation has been in existence for many years, yet the Government has rejected all requests for improvement on rigid policy grounds, stating that stall-operators must themselves bear the air-conditioning charges of their stalls if air-conditioning systems are installed. What is more, even if they are willing to do so, they must also share the air-conditioning expenses for the public areas. Stall-operators cannot possibly afford the air-conditioning charges as they are even more expensive than rental payments. Therefore, many of them oppose the installation of air-conditioning systems. What is the consequence of this? Nine out of ten stalls in these markets are unoccupied, resulting in wastage of social resources and forcing some people to turn to unlicensed hawking. Is this situation desirable? While there is a total waste of social resources, residents or stall-operators are also forced to take this path. Is this situation desirable?
Furthermore, some markets are already too old, and after all the recent developments of the local communities, their geographical locations may have become too remote for business operation. Yet, the FEHD pays no heed to his, and simply lets them continue to operate, thus leading to wastage of resources. Some resident groups have repeatedly requested the authorities to convert such markets into cooked food centres or even community kitchens. The handing over of such markets to community groups for the operation of community kitchens can let people in the local communities participate in cooking, thus giving them a new type of employment opportunities.
However, the Government has similarly failed to provide any active assistance in this regard, nor has it actively discussed with these organizations how these facilities can be effectively utilized. It has kept delaying, and by now, 1836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 even the people are tired of seeing these idle market premises, and they would rather see their demolition. Is this a desirable policy? I am not sure if Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has visited these markets before. I hope he can give some thoughts to this problem. He will certainly be sad at the sight of these markets because there is such a huge waste of resources. To put it not quite so nicely, these markets are simply left to perish on their own. Is this a desirable situation? Why doesn't the Government make good use of such resources to benefit the local communities, provide services to the people, and even offer them job opportunities?
Therefore, I hope the Government can formulate a hawker policy that can create more opportunities, so as to enable more people to join the trade, revitalize the communities, and offer assistance to the local community economy. I hope the Government can do more thinking.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, the Michelin Guide, an international benchmark of good food, has listed 23 food outlets in Hong Kong in its street food section this year. Almost all of these food outlets were once operated as hawker-stalls in the streets. We can thus see that providing grass-roots people with room for development will only bring benefits to the international reputation of Hong Kong. However, the number of licenced hawkers in Hong Kong has dropped from more than 20 000 in the late 1980's to some 6 000 nowadays. This is the precisely the result of the Government's policy of ending hawker licence issuance and encouraging elderly hawkers to surrender their licences. On the grounds of food safety, hygiene, street cleanliness and fire hazard, the Government has formulated a number of laws for the regulation of hawkers, thus leading to a constant decline in their number.
At all times, where there is human settlement, there will be hawkers. I am of the view that in present-day Hong Kong, hawking can promote social and economic development, in addition to enabling individuals to give play to their creativity and start their own businesses, thus achieving the objective effect of alleviating poverty and addressing the needs of the grassroots. But if we look at the rationale behind the hawker policy, we will see that the Government actually gainsays the effects of hawking in fostering the self-reliance of the grassroots and improving their livelihood. President, hawking has always performed the functions of giving the grassroots a means of livelihood and helping them in starting their own businesses. It also offers people from all walks of life a wide range of goods at reasonable prices.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1837
In recent years, many people in society have been urging the Government to expeditiously formulate and implement a hawker-friendly policy. This is because rather than answering the social demand for reviving the grassroots-based spirit in the hawker policy, the Government has simply directed all its attention to the street obstruction, environmental nuisance, hygiene problems and fire hazards caused by hawking. We must of course consider these factors, but they should not lead us to a policy that hinders the development hawking. Since the 1950's, 1960's or even earlier, hawking has been helping the grassroots to start their own businesses and earn a living, besides providing the common masses with commodities of good quality at reasonable prices. Nowadays, the urban development of Hong Kong has seen the replication of shopping malls of similar designs. The walkways both inside and outside these shopping malls are invariably lined with chain-stores run by large consortia. The revival of hawking can certainly rival the market monopoly by capitalists and once again offer people a wide variety of commodities at reasonable prices. In addition, the goods sold at chain-stores are beyond the means of grass-roots people. We can see that many different types of chain-stores are located in Tin Shui Wai, a district with quite a big population of grass-roots people. The goods prices in the chain-stores over there are not much different from those in the chain-stores of Central. However, there is a huge difference in people's average income between these two areas. Obviously, the market is now unable to meet the needs of grass-root people.
President, the report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy points out that the Food and Health Bureau keeps an open mind to the adoption of a district-led and bottom-up approach in hawker development. But the Government should also have the courage to hold discussions with hawkers in the districts and delegate its power, so that the hawker committees in the districts and the District Councils concerned can jointly discuss and devise the modes of hawker development in their respective districts, with a view to devising a hawker policy that is more democratic. A more democratic approach to hawker management is the only way to improve the livelihood of grass-roots people. If the Government really wants to actively promote grass-roots economies and improve people's livelihood, the relevant departments must alter their philosophy of hawker management. They should not focus only on encouraging hawkers to improve hygiene and safety standards. They should not take isolated cases of poor hygiene standards for the hygiene standards of all hawkers and then stigmatize them as uncivil and filthy in bid to justify the suppression of their room for survival.
1838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Hong Kong people frequently visit night markets in neighbouring Taiwan. Hawker stalls around the world also attract many visitors and shoppers from Hong Kong and other places. All this shows the substantial market potential of hawking in Hong Kong. The success of hawkers in various parts of the world is underpinned by the hawker-friendly policies implemented by local governments. In marked contrast, the Hong Kong authorities seek to ban and suppress hawking by imposing various regulations. Honestly, we should not give ourselves any excuses for merely admiring the success of others, because Hong Kong is definitely capable of formulating hawker-friendly policies. More importantly, it must be recognized that such hawker policies can assist the grassroots in improving their livelihood and help resolve the wealth gap in Hong Kong.
This morning, the Support Local Bazaar Alliance came and petitioned this Council. According to the Alliance, the Government already recognizes the role of small-scale businesses such as bazaars and night markets in Hong Kong's diversified economy, and the importance of a people-driven and community-led bazaar development mode. Regrettably, the Government has not announced any specific details so far. Hence, the Alliance is of the view that the Government does not really intend to promote bazaar development in Hong Kong for poverty alleviation. The Alliance also points out that four community groups have separately submitted their bazaar development proposals to the relevant District Environmental Hygiene Offices of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. However, they do not know how to kick-start the whole application process and would like to ask the Secretary for advice.
President, I so submit.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, it is indeed very difficult for Secretary Dr KO Wing-man to make a decision, as his authority only covers such departments as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). The Civic Party always believes that the hawker issue as a policy area should be led by social planning. The Subcommittee on Hawker Policy under the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene certainly appreciates the willingness of Secretary Dr KO Wing-man to serve as the co-ordinator. But he does not have the power to instruct Secretary Paul CHAN to do anything after all. Therefore, throughout the process, we have always hoped that the Chief Secretary for Administration can pitch in and take up co-ordination at a higher level, so as to involve all relevant bureaux, particularly the Development Bureau under Secretary Paul CHAN, in dovetailing with the new mindset.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1839
President, as you may also have noticed, the Report submitted by the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy really shows a change. In the past, the Government would only take enforcement actions through the hawker control teams under the FEHD, arresting hawkers and confiscating goods wherever there was street obstruction. That was the only thing it did. However, this time we are able to persuade at least one Director of Bureau ― Secretary Dr KO Wing-man here ― to adopt a new mindset and serve as the facilitator. This is exactly what we need. In respect of this Report, I want to put down clearly in the Official Record of Proceedings that the new mindset will lead to the re-emergence of some wonderful hawker bazaars in Hong Kong.
Furthermore, President, you may have noted that at long last, the Government is willing to admit in the Report that small businesses, such as bazaars and night markets, are component parts of our diversified economy. This is admission is important because perceiving hawkers as people from the lower strata awaiting government relief or as people leading a hand-to-mouth existence will honestly impede the nurturing of an imaginative hawker policy. I must make it a point to say that this is the one feature in the Report which merits our attention.
Now that the Government has accepted hawkers as a component part of Hong Kong's diversified economy, our per capita GDP should also count in the economic benefits generated by hawking activities. Moreover, the Government has acknowledged that its role should not be confined to control, arrest and confiscation but should also involve facilitation. This is a breakthrough. President, a breakthrough has emerged. But how can we translate this innovative policy mindset into an operative and concrete policy that can yield actual results under a truly bottom-up approach? This may necessitate quite a big span, as mentioned by many Members just now.
I have come across a number of young town planners providing voluntary planning assistance to some alliances of grass-roots bazaars or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In case any NGOs want to set up a bazaar, they will tell them how to proceed. Grass-roots people and NGOs interested in hawking and operating bazaars do not have any experience, so they really need assistance. President, as you know, this will probably involve venue utilization and land use. A licence application may need to meet fire safety requirements and hygiene standards. The Town Planning Board may also need to make certain arrangements. These young professionals nonetheless try very hard, and some 1840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 other people intending to set up bazaars have formulated their own plans and even submitted them to the District Councils concerned. However, the present problem is that no government department is responsible for providing one-stop assistance. We cannot possibly approach Secretary Dr KO Wing-man every day, as he himself is pre-occupied with so much work.
Therefore, I really hope that the Legislative Council can note and accept the Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy. Also, I very much hope that Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM can heed our views because simply by asking Secretary Dr KO Wing-man to run around like a courier, we may not be able to achieve any results. It is best to set up a dedicated team (If a new department is not set up). At least, a dedicated team comprising several officials from the Development Bureau and Secretary Dr KO Wing-man's Bureau should be formed to offer assistance to those people and realize the new mindset through effective policies. This will be wonderful.
I so submit.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I agree with what Mr Alan LEONG said in the beginning of the debate today. The hawker policy is about social planning because it concerns not only public hygiene, street management and residents' complaints about noises, but also employment and the consumption pattern of grass-roots consumers in buying cheap daily necessities. Hence, it is not a simple issue of street management.
If this issue can be properly dealt with, hawking activities can actually be the freest form of commercial business, in which hawkers can freely enter the trade and exit anytime they like, provided that the Government does not impose stringent regulatory measures. This is precisely what many Members have promoted and advocated, that is, to let community culture and economies develop vibrantly. When the community has a certain demand, hawkers will respond to the market or the community demand by supplying the services, products or cooked food needed, provided that the Government does not stop hawking activities with legislative means. Hawking activities will slowly sprout and synergies can be achieved.
The Poor People's Night Club, a famous tourist spot people of my generation are very familiar with, originated from a vibrant development of hawking activities. Regrettably, Government deals with the hawker issue from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1841 the perspective of "control" rather than "management" and seeks to suppress the vibrant development of the hawking activities. It only focuses only on the problems of hygiene and noise. Hence, the most powerful tactic of the Government is to licence termination. The Government takes back the licences when the licence holders pass away. Or, when it needs to resume a piece of land, it offers ex-gratia payments to the affected hawkers and asks them to retire. However, this will have serious impacts on the overall social planning, employment and public needs for daily necessities.
Another tactic of the Government is to relocate hawkers to markets in municipal services buildings, requesting them to mandatorily move to the stalls on the third or fourth floor of these buildings. This tactic, however, precisely runs counter to the vibrant development of the hawking trade because these public market stalls are usually allocated to the "relocated" hawkers by tender or drawing lots. As a result, stalls selling unrelated products are often put together on the dry-goods floors of these public market buildings, and this fails to generate a clustering effect. Similarly, if cooked-food stalls in the markets of municipal services buildings can be arranged in clusters, stall operators can achieve synergy, just like the stall operators at the market of the Java Road Municipal Services Building or the one at Happy Valley. These markets have become popular shopping places for the public, including not only grass-root people but also middle-class people.
In fact, people are in great need of the shopping pattern offered by itinerant hawkers. The most well-known example is the "Kweilin Night Bazaar" which emerged in Kweilin Street in the evening on the first three days of every Chinese New Year for some years in the past. However, as the Government had offered no "help" to these hawkers, the night bazaar thrived and became very popular. Members of the public had a great time at the night bazaar in these three nights where they could shop along the street for the light refreshments made by the hawkers. However, with much regret, due to complaints from District Council members on the noise of the night bazaar, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Police stationed "heavy troops" at Kweilin Street last year and the "Kweilin Night Bazaar" was stamped out. Their action caused much dissatisfaction among the public.
In fact, what the Government should do instead is to discuss with the District Council. Hawking is a very mobile and flexible mode of business operation, both in location and time. Hence, the Government should discuss 1842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 with the District Council to explore where and when hawkers can freely operate within the district. The Government can also provide electricity, clean and safe drinking water and appropriate discharge pipes to better maintain street hygiene, thereby attending to both the hawking activities and public hygiene. This is what the Government is duty-bound to do. It should not treat hawkers like pests, thinking that spraying insecticide on them will get rid of them. It is because when a place is rid of hawkers, it is also rid of the room for developing the local community economy and the local culture.
The hawker policy can also provide employment opportunities. As stated in the subcommittee's report, as at January 2015, the total number of hawker licences in Hong Kong was 6 300. Each licence holder therefore only accounts for 0.09% of our population of 7.3 million. In Taiwan, however, their hawker stall operators and employees together account for 2.2% of their 23 million population, with 492 000 people carrying out hawking activities. They constitute an important part of the community economy of Taiwan.
The Government often says that it is easy to invite hawkers to join the trade but difficult to ask them to exit, and that it is difficult to manage hawkers. Actually, I would like to ask the Government to draw on Taiwan's experience of allowing hawkers to form their own hawker association. In fact, a similar hawker association has been established among the hawkers in Fa Yuen Street. A group of "post-80s" people established the association for them, so that they can manage the stalls together and settle disputes among them. This is a far more effective way than the Government sending many FEHD officers to "guard off" the place.
The Government ultimately needs to have a complete revamp of its mindset. I urge the Government to utilize the concerted power of its departments to assist Hong Kong in reconstructing its hawker policy and leave more leeway for the local community economies and community culture. Thank you, President.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I believe that at the meetings of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy, colleagues from different political parties and groupings already came to the consensus that the Government should put more efforts into the hawker policy and ensure its proper development. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1843 reason is that the hawker policy not only determines the management of hawkers but also concerns the local colour of Hong Kong. Therefore, it is in fact the common wish of Members to retain and develop the hawking sector.
Nonetheless, judging from the work of the Government … Madam Han has repeatedly said that the Secretary is of Chiu Chow descent and Chiu Chow people are enterprising businessmen with lots of ideas. Unfortunately, I fear that even though the Secretary is of Chiu Chow descent and in charge of the Bureau tasked with hawker management, he may not be able to achieve much all the same, because the principle of the Government's entire hawker policy is not about fostering hawker development, but about management control, safety assurance, and the avoidance of noise and other nuisances caused to nearby residents. I hope the Secretary can be enterprising enough to transcend the mere perspective of management control and also consider how to assist in hawkers' development and the retention of this local feature of Hong Kong. I believe that only a policy based on this perspective can be successful.
I would like to cite several districts as examples. Let us take a look at the market of Tin Yiu Estate in Tin Shui Wai. Just as colleagues mentioned earlier, the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (Link REIT) will soon close down this market. What has this got to do with hawkers? There is in fact a connection here. First, this comes under the purview of the Secretary and in 2009, the Secretary decided not to build any more public markets in new towns (like Tin Shui Wai, Tung Chung, Tseung Kwan O and Ma On Shan). Second, since no more hawker licences will be issued, people have no alternative but to buy the very expensive goods from unscrupulous Link REIT. The Link REIT now wants to close down the wet goods stalls and asks people to shop at other places or patronize supermarkets. People do not have any choices.
The Housing Department (HD) must of course be held responsible for this, as it gives the Link REIT a free hand in the housing estates, allowing it to close down the wet goods stalls in the markets as it wishes. Yet, the HD has not considered whether people have any alternatives. The HD must be blamed for this, but I also hope the Secretary can realize that if public markets, stalls or bazaars are available in these new towns, people will have an alternative and will not be at the mercy of the Link REIT. Therefore, I hope the Secretary can consider the policy of reopening the public markets and bazaars in new towns, so as to give people an alternative.
1844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
As also mentioned by Mr TANG Ka-piu just now, Tung Chung will have to face the problem of having no markets for a few months. The residents in this new town will likewise have no alternatives. Actually, it is not entirely true to say that there are no alternatives. I remember that one or two years ago during a meeting with the Secretary, the same group of Tung Chung kaifongs proposed that in case there was no land or not enough time to build public markets in Tung Chung, the Government could set up some bazaars. However, the Government has never responded to this proposal. Thus, when the Link REIT now says that the market will be closed for several months and asks people not to go there to shop, they really can do nothing.
So, I hope the Government can be flexible when it considers the setting up of bazaars and formulates the hawker policy. Yet, the Government's way of doing things sometimes scares me. The Hau Tei Square Hawker Bazaar in Tsuen Wan is an example. For years, the hawkers selling jeans or children's wear in this market could make ends meet, and I remember there was even a stall that sold Indonesian folk costume. For decades, the stall owners there just got on well with their business and were able to bring up their children. But the Government suddenly decided to help the stall owners improve their management and advised them to stop business for several years, so that the place could be converted into a nice market building. The stall owners waited for the nice market building for several years. When the market was eventually reopened, they moved in to resume their business, only to find that it was extremely hot inside the building, with the temperature reaching 38°C to 40°C in summer. It was so stuffy that even the stall operators inside nearly suffered heat stroke, so how would anyone want to go in for a look?
After much effort, we managed to ask the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) to consider improving the ventilation system. There are many stalls inside the market but the hawkers only have one modest request, which is to provide them with a tap for washing their hands and cleaning the floor. Although this request has been put up for a long time, it is still under consideration and has to be looked into by different government departments on how it can be entertained.
I wish to tell the Government that it is not feasible to focus only on effective management and providing stall operators with neatly divided rooms or partitions inside a concrete building. The Government should consider the sustainability of their business. Stall operators are made to do business in an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1845 environment with a temperature of over 30°C. They will be suffocated, and no one will go in for shopping. After all, who will be so foolish as to walk into a steamer to get steamed? Thus, the Hau Tei Square Hawker Market in Tsuen Wan shows us that the hawker policy of the FEHD is based only on management control, not on the concept of development.
Another example of success is the celebration of the Birthday of Tin Hau in Tsing Yi. There are lots of cooked food bazaars outside the venue of celebration ― Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che may not like this because nearby residents say traffic congestion will occur during that period. However, traffic tailback or hygiene problems can actually be resolved. In recent years, every time Tsing Yi celebrates the Birthday of Tin Hau, we can hear people say that they will go there to have fun. Children and young people may have no idea what the Birthday of Tin Hau is, and unlike other districts, the Birthday of Tin Hau is celebrated in Tsing Ying according to the Lunar Calendar. Since the committee for the celebration of the Birthday of Tin Hau in Tsing Yi will set up a cooked food hawker market outside the venue during the celebration, many people from various districts will visit Tsing Yi. Why can they be so successful? This is because they can have a say in how the celebration is to be held. If they hand over the responsibility to the FEHD, failure will certainly result as the FEHD will only focus on management control.
Therefore, I very much hope that the Government can change its mindset with regard to the hawker policy. Thank you, President.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Steven HO for putting forth this report. Rarely can we have a chance to seriously discuss the hawker policy in the Legislative Council. Besides, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is very positive in this matter and at least, we have a Secretary who is willing to face the issue of hawker policy at long last.
However, if we refer to the eight principles on further developing the hawker policy in the report, we will find that the Government is very unwilling to take any actions because we can find expressions such as the following: one should not do this or should not do that; although something is a worthwhile cause, something else should not be done; in spite of something, something else should not be pursued; the Government keeps an open mind towards something so long as food safety and environmental hygiene is not compromised; a proposal 1846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 must first secure everyone's approval as well as broad local support before it can be considered by the Government; and so on and so forth. From these wordings we can see that the Government is very unwilling to take any actions. Why?
We do not know why, but the objective facts are that the number of hawker licences is diminishing and so are hawking activities, and that government policies and officials do not welcome hawkers and even aim to suppress them. These are facts. Many unfortunate events took place in the past. For example, a hawker who was chased to a river fell down and drowned; another was chased and hit by a car and was crippled; and a hawker control team member died, not just injured, when discharging his duty. These are sad facts, but as many Members said, hawking is a spontaneous economic activity. It is natural for people to sell their goods in the market in exchange for money to make a living.
The authorities' present regulatory measures seek to eliminate hawkers. Many people from the grassroots are not without skills and they very much wish to earn their own living, though they are labelled as grass-roots unskilled workers. Actually, we simply do not know how able they are. They are good at cooking, making crafts, sewing, carpentry and making some daily necessities. However, they are barred from using their skills to make a living. The public are forced to buy things at the monopolized supermarkets and markets managed by the Link.
President, we advised the Government that it should not outsource the management of the large piece of land at the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront, but the Government outsourced it to a property developer. The Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront is so beautiful that it can be regarded as the most beautiful place in Hong Kong. An international food festival has just been held there. How has just been held there. Permission for such events is given, but grass-roots people and organizations have to apply for dozens of licences and go through dozens of departments for approval before they are allowed to use a park or an open space for an event? At long last, the Government now says that the policy should be district-led and bottom-up, but what it actually means is that the issue will be passed to the district. What does it actually mean by having "broad local support"? Does any such proposal need to secure the support of the District Council? If the District Council concerned does not support the proposal, does it mean that the proposal does not have "broad local support"? If a proposed event has secured the District Council's support, whom should the event organizer turn to for application?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1847
A bazaar festival in Sham Shui Po held recently is a successful example, but the organizing committee encountered a number of problems. They found a venue which they thought was managed under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD). It took them more than a month to discover that it was managed by the Lands Department. This used up some of their preparation time. Finally, they were lucky enough to secure the support of the Sham Shui Po District Council because members from different political factions of a working group on poverty problems under it supported the event proposal. So, in the end, they managed to go through various departments, but it was a very difficult process. It was impossible to find another place in other districts, and even if that was possible, approval could not be obtained because they simply did not know where to begin.
An organization applied to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for a food licence and a hawker licence, and the application was cleared by the Police Force and some other departments. But it could not get the approval from the LCSD for renting the venue. In the end, a staff member of the organization sat at the LCSD office for several consecutive days to wait for approval from its various departments. The organization was finally notified in the morning of the event date that it could rent the venue and the event was held in that afternoon. How come the application process was that difficult? It took the joint effort of several organizations to find a place for hosting the bazaar. How could these examples convince us that the Government is helping the economies to develop? The Government has even said that the hawker trade is not related to the disadvantaged groups, nor does it fall under the category of poverty alleviation.
But the hard fact is that long working hours is common in the present labour market. Many full-time working women have to take care of their families. They have many talents and skills which can be used to help them make ends meet. Why can't the Government strive to provide more opportunities for them? Why can't the Government formulate a policy to set up community kitchens in each district where they can use to produce some food for sale? Some recent examples show that people can earn $3,000 a day by making "ice-skin" moon cakes and some can earn over $2,000 a day for making food pastes. They possess the skills and their products are well-received. Hence, I hope that the Secretary would not just roll out these eight principles and then toss the problem to the districts under the excuse of adopting a bottom-up approach.
1848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
President, as far as I know, at least four district organizations have submitted proposals on organizing bazaars to the Secretary and the Secretary has yet to give a reply. I hope that the Secretary can truly offer some help in centralizing the application procedure, the criteria and the departments to be approached. He should also set out the standard and provide more public space in the community, including community kitchens, for district-based production, with a view to safeguarding the viability of hawkers. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I request that Members be summoned back to the Chamber first.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and indicated his wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, did you watch the soccer match last night? I am not asking you a pointless question because just yesterday, you saw the spontaneous emergence of a hawker market. Of course, since the whole place was bustling like a bazaar and the political situation was very tense, no rash actions were taken to drive away those hawkers.
President, my point is that after listening to so many speeches, I find that all Members, whether they support or oppose hawking, have the misconception that hawker markets can be formed artificially. However, I do not think so. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1849
Rather, I think their formation must be a spontaneous process. As I have asked many times before, even if I now support the building of more bazaars in local communities, how can I possibly do so? The saying "mountain-dwellers live off mountains and riverside inhabitants live off rivers" can explain why hawker markets or bazaars spring up.
Let me quote an example. Next to a fish market … You will see the same case when you eat in Tsukiji Market … Dr LAM Tai-fai, you still do not agree with me? Why are there so many restaurants in Tsukiji Market? All is due to low transaction costs, the localization of restaurants and plentiful choices for customers. All hawker bazaars and areas spring up for these reasons.
In Hong Kong, we think that pig manure is dirty and want to get rid of it in the same way as we destroyed our agricultural industry. But we do not know that pig manure is actually a kind of fertilizer. Similarly, we also say that chicken manure is dirty. We use a lot of money for "eliminating" our original attributes. This is the tragedy of Hong Kong. What I mean is that even though some attributes can never be restored after "elimination", we have still "eliminated" them out of admiration for a Singapore-style city ― in the words of Uncle TUNG . This has been our philosophy of governance. Nowadays, it is really very difficult to see any spontaneous emergence of hawker markets, because all places have already been "levelled". ParknShop can be found in Tin Shui Wai, and can also be found here and there. The shopping malls under the Hong Kong Housing Authority originally controlled by the Government are now controlled by the Link REIT. Those "octagonal food kiosks" are just lucky survivors. They have now become rare treasures. They can survive because they are not under the management of the Link REIT. If they are under its management, they will also be lost. I thus think that what Members have said is off the point.
First, the biggest problem at present is that our town planning simply does not make any sense. While there are many residential/commercial areas, there is no purely residential area. If hawkers do not go into residential areas, they will never affect the residents of there. However, there is no purely residential area. President, do you understand? If it is a commercial/residential building, people can do business there, and this accounts for the emergence of "upstairs shops". Therefore, if the authorities are to sort out the hawker issue and the related hygiene problems, they must first designate different areas for separate purposes. Besides, they must clear certain existing areas for non-residential use. That way, the problem can be solved. Has the Government done so? No.
1850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Second, "mountain-dwellers live off mountains and riverside inhabitants live off rivers". Since there are not many places for hawking now and even wet markets are gone, how can "mountain-dwellers live off mountains and riverside inhabitants live off rivers"? We are now discussing hawker areas, but the situation of hawkers is very pitiable and miserable. Many of us say so because hawkers are unable to make use of their crafts and special skills to offer special merchandise and services. If "mountain-dwellers are able to live off mountains", business costs can be reduced. Then, people will start to come, thus nurturing a natural bazaar culture. Nevertheless, this is not the case in Hong Kong.
Allowing the existence of hawking is also a poverty alleviation measure. Frankly speaking, this is definitely one such measure because when shops are monopolized and people cannot even engage in hawking, giving them a place for hawking will surely help them. In fact, I observe that many hawkers are selling the products that they have purchased in large quantities from the Mainland. In other words, the living of those who are lucky enough to engage in hawking in markets is a bit better than those who do not even have a chance to earn some meagre profit from hawking.
We people whom you label as the opposition camp do care about the masses. Hence, we are naturally against LI Ka-shing's market domination through ParknShop, and also against the control of shopping centres by the Link. However, we are also very powerless. Seeing that the situation is so grave, we can do nothing but only say that we should pity those hawkers and let them earn some money. Secretary KO Wing-man, don't you think this is miserable? Your job is to watch over a rhinoceros, but it is invisible, or simply does not exist.
The Government is really ridiculous. At this stage, it does not even know what kinds of hawker bazaars will be set up, but it keeps saying that if they do not cause any hygiene problems, it will have no objection. How does it know that there will be hygiene problems? Anyway, it simply keeps saying that if there are no hygiene problems, it will have no objection, and that if there is universal consent, it will refrain from voicing any objection even more gladly.
President, I have quoted a lot of examples. The Merchant of Venice is like this: I owe you one pound of flesh. You can surely get back one pound of flesh if only you can cut one pound of my flesh without causing any bleeding. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1851
Besides, it has to be cut precisely, no more, no less. It will be breaking the law if I cut one ounce more of flesh, and will also be unreasonable if I cut one ounce less.
The Government is just like the Merchant of Venice. It will stop at nothing. Firemen say that a 51-hour week is too long, and they want to reduce the number of working hours to 48 in line with other disciplined services. The Government says that it is okay to cut three hours, as long as resources, manpower and services are not affected. How can you get any blood out of a stone? Thus, if the Government really wants to proceed, it must formulate a set of integrated policies, instead of leaving the whole task to Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, whose portfolio covers only environmental hygiene and the cityscape.
In my opinion, there is basically zero chance for Hong Kong to see the spontaneous re-emergence of traditional hawker bazaars unless the urban areas are to be used for such development. However, if there is such development in urban areas, my further question is: how can we find land for such a development when "689" always says that there is no land? Should they set up stalls only during trading hours, or should we exert more pressure when the present shop rents have started to drop?
Therefore, I can tell Members that the discussion today is useless. Because LEUNG Chun-ying does not have the courage to do this. He does not have the courage to offend the big land developers for the sake of the general public. That is all!
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, to begin with, I wish to thank Honourable Members for putting forth their views on the hawker policy. Having listened carefully …
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, as the Secretary has listened carefully to our speeches, it will be unreasonable of us if we do not listen to his reply. Please do a headcount.
1852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
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): Secretary, please continue with your speech.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, having listened carefully to Honourable Members' speeches, I want to do three things. First, I want to reiterate that discussions are required for two of the eight principles set out in the Report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy (the Subcommittee). Second, I want to take this opportunity to respond to several recommendations which were not covered in my earlier speech. And, I want to give a brief conclusion.
President, I am delighted to notice that most Members basically agree to our assertion that we need to strike a proper balance between the development and management of hawkers. Besides, one concern expressed by some Members in their speeches is that we often resort to "environmental hygiene" or "public safety" as an excuse for not developing or promoting a hawker policy. I must reiterate that in respect of hawker development, we have basically altered our earlier approach that might have led people to think that our major direction is the banning of hawkers, or that our only work focus is the imposition of management control on hawker. We have made it very clear that we will develop a hawker policy. But we must still uphold the balance between development and management, especially the principles of ensuring public health, environmental hygiene and public safety.
Speaking of hawker management, some Members have expressed their concern and queried whether we will be driven by any political pressure to take certain management actions. I want to reiterate that the answer is in the negative. We basically abide by the three principles I talked about just now, namely public health, environmental hygiene and public safety.
Some Members have asked questions about certain operational details in our hawker management. They wonder, for example, whether it is our policy to focus only on prosecution and bring all unlicensed hawkers to court, and whether LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1853 this has led to low efficiency on our part. I can tell Honourable Members that around 15 000 (some 60%) of the 26 000 prosecutions against unlicensed hawkers in 2014 were actually fixed penalty ticket cases.
Another principle we have proposed is the district-led and bottom-up principle. This commands the majority support of Members, but a handful of Members fear that the purpose of this principle is just to shift the responsibility to District Councils (DCs), so as to raise the threshold and make it very difficult or even impossible to develop district bazaars. Here, let me stress once again that for reasons of the three aforesaid principles in particular, we will never ignore the concerns and needs of local and nearby residents under all circumstances. Therefore, we honestly need district-led and bottom-up discussions, preferably at the level of DCs, and I notice that most Members agree to this.
But in respect of actual implementation, some Members ask whether the Government will set up an inter-bureau or inter-departmental mechanism because different departments may be involved in the vetting and approval of such proposals. I think there is room for flexibility here. If a bazaar proposal mooted at the district level can command general support for its mode of operation, if the relevant DC considers that the proposal can basically address local residents' concerns, and if the remaining issues are only about the co-ordination of vetting and approval by different government departments, then an inter-departmental meeting may be convened to speed up the handling of such remaining issues.
Some Members have pointed out that many hawkers do not have sufficient space for business operation at present. I admit that this is true. Over the years, there have always been individual hawkers who may think that their stall sizes are inadequate relative to their modes of business operation. Honestly, do we have any room for increasing the sizes of all stalls across the board? I think this will be very difficult. The reason is that generally speaking, this will require very huge areas. But I believe that local circumstances permitting, our departments are always prepared to be flexible with stall sizes.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing has raised several issues. I want to highlight his views for discussion because they are the views of the Federation of Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Hawker Associations. Let me repeat them once again here. The first issue is about hawker assistants, an issue many Honourable Members have likewise discussed.
1854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
As we already mentioned in the keynote speech, we will count the number of vacant stalls and issue new licences after improving the fixed-pitch hawker areas on the streets. In the process of issuing new licences, we will consider how to deal with the applications from hawker assistants, including the question of whether such applications should be given priority.
Some Members ask about the possibility of maintaining the arrangement of "setting up stalls only during trading hours". I think all is merely a broad principle. We will not forbid this mode of operation across the board. The most important principle is safety in the light of local circumstances.
As for the recommendations on off-street cooked food centres and revitalizing bazaars, I already gave a reply in my keynote speech. In the time remaining, I will give a conclusion.
The Government will formulate a hawker policy that can strike the most appropriate balance. On the one hand, this policy will allow the development of licensed hawking activities. On the other hand, it will seek to ensure food safety, environmental hygiene and public safety, in addition to addressing other reasonable concerns such as the views of local residents. In the time to come, we will continue to implement the hawker policy based on the eight major principles mentioned above.
We wish to reiterate that it is not the Government's intention to ban all hawkers. Our regulation of hawking is premised on the Government's duty to ensure environmental hygiene and food safety. We understand that some hawkers may be low-income people. But we should still reiterate that in the course of development and … While we recognize that hawking can offer grassroots people a means of earning a living, we should not position it totally as a poverty alleviation measure.
Precisely because hawking is a form of economic activities, we hope that it can encourage our economic diversity. As we have repeatedly pointed out, we hold a positive and open attitude towards any district-led and bottom-up proposals on hawker bazaars. But at the same time, I think hawkers also need to do their own part and identify sustainable modes of business operation. When putting forth a bazaar proposal, they should consider if the proposal can meet the needs of the district, its feasibility, the views of the relevant stakeholders, and the degree of impact. If the proposal can obtain the general support of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1855 community, we will be willing to offer assistance. As I said just now, we may even convene an inter-departmental meeting under certain circumstances to discuss such proposals.
Just now, some Members said that we were not responsive to the many bazaar proposals put forth by various district organizations recently. Putting aside the several successful pilot schemes in Sham Shui Po mentioned by some Members earlier on, I must point out here that we actually did not receive the four proposals mentioned earlier by the Honourable Member until very recently (that is, 6 November). I hope Honourable Members can appreciate one thing. If we receive any proposals during this period, we will certainly have a tentative assessment of their feasibility. But the DC Elections are now approaching, so we need to wait until the tenure of the next-term DCs formally commences before passing the proposals to DCs for discussion.
As we said at a meeting of the Subcommittee, we will implement five recommendations under the broad directions I mentioned just now. First, after the completion of the assistance scheme for hawkers, we will conduct a review of the need to issue new Fixed-pitch Hawker Licences. In the review, we will take account of the circumstances in individual hawker areas, including fire safety, environmental hygiene, business environment, and the views of the departments and DCs concerned. At the same time, we will deal with the issuance of licences to unlicensed street craftsmen with characteristics of the past local culture. Second, based on the Audit Commission's recommendations, we will continue to improve the business environment of existing hawker areas through the assistance scheme for hawkers. Third, we plan to issue new "Tai Pai Tong" licences on a trial basis if the relevant DCs give their support. We will review the licensing conditions and people's opinions based on the trial, including the views of the relevant DCs. Fourth, we will continue to consider the idea of converting existing public markets with low occupancy rates to off-street cooked food centres. Finally, we will set up open-air hawker markets and night markets under the district-led principle. If the initiator of a proposal can find a suitable place, obtain the support of the relevant DC and meet the various prerequisites I mentioned just now, we will actively assist him in liaising with the relevant government departments by, for example, convening an inter-departmental meeting.
At this juncture, I wish to thank Mr Steven HO once again for proposing this motion today and also Honourable Members for their speeches. It has given 1856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 us an opportunity to further explain the direction of the Government's hawker policy to Honourable Members, especially those who are not members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, you may now reply and you still have 26 seconds.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I would like to thank Members who have spoken.
The Government must see that Members actually do not have any divergent views on the policy of supporting hawker development. But one big problem lies with whether the interest and demand of society as a whole will conflict with and affect people's lives in the districts.
The Subcommittee on Hawker Policy wants to resolve this core conflict, and this is the precise reason why it supports a bottom-top approach as the core of the hawker policy. Nonetheless, relying solely on the Government is not enough. I wish that the Members here, hawkers and the Government can continue to work together to reach a consensus.
I wish that Members will support the Report of the Subcommittee (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your time to reply is up.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Steven HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1857
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): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.
The motion debate on "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'".
Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak and move the motion.
SAFEGUARDING HONG KONG FROM "MAINLANDIZATION"
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The soccer game between China and Hong Kong last night elated and moved the people of Hong Kong. In a word, "HongKongers are indefatigable". The match last night really showed us what "Appreciate Hong Kong" should be all about.
Did Members notice a banner with the slogan "Hong Kong is not China" in the stadium last night? In the technical sense, this slogan is correct as Hong Kong is not the same as China. Years ago, DENG Xiaoping already realized the difference between Hong Kong and Mainland China. As a result, we have "one country, two systems" and a "high degree of autonomy". Yet, since 1997, we have seen too many instances of broken promises, and we Hong Kong people must thus reconsider the essence of the "Lion Rock Spirit". The new Hong Kong spirit, whether we call it localism or Hong Kong-centred consciousness, is essentially "We are Hong Kong".
1858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Earlier on, the Chinese Football Association even gave the Hong Kong football team a back-handed compliment, describing the skin colours of its players as "layered" and "diverse". This is characteristic of the Mainland's practice of classifying people on the basis of descent and skin colour. However, Hong Kong has always upheld racial integration. All people, be they Pakistanis, Indians, Filipinos, Britons or French, can apply for becoming a Hong Kong permanent resident. This is true nationalism, which disregards skin colours and descent.
In Hong Kong these days, we frequently talk about "Mainlandization". Some may wonder what "Mainlandization" is all about. "Mainlandization" denotes prevalence of falsehood, avarice and abuse of power. Since taking office, LEUNG Chun-ying has made Hong Kong increasingly "Mainlandized". Let me tell you his Seven Sins below.
First, his moves to heighten China-Hong Kong conflicts. Examples of this are countless, and I will leave the discussion to other Members.
Second, his bias towards Chinese capitals in economic development. We can see that there is a "red" television station in Hong Kong, and Ricky WONG is unable to enter the free television industry. Then, the Avenue of Stars is an obvious example of collusion between government and business. As Hong Kong implements "one country, two systems", we should be a free capitalist market but a telecommunications service provider is even so blatant as to ask the Government to free up one-third of the 3G Spectrum for auction. Even Canning FOK, the right-hand man of LI Ka-shing, said that it was impossible to compete with giant Chinese enterprises.
Third, his neglect of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. This has almost become too banal a point to raise.
Fourth, his failure to improve our students' standard of English. When parents find time to teach their children English at night, their children will cry. The high echelons of some foreign chambers of commerce have told me that it is impossible to recruit any local university graduates whose English is up to standard. Frankly, half of those working in Central speak Putonghua while the other half speak English, but now, we are being criticized for failing in both Putonghua and English. What is going to happen? Does this mean that university graduates of business studies do not need to look for jobs?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1859
Fifth, his elimination of the colonial legacy. It is indeed very ridiculous that the Government cannot even keep its hands off such trivialities as pillar boxes. We are worried that in the future, the Government may remove everything in the territory which it regards as colonial, one example being street names. During the Chief Executive Question and Answer Session, I asked LEUNG Chun-ying if Hong Kong would instead be called Xianggang. He grinned and replied smugly that the Basic Law provides that the territory is to be referred to as Hong Kong in English. When Beijing can even say that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is no longer effective, is it any big deal to ignore the Basic Law?
Sixth, his receipt of $50 million from UGL. While the Mainland is taking rigorous actions to crack down on corruption, LEUNG Chun-ying has sent Carrie LAM, who describes herself as a courageous government official with no expectation, to oppose our motion in this Council.
Seventh, while advocating the co-operation of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, the Chief Executive even feels that he is above everything. He even allowed Zhang Xiaoming to say such nonsense in Hong Kong.
President, LEUNG Chun-ying is now known in society as the "Cheaty Executive" and "Liar". Back then, Henry TANG also described him as a liar. From the time he took office, he has never stopped cheating us. Frankly, it really does not matter whether he supported the Hong Kong team, but the point is that he did not even dare to speak his mind. He only said that it was difficult to make any comment as he did not watch the game. Yet, he issued a statement last night saying that the game was very exciting and wonderful. But did he watch the game anyway? You may well say that the statement was just issued as a matter of formality. But as the head of our city, he should at least clarify whether he watched the game, and which particular moments he finds most exciting. Since he was ambivalent before the game, there was no point for him to issue the subsequent statement at all.
Mainland China is awash with counterfeit goods, leading to a total lack of consumer confidence. From soy sauce to Ferrari, anything can be counterfeit. Therefore, Mainland people want to purchase goods in Hong Kong, and this gives rise to parallel trading. Parallel trading is smuggling and has nothing to do with tourism. However, LEUNG Chun-ying turns a blind eye to the problem and just focuses on his measures. This is the LEUNG Chun-ying style of governance.
1860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
On the bias of economic development towards Chinese capitals, I forgot to mention earlier that not long ago, LI Ka-shing was also severely criticized by the Mainland media. Despite his wealth, LI Ka-shing is likewise no match for the state treasury.
At the meeting of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs last week, I raised the point that expressions like "blood is thicker than water" and "Great Chinese People" are found in abundance in the White Paper entitled "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" released by Beijing last year. I asked Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Ronald CHAN how the issue of ethnic minorities was to be dealt with. He just told me that Hong Kong upheld integration with ethnic minorities.
Regarding the failure to improve our students' standard of English, it looks like Secretary for Education Eddie NG will not change the status quo under any circumstances. He probably thinks that the education reform last time was already a bitter lesson, and nothing much can be done. In that case, what can Hong Kong parents do? How can we maintain Hong Kong's status as a true metropolis and international financial centre? I will stop here and respond later after listening to Members' speeches. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please move your motion.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
Ms Claudia MO moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council urges the Government to respect the local history and culture and to safeguard Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization', so as to honour the undertaking in the Basic Law that the previous way of life of Hong Kong residents shall remain unchanged for 50 years."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1861
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN will move an amendment to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendment.
I now call upon Mr Gary FAN to speak and move an amendment to the motion.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, many Hong Kong people found the performance of the Hong Kong football team last night very encouraging. Though Hong Kong players had to play against the much stronger Chinese team, they demonstrated an indefatigable spirit in front of all Hong Kong football fans. Although the players of the Hong Kong team come from different races, they all have the same sense of belonging to Hong Kong. They played a hard game for the honour to represent Hong Kong in the match. This sense of belonging has united many Hong Kong people. Nonetheless, our Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and the team of accountable officials seem to have fallen out of touch with this public sentiment. They have not dared to say in public they support the Hong Kong team. In the words of Prof Simon SHEN, it is better for them to give up their Hong Kong citizenship if they do not even dare to support the Hong Kong team. LEUNG Chun-ying fears that if he supports the Hong Kong team, Beijing would be infuriated. So, we can imagine that when faced with contradictions between China and Hong Kong, conflicts of interest and societal problems, LEUNG Chun-ying will never stand up for Hong Kong and fight for our rights and interests.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy President, since LEUNG Chun-ying took office, his governance has been based on a speculation of the likes of his superiors, and many of his policies accord priority to the benefits of the Mainland government. When there is contradiction between China and Hong Kong, LEUNG Chun-ying will choose to sacrifice the interests of Hong Kong people in exchange for opportunities to curry favour with the Beijing government. He has sought to support the aim of Beijing to expedite the blind integration of China and Hong Kong. He has incessantly challenged the bottom line of Hong Kong people and tried to erase our collective memory, thus intensifying and aggravating China-Hong Kong contradictions.
1862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Deputy President, precisely because the SAR Government puts all kinds of Mainland interests first, our population policy … The One-Way Permit System is a hole which was opened to support the past strategy of the Beijing government, and as result, Hong Kong has turned increasingly "Mainlandized" both socially and economically. This has in turn triggered China-Hong Kong contradictions. Since 1997, close to 880 000 people have come to Hong Kong under the One-Way Permit System, accounting for 12% of Hong Kong's total population. The Census and Statistics Department even projects that in the next 50 years, another 1.93 million new migrants on One-Way Permits will come to Hong Kong.
However, the SAR Government has never exercised the power to vet and approve the entry of people on One-Way Permits, and has failed to have any say on the ages or academic qualifications of new migrants. Findings of the 2011 census indicate that only 16% of the Mainland new migrants received tertiary education, and less than 10% were professionals. This ratio is lower than that of home-grown Hong Kong people. As an immigration policy that emphasizes quantity rather than quality, the One-Way Permit System has led to competition for Hong Kong's public resources. This will easily give rise to social disputes. The SAR Government should and must exercise the power to vet and approve the entry of migrants before it can formulate an immigration policy which meets the needs of the development of Hong Kong. Also, it is only when the SAR Government exercises the power to vet and approve the entry of migrants that we can eliminate the backdoor practice of corruption, fake documents and bogus marriages, and in turn protect cases of genuine family reunion.
Deputy President, the population policy aside, the SAR Government has also tried to promote the regional integration strategy of integrating Shenzhen and Hong Kong. This has drastically changed Hong Kong people's everyday life patterns, thus leading to public outcry. The multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsement (IVE) has placed Hong Kong into the "one-hour living circle" of Shenzhen residents. Apart from generating the serious smuggling of parallel goods, this strategy has also turned the districts and communities close to the boundary into the Shenzhen residents' venues of daily shopping and entertainment. The endless influx of tourists under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) have forced the small shops in the districts to close down and give way to identical jewellery shops and pharmacies. Even for community facilities, Hong Kong people have to compete with Mainland IVS tourists, and mothers in Hong Kong also have to scramble for nappies and baby formula. Under intense public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1863 pressure, LEUNG Chun-ying can but introduce "milk powder rationing" and the zero quota for "doubly non-permanent residents". Though they can bring a degree of remedy, such measures cannot solve the problem entirely. The SAR Government should hold discussion with the Beijing Government over setting a quota for IVS tourists. It should completely scrap the multiple-entry IVE instead of blindly implementing regional integration which is impacting the daily lives of Hong Kong people.
Deputy President, to expedite regional integration between China and Hong Kong, the Government has also undertaken "white elephant" projects, including the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) and the Liantang Boundary Control Point project. As the Government has rushed to carry out these projects, the costs are boosted, thus resulting in cost overruns and delay. The Hong Kong section of the XRL is an example. Up to this moment, the SAR Government has still failed to reach a consensus with the MTR Corporation Limited on the cost overrun and responsibility for the delay. Furthermore, the forcible implementation of co-location of immigration and customs clearance facilities will also face the queries about breaching the Basic Law. We are plunged into this dilemma because the SAR Government rushed to embark on the construction to coincide with the development of the Mainland's high-speed rail system. Before these "white elephant" projects can bring real economic benefits to Hong Kong, they may well become spending abyss for Hong Kong taxpayers as they must subsidize the cost of the construction works.
Deputy President, "white elephant" projects aside, many projects in Hong Kong have also switched to Mainland construction materials because they are cheaper. This has undermined their quality. The late lead-in-water scandal has revealed that certain works at the Kai Ching Estate have used pre-fabricated parts from the Mainland and the Hong Kong Housing Authority is not able to monitor all stages of production for those parts that are carried out on the Mainland. Last month, the media queried why Mainland-made bearing bricks of a poor quality originally used for the bridge column works of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge were suddenly replaced by local-made new bricks.
Thus, Deputy President, in fact, the label of "Made in China" has come to stand for poor quality in many places and countries. In May 2015, a Mainland businessman SONG Chaopeng wrote an article titled "Made in China in jeopardy" ("中國製造岌岌可危") pointing out that the "money comes first" approach of Chinese enterprises has caused many people to think only of profits. 1864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Even for technicians, their standard, sense of responsibility and pursuit of excellence have also worsened. It has repeatedly come to light that there has been inadequate monitoring by the SAR Government on products imported from the Mainland, especially construction materials. The SAR Government should draw up a more stringent monitoring system to ban contractors from practising multi-layered sub-contracting which will end up in the procurement of some cheap substandard Mainland construction materials, thus stifling the survival of local producers and leading to various problems.
Deputy President, the last part of my amendment is about the impact of "Using Putonghua to teach Chinese Language Subject". The academic and education sectors have always queried the lack of theoretical basis to justify the use of Putonghua for teach Chinese Language. They think this will not raise the students' Chinese standard. Instead, it will bring the students away from Hong Kong's local culture and gradually make them lose their interest in Chinese Language. Yet, our Secretary for Education Eddie NG is determined to go ahead. At one stage, the Education Bureau labelled Cantonese as "a Chinese dialect which is not an official language". Apparently, the purpose is to belittle the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong. The Education Bureau should respect the aspiration of the education sector and the local culture and formulate an independent language policy for Cantonese. It should also shelve the proposal of using Putonghua to teach Chinese Language Subject as a long-term education goal.
Deputy President, large crowds flocked to watch the football match last night. According to academics, the reason was that Hong Kong people projected lots of their local consciousness onto the Hong Kong team last night. The behaviour of many Hong Kong spectators during the playing of the national anthem and their banners on display have proven that the policy on China-Hong Kong integration has been ineffective so far, or has even failed. Rather, it has aroused a sense of local consciousness of Hong Kong people. This is because of Beijing's mentality of being the Celestial Empire and the benefactor is completely out of touch with public sentiments in Hong Kong. Mr Michael TIEN of the New People's Party wrongly accused the football fans who booed the national anthem of advocating Hong Kong independence; we pay hard cash for Dongjiang water but Dr CHIANG Lai-wan asked Hong Kong people to be grateful. This "benefactor" mentality is really pulling people in China and Hong Kong further apart.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1865
Last night, the Hong Kong team showed us that so long as we remain united, Hong Kong can surely endure. There is no doubt Hong Kong can hold on to our core values and will not be "Mainlandized". Hong Kong people have always managed to define the Hong Kong spirit ourselves, without having to rely on the public relation stunts like "HK Our Home" or "Appreciate Hong Kong". So, I urge the Government to properly respect the differences between China and Hong Kong. When formulating policies, it should pay prudent respect to "one country, two systems" (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, speaking time is up.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please move your amendment.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move my amendment.
Mr Gary FAN moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "since the handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the SAR Government very often only pays regard to the interests of the Mainland in formulating policies; in this connection," after "That"; to add "SAR" after "this Council urges the"; and to add "; the SAR Government should: (1) in accordance with Article 22 of the Basic Law, exercise the power of the SAR Government to vet and approve the entry under the dual vetting and approval system of the One-Way Permit for immigration, so as to formulate a population policy suitable for the long-term development of Hong Kong; (2) review the strategy of 'Shenzhen-Hong Kong Urban Integration', completely abolish the measure of allowing Shenzhen residents to visit Hong Kong on the one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements ('multiple-entry endorsements'), and cap the number of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme, so as to avoid Hong Kong people's daily lives being affected by the large number of Mainland visitors; (3) stop planning 'white elephant projects' to blindly pursue the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and 1866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
formulate a more stringent system to regulate various types of projects to ensure Mainland-made construction materials supplied to Hong Kong will not lower the quality of projects in Hong Kong; and (4) respect the cultural inheritance in Hong Kong by formulating an independent language policy on Cantonese, and shelve the adoption of 'Using Putonghua to Teach Chinese Language Subject' as the long-term teaching goal, so as to ensure that students will not depart from the local culture in their learning" immediately before the full stop."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Gary FAN to Ms Claudia MO's motion, be passed.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the motion proposed by Ms Claudia MO and the amendment proposed by Mr Gary FAN, I am making the following responses on behalf of the Government.
The fact that Hong Kong has evolved from a small fishing village into a vibrant and advanced international metropolis where the East meets the West is far more closely related to its unique historical, cultural and geographical background. The major objective of the SAR Government's cultural policy is to support the preservation and promotion of Hong Kong's traditional culture, and at the same time to encourage artistic creation and innovation, with a view to developing Hong Kong into an international cultural metropolis and a prominent hub of cultural exchanges. Hong Kong is rooted in Chinese traditions and enriched by different cultures of the east and west. In the course of endeavouring to preserve and promote local culture, we should also continue to establish cultural ties with different places, including the Mainland and overseas regions, in order to maintain our characteristics of diversity and openness.
In Ms Claudia MO's original motion, she urges the Government to respect the local history. The SAR Government has all along been endeavouring to preserve and promote Hong Kong's traditional culture. We attach great importance to the preservation, study, inheritance and promotion of local intangible cultural heritage. At the same time, we encourage members of the public to understand Hong Kong's history and culture and we promote public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1867 participation through various measures, with a view to preserving, sustaining and developing Hong Kong's traditional culture. The Home Affairs Bureau and Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) have done a lot of work in this area.
With regards to the inheritance of our intangible cultural heritage, the Government has all along been heightening social awareness of intangible cultural heritage and the importance of preserving the cultural resources. After conducting massive data collection for over four years, field studies and public consultations, we announced an inventory of intangible cultural heritage in Hong Kong in June 2014, which covers 480 items. Each item forms the crucial part of Hong Kong's history, culture and life, and many of them are of local characteristics. At present, 10 traditional activities from Hong Kong have been successfully inscribed onto the national list of intangible cultural heritage, they include Cantonese opera, herbal tea, the Cheung Chau Jiao Festival, the Tai O dragon boat water parade, the Yu Lan Ghost Festival of the Hong Kong Chiu Chow community, the Tai Hang fire dragon dance, the arts of the Guqin, the Quanzhen temples Taoist ritual music, the Hakka unicorn dance in Hang Hau, Sai Kung, and the Wong Tai Sin belief and customs. Today, I brought with me this desktop calendar printed by the Information Services Department. It shows our respect to Hong Kong's local history and culture, including the fire dragon dance, egg tarts and Hong Kong-style silk stocking milk tea that we love, and so on. I have sent each Member one as a token of regard. In fact another item which has been inscribed onto the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's list of intangible cultural heritage is Cantonese opera. The SAR Government has been adopting various measures to promote the development and inheritance of the Cantonese opera, including the revitalization of the Yau Ma Tei Theatre, the constructions of a new wing at the Ko Shan Theatre and the Xiqu Centre in West Kowloon Cultural District with a view to expanding more training and performing venues, and the establishment of the Cantonese Opera Development Fund.
Furthermore, in order to foster public awareness of Hong Kong's traditional history, museums under the LCSD will hold thematic exhibitions from time to time for fostering public understanding of local culture, history and arts. In the past, LCSD held a number of exhibitions and research topics were well received by the public as they were closely connected Hong Kong's traditional culture. In fact, one of the major tasks of the Hong Kong Heritage Museum is the collection, preservation and curation of projects with relevance to local popular culture. 1868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
The Museum has organized a number of exhibitions related to local popular culture, including exhibitions of the legacies of Roman TAM, Lydia SHUM and Eddie LAU as well as Hong Kong's Cantopop, which allow the public to reminisce the glamour of the local performing arts sector in its heydays and to share Hong Kong people's spirit of striving unremittingly to make new progress. Moreover, The "Bruce Lee: Kung Fu. Art. Life" exhibition being shown at the Hong Kong Heritage Museum demonstrates how Bruce LEE, who was brought up in Hong Kong, became an important popular culture icon and brought kung fu to the worldwide audience with his gifted charisma and magnificent martial arts skills.
As to promotional and research initiatives, LCSD has organized different types of educational and promotional activities, with a view to fostering the public's understanding and interest of the relevant exhibition and activity. Some topics related to history and heritage are published as books or exhibition catalogues, such as Hong Kong Currency, A Century of Fashion: Hong Kong Cheongsam Story, Hong Kong Filmography Series and Oral History Series, with a view to promoting to all strata of society to learn the local culture, history and arts. LCSD has also co-organized the Community Oral History Theatre Project with performing arts and district institutions in the form of partnership collaboration, with a view to gathering the personal experiences and valuable recollections of the elderly and to allowing young people to gain an understanding of how the older generation grew up, thereby reflecting on their own lives as a result. Over past six years, the Community Oral History Theatre Project has been introduced to Sham Shui Po, Tai O and Kwun Tong districts, and the project is still in progress at the Eastern District and Sha Tin District.
Beside the above work, historic buildings are a tangible evidence of Hong Kong's historical development and a symbol of cultural identity of Hong Kong people as well as a vehicle of the unique culture and the collective memory of Hong Kong. The Government has been endeavouring to protect, conserve and revitalize historic buildings in Hong Kong, so as to let the public to enjoy these invaluable cultural legacies. The Government launched the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme in 2008 by providing the resources and technical support to non-profit-making organizations in projects involving the revitalization and business operation at historical buildings, with a view to breathing new life into historical buildings for public use and enjoyment. Four batches of revitalization schemes have been launched from 2008 to now, in which eight projects are completed, seven are under way or will be launched.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1869
On the one hand, the Government endeavours to foster our traditional culture and to enhance public understanding of Hong Kong's history, and we also regard highly the promotion of cultural co-operations and exchanges in joint efforts with other places on the other, in order to develop Hong Kong into a prominent international cultural metropolis with a distinct identity grounded in Chinese traditions and enriched by a wide variety of cultures. We deeply believe that Hong Kong should adopt an open attitude and carry on with the cultural exchanges with overseas countries and the Mainland, with a view to absorbing the nutrients of other cultures to enrich the characteristics of Hong Kong's local arts and to provide local artists an opportunity to interact and exchange with other artists on the one hand, and we also actively support local artists and art groups to showcase Hong Kong's artistic works and creations on the other. For that reason, the Government endeavours to establish a co-operation framework and platform to promote the cultural co-operation and exchanges throughout the Asian region. We also actively participate in international cultural events, and at the same time, we support local arts groups to take part in outbound cultural exchanges, with a view to enhancing the publicity of Hong Kong's culture and elevating the artistic status of Hong Kong in the international arena. I will further explain our work in this area in my concluding remarks.
Now I am speaking on behalf of the SAR Government with regards to its responses to the contents of Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
I will first respond to the issue of the medium of instruction. As Hong Kong is an metropolis, the Government has all along been putting emphasis on the promotion of "biliteracy and trilingualism", with a view to maintaining Hong Kong's characteristics and competitiveness. The Education Bureau has all along been attaching importance to the learning of the mother tongue language among students, as it will facilitate their communication skills, their lives and their future development. At present, schools generally adopt the mother tongue as the medium of instruction for the Chinese Language subject. The Education Bureau has also been supporting students in the study of Cantonese over the years, thus it attests the fact that the status and function of Cantonese are duly recognized. The Education Bureau indicates that there are dissenting views among academics and schools on whether or not "Using Putonghua to Teach Chinese Language Subject" should be implemented and a consensus has not been reached mainly due to the fact that the result of "Using Putonghua to Teach Chinese Language Subject" will be affected by a host of factors, therefore schools should take account of individual circumstances when considering the implementation.
1870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Regarding one-way permits (OWPs), their purpose is to facilitate the family reunion of families split between Hong Kong and the Mainland. OWPs are documents issued by relevant authorities in the Mainland. Pursuant to the Basic Law, the application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities by virtue of the Mainland's laws. The SAR Government facilitates at case level by verifying the data and information. Since the reunification, about 879 000 new arrivals came to Hong Kong for settlement, in which a majority of them (about 98%) are Mainland spouses of Hong Kong residents or their children. Given the prevalence of cross-boundary marriages these days, the Steering Committee on Population Policy reiterated in the 2014 population review that there was a continued need for the OWP Scheme to enable Mainland spouses and children of Hong Kong residents to come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner for family reunion. The age of new arrivals who came to Hong Kong under the OWP Scheme is younger than that of Hong Kong's entire population, whilst the education level as well as the employment rate of new arrivals in Hong Kong has elevated. They are precious manpower resources. They are conducive to the replenishment of the local labour force and they may make contributions to Hong Kong's future development. The Government will continue to provide appropriate support services to new arrivals in order to facilitate their early integration into their life in Hong Kong.
As to the multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements for Shenzhen permanent residents, the Central Government announced on 13 April 2015 that it would stopping issuing the "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements with immediate effect, and it would be replaced by the "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements. The new measure will not affect multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements issued before the announcement, and all valid multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements will expire by April next year. By then, all multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements would be replaced by "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements. The measure will be conducive to enhance the effectiveness of the SAR Government in the crackdown of parallel trading activities. It is also conducive to alleviate the impact of the substantial increase in visitor arrivals on various districts of Hong Kong. Since the implementation of the new measure, we note that the inconvenience caused to local residents in individual districts has been greatly reduced.
Lastly, I am responding on behalf of the Government on issues concerning the procurement arrangement of construction materials in public works. The procurement of materials for works or building services in public works projects LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1871 should meet the cost-effectiveness, open and fair principle. Hong Kong, as one of the signing members of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, should follow the relevant requirements set out in the Government's Stores and Procurement Regulations when preparing the tender documents for public works contracts. It should put the emphasis on the functions, specifications and performance of the materials needed, and should avoid the rigid requirements for their origins. As such, the prospective tenderers are able to select the most cost-effective materials in accordance with the tender's requirement as there is no restriction on the place of origin of the materials.
Deputy President, my speech ends here. I will respond to other views and suggestions of Members after listening to their speeches.
Thank you, Deputy President.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's original motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
I am much disappointed after listening to the earlier reply by Secretary LAU Kong-wah. He is completely off the point. If the awareness of the Government or Mr LAU Kong-wah is just like this calendar of yours, and Hong Kong people are only concerned about preserving "silk stocking tea", old temples and egg tarts, we will be very disappointed. What Hong Kong has lost now is the previous system enshrined in the Basic Law. Actually, if there is something good in our country ― China ― which we should preserve, we should embrace it today, or should have even made it clear in the motion that we should be "further Mainlandized". Yet, why do Hong Kong people have such an idea? Let me cite some figures which may help you understand what Hong Kong people have in their minds.
The Transparency International announced that the Corruption Perceptions Index of Hong Kong reached a high of 17. It has been worsening and is worse than that for last year, while that for China was 100.
According to the World Press Freedom Index of the Reporters Without Borders announced by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, Hong Kong has slipped from 18 in 2002 to 70 in 2015, and China was at 176.
1872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Under the Democracy Index of The Economist, Hong Kong has a less than graceful ranking at 66, which is behind the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and Columbia whose gross domestic products are lower than that of Hong Kong. Yet, the ranking for our country stood at 144.
In respect of the ranking for global power city, Hong Kong came seventh, higher than Shanghai which was at seventeenth and Beijing which was at eighteenth. In fact, it is not difficult at all if Hong Kong just wants to be an ordinary city of China. Whether it is an index on population, money or high-rises, Chinese cities are all waiting for a ranking, and you can have 100 of them if you so wish. However, it has been enshrined clearly in the Basic Law that Hong Kong's feature lies in our previous system. In the latest Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong ranked first but the rating by the Index for Hong Kong's competitiveness has slipped 0.5% as compared with last year. It has been commented that corruption in Hong Kong is on the rise, the Government's decisions are becoming more politicized, and the Government's visible hand has been hurting Hong Kong's competitiveness. These are the issues which the Hong Kong public are worried about every day.
As Mr LAU Kong-wah and the Government fail to see the situation, or pretend that they have not seen it even if they have, we have to put forward this motion today to "oppose Mainlandization". What he said echoed the inexplicable theory of eliminating the colonial legacy which the former Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office CHEN Zuoer put forward in September. The Hong Kong public are worried, and even Secretary Raymond TAM of the SAR Government also has to come out to say that Central Government officials should be more accommodating towards the Hong Kong people and trust them, and should refrain from making sweeping generalizations. Such abstract political disputes cannot help with the improvement of people's livelihood. Even our President Mr TSANG Yok-sing asked what "in accordance with the law" meant. In accordance with which law? Even he failed to understand what CHEN Zuoer meant by eliminating the colonial legacy in accordance with the law.
While Secretary LAU Kong-wah failed to see, Secretary Raymond TAM realized the seriousness of the problem. What have the Hong Kong public seen? Even the pillar boxes cannot be preserved. Pillar boxes are part of Hong Kong history. There is actually nothing special about them. All of us know that it is Hong Kong's history. This is tantamount to that part of Chinese history when LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1873 people of the Qing Dynasty wore their hair in braids and bound their feet. That is history. Can we say that the Qing Dynasty, foot-binding and wearing of one's hair in braids never existed? Of course we cannot. It is surprising for the Government to bring such low-level issues up for discussion. We are worried about Hong Kong's core values and our respect for the system, including the respect of the SAR Government for the system. What is evident to us now? Even your superior Carrie LAM is becoming more and more like Mainland officials and displays arrogance and insolence. Words like "a government official with no expectation is always courageous" came out from her. Excuse me, she is a civil servant, so she cannot be like her Mainland counterparts who are high above. She cannot place herself above the people and ask them to shut up.
In all democratic countries around the world, civil servants are endorsed by the people through their votes ― of course, we do not have the opportunity to endorse the principal officials in the Legislative Council, but she should know her status. Not only has she failed to do her part to protect the interests of the people at the least ― in the lead-in-water incident, she has not apologized and even said "I am courageous". These are the signs of "Mainlandization" which Hong Kong is most worried about. If we respect Hong Kong's history, and if Hong Kong's rankings in areas such as press freedom and democracy are on the rise, there is no need for us to discuss this motion today. What is worrying us is that the Hong Kong which we have grown up with has lost its past lustre. It has been replaced with absolute "Mainlandization". If everything from our country ― China ― is what everyone wants to embrace, we are of course happy, but we have to know what the high officials and the rich on the Mainland are doing in face of "Mainlandizaton". They have transferred all their money to the United States and Canada, and they use their feet and the money in their bags to indicate their stance. This is what these high officials and the second generation of the rich have told us. Even if they are also dishonest, Hong Kong people are reluctant to awaken. We do not know that what we must embrace are the rule of law, freedom, democracy and system which we once enjoyed and which are the most important to Hong Kong. Yet, all of them have now lost their lustre.
I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was baffled when hearing Ms Claudia MO's motion entitled "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'". Eighteen solid years have passed since the reunification of 1874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Hong Kong. But some people have still resisted our integration with the Mainland. Not only this, they have even adopted a hostile attitude of "indiscriminately rejecting anything Chinese" and are "eager to see a chaotic Hong Kong". I am honestly doubtful about these people's intention. Do they want to do good to Hong Kong? Or, do they want to stir up trouble in Hong Kong?
Whenever we talk about "Mainlandization", some people will immediately associate it with parallel traders and the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), thinking that there are too many visitors, so many that their daily lives have been adversely affected. The cultural and lifestyle differences between Hong Kong and the Mainland can actually be ascribed to many historical factors. Hong Kong was once under British rule for some 100 years, but the country's reform and opening up has only lasted around 30 years so far. In recent years, large numbers of Mainland visitors have come to Hong Kong. Due to cultural and lifestyle differences, increasing frictions between people in both places are naturally normal. However, 18 years have passed since the reunification of Hong Kong. If any frictions between both places occur, we should deal with them with the greatest tolerance and openness.
Sadly, in recent years, certain politicians and radical groups keep fanning the fire and stimulating conflicts between both places by manipulating the grievances of some people. They oppose parallel trading, the IVS, Hong Kong-Mainland integration and even anything Chinese. Holding up high the banners of "localism" and "anti-reddening", they champion self-determination for Hong Kong and for the Hong Kong people. But actually, they are dispersing the idea of "Hong Kong independence". Even though such radical groups are only in the minority in Hong Kong, we can see from those anti-IVS and anti-parallel trading activities in the past that only a handful of trouble-makers in Hong Kong already suffice to upset peace and order in Hong Kong, and lead Mainland visitors and even the whole international community to think that Hong Kong connives at such absurd conduct.
What is even more worrying is that certain opposition groups have dragged the issue of "Mainlandization" into many development projects favourable to the Hong Kong economy and people's livelihood. They interpret the Government's construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link as a step to facilitate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1875
Mainland people's entry to Hong Kong. When the Government expressed the intention to develop the North East New Territories and build public housing, they accused the Government of building housing units for Mainland people. They say that the purpose of a third airport runway now under discussion is to facilitate Mainland people's transit in Hong Kong. What is more, they dismiss the Government's proposal on setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau as a political mission aiming to transfer benefits to the Mainland. In any case, they will definitely resort to every possible means to oppose, hinder and ruin any plans conducive to the development of Hong Kong.
Deputy President, the recent years have seen the emergence of some localist groups which claim that their aim is to safeguard the local culture and counter "reddening". Frankly speaking, I think the "local culture" and the "localist camp" are two distinct concepts. The local culture of Hong Kong is very unique and precious. It has inherited the traditional Chinese culture and is integrated with the Western culture from Britain during the colonial era. This is how our widely inclusive culture with its own features has gradually formed. For these reasons, we describe Hong Kong as a "cultural crucible". However, the localist camp is quite another thing. Under the veneer of localism, they actually uphold the right-wing political ideology. I do not think some localists are trying to safeguard the local culture of Hong Kong. Worse still, some of them are actually in fact ruining the local culture of Hong Kong.
Deputy President, I think that in response to such "anti-Mainlandization" , the SAR Government can do many things. First, the Government must seek to preserve the fine traditions and core values of Hong Kong on the one hand, including the rule of law and press freedom, and should encourage people to know more about the country and gain a correct understanding of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" on the other. In fact, blindly glorifying the colonial era is undesirable, and Hong Kong people's understanding of the Basic Law has yet to be enhanced.
An example is that some people actually attach more importance to "two systems" than "one country". The SAR Government must tell Hong Kong people that Hong Kong is not an independent political entity; instead, it is a Special Administrative Region in China. We should not uphold Western values as the only standard. Rather, we should draw experience from the West at the same time to fulfil the strengths of Hong Kong. The Government should also properly undertake the task of educating young people, including the continued 1876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 provision of support for students' exchanges on the Mainland, and motivate the community to do more. Besides, our school curriculum is also very important. We should enable the young generations in Hong Kong to understand the history of the country and its development. One way to do so is to consider the inclusion of Chinese History as a compulsory subject in the junior secondary curriculum.
Finally, the alleviation of conflicts between both places actually requires the joint efforts of Hong Kong people apart from the efforts of the Government. It is a matter of individual freedom if some people must look back nostalgically on the colonial era, "refuse to let go of the colonial past", maintain their "yellow skin and white heart", and view the Mainland with tainted spectacles. That said, shouldn't those responsible political figures set aside their bias and stop fanning the fire, so as to reduce disputes in Hong Kong and smooth out our social dissension?
At present, many people feel resentful of anything in China and also "Made-in-China" products. Actually, they also wear many "Made-in-China" products. In that case, do they really feel resentful of such products and find them useless? I think they know only too well. They themselves also wear such products, but they have nonetheless said that such products are no good. This shows that they are not true to themselves.
Deputy President, I so submit.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this year is the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law. I could not help sighing when seeing a Member propose such a motion in this Chamber. Actually, no one will object to a request urging the Government to respect local history and culture. Even the Basic Law, in Article 5 of Chapter I, clearly provides that the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This is a solemn commitment, even Ms Claudia MO, who has proposed the original motion, cannot deny it.
However, the topic of "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'" advocated by Ms MO is obviously a specious one. Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. People of the two places are of the same origin and same race, using the same language. With the reform and opening up of our country, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1877 increasingly frequent interactions between the two places on the fronts of the economy, trade and culture are an irreversible development trend. Any attempts to stir up conflicts and disputes between the two places, for whatever reasons, will absolutely do no good but harm to Hong Kong.
Mr Gary FAN's amendment is full of prejudiced views and even obscures the facts. He states in his amendment that "since the handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the SAR Government very often only pays regard to the interests of the Mainland in formulating policies". This is an obvious distortion of the truth. There are loads of examples to rebut this fallacious remark. For instance, since the SAR Government's implementation of the zero quota policy for "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" giving birth in Hong Kong in 2013, public and private hospitals have stopped accepting bookings from "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women" to give birth in Hong Kong. The SAR Government also put restriction on powdered formula through the Import and Export (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 in order to restrict the quantity of powdered formula people leaving Hong Kong may carry with them. These policies were controversial both inside and outside Hong Kong; but the SAR Government still considers safeguarding the needs of Hong Kong residents as the top priority.
What I should point out at the same time is that since our country's resumption of the sovereignty over Hong Kong, state policies have time and again shown our country's support of Hong Kong. For example, when Hong Kong was beset by the Asian financial turmoil in 1997, the Central Government repeatedly made it clear that it would help stabilize the Hong Kong Dollar and its financial system. Another example is the economic downturn in 2003 when Hong Kong was caught in the SARS epidemic, and our country responded to the SAR Government's request and launched the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) of Hong Kong and Macao on 28 July of that year to allow residents of designated Mainland cities to visit Hong Kong on an individual basis.
The IVS has brought economic benefits to number of sectors in Hong Kong, including retail sales, hotels and boarding houses, restaurants, personal services and cross boundary passenger services, injecting new life to our stagnant economy and market. Although the coming of large numbers of visitors from the Mainland has subsequently affected the daily lives of Hong Kong people and this shows the need for reviewing and improving the receiving capacity of the local tourism industry, we should not dismiss the fact that the Mainland has assisted Hong Kong in maintaining a stable economy with the IVS.
1878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Regarding Mr Gary FAN's amendment which urges the Government to "stop planning 'white elephant projects' to blindly pursue the objective of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland", I must say it is simply a groundless remark. I must point out that it is senseless to dismiss infrastructure projects which can further consolidate Hong Kong's strategic position in the region as "white elephant projects".
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) is an example. The project was hammered out by Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland together. The works projects are taken forward separately by the governments of the three places. The three sides are well aware that the HZMB will be a new cross-sea land transport connection which can help promote the sustainable economic development of the three places. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, when the HZMB Main Bridge and the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link are completed, Lantau Island will become the place one must go through when moving around Hong Kong, Macao and the western part of the Pearl River Delta. The value to be brought about by the development of bridgehead economy should definitely not be underestimated. The HZMB will bring much convenience and many business opportunities to large, medium and small enterprises operating in that region, benefiting the finance, trading, logistics, engineering, construction, tourism, retail, commercial and industrial professional and supporting services sectors. If one senselessly accuses that these are "white elephant projects", not only will he fail to convince people with reasons, but he will also erase the contribution made by the engineering and construction industries to the economic development of Hong Kong.
Deputy President, Mainland-Hong Kong integration is an irresistible trend in regional development, and it is also what Hong Kong needs for its further development. It is because various sectors and industries cannot restrict their development within the territory, or it will become a confined market. They must proactively grasp the new opportunities brought by our country's implementation of the 13th Five-Year Plan and promotion of the "One Belt One Road" strategy, so as to facilitate the diversified and high value-added development of the Hong Kong economy and create more upward mobility opportunities for the new generation.
Mr FAN further requested the Government to "formulate a more stringent system to regulate various types of projects to ensure Mainland-made construction materials supplied to Hong Kong will not lower the quality of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1879 projects in Hong Kong". I think the basic principle is that regulatory systems for various types of projects should keep pace with the times and be improved from time to time. Another indisputable fact is that engineering and construction professional services in Hong Kong have long reached international standard. In order to ensure the quality of works projects, the professional services sectors will always follow the established procedures and uphold its professionalism in the selection and handling of construction materials, regardless of the origins of such materials. Mainland-made construction materials occupy an important position in the international market. Users in Hong Kong will choose those of good qualities and Mr FAN need not worry too much about it.
Deputy President, there is nothing wrong for a Member to request the SAR Government to appropriately consider the needs of local people first when formulating policies and to respect local history and culture, but we must remain vigilant lest people may use this as an excuse for stirring up conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. This may affect the normal development of the Mainland-Hong Kong relationship and undermine the economy and people's livelihood.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I oppose Ms Claudia MO's original motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, China is on the track of growth and development. This is a fact widely recognized by the world. But in Hong Kong, many people, particularly some youngsters, still look at the China today from old perspectives. They disapprove of the Mainland and the behaviours of the Mainlanders. In their eyes, the Mainlanders are coarse, corrupt, uncivilized and undemocratic nouveau riche. They are often criticized for their uncivilized behaviours when travelling abroad. Our young people seldom visit the Mainland and know not much about Chinese history. They learn about the Mainland mainly through teachers, the media or hearsays between peers. Thus, subjectivity may easily overwhelm objectivity. Day after day and bit by bit, they are preached that Hong Kong will be hopeless if it follows the Mainland. And apparently, Ms Claudia MO's motion attempts to further negate the Mainland, and hurt the relationship between Hong Kong people and the Mainlanders.
1880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Deputy President, as Hong Kong has become a part of China since the reunification, it is even more necessary for us to learn about and analyse the Mainland in an objective manner in order to enhance our sense of belonging and extend the room for our career development. As Members are aware, the Cultural Revolution caused disruption to the Mainland from the 1960s to the 1970s, at which time society was distorted both morally and culturally. It was not until the opening of the Mainland after 1979 that the situation was rectified. Over the past few decades, China has evolved from an impoverished country to a major world power managing to achieve rapid economic growth. In the course of China's development, the Mainlanders have more opportunities to get in touch with the outside world, and they need some time for adaptation. This is in fact quite similar to the case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong people who could afford to travel abroad during Hong Kong's economic take-off in the 1970s were also kind of ignorant rustics in the eyes of foreigners. Another example is the Taiwanese who visited Hong Kong during the prosperous years of Taiwan, many of them were regarded as the boastful nouveau riche. Yet these phenomena have diminished following the progress of society.
I believe that as the Mainlanders have exchanges with the outside world at various levels through studying, doing business and travelling, they will learn about the standards of civilized behaviours in various advanced cities and countries, and review whether their own behaviours are different. I am sure that the situations will improve gradually as before through this learning process.
Deputy President, there is now a global interest in China. People do not only focus on China's rapid development in capitals, Internet, infrastructure technologies, hi-tech manufacturing industry, and other technological and economic aspects. More importantly, they now see the rise of the middle class in the Mainland. The Chinese middle class are rising in education and civilized levels, have consumption potential, and are set to bring about countless business opportunities to investors. People know that if they can know more about the Chinese culture and the Mainland, their next generations will be in a better position to develop in the enormous Mainland market, and this will contribute to the development of their home economies. Recently, Britain has made a special provision of £10 million for the recruitment and training of Chinese teachers in order to enhance the learning of Chinese language among their students. And in the United States, President OBAMA launched the "1 million Strong" initiative in a bid to realize the target of having 1 million US students studying Mandarin by 2020. As such, I hope Ms MO and Mr FAN can stop making myopic and biased LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1881 judgment on the Mainland and vilify the Mainlanders. They should realize that in the eyes of foreigners, China is different now. Hence I urge Members to consider the Mainland today in the light of history and future development.
Deputy President, it is an undeniable fact that the Mainland is sailing towards the direction of becoming an enlightened and progressive society. Following the improvement in the quality of its people, we will see a change in the behaviours that have aroused criticism, and the change will become more noticeable. My concern at this moment is not how Hong Kong is affected by the uncivilized culture of the Mainland. I am instead concerned that some persons, including certain Members in this Chamber, make use of young people's discontent with the Government and their ignorance of the situations and affairs of China to foment dissension, and instigate anti-government and anti-Mainland sentiments. In the Legislative Council, on the Internet or through other publicity channels, they preach to the young people that they should uphold what they believe as "justice" through various irrational, violent, illegal and dishonourable means.
Hong Kong people should reflect on a series of incidents which occurred in Hong Kong recently, including, among others, a series of activities aiming to assault, bully and insult Mainland visitors; examples of Legislative Council Member using coarse language in a debate and committing violent behaviours to attack the President's judgment; university professors making open remarks that encourage the people to break the law; the violation of the agreement of confidentiality by a member of the council of a prestigious university who secretly keep the audio record of a council meeting and revealed it to the media subsequently. However, all these behaviours have not been strongly denounced, and some even made up justifications to defend for these behaviours. If this becomes a trend, Hong Kong's core values will not be undermined by the Mainland culture; rather, the enlightened, courteous and friendly Hong Kong spirit that we have all along take pride in will be damaged time and again by these politicians for their own interests on the excuse of justice. Moreover, I have to point out that under the environment where a stag is called a horse and the relationship between the Mainland and Hong Kong is time and again damaged, the prospects of our city will be grim; worse still, the development of our next generation may be adversely affected, and Hong Kong may fall behind the global development in the end.
1882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
With these remarks, Deputy President, I oppose the original motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I deeply feel that the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO is sheer nonsense and illogical. For example, she moved that the Government should be urged to "respect the local history and culture" but the approach has in fact been adopted by the Government already without even being urged to do so. I wonder if Ms MO has ever visited the Hong Kong Museum of History, where we can find exhibits of Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb. The Han Tomb can be dated back to the Han Dynasty in 25 A.D., which is 2000 years ago, and it was managed by Chinese officials in Hong Kong back then. History will not change simply because of the rise of any cultural system or country since it is made up of incidents and events that have already taken place. Hence, why is there a need to ask for a promise from the Government that the local history will remain unchanged?
Moreover, she says that Hong Kong should be safeguarded "from 'Mainlandization'". I really hope that Ms Claudia MO could explain in her speech what she means by "Mainlandization". However, she has offered no explanation and has only …
(Ms Claudia MO was speaking in her seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please do not speak in your seat. Mrs Regina IP, please continue with your speech.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Ms MO has only set out in her speech the so-called "seven deadly sins" of the Chief Executive, thereby over-simplifying certain social phenomena and problems and attributing them very unreasonably to the "fault" of one single person (that is, the Chief Executive) or the so-called "Mainlandization". Let me use the issue of language proficiency she mentioned as an example. It is an indisputable fact known to everyone that there is a decline in our English standard but the reasons are very complicated. "Mainlandization" is definitely not the only reason and the change of language environment should be one of the attributing factors. I wonder if Ms MO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1883 realizes that there is also a decline in Chinese standard among local people. Papers sent to me are often full of wrongly written or misused Chinese characters. Can one possibly claim that this is a result of "Mainlandization"?
As for our way of life, would it be possible for it to remain unchanged forever? Our way of life, as compared with over 10 years ago, has changed drastically due to the dominant power of the Internet and the digital revolution. Was it necessary for me to reply to e-mails everyday in person when I served in the Government over 10 years ago? Did I surf the Internet everyday holding several smartphones in my hands? Our society, the entire universe and the whole world are ever changing and Hong Kong people should not focus on keeping things unchanged for 50 years. On the contrary, we should embrace the changes in this world, respond accordingly to the global technological revolution and the rise of our country to adapt to the new environment and explore ways to strive to assist the implementation of the principle of "one country, two systems". If Ms MO is feeling uneasy about the fact that more and more people in Hong Kong are speaking Putonghua, I have to tell her that there is nothing strange about it since China is our biggest trading partner, investment partner and partner to develop the tourism industry. What is so strange about learning Putonghua at a more advanced level when so many people are doing business with the Mainland?
I wonder if Ms MO knows that in world class universities of the United States, Spanish courses were (and still are) the foreign language classes with the highest number of enrolments. This is actually very normal because the United States is contiguous to Mexico and receives a large number of immigrants from Latin American countries. The foreign language classes with the second highest number of enrolments in the past were Japanese courses but the position has now been taken up by Putonghua courses, and while there are students taking Cantonese courses, an even greater number of students would choose to enrol in Putonghua classes. This is a global trend brought about by the rise of China, rendering it necessary for more and more people to learn Putonghua. What is wrong with this? Why the discrimination then?
If Ms MO is really so interested in civilizations and cultures, she may read this book entitled The Clash of Civilizations, which is written by Samuel HUNTINGTON. An elaboration is given in the book of the ups and downs as well as the rise and decline of the seven major civilizations in the world, and an introduction is also included of the phenomenon of "culture follows power", 1884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 which means that the cultural influence of a country or a civilization will be automatically extended when it rises to power. As a part of China, it will only be normal for Hong Kong to be exposed to the cultural influence of Mainland China. Having taken these factors into consideration, many people would come to the conclusion that it is actually Ms Claudia MO who has played up the conflicts between China and Hong Kong.
There is a need for inclusiveness to embrace different cultures and the most undesirable thing to do is to put oneself on such a high pedestal that an attitude of "holier than thou" is developed with a sense of cultural superiority to trample on other cultures. I wonder if Ms MO realizes that many traditions and cultural heritages in Hong Kong, such as Cantonese opera, have their origins in the Southern Cantonese culture of the Mainland. Hence, from the cultural point of view, we should try to accommodate each other.
As so much has been said by Ms MO to emphasize the need to safeguard the culture and way of life of Hong Kong, I do not know if she has watched a footage which was shown to me by Mr MA Fung-kwok during lunch today. With regard to the important football match held yesterday between China and Hong Kong, public officers and Members have been repeatedly asked to express support for the Hong Kong team. As a citizen of Hong Kong, our support should of course go to the Hong Kong team. However, has Ms MO ever watched a footage in which Hong Kong football fans were seen covering their face with a mask and "addressing" Mainland football fans with filthy language? It is a very uncivilized act to "address" football fans of the opposing team with filthy language, be it the China team or a foreign team. Ms MO, should we be proud of such local cultures? Do we need to safeguard such ways of life?
I am getting more and more disappointed as I listen to the speech of Ms MO and I deeply feel that the motion she moved is sheer nonsense and illogical, while the allegations she makes are completely unsubstantiated and unjustified. Therefore, Deputy President, I will object to Ms Claudia MO's motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is a historical fact that Hong Kong was detached from the Mainland 160 years ago. This part of history is highly beneficial to the modernization of our country. Perhaps we can say that if Hong Kong were not detached from the Mainland 160 years ago, our home country would not have been the same today.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1885
On 20 February 1923, Dr SUN Yat-sen delivered a speech at his alma mater in the capacity of Extraordinary President of the Republic of China. He delivered his speech in English. On the following day, there was already a Chinese translated version on the press. In the speech, he said the following, "… would like to answer a certain question which has been put to me many times … have never been able to answer it properly, but I feel today I can. The question is: 'Where and how did I get my revolutionary and modern ideas?' I got those ideas in Hong Kong." Indeed, this is what makes Hong Kong unique. I believe that this did not only happen to Dr SUN Yat-sen, but also to the founders of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. If they had not been in touch of the Western culture in Hong Kong, they would not have been able to establish the two parties.
Deputy President, Hong Kong is such a special place. Today, the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO only urges the Government to respect the local history and culture and to safeguard Hong Kong from "Mainlandization", so as to hounour the undertaking in the Basic Law. She, however, is being criticized for being treacherous, a traitor and a flunkey. This is unbelievable to me indeed. However, I believe Ms MO undoubtedly thinks that the motion will surely be vetoed today. Nevertheless, Deputy President, even if the motion today is carried, it will still be useless. Because if we have to rely on a Chief Executive who dare not support our own football team to safeguard Hong Kong from "Mainlandization", we will be fishing in the air, right?
Deputy President, if you do notice the front page of Ta Kung Pao today, you will see that it uses the highly localized colloquial phrase in Hong Kong as the headline for the news on the soccer match between China and Hong Kong yesterday. The eight Chinese words of the headline are : "守和國足， 港足好 嘢 " (which literally mean "The Hong Kong Team held the China Team to a draw. Hail to the Hong Kong Team"). I wonder if LEUNG Chun-ying will blush with shame, or will shake with fear, as he finds that he has misjudged the situation and made a mistake in his flattery. Perhaps he may find that his position being jeopardized and is shaking around like Elvis PRESLEY. Is that why he has tried to guess what the leaders are thinking? However, even Ta Kung Pao also uses localized colloquial phrases of Hong Kong to express what Hong Kong people are thinking. Putting aside the question of whether LEUNG Chun-ying is fit to be the Chief Executive, I believe that whether he is qualified to be a Hong Kong person should also be subject to our queries.
1886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Deputy President, if the Chief Executive and his political governing team are not willing to support our own football team … Of course, our Financial Secretary is the only exception. Surprisingly, I heard that the Secretary for Home Affairs said shamelessly at the meeting today that the Government of the Special Administrative Region had long been serious in promoting and developing the culture of Hong Kong. It was not until I listened further that I knew he was only talking about the fire dragon dance, the unicorn dance, Bruce LEE, Lydia SHUM. Why didn't he mention LEUNG Sing-por? I would like to ask the Secretary for Home Affairs a question. Suppose we can retain the contributions of Bruce LEE, Lydia SHUM and LEUNG Sing-por, and preserve the tradition of the fire dragon dance, the unicorn dance, but have lost the social values which nurtured Dr SUN Yat-sen; if we preserve the fire dragon but can no long enjoy freedom and the system of the rule of law, what will be left of Hong Kong?
Deputy President, due to limited speaking time, I hope that the Secretary can listen to the recent speeches of two leaders of our country. On 9 September, at the Great Hall of the People, WANG Qishan, a Member of the Standing Committee of the Central Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China, met the foreign political leaders and academics attending the Party and the World Dialogue 2015. The legitimacy of the Communist Party was being discussed for the first time. According to WANG Qishan, the Communist Party of China's legitimacy arose from history and popular support from the people. The Party is the choice by the people. For things to work in China, they must see whether the people are happy and satisfied, and whether the people would approve of their work. If the ruling party wants to represent the people and serve the people, it should establish proper core values and adhere to them in actions. While speaking to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, President XI Jinping said that the Chinese people were advancing the rule of law in an all-round way. The country was set on creating a modern legal system with distinct Chinese features. In China, the concept of putting people first and following the rule of law emerged in the ancient times, about 4 000 years ago.
Why did the two leaders of our country make the above statements? Basically, they hope that China can really earn the respect of the international community, and thus they have to use the language of the international community. This is what Hong Kong can best contribute. All along, Hong Kong has been a modernized experimental field. I hope that the colleagues who spoke today can really get a clear understanding of the history and the status of Hong Kong, and would not do harm to it. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1887
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since the handover in 1997, Hong Kong has been practising "one country, two systems", and throughout these years of implementation, Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood have been receiving support from the Mainland. Yet, we must admit that many problems have arisen from exchanges between the two places. Therefore, the problems we see today are more complicated than what we can imagine. It will be an overgeneralization or Hong Kong people will be misled if we simply describe it as "Mainlandization".
We should be pragmatic and admit that we have lots of contradictions to face. The cultural difference between China and Hong Kong gives rise to various contradictions and conflicts. In particular, people on the Mainland have become more and more affluent in recent years, and more and more of them are coming to Hong Kong for sight-seeing, shopping, investment and studies. Some living habits on the Mainland are different from ours in Hong Kong, and some Mainland tourists may even behave in an uncivilized manner. It is thus natural that Hong Kong people find it difficult to bear, and may even think that their lives have been disrupted. Gradually, it is unavoidable that people will grumble deep down their hearts. As parallel trading activities become frequent, they have really caused nuisance to residents nearby and affected the immigration clearance of passengers. Naturally, the public are strongly dissatisfied.
China-Hong Kong integration brings both gains and losses. We must realize that economically, China and Hong Kong have become closely knitted and they are now in a mutually beneficial relationship. We must understand that nowadays, Hong Kong relies more on the Mainland than the other way round. Of course, the hard efforts of Hong Kong people play the most important part in bringing about the economic achievements which Hong Kong enjoys today, but we should not be arrogant. Hong Kong is only a small market. To become an international financial centre, we cannot solely rely on our efforts to maintain the present trading volume. The China factor is very important: the support of the country's policies in maintaining Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre and the development of Hong Kong into an offshore RMB centre is crucial. In respect of trade, overseas enterprises very often have to invest on the Mainland via Hong Kong, or Mainland enterprises have to venture into the international market through Hong Kong. It is also this China factor which gives massive capital the confidence to park in Hong Kong.
1888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
At present, the Mainland is experiencing a slowdown in its economic growth and immediately, Hong Kong's economy is seeing downside risks. This well proves the relationship between the economies of Hong Kong and the Mainland. The biggest problem right now is that in terms of competitiveness, we will lag behind if we make no further progress. Even if Hong Kong has the country's support, we have to strive, otherwise, it is possible that Hong Kong will be replaced by Mainland cities in the future. I wish Hong Kong people will understand that we have to constantly strive to become stronger rather than oppose "Mainlandization".
Therefore, if we simply say "anti-Mainlandization", it will only stir up social contradictions and make us lose our focus. As a result, the existing complicated China-Hong Kong relationship will see no chance of being addressed. I support "one country, two systems", but "two systems" does not mean that I oppose exchanges between the two economies and their people. On the contrary, Hong Kong should uphold its rule of law and its status as a corruption-free metropolis. This will be beneficial to both the country and Hong Kong.
As for the part of the amendment about regard is only paid to the interests of the Mainland, I would think this saying is really unimaginable. Hong Kong's competitiveness is ebbing. We cannot even take care of ourselves, how can we care for the interests of the Mainland? Moreover, how can it be possible that the Mainland has to rely on Hong Kong in caring for its interests? No one will believe this.
In my opinion, the Government should expeditiously address the contradictions caused by the difference in cultures between China and Hong Kong. At the same time, the Government should also review Hong Kong's capacity in receiving tourists and step up efforts against the activities of parallel traders. In the past, the Government introduced the export limit for baby formula to stop Mainland pregnant women from coming to Hong Kong to give birth. Although the measure triggered controversies, it has nonetheless shown the Government's determination. Now, it should be all the more determined to properly address the China-Hong Kong contradictions, so as not to let the problem continue to plague the Hong Kong public. Then, it can also deny some people of the chance to take advantage of the subject to put forward their ideas. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1889
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, no matter how unhappy the Communist Party of China and Chief Executive Mr LEUNG Chun-ying are, the local consciousness in Hong Kong is getting stronger during recent years. Many people refuse to admit their identity as Chinese and are getting increasingly dissatisfied with the Central Government. During the football match between China and Hong Kong yesterday, some people on the spectator stands really held up banners reading "Hong Kong is not China". These incidents show that many years after Hong Kong's reunification with China, Hong Kong people are not yet reunified with the country. This is a fact.
The thing is that if the Communist Party gets more and more high-handed towards Hong Kong, or pushes forward the implementation of "brain-washing" National Education, or increases its intervention in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, or even openly interferes with the various tiers of elections in Hong Kong ― in brief, if it steps up its suppression of Hong Kong people's enthusiasm for democracy, Hong Kong people will only develop a kind of psychological resistance. It is only natural that some people will look back to the colonial period in the past with increasing nostalgia. The more incompetent LEUNG Chun-ying's administration is and the keener he is in removing the traces of colonialism and the colonial legacy in Hong Kong, the greater will be the eagerness of young people to rediscover and reconstruct the old Hong Kong from documents, photographs or the oral accounts of the older generations.
Deputy President, the Democratic Party is a locally based political party. We supported and still support the reunification of Hong Kong with China under democratic principles. However, after the reunification, we cannot enjoy democracy, and this is very disappointing to the Hong Kong people. As a local political party, we of course support localism and giving priority to the interests of Hong Kong people. We also oppose "Mainlandization" and the "reddening" of Hong Kong. This is the stance of the Democratic Party.
The fourth point of the party manifesto of the Democratic Party reads, "We will seek to represent and articulate the views of the people of Hong Kong about Chinese government policies related to or having an impact on Hong Kong." It is, however, very unfortunate that since the reunification, due to many policy mistakes, many conflicts have emerged between Hong Kong people and the Mainlanders, including the conflicts arising from Individual Visit Scheme visitors and "doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women". And very often, we fail to any determination of the Government to accord priority to the interests of 1890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Hong Kong people and protect their rights and interests. The Government is partly responsible for the emergence of this embarrassing dilemma. Hence, Deputy President, the Democratic Party will give our support to the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today.
Mrs Regina IP's speech earlier on seemed to have added too many interpretations to Ms Claudia MO's motion. On my part, I interpret the motion on the strict basis of its very wording, and after doing so, I have decided to support it. In the original motion, Ms MO urges the Government to respect the local history and culture and to safeguard Hong Kong from "Mainlandization". In my opinion, this is actually in line with the principle of "one country, two systems" in the Basic Law. "One country, two systems" refers to two systems, and to the different systems, characteristics and cultures of the two places. Therefore, both the Government and the people in Hong Kong should join hands to defend and preserve the culture, history, characteristics and core values under the Hong Kong system. I thus cannot see why this motion should not be supported.
If Hong Kong is totally integrated with the Mainland, the end of "one country, two systems" will come. In that case, will we see "one country, one system" instead? Hence, the principle of "one country, two systems" clearly requires the Government and the public to join hands to preserve the Hong Kong system as best as they can, so to make it distinct from the Mainland system. I thus think that opposing "Mainlandization" is absolutely in line with the spirit of "one country, two systems" under the Basic Law.
Mrs Regina IP pointed out in her speech that as the Government would of course safeguard local culture and history, it was a waste of time to discuss these issues. Nevertheless, I feel that the public are very worried at present. It is because in regard to safeguarding local culture, language and the writing system are a very important segment. But the public are worried at present. Why? Some people are worried that the traditional Chinese writing system being used in Hong Kong will gradually be replaced by the simplified Chinese writing system used in the Mainland. Some people are worried that the menus in restaurants will gradually be written in simplified Chinese characters. They are even worried that the Education Bureau will gradually introduce Putonghua as the medium of teaching for the Chinese Language subject, and students will be barred from using the mother tongue (that is Cantonese) of Hong Kong people when learning Chinese in school.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1891
In fact, the Government really has the intention to "Mainlandize" Hong Kong, and is now working on this in the area of language. That is why Hong Kong people are so anxious, as they are worried whether Hong Kong's language and culture can be preserved in the future. What is more absurd is that recently, the Hong Kong Police Force has deleted from its website information about the riots in Hong Kong in 1967, obliterating the history about the heinous crimes of the leftists, including the making of homemade bombs and their violent attacks on Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Government. Has the Hong Kong Government done its best to safeguard the history and culture of Hong Kong? I really cannot see that the Government has done so.
Of course, the question of "Mainlandization" involves many aspects. It is a pity that the Secretary for Education is not present here today, because I want to talk about the fact the graduate schools of various universities in Hong Kong have been fully "Mainlandized", with 80% of their students being Mainlanders. "Mainlandization" has brought strong impact on local history and culture, education, and cultivation of academic talents. Therefore, with these remarks, Deputy President, I support the original motion.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I have to clarify some falsehood before I speak on this subject. Pro-establishment Members have claimed that rejecting "Mainlandization" is equal to "opposing China on every front". But this is actually not the theme of the motion.
Five thousand years of Chinese culture has left us with many fine literary works, such as Shi Jing (詩 經), Chu Ci (楚 辭), Han Fu (漢 賦), Yuan Qu (元 曲), Song Ci (宋 詞) and Ming and Qing Novels (明清章回小說). In relation to our rich cultural heritage, the Chinese cultural heritage, we should talk about "Chinization". The motion does not oppose "Chinization". It opposes "Mainlandization" only.
Deputy President, what is meant by "Mainlandization"? Here is my interpretation. China has a history of 5 000 years. The past 65 years are a relatively short period in modern history, and over these years, some of our traditional values and moral standards have been twisted under a government following the lines of Bolshevism, Leninism and Stalinism. And, obviously, the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s saw the greatest distortion of all these traditional values and moral standards.
1892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Many Members, including Ms Claudia MO, wonder if this motion topic is about cultural issues. Hong Kong is a metropolis and its residents will inevitably have exchanges with people from all over the world, including those from the Mainland. As our society, culture, way of life and even daily living are all influenced by cultures around the world, we cannot possibly reject the culture of any particular places. And in fact, our culture has also been influencing the culture of China, the culture of the Mainland. For example, Mainland and Beijing people liked the "woolly-headed" comedies by Stephen CHOW Sing-chi in the 1990s. Many of my friends in Beijing like CHOW's movies very much. Many pet phrases from the movies have their Putonghua versions now, and terms such as "搞 笑" (gaau2 siu3)1 are highly popular. However, Deputy President, the subject of discussion today concerns our core values and our system. Why does the Government assign the Secretary for Home Affairs to attend the meeting? I am puzzled.
As mentioned by many Members just now, our core values as freedom, the rule of law and probity. They are the cornerstones of our success in the past. In fact, these values have been eroded by a culture or system considered "inferior" over the past decade or so. In particular, the recent White Paper on the Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy published in 2014 states that the Central Government exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, and it also gives a different interpretation of the role of the Judiciary in Hong Kong. All these have aroused queries on whether the Central Authorities really want to honour the promises of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and having our system "remaining unchanged for 50 years"? This is the first worry.
The second worry is about probity. Mr KWOK Ka-ki has mentioned that Hong Kong now ranks the 17th in the Corruption Perceptions Index, recording a fall for three consecutive years, and China ranks the 100th. Do we still want to integrate the two places? By integration, do we mean that Hong Kong should lower its ranking to the 50th place before it integrate with China? These core values are the basic ingredients of our success. We cannot abandon these values and proceed with integration for no reason. However, many pro-establishment Members still owe me an explanation. What do they mean by "integration"? Does integration mean that Hong Kong no longer exists? Does integration refer only to co-operation? Does integration mean the eradication of Hong Kong's beliefs? What does integration really mean?
1 "搞 笑" means "funny" in colloquial Cantonese. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1893
As a matter of fact, the basis of Hong Kong's success includes probity, the rule of law and freedom. Indeed, the economic development we have witnessed is all built on these core values.
Many pro-establishment Members have said earlier that Hong Kong must integrate with China in order to sustain our economic development. Many pro-establishment Members have also told me that Singapore is better than Hong Kong in many ways. So, I want to ask if Singapore has integrated with China? Please answer me.
Deputy President, I actually consider that we must not integrate with China if we wish to give full play to our energy, positive energy. Let me quote two examples. Some officials on the Mainland used a trillion dollars to stabilize the market after the market crash triggered by A shares in July this year. Yet the market turmoil did not stop after the market rescue measures, and Mr YAO Gang, Vice Chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, was lately put under investigation by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection for serious violation of discipline. In fact, the so called case of "serious violation of discipline" means corruption calling for investigation.
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Prof K C CHAN has stated in reply to questions raised by journalists that we will not implement any market relief measures after Mainland China, as Hong Kong is a free economy, despite our own comprehensive regulatory system. Apart from the investigation on Vice Chairman YAO Gang, even some senior officials of CITIC Securities were also probed by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection for allegations about serious violation of discipline and breach of regulations on insider trading.
This tells us that we cannot integrate with China. Instead, we must preserve our uniqueness if we really want to assist the Mainland economically and perform our functions.
Furthermore, Deputy President, you may look at some of our cultural exports in the last decade, such as movies. Hong Kong was once a movie empire in Asia in the 1980s. However, throughout the previous 10 years, many movies makers have turned to focus on producing ancient Chinese martial arts films or commercial blockbuster movies set in a historical backdrop to accommodate the Mainland market, and have neglected the city life dramas that 1894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 we are good at. As we can all see, our city life dramas, such as The Way We Dance and She Remembers, He Forgets, or Echoes of the Rainbow introduced earlier have been hugely successful in both audience reviews and box office receipts. Therefore, we must uphold our existing values, so that we can excel our functions under "one country, two systems".
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the motion and amendment proposed by the two Members.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion.
During the football match yesterday, Hong Kong people chanted "We are Hong Kong", in total contrast to LEUNG Chun-ying, who remained "hidden like a turtle in its shell" and did not dare to show any support for the Hong Kong football team. Hong Kong people took pride in the performance of their football team, and it is only reasonable for Hong Kong people to show support for the Hong Kong football team. He is the Chief Executive, but he did not dare to show any support for the Hong Kong football team. He should bow and resign. That Hong Kong is led by such a coward will only bring disgrace to us all.
Deputy President, why would Hong Kong see the emergence of a strong local consciousness today, 18 years after its reunification? Why does the Member raise objection to "Mainlandization" in this Chamber? The reason is simple. Simply because the Government of the People's Republic of China wants to eradicate the local consciousness and history of Hong Kong through its economic influence, population policy, culture and hegemony. They even want to conceal the Crown insignias on pillar boxes. Such hegemony will definitely enrage Hong Kong people. The White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the White Paper) has precisely shown us their intention to apply the mode of governing Tibet and Xinjiang to Hong Kong. If Members read the White Paper issued by the Communist Party of China, they will find that they have adopted for Hong Kong the same policy of governing Tibet and Xinjiang.
Let us look at how the Hong Kong population has changed. Deputy President, the situation is honestly a bit dreadful. Since 1997, as many as 880 000 people have come to Hong Kong via One-way Permit; in 2011, 47 000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1895 people came to Hong Kong as "overage children", and in 2014, cross-boundary marriages accounted for 40% of the marriages registered in Hong Kong. The Communist Party of China has sought to "Mainlandize" the Hong Kong population by demographic intrusion while resorting to its economic hegemony and political influence, in an attempt to "Mainlandize" the economy and other aspects of Hong Kong.
As I have pointed out in this Chamber many times, the China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited has now taken over as the largest construction company in Hong Kong, in marked contrast to what we could see when we grew up in the 1980s and the 1990s. Banks, telecommunications companies and department stores will likewise be replaced one after another. Particularly, as everybody can see, "red" enterprises are now gradually replacing local enterprises. Had this not taken place, LI Ka-shing would not have left, right?
Under these circumstances, Ms Claudia MO's appeal to the Government for safeguarding Hong Kong from "Mainlandization" will definitely end up in vain. The objective of the Hong Kong Government or the LEUNG Chun-ying administration is to assist the People's Republic of China, the Beijing Government and the Chinese Communist Government in eradicating the local consciousness. While people have been calling upon LEUNG Chun-ying to safeguard the local consciousness and reduce "Mainlandization", LEUNG Chun-ying instead wants to accelerate the process of "Mainlandization" in Hong Kong. He is the very culprit. He has given support to ZHANG Xiaoming and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in eliminating the local consciousness. But I must tell these evil forces, "You people will never succeed."
An example is Catalonia currently under the Spanish rule. Back in those years, Spain wanted to unite the whole country, so it gradually replaced other cultures and languages in Spain. However, owing to the perseverance of its people, Catalonia is able to maintain its characteristic way of life, and its football team is also very outstanding in the world. Catalonia takes pride in its own cultural features and history, and will move towards independence step by step.
Another example is the aborigines in Taiwan. They were under the high-handed rule of the Great Qing Empire, Japan and the Kuomintang for years. But they can still preserve their architecture, traditional handicrafts, dialects, 1896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 festivals and cultures. Certainly, with the democratization of society, they will gain more respect from the democratic Government. Other places include the decolonized India. Their campaigns on eradicating colonialism proceeded on the basis of developing the local economy and safeguarding the local handicrafts. In the course of fighting for the independence of India, GANDHI countered British imperial rule by promoting the local traditional textiles industry, culture and way of life.
For these reasons, Hong Kong people need not feel helpless. The Hong Kong football team could tie the game with the China football team. China football team players once said expressly that they would beat Hong Kong by three to nil. However, with good luck, some of their shots ended up hitting the upright bar and the crossbar. So, there can be miracles, and power cannot overwhelm everything. LEUNG Chun-ying and the Hong Kong communist regime have attempted to eradicate the local consciousness. But the greater the suppression is, the more Hong Kong people will cherish their local traditions and customs.
With demographic intrusion, the Communist Party of China has almost sinicized the entire Xinjiang and Tibet. But the people of Tibet will definitely refuse to succumb, and the Islamic protests in Xinjiang will only escalate gradually. If LEUNG Chun-ying wants to intensify his eradication of the local consciousness, the protest movements in Hong Kong will only escalate, and ― let me tell him beforehand ― the price he has to pay will only get bigger.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first, I would like to express my disappointment at the absurd motion and the amendment put forward respectively by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN. They have packaged their motion with "respect the local history and culture", but they actually want to advocate "de-Mainlandization", foment China-Hong Kong contradictions and promote "Hong Kong independence". Their intentions are evil and run counter to the openness and tolerant culture of Hong Kong. They are standing in the way of Hong Kong's economic development. I firmly oppose this worthless motion and the amendment.
Deputy President, those who have some knowledge of history will know that Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times. After the unification of China by Qin Shi Huang, the three prefectures of Nanhai, Guilin LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1897 and Xiang Prefecture were established in succession in the south, and Hong Kong belonged to the Panyu County of the Nanhai Prefecture. Ever since, Hong Kong has come under the jurisdiction of the central regime. This shows that historically and culturally, Hong Kong and the Mainland have been inseparable since the ancient times. Their relationship is one of tributary and source. It is against history for Hong Kong to "de-Mainlandize". Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN are both Members of the Legislative Council, but their ignorance of history is so astounding and deplorable.
"De-Mainlandization" is impractical. Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN keep asking for "de-Mainlandization", but they drink Dongjiang water, eat vegetable from the Mainland and even live in a place belonging to China. Under such circumstances, how can they "de-Mainlandize"? Why are they so unrealistic? Hong Kong is a part of China and it is a fact which cannot be changed. Let me remind Ms Claudia MO that Article 31 of the Basic Law gives people the freedom to emigrate to other countries. Since Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN hate China so much, they can always emigrate rather than chanting "de-Mainlandization" all the time to stir up trouble in Hong Kong.
Deputy President, today, the world is heading towards globalization and the development of the world is inseparable from China. Economically, all countries are trying their best to lure Chinese investment and tourist spending. Culturally, people around the world are trying hard to learn Chinese to understand Chinese culture. As at the end of last year, 470 Confucius institutes were found worldwide in 126 countries and places. Among them, 108 are in the United States, making it the country with the greatest number of Confucius institutes.
Ms Claudia MO, Mr Gary FAN and many pan-democratic Members have always been attracted to the western countries, and they have always referred to international standards. Nonetheless, they have defied the world trend of attracting Mainland tourists, and have instead put forward this "de-Mainlandization" motion. Apart from demonstrating that they are bucking the trend, it has also exposed that their international standards are actually only double standards. Their so-called "to safeguard Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'" is essentially about rejecting the Mainland and opposing China on every front.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
1898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
President, what harm will "de-Mainlandization" do to the Hong Kong economy? Tourism is Hong Kong's pillar industry but with the series of "anti-parallel traders" campaigns and "liberation" protests that violently drive away Mainland tourists under the banner of localism, there has been a gradual decrease in the number of incoming tourists in recent years. Retail value and volume has also slipped and the situation is dire.
The financial services sector to which I belong is also adversely affected. If we are to "de-Mainlandize", why is there the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect and the upcoming Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect? If Mainland enterprises do not come to Hong Kong for listing and investment, how can Hong Kong play an active role in the development of "One Belt, One Road"? How is Hong Kong to attract overseas investors?
Undeniably, the drastic increase in incoming Mainland tourists in recent years has led to problems like parallel traders which have affected the life of some Hong Kong people. The uncivilized behaviour of some Mainland tourists has also caused Hong Kong people to feel uncomfortable. Yet, a positive response is to keep cool and look for a solution. For instance, we should expedite the construction of tourism supporting infrastructure in Hong Kong and address the problem of having inadequate tourism capacity, rather than shadowing what Ms Claudia MO does, that is, to add fuel to fire by sometimes dragging along suitcases to oppose parallel traders or asking for "de-Mainlandization" at other times. Nor should we adopt Mr Gary FAN's amendment which proposes some kind of isolation and a blind rejection of China.
President, Members who are really concerned about Hong Kong and people's livelihood will actively dispel hostility and make efforts to promote social harmony, rather than doing everything possible to sow dissension, intensifying conflicts and intentionally polarizing Hong Kong people and Mainlanders who are brothers and sisters. I wish that Ms Claudia MO, Mr Gary FAN and localism activists can stop before it is too late, and refrain from doing things to hurt the people in Hong Kong and on the Mainland.
With these remarks, I oppose Ms Claudia MO's motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1899
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I watched a Hong Kong movie named "Ten Years" screened during the Hong Kong Asian Film Festival this Monday evening. The movie is a collection of films directed respectively by five young independent directors, and it is about how the directors think Hong Kong will be like, how ridiculous things will be and how distorted our values will be 10 years later. I recommend the film to fellow Members who are present here today. Members from both the pan-democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp and also the Secretary should see this film, so that they can understand the concerns, anxieties and distress of this generation of young people. The film will be shown in December.
All the five short films are imaginative, forward-looking, daring and even provocative in theme, depicting the suppression of Cantonese by Putonghua, students having to attend school activities in military uniform, terrorist activities machinated by the authorities in order to justify the enactment of national security law and self-immolation for the sake of independence. Some viewers attended the sharing session between the viewers and the directors after the seeing film. Many of them were deeply concerned, and I believe this shows that young people, the viewers and the directors alike, are to a very large extent concerned about the future of Hong Kong and its control by China, that is, "Mainlandization".
Nevertheless, I am not overly pessimistic. It is understandable that young people would have a sense of helplessness when they face a high wall, particularly after the Umbrella Movement. China is undeniably very powerful today in contrast to other countries and places all over the world which are caught in economic and political difficulties. However, what will happen to the economic and political environment of China 10 years later and beyond? Will China be as powerful as it is today? What impact it will have on Hong Kong? Everything is still unknown.
Yet, we are sure that young people of this generation all have very strong localist attachment to Hong Kong and will not easily give up this home ground of theirs.
At this juncture, President, we must mention the football match last night, in which the Hong Kong team once again stood against the China team with a tie of nil to nil. The Hong Kong team no doubt adopted a defence-based tactic, but I must say that the result of a soccer game will always depend on the 1900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 determination and team strategy of both sides. Moreover, when I was using an App on my smartphone to watch the live coverage of the match with my friends at a party last night, one of them commented that the good performance of the Hong Kong team was of course a factor, but the fact that the China team was not as strong as imagined was also an important factor.
President, first of all, Hong Kong people can learn from the Hong Kong team that there is nothing impossible. Another more important point is that China is not so very strong in all respects, and in respect of football, at least, it is obviously not very strong. They already had two matches with the Hong Kong team. China is so big in size and Hong Kong so small, but the results of both matches were just a tie. However, the most serious problem is that the views of some people in the political and economic sectors of Hong Kong have been completely politicized. They pay no regard to the actual ability of China and they uphold the "China first" approach in everything they do.
Let me cite another example ― the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect (S-HK SC) mentioned by Mr Christopher CHEUNG just now. Yesterday was the first anniversary of the implementation of the S-HK SC but as a matter of fact, the utilization rate of the S-HK SC since its commencement has not been very satisfactory and not even half of its aggregate quota has been taken up. As explained Dr Andy KWAN, an economic scholar, in a radio programme yesterday, the overall direction of the S-HK SC is correct but the Mainland cannot provide the ancillary support and does not have the required soft power. Its supervision is not up to the international standard. Since S-HK SC was rolled out too hastily before the conditions were ripe, it has instead done the industry a disservice and can only get momentary attention.
Both Dr KWAN and I would not deny that the implementation of the S-HK SC is beneficial to Hong Kong and China in the long run but his criticism of the current situation can, I believe, aptly reflect the excessive speed and scope of "Mainlandization" in the formulation of political and economic policies and also in a number of industries in Hong Kong. This has diverted Hong Kong from the right path of internationalization, resulting in an excessive or premature dependency on the Mainland.
Yesterday, I came across some people from Singapore at another function of the information technology (IT) sector. These Singaporeans all said that 10 years ago or even earlier, Singapore used to learn from Hong Kong but it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1901 appeared to them that Hong Kong had already lagged behind. However, they do not feel complacent over the thought that their counterpart is not doing well and thus develop a sense of superiority. Instead, they have tried to analyse the major problems faced by Hong Kong and according to these Singaporeans, excessive "Mainlandization" is exactly one of them. As the "China first" approach is always adopted, Hong Kong has neglected the fact that internationalization is actually its greatest competitive edge. Moreover, due to some incorrect assessments of the strengths of China in various areas, Hong Kong has missed a lot of opportunities in the global market. It is their opinion that Singapore should learn a lesson from the experience of Hong Kong and stay away from "Mainlandization".
It is also my worry that the same problem in the IT sector will further deteriorate. The Innovation and Technology Bureau will be established in a few days but recent remarks made by the Government and some trade practitioners have all focused on the integration with the China market. Would it really be helpful to over 80 000 practitioners in the IT sector of Hong Kong? It is always the Hong Kong Government which takes the lead to outsource IT projects with a view to suppressing wages, to stop purchasing IT products made in Hong Kong and introduce such products from overseas countries or China, and to demand lower prices from local companies. Rejecting China blindly should be the last thing for us to do but similarly, adopting a "Mainlandization" and "China first" approach blindly to deal with everything is definitely not a way out for the IT sector of Hong Kong, and I believe the same theory also applies to each and every industry.
More importantly, one of the most important competitive edges of the IT sector of Hong Kong is our free flow of information and Internet freedom. In contrast, in China, there is the firewall and the Office of the Central Leading Group for Cyberspace Affairs was set up a few years ago to assume high-level co-ordination. On the surface, the aim is to ensure Internet security, but in reality it is all about the censorship and control of opinion expressions on the Internet. Hong Kong must not "Mainlandize" in all these respects lest we may have more losses than gains and lose our competitive edge in respect of freedom.
President, let me go back to the film "Ten Years". A question is posed in the film: Should the current situation of Hong Kong be described as "already too late" or "never too late" to make amends? I think the answer is in our hands as well as in the hands of the next generation of young people.
1902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
When it comes to "Mainlandization", I really hope that one day we would be able to embrace "Mainlandization", when there are democracy and freedom in Mainland China. Thank you, President.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion today is actually asking whether you consider yourself Chinese, whether you respect your own race and your own country, and whether you hope that your own country can stand proudly before the international community.
President, actually, the very spirit of "one country, two systems" and "no changes to our previous way of life for 50 years" is that the Mainland shall adopt a socialist system and Hong Kong shall adopt a capitalist system. That is why the Basic Law has separately provided for Hong Kong's low tax policy, its status as a free port, its free market and its previous capitalist system.
"No change for 50 years" certainly does not mean that there cannot be any changes to our way of life. First of all, it is surely impossible to completely retain the way of life in 1997. For instance, technologically, the advanced technologies in use nowadays were not yet available back then. Computers, WhatsApp and Telegram were not available at that time, but everybody uses them now. So, when it is said that our way of life shall remain completely unchanged, we should all know that what is being referred to is not the daily life of people in general.
Hence, to be specific, they are actually talking about "anti-Mainlandization". Even more specifically, they are not talking about our way of life, but about their dislike of Mainland people. In other words, they dislike China. Even though China is strong now, they still openly say that although China is now strong, it will become weak again in 10 years, so they must still cling to "anti-Mainlandization".
"No change for 50 years" certainly should not mean a kind of "Big Hong Kong" mentality, or even any myopia and total stagnancy. It also does not mean that we should choose to fall behind the world trend at a time when other countries already have a different view of and relationship with China. Hong Kong has never been an ignorant society that falls behind the world trend. We never fail to grasp the best opportunities available to us. I hold that "anti-Mainlandization" is a ridiculous movement or viewpoint. Even other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1903 countries, the international community and the United Kingdom have made breakthroughs in their relationship with China. I am afraid the motion under our discussion today will become the laughing stock of the world, in addition to falling behind the world trend.
In fact, Hong Kong has always been a city of immigrants. In the 1920s, our grandfathers moved to Hong Kong. In 1949, there was an influx of immigrants, many of whom were Shanghai businessmen, and this enabled the Hong Kong economy to bloom. In 1979, with the reform and opening of China, again many Mainland people moved from the Mainland to Hong Kong. Our immigration to Hong Kong may just be 10 or 20 years earlier than others. Or, our grandfathers may also have come from the Mainland. But now we look down on immigrants. Why?
This mentality is indeed very common. I hear that this is also the case in other places of the world. As long as a person or his father is a generation earlier than others in migrating to a place, they will look down on the subsequent arrivals. They openly argue that cross-boundary marriages will bring many more families and Mainland people to Hong Kong. But these new immigrants are truly married to Hong Kong people and they should be entitled to the right to family reunion. They even say that "the pie the Mainlander sold is different from the pie they sold" and that this is their absolute right. But these new immigrants came to Hong Kong through genuine marriage, how come they are unwelcomed? The deep-rooted reasons for their dislike of the immigrants are that they dislike Mainland people and their deeds and behaviours. They look down on them. They often speak of Mainland people with strong discrimination and hatred. In short, they hold them in contempt.
What is "anti-Mainlandization"? They have a definition. I notice that people who uphold "anti-Mainlandization" generally seek to label people. They call Mainland people "locusts"; they blindly drive tourists away no matter what types of tourists they are. Honestly, even if they do not drive away Mainland tourists, the latter will refuse to come to Hong Kong. Dr Helena WONG often says that 80% of the students are from the Mainland. Her remark itself is discriminatory.
In fact, many young Mainlanders now question why they should visit Hong Kong, but in the past, I never heard of their refusal to visit Hong Kong. The case is even worse for middle-class Mainlanders. Those who have money now 1904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 choose Singapore or Europe for shopping and they no longer come to Hong Kong. They just come here for fun and a happy time, so if they end up being looked down on, they will wonder whether they should come at all.
Are they aware of their contemptuous attitude against other people? When they dragged their trolley luggage in protest, were they aware how contemptuous their actions were? Have they ever reflected upon how they will feel if they themselves are discriminated against in other countries? Their actions show that they look down on others. They have proposed many systems and called for changing certain systems. They may do so but they should voice their views when both the subjects of discussion subject and occasions are appropriate. They should not call others "locusts".
Many Mainland friends of mine who love Hong Kong have risen in social importance in the past 20 years. They like the Hong Kong in the 1990s. In the past, they often visited Hong Kong, but they hate the present-day Hong Kong. They think that from the angle of the rule of law, the Occupy Central movement has undermined the status of Hong Kong as a law-abiding society; and the Government is very slow in governance because it is hindered by many. They want to know more about the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, only to find that the Legislative Council is now a place that does not deserve their respect, and not in the least a civilized place. Members are not at all accommodating. It is sad to see the approaches Members have adopted.
So, what does Member mean by proposing this motion about "anti-Mainlandization"? Singapore's reference to itself as a hospitable city is actually a back-handed criticism of Hong Kong. It does not even need to say anything negative about Hong Kong. All it needs to do is to keep promoting itself as a hospitable city. In my opinion, the term "localism" has been hijacked by politicians and turned into the "restoration" campaigns and "anti-locusts" campaigns. They have hijacked the term "localism", and people will show their dislike whenever they hear it. Members should realize that many Chinese people are proud of being Chinese. People who want China to become strong will find supporters of "localism" detestable. They should really ask themselves this question. Not many people are in support of their approach, and not many people think that young people should turn their backs on the football pitch during the playing of the national anthem. Members should really do soul-searching and do not indulge in self-complacence.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1905
May I sincerely advise Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN that they should stop before going too far and refrain from moving any more motions on "anti-Mainlandization". This will provoke dissension among our people. If they wish to discuss the system, they should pursue this subject properly and should not pick on other people. Hong Kong should not become a city that drives away tourists, or a city of myopia and ignorance. I hope Members will not do this again. They should not propose such motions again.
President, I so submit.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Good afternoon, Secretary. President, since the Secretary comes from the Home Affairs Bureau, he should know something about my background and development. I believe he would agree that I am well qualified to criticize Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN in this Council, as both of them are ignorant of football. They only know that there was a football match between the Hong Kong team and the China team yesterday, but they have no idea that it was a Group C Asia qualifier of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. They do not even know the capacity of the stadium can accommodate and the ticket prices of the match. But they have still tried their very best to play up the issue. Their meaningless tricks and nonsense talks are aimed at politicizing this football match, making it ugly and belittling the China team. These guys are good in English, and they keep saying that "we are in Hong Kong", "we are Hong Kong". They vow their support for the Hong Kong football team, but I doubt whether they watched the match yesterday. But I am sure they know nothing about the thoughts and stance of the Hong Kong players.
I would like to tell the two Members that all the football players who played in the match, including YAPP Hung-fai, LEE Chi-ho, CHEUNG Kin-fung and LEUNG Chun-pong, the naturalized foreign players SANDRO, Alex AKANDE, KILAMA Jean and even BAI He from China, were only concerned about having good performance in the game and striving to qualify for the next round. They think that this can reward the fans watching the match. It was also their wish to win the cash prize and revive Hong Kong's football industry. When they played the game, they had no political consideration or political stand in their mind; they only played with sportsmanship. But Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN have cited this match in their speeches on today's motion. If no match was conducted yesterday, I do not know what they are going to talk about 1906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 today. Despite their eloquence, they have no sportsmanship at all. President, it is utterly meaningless to debate with the Members who have no sportsmanship, but still, I have to continue with my speech in this debate.
President, I have seen many pretentious and rascals in my life. Today I really witness how a thief cries out for help to catch another thief. This motion is about safeguarding Hong Kong from "Mainlandization" in the hope of avoiding social division and conflicts. But in fact this motion only wants to achieve two purposes ― it would like the existing social division in Hong Kong to carry on; and it want to arouse confrontations and conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. That is all. President, isn't this is a self-contradictory motion? Even a gentleman can tolerate no more.
President, amidst globalization, the cities and countries all over the world are making development in the direction of mutual collaboration. This direction is particularly clear after the reunification of Hong Kong with the big family of our country. Hence we should enhance interactions with the country through mutual co-operation and integration, creating mutual benefits and taking care of mutual interests in a bid to achieve development in a harmonious manner. But to my surprise, many Hong Kong or Chinese people who claim themselves to be patriotic are short-sighted, shallow, narrow minded and extreme. They keep doing all sorts of things to arouse social division and confrontations, smear the reputation of Hong Kong and the country, and distort the truth and principles. What on earth are these people doing? They are doing all sorts of things that may hinder the development of Hong Kong.
President, what can we do in order to resolve this conflict or social division at a macro level? Members should call on various industries, social strata and people from all walks of life to work together and contribute to the integration process, instead of saying or doing something in contravention to the direction of integrated development and the overall development direction of society. When I talk about integration, I refer to integration at social, economic and cultural levels. President, you are an experienced traveller. We can find China towns in a number of leading metropolises in the world, such as New York, London, Australia and San Francisco. Not only are these China towns constantly expanding in size, but they have also drawn in more and more residents. Even OBAMA had to visit the China town in New York in a bid to win voters' support during his election campaign. Does anyone dare say that the China towns have "Mainlandized" London, New York and San Francisco completely? No one LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1907 would make that comment, as they all welcome the Chinese. Let us take a look at the US stock market. Both Alibaba and Baidu have made their debut listing in the United States, but would anyone come out and say that the US stock market has been "Mainlandized"? The Bank of England and European Central Bank have entered into a number of bilateral Renminbi trade agreements with Chinese banks, but would they comment that Renminbi has "Mainlandized" these stock or financial markets?
Members should understand that we are now talking about mutual integration and mutual co-operation for the sake of joint development. According to my observation so far, Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN ― the movers of today's motion and the related amendment, are the advocators of localism. I dare not say they are championing Hong Kong independence, as that concept has no market in Hong Kong at all. Neither have I seen them waving the "Dragon and Lion flag". But they have repeatedly aroused conflicts in society and advocate localism in their remarks and actions. What secret motives do they have? I believe they have done these for accumulating political capital, which may help them to win a seat in the next Legislative Council election. Hence, today I look upon "Big Brother Chung" of the DAB. I hope the DAB will beat these people by putting some strong candidates to run in the New Territories East Geographical Constituency. They should not allow any weak candidate to run in the election, as once they fail, it is tantamount to announcing that the DAB is short of talents. You people have to work hard.
I am running out of speaking time. President, earlier on, Dr Helena WONG talked about the use of Putonghua as the medium of instruction for the Chinese Language. As a sponsor of schools, I have to point out that the Education Bureau indeed allows schools to teach Chinese language either in Cantonese or Putonghua at the choice of the school. Hence not all schools have to teach Chinese language in Putonghua as Dr Helena WONG said.
President, I so submit.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, regarding today's motion, Ms MO and Mr FAN are both entitled to their opinions, and they are actually exercising their right to freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law.
1908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
Is "Mainlandization" leading us to hell or to paradise? Definitely not to hell, but to a road of survival for the SAR. From one perspective, "Mainlandization" can be seen as a series of socio-economic and cultural interactions between Hong Kong and the Mainland that are an inevitable development in the post-colonial era. However, in recent years, the term "Mainlandization" has been construed in the eyes of a very small number of people to mean something negative and inferior, to the extent that everything associated with the Mainland is demonized. Against this backdrop, anti-Mainland sentiment has spread like a cancer in the community. The "anti-locust" movement and the booing of the national anthem by some local football fans during the recent World Cup qualifying matches are cases in point. Irrational opposition like this has not only undermined Hong Kong-Mainland relationship; Hong Kong's standing as an international financial centre has also been stained by the uncivilized action taken by some radicals against China and Mainlanders.
Indeed, the Basic Law must be honoured and enshrined. However, I doubt if Ms Claudia MO and Mr FAN have understood the essence of the Basic Law. Above all, the Basic Law should be considered as a shield to protect our basic rights, as they have exercised them just now, rather than a sword to curb those rights. In Hong Kong, freedom is cherished and was set in stone in Annex I to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and in various provisions of the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance. These solemn texts, which have constitutional significance, provide substantial leeway for Hong Kong people to enjoy freedom without undue restraints, to the extent that anything that is not illegal is permissible. Given that neither statutory law nor common law in Hong Kong provides for any definition of "Mainlandization", let alone states that "Mainlandization" is a crime, there is no point in excluding Hong Kong people from benefiting from the right to any form of "Mainlandization". Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN could just continue to refuse to interact with the Mainland if they so wish, though in practice, I doubt that anyone in today's Hong Kong can avoid all interaction with the Mainland in the course of everyday life.
With Hong Kong's sovereignty returned to the People's Republic of China in 1997, it is legitimate that we have a better understanding of and more interactions with the social, economic and cultural aspects of the Mainland. This is natural and apolitical and is not a sign of hidden agenda to wipe away the local history and culture. Indeed, historical development is not static; it is an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1909 ongoing process. It did not stop in 1997, it has not stopped at present and it will continue to develop perpetually, independent of any subjective wish or the will for a standstill.
President, the commitment to preserving unchanged the previous way of life of Hong Kong citizens for 50 years does not necessarily mean that everything will remain intact for 50 years as my colleague, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, said earlier. Society evolves continuously because of socio-economic and technological changes. It is undisputed that the Basic Law guarantees that certain things will remain unchanged, but in reality, the law is one thing and convention is another. The Basic Law should be read in this context. Convention suggests that the way of life of Hong Kong residents is ever-changing because circumstances keep changing. Do people watch television and read newspaper as frequently now as they used to 20 years ago? No. The emergence of new media has altered the convention. Likewise, there has been a sea change in the composition of Hong Kong's population since 1997, thanks to the rise in the number of Mainland-HKSAR families. Since 1997, more than 900 000 Mainland immigrants have settled in Hong Kong. The Census and Statistics Department estimates that immigrants from the Mainland will become an important source of population growth in the next 50 years.
President, although it is a hard fact for some to accept, the shift of Hong Kong from colonization to "Mainlandization" is an irresistible and irreversible trend. This is a process of collective practices by Hong Kong and Mainland people that forms a convention, which is unwritten in the Basic Law, but also guaranteed by the Basic Law. This convention embodies freedom of movement of goods, services, capital, human resources and information. As long as we have faith in "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, we should have no qualms about "Mainlandization" whitewashing our colonial past. More importantly, those guaranteed basic rights and freedoms including freedom of speech, of the press, and of publication have remained unscathed, if not expanded further, since 1997, implying that people can give their views on local history and culture as they wish subject to the law.
Clearly, Ms MO and Mr FAN have no authority and are in no position to determine which parts of our local history and culture deserve preferential treatment and particular protection, and which parts should be discarded entirely. We should avoid that kind of narrative, which is based on far-fetched analogies in 1910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 the guise of the Basic Law. It is wiser to take a different narrative into account by putting together various pieces of local history and culture to reflect a balanced overview. Thank you.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, following the cession of Hong Kong and the beginning of British occupation after the Opium War, Hong Kong people were plunged into confusion over their cultural and national identity. We had several confusing descriptions of our national identity. Were we Chinese citizens? Hong Kong citizens? Chinese Hong Kong citizens? Or, Hong Kong Chinese citizens? For many years in the past, whenever we travelled abroad and had to fill in our nationality, we were caught in confusion, conflicts and hesitation. Since 1997, we have been able to say categorically that we are "Chinese citizens". This is really wonderful. The Central Authorities have always looked at these descriptions as indicators of our loyalty and allegiance. The use of the term "Hongkongers" will prick the Central Authorities like a thorn and make them think that we have not quite settled into the reunification and are thus incapable of full loyalty and allegiance to the Central Government. However, there are different aspects to loyalty and allegiance, depending on what occasions we are looking at. The soccer game last night, for instance, was just a World Cup qualifier. It is only understandable and reasonable for us to support our team. It is only natural for us to support the team of our city. Therefore, I really hope that on an occasion like this, people can all refrain from escalating things to the cardinal principle of loyalty and allegiance. Even Dr LAM Tai-fai has advised us against politicization, hasn't he? But then, it cannot be denied that the football fans both inside and outside the stadium last night did assert a strong identity of Hong Kong as a city, and this identity is given a very political interpretation by the Central Government.
"Mainlandization", "Chinization" and "Inlandization" all carry different shades of meaning. As pointed out by Mr Kenneth LEUNG a while ago, when we say "Chinization", we are talking about the cultural China with all its fine qualities and folklore that we wish to inherit and pass on. When we call the vast lands north of Hong Kong the "Inland", we are being very affectionate, with a feeling of we-ness deep down our hearts. The Labour Party therefore uses the term "Inland" very often. But when we talk about "Mainlandization", we honestly have a negative connotation in mind. I believe that Ms Claudia MO has chosen this term mainly because she wants to pinpoint the corruption of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1911
Mainland officialdom, the unprincipled conduct in Mainland society, tainted food, and many other roguish and selfish acts that seek material interests at the expense of people's health and safety.
Therefore, I understand that Ms Claudia MO's reference to "Mainlandization" is about the elimination of the corrupt practices in the Mainland and the need for preventing them from spreading to Hong Kong. It is not enough to say that we must safeguard Hong Kong from "Mainlandization". Actually, we should say that we must safeguard Hong Kong from a second colonization. DENG Xiaoping told us not to worry, saying that the change in sovereignty would only involve a change of flag. It has now turned out that the change is truly just a change of flag, as the political system is simply kept intact.
"Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" are said to be in practice. But in reality, "a high degree of autonomy" has never been implemented to any great extent, because the authoritarian political system of the British colonial administration is retained almost in its entirety. We look forward to democracy, the removal of colonial features in our political system and equal political rights for all after the handover, but these aspirations are all unfulfilled. Our system of political power is still very colonial in nature. Even now, we are unable to extend the application of sections 3 and 8 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance to the Chief Executive and regulate his acceptance of advantages. Some people ― such as pro-establishment Members ― argue that this was also the case with the Governors of Hong Kong in the past. They question why we have said nothing for so long until now. This is also a form of attachment to the colonial past, but their attachment is to something that may plunge an individual into corruption, not an attachment to the core values that we have so painstakingly built up, such as the rule of law and respect for human rights and liberty.
About Hong Kong remaining unchanged for 50 years, both Ms Claudia MO and I expressed some doubts in our private discussions. I just wonder how it can be possible to remain unchanged for 50 years. No city can possibly freeze time and remain unchanged for 50 years. This is particularly the case with Hong Kong, where the capitalist system shall continue to be practised under the Basic Law. The Labour Party of course wants to pursue social democracy. We of course want universal retirement protection. The Government asks where the money should come from. We suggest introducing a tax on large dividend income. A handful of families who are the wealthiest receive tens of billions of 1912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 dollars in dividends every year. Why can't we levy tax on them? And, why must we maintain a low tax regime? They are so well off. Why doesn't the Government levy any tax on them? They do not even have to pay any salaries tax. Those who are most strongly attached to the colonial era are people who have turned patriotic all of a sudden, and they are most eager to preserve systems that benefit the business sector, consortia and tycoons. People with revolutionary ideals in the past were not like them. I have much respect for underground members of the Communist Party, including Mr LUO Fu. Mr LUO was incorruptible, and he was never like those people who seek personal benefit by turning patriotic all of a sudden.
President, I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment, as they have raised many specific livelihood issues we are now facing. Hong Kong is now facing a lot of conflicts resulting from its failure to prepare itself in time for the fast integration with the Mainland.
Thank you, President.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the contents of the motion and the amendment today deliberately try to belittle the Mainland and create antipathy and hatred towards the Mainland. Their purpose is to divide Hong Kong and the Mainland, which is politically unacceptable. The people of Hong Kong will not support such motion and amendment. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) will oppose the motion and the amendment.
President, over 90% of Hong Kong people are Chinese in descent. They are closely connected to the Mainland by lineage. My ancestral home is at Baiyun District, Guangzhou City. Every year during Ching Ming Festival, Chung Yeung Festival or the Chinese New Year, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people go back to China to worship their ancestral homes and visit their Mainland relatives. Hence, the motion on "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'" is simply complete nonsense. What does it mean by "Mainlandization"? Are Hong Kong people "Mainlandized" if they claim themselves Chinese and have an ancestral home in China? May I ask Ms MO a humble question. Is she asking all Hong Kong people to abandon their nationality and ancestral home and break off their relationship with their country and their Mainland relatives? I believe she will not ask them to do so.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1913
In the motion, Member also requests the Government to honour the undertaking that "the previous way of life of Hong Kong residents shall remain unchanged for 50 years", as if saying that the way of life of Hong Kong residents has already changed. We must rebut such crazy and unfounded accusations which disregard the actual situation. In fact, we just need to do a little analysis on the daily way of life of Hong Kong people now to find out the truth. At present, our daily consumables, including over half of the live and fresh food in Hong Kong, are supplied stably from the Mainland. Regarding Hong Kong people who commute between the two places for work or residence, according to information from the Census and Statistics Department, before the reunification, over 120 000 Hong Kong people worked in the Mainland in 1995; after the reunification, according to statistics in October 2011, the number of Hong Kong people working in the Mainland peaked at over 240 000.
Besides, while the Korean culture is very popular in Hong Kong because many people love to watch Korean television dramas, many Hong Kong people also chase after Mainland-produced television dramas and variety shows, and they know very well the Mainland way of life, its culture and popular topics. At the "Singles' Day" online shopping festival on 11 November earlier, apart from the Mainland, Hong Kong topped the list of regions with the largest number of online shopping transactions at that online shopping platform. My examples of the way of life of Hong Kong people are by no means exhaustive, but they are real examples of their way of life. Hence, nothing has changed in terms of clothing, eating, housing, travelling, learning, working, spending, culture and everyday habits between the time before or after the reunification. This is the truth, nothing but the truth. Hence, if Ms Claudia MO truly wishes to maintain the previous way of life of Hong Kong people unchanged, she had better not create things from nothing, not discriminate against Mainlanders and reject the Mainland and not drive a wedge between the people of Hong Kong and the Mainland. This is the best way to "remain unchanged".
The DAB is of the view that some of the Members who support today's motion do not accept the fact that Hong Kong has been reunited with China, nor do they trust the Central Government. They even do not want to accept their ancestral home and their status as a Chinese. But these are their business and would they please do not drag Hong Kong people into the mire. They are ashamed of being a Chinese. They imperceptibly brainwash Hong Kong people with such ideas and instigate the idea of "de-sinolization". Their actions are ripping apart the Hong Kong society and pushing Hong Kong to the edge of a dangerous abyss.
1914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
The Member who proposed the motion knows how to use words to smear and humiliate Mainland people and demonize the Hong Kong-Mainland relationship. They label Mainlanders as "locusts" and "strong-country people", which did have a temporary brainwashing effect. Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN described their "luggage-dragging" actions, which sought to protest against the Individual Visit Scheme and the Mainlanders, as a "high-level performance art". Their embellishment of such deeds of hatred will in effect spread and encourage provocative acts against the Mainlanders. The subsequent violent protests to "restore" a certain district, to force open Mainland tourists' personal belongings for inspection and to humiliate people with a trolley luggage are examples of people who copied their so-called "performance art". They are the originator of such violent acts. They cannot fend off these facts.
President, although there is not a comprehensive and conclusive definition on the core values of Hong Kong, I believe the "Lion Rock spirit", which encourages people to work as one, be accommodating and treat others with respect, and the pursuit of social prosperity and stability are surely core values of Hong Kong. Hence, if the Member who proposed this motion genuinely care about Hong Kong, would she please properly safeguard these core values and do not discriminate against Mainland people and the new immigrants. Would she please stop creating any more internal dissension, stop ripping apart Hong Kong and damaging the prosperity, harmony and stability of our society.
The DAB opposes Ms Claudia MO's motion and Mr Gary FAN's amendment. I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 7.45 pm. Based on recent meeting progress, I cannot predict how long the meeting will last and how many Members will still request to speak because Members now generally do not press the "Request to speak" button in advance. Also, I do not know whether any other factors will prolong the meeting. As such, I will suspend the meeting at around 8 pm and resume the meeting at 9 am tomorrow.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, in respect of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today on "Safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'", I of course understand what she wanted to express in her speech earlier on. However, strictly speaking, we are Chinese. Many things LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1915 that we experienced in Hong Kong since we were young were from China. I quote some simple examples. Many kinds of delicious food of this food paradise are actually originated from Guangdong Province, with their recipes being passed on to Hong Kong from the Guangdong Province. This is a part of China. Another example is textile and clothing. In the 1950s, some Shanghai businessmen brought such skills with them to Hong Kong, and this can also be regarded as one kind of culture brought to Hong Kong from Mainland China. In the 1950s and 1960s, the economic take-off in Hong Kong was led by the textile and clothing industry. If the Shanghai businessmen had not come to Hong Kong back then, it would not have been possible for the Hong Kong economy to be so flourishing and so successful today. This can also be regarded as a part of "Mainlandization". Hence, the impact brought from the Chinese culture may not necessarily be what they call the bad knowledge or undesirable behaviour.
Last week, Members discussed whether the investigation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) should be extended to the Chief Executive. At present, China is launching some anti-crime and anti-corruption activities. These should be brought to Hong Kong, as they are good deeds. No matter it is a tiger or a fly, they deal with it just the same. Why should the Chief Executive be exempted? Thus, are these not good deeds?
President, I would like to talk about some history. In the 1980s, I studied in the United Kingdom. At that time, Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom. Strictly speaking, we did not have any status in the United Kingdom at all. Some British classmates called us "Chinky". What does that mean? It means people from the Qing Dynasty or from the Mainland. I visited the United Kingdom several times recently, but no one mentioned the word "Chinky" anymore. What is the reason? It is because over the past few decades, China has gradually become strong and powerful in the international community. Internationally, this has rendered a different impression of and a different kind of treatment to Hong Kong, as a part of China, and the Chinese in Hong Kong.
President, I heard a real story recently. A student from Hong Kong went overseas for his study. When he first introduced himself, the teacher asked where he came from. He answered, "I am from Hong Kong." The teacher asked him whether Hong Kong was the same as China, and he answered, "No, I am from Hong Kong." Hence, the teacher did not pursue further where he came from. The first time when he needed to form a group with other classmates for a project, no one was willing to team up with him. What was the reason? The 1916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 students from China formed their own group, while foreign or local students also formed their own groups. But no one was willing to team up with him. What was the reason? The students from China said, "You are from Hong Kong. You are not Chinese." They were thus unwilling to form a group with him. The foreign classmates said, "You do not even recognize your own country. You are from Hong Kong. You are not Chinese." They thought that since he did not recognize his own country, he was totally disrespectful of his country. Finally, this student from Hong Kong was ostracized.
Of course, we often say "I am from Hong Kong" when we go overseas. However, the whole world knows that Hong Kong is now part of China and we are inseparable. Hence, when we are in other countries, we need to change our usual mindset. Not only are we "from Hong Kong", but we are "from Hong Kong, China".
Ms Cyd HO just mentioned that when filling in the arrival cards when entering foreign countries, we could just fill in "Hong Kong, China" for nationality. We thus should not create any disparity between Hong Kong and China by "de-Mainlandization". We should co-operate, respect and exchange with each other, so that the values of Hong Kong can influence Mainland China, and vice versa. Integration between the two places is definitely the road that Hong Kong has to develop along. Talking about the situation "shall remain unchanged for 50 years" in particular, President, 18 years have already passed. It will be 20 years in two years' time, and 2047 will arrive very soon. If we are not integrated with the Mainland in each and every aspect, Hong Kong will only be marginalized in future. We dare not say how much value of Hong Kong will be left in the future. I believe that by 2047, most of the Members in this Chamber will no long be present, and some may even have passed away. We hence have to instil well into the mind of the next generation that we are Chinese, we are the Hong Kong people from China.
The Liberal Party will oppose the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today and the amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN. Thank you, President.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I of course support the contents of the original motion proposed by Ms Claudia MO and the amendment proposed by Mr Gary FAN. However, the situation in Hong Kong today has worsened from that in the time when they were elected. For example, on the eve of a crucial soccer match between Hong Kong and China, the principle officials of the SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1917
Government were evasive in their words and lacked the courage to express support for the Hong Kong football team. It is hard to imagine that the Secretary of CPC Guangzhou Municipal Committee and the Mayor of Guangzhou Municipal Government would act in such a cowardly manner before a Chinese Super League game between Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao FC and Beijing Guo'an. The postage-free election advertisement of "Hitsujiko NAKADE", number 3 candidate running in the Cherry constituency of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council, was unjustifiably screened by the Registration and Electoral Office beyond its authority, and expressions such as nation building for Hong Kong City-State, neighbouring economic heavyweight and the city-state camp, as well as the entire lyric of The Anthem of Hong Kong City-State were wiped out.
In the face of such deterioration, we must escalate our struggles. However, Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN, two self-proclaimed localist Members, have produced only token gestures without getting rid of the morbid addiction to non-violence among the pan-democratic camp. For this reason, they have even obstructed the efforts of the spontaneous demonstrators.
On 8 March 2015, some members of the public launched tactical anti-parallel goods smuggling protests to liberate Sheung Shui, Tuen Mun and Tsim Sha Tsui, during which a woman with a luggage trolley and her daughter quarrelled with protesters in Tuen Mun. Taking no heed of her daughter's advice to leave the scene, the woman focused all her attention on the squabble with the protesters in a bitchy tone, and the horrified child burst into tears in the end.
The above incident was witnessed and recorded by an expatriate in Hong Kong named Richard SCOTFORD, and he attached a video footage taken by another person on site. Both witnesses and exhibit were present. However, all the mainstream media in Hong Kong served to distort the truth and claimed that the liberators had laid siege to and rebuked the mother and daughter. After the incident, People Power, League of Social Democrats, League in Defense of Hong Kong's Freedoms, and HK First led by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN held a press conference and issued joint statement to cut off any connection with the demonstrators, standing on the side of the establishment.
The pan-democratic camp in Hong Kong, as well as those politicians who perceive themselves as radical and localist, have never stopped mentioning GANDHI and Martin Luther KING, Jr, dreaming about a totally violence-free 1918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 struggle in the Indian Independence Movement and Civil Rights Movement in the United States from beginning till the end. This is ignorant of the history of the places. We may take the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s as an example. Martin Luther KING, Jr delivered a speech at a high school campus in Detroit on 14 March 1968, the time when African Americans had already earned their civil rights then, but they were yet to escape poverty. Also, the black communities were frequently subject to excessive law enforcement by the white dominated police force. This led to endless riots across African American neighbourhoods starting from mid-1960s. Martin Luther KING, Jr did not sever any relation with his fellow people, and instead he responded to these so-called disturbance like this: "But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard." Are the liberators' pointing fingers and condemning words and Hong Kong soccer fans' booing of the national anthem of China not another form of the language of the unheard?
Malcolm X (Chinese rendition of his name is 馬爾坎․ X) was a figure which advocated bold resistance in the 1960s as a rivalry to Martin Luther KING, Jr. His famous quote "by any means necessary" was used on three different occasions, the last one in January 1965 when he replied via telegram the leader of the American Nazi Party and expressly stated the blacks' right of self-defence against intimidation from white extremist groups.
Recently on screen in Hong Kong, the movie Suffragette describes feminists' fight for women voting rights in England a century ago. After their long-term peaceful struggle had achieved no result, they eventually adopted low-level force such as breaking shop windows of department stores and even blowing up post-boxes to arouse public attention. A charity premiere of Suffragette was held on 9 November where Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Fernando CHEUNG from the Labour Party and Ms Emily LAU from the Democratic Party were invited to attend. They all despise actions committed by the localist camp that they refer to as "too radical", yet never a word has been uttered by them to condemn the bold actions in the movie that are intensified but very constrained under which not a civilian is hurt.
Veteran political commentator LEE Yee once criticized politicians from the pan-democratic camp and the hosts of radio phone-in programmes for their double standard in exploiting the Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 1919
(I quote): "9.28 has unfolded the occupation movements in three districts, and these are mass charging actions. Charging is not absolutely undesirable. Hongkongers, pan-democratic political groups included, have visited Taiwan in support of the Sunflower Student Movement and commended the charging attempts and occupation of the Legislative Yuan. How come they, upon coming back, then disdain so deeply the same kind of actions in Hong Kong? Are they so clean freak in politics that they hasten to make a clear distinction?"
I hereby advise my colleagues Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN with respect. All of us are elected to the legislature with the trust of our constituency. When the Communist Party of China tightens its grip and the Hong Kong Communist Regime conspires with the evil force, while the city of Hong Kong is put in danger, coupled with public suspicion and outcry, any elector who is awaken will naturally expect an escalation in confrontation and improvement in the level of discussions given by political figures. If the politicians just continue with this complacency and dispirited attitude of retreat, the constituency will certainly make alternative choices next year. I firmly believe that candidates who safeguard local interests and resist Mainlandization will become Hong Kong people's first choice in the Legislative Council Election next year.
A section of soccer fans have raised some paperboards to form the slogan "Hong Kong is not China" during the big match between the two places. This is a response to the banner which reads "Catalonia is not Spain" frequently demonstrated by fans in the Camp Nou stadium during Spanish La Liga matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF, which symbolizes the Spanish central government. When a central government suppresses the local regions with a sense of superiority, the trend of localist movements are destined to be vigorous and irresistible.
President, I so submit.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7.59 pm.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015 A1
Appendix I
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Environment Bureau to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's supplementary question to Question 4
As regards the air pollutant emission reduction plan for 2015 agreed with the Guangdong Provincial Government earlier, below is the supplementary information:
Improving regional air quality has been one of the key areas in environmental collaboration between Hong Kong and Guangdong. At the meeting of Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection held in November 2012, the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department and the Environmental Protection Department of Guangdong Province endorsed the emission reduction targets for 2015 and the emission reduction ranges for 2020. In devising the emission reduction targets/ranges, both sides took account of their respective 2010 pollution emission levels, characteristics of different emission sources, emission control and reduction measures that had been implemented and their effectiveness, as well as the reduction potential of various sectors. As compared with the emission levels of the four major air pollutants in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Economic Zone in 2010, the emission reduction targets/ranges in 2015 and 2020 are shown below:
2015 Emission 2020 Emission 2010 Emission Pollutant Area Reduction Targets* Reduction Ranges* (tonnes) (%) (%) Sulphur Hong Kong 35 490 -25% -35% to -75% Dioxide (SO2) PRD Economic Zone 507 000 -16% -20% to -35% Nitrogen Hong Kong 108 360 -10% -20% to -30% Oxides (NOx) PRD Economic Zone 889 000 -18% -20% to -40% Respirable Hong Kong 6 270 -10% -15% to -40% Suspended Particulates PRD Economic Zone 637 000 -10% -15% to -25% (RSP) Volatile Hong Kong 32 870 -5% -15% Organic Compounds PRD Economic Zone 903 000 -10% -15% to -25% (VOC)
Note:
* as compared with 2010 emission levels
A2 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 18 November 2015
WRITTEN ANSWER — Continued
Both Governments of Hong Kong and Guangdong started the mid-term review in February this year to conclude the emission reductions for 2015 and finalize the emission reduction targets for 2020.