LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12195

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

12196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, 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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12197

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, 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, J.P.

12198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

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, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

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

MEMBER ABSENT:

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12199

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK, J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

12200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 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.

Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulation 2015 ...... 100/2015

Foreign Lawyers Practice (Amendment) Rules 2015 ...... 101/2015

Solicitors' Practice (Amendment) Rules 2015 ...... 102/2015

Limited Liability Partnerships (Top-up Insurance) Rules ... 103/2015

Other Papers

No. 98 ─ Supplemental Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Report No. 63 of the Director of Audit on the Results of Value for Money Audits (June 2015 ─ P.A.C. Report No. 63A)

Report No. 22/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ADDRESSES

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. Mr Abraham SHEK will address the Council on the "Public Accounts Committee Report No. 63A".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12201

Supplemental Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Report No. 63 of the Director of Audit on the Results of Value for Money Audits (June 2015 ─ P.A.C. Report No. 63A)

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee (the Committee), I have the honour to table our Report No. 63A today. This Report is supplemental to the Committee's Report No. 63 and contains our conclusions and recommendations on Chapter 4 of the Director of Audit's Report No. 63 on "Administration of the air traffic control and related services".

Hong Kong is an international and regional aviation hub and the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) has an important role to provide a safe, reliable, effective and efficient air traffic control service. The Committee wishes to highlight that, for the purpose of protecting life and property, air safety must not be compromised under any circumstances. The Committee's Report looked into the irregularities found in the Director of Audit's Report in respect of the air traffic control and other related services. A total of six public hearings were held on this chapter and five hearings were devoted to gathering evidence on the procurement of the new Air Traffic Management System (ATMS) by the CAD. The Committee also paid a visit to the CAD to better understand the operation of existing ATMS and the testing of the new ATMS.

The Committee finds it appalling and totally unacceptable that the existing Air Traffic Control system which, according to the Administration, ought to have been retired by December 2012 due to the end of production of some components and its limited functionalities and capacity. According to the Audit Report, the system had been operating above its planned capacity and the frequency of surveillance data display problem had increased since 2011. As at May 2015, no new, safe and reliable Air Traffic Control system is in operation and the latest estimate was that the new system would only be ready for operation in the first half of 2016. This is mainly due to a delay in the implementation of the ATMS contract, which is one of the eight major contracts of the system.

Now, I shall touch on the subject of procurement of the new ATMS.

The Committee strongly condemns the CAD for its incompetence and negligence in managing the procurement and implementation of the new ATMS project, with an original contract value of $486 million. Apart from the project 12202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 being delayed for three and a half years, there are a number of irregularities found by the Committee in the public hearings. I will briefly highlight the irregularities in three aspects.

Firstly, contract variations. Two contract variations were made by the CAD at a total cost of $89.2 million. The Committee is of the view that some items in these two variations should have been anticipated by the CAD. The situation is undesirable as the first contract variation was requested only 11 months after the award of the contract and two contract variations were made over a period of 17 months.

Secondly, liquidated damages. According to the new ATMS contract, the contractor was only required to pay up to a maximum of $5 million as liquidated damages as a result of the delay in delivering the system in Phase 1 of the contract, that is, the commissioning of the new system. The Committee has doubts on the effect of such clause as an incentive for the contractor to expedite the delivery of the system as the same contractor was paid around $5.9 million a year for the upgrading and maintenance works of the existing system over the last three and a half years.

Thirdly, tendering terms. The new ATMS contract only requires the tenderers to provide a system with a minimum track record of not less than six months but this short track record might not fully reflect the capability and performance of the new system to handle fluctuations in air traffic due to seasonal changes. In addition, it is stipulated in the Tender Document that "A proposed System with no proven performance record will not be considered further". According to the CAD, the term "System" should mean a basket of systems and sub-systems. This interpretation, however, is not made known to tenderers or potential tenderers. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for any parties who were interested in submitting tender proposals to be aware of such interpretation prior to the award of the contract.

The Committee strongly condemns and deplores that the Director-General of Civil Aviation, as the head of the CAD, had blatantly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities in ensuring that due diligence relating to the ATMS contract was conducted adequately and thoroughly, the conditions of the contract were set out clearly and appropriately, and the contract was implemented effectively, on schedule and in a cost-effective manner.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12203

The Committee expresses grave concern and finds it unacceptable that the Transport and Housing Bureau, as the Bureau overseeing the operations of the CAD, had failed to perform its supervisory role to ensure that an effective implementation of the new Air Traffic Control system by the CAD.

As the Legislative Council has a constitutional role in approving public expenditure and the Administration has to be accountable to the Legislative Council, the Committee expresses grave concern and finds it unacceptable that the Transport and Housing Bureau and the CAD had not reported to the relevant Legislative Council Panel or the Finance Committee of the two contract variations of the ATMS contract nor drawn members' attention to the substantial delay in the replacement of the Air Traffic Control system in a timely manner, undermining the role of this Council in monitoring Government expenditure effectively.

The Committee urges that the CAD should ensure that the existing Air Traffic Control system is timely maintained in good operational conditions before the new system is commissioned in mid-2016. The CAD should formulate a contingency plan in case a new, safe and reliable ATMS could not be delivered by the first half of 2016 or any other indicative date to be set by the CAD and the Transport and Housing Bureau. The CAD should also ensure that the new system is safe, reliable and stable to be used and all deficiencies/observations identified must be completely and satisfactorily resolved prior to putting the new system into operation.

The Committee also urges that the Transport and Housing Bureau should consider engaging external and independent experts immediately to assess the safety and performance of the new ATMS as well as the likelihood of completing the first phase of the ATMS contract in the first half of 2016, and formulate a plan accordingly.

The next subject is on the management of the precision runway monitor project. The Committee expressed strong resentment that the CAD had failed in its responsibilities in ensuring public money spent on procuring a precision runway monitor (PRM) radar at a cost of $101.4 million in 2000 was good value for money. The radar was intended to support the independent mixed mode of operation of the Hong Kong International Airport's two runways, that is, to allow each runway to function separately and without co-ordination with operations on 12204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 the other runway. If this mode of operation could be adopted, it would maximize the runway capacity, and on this basis, the Finance Committee approved the funding of $101.4 million. However, the CAD was aware that there were constraints in adopting this mode of operation by two consultancy studies in 1990 and 1994. The CAD still proceeded with the procurement of the PRM radar in the belief that there might be advancement in technology to overcome such constraints in future. Unfortunately, as such advancement never materialized, the PRM radar was put to other supplemental uses. It has subsequently been put into standby mode since 2005.

The Committee also expresses strong resentment that the CAD did not inform the Public Works Subcommittee or the Finance Committee in the funding application for the PRM radar in 1996 about the constraints in adopting the independent mixed mode of operation and the implementation of which was contingent on advancement in technology.

The Committee urges that the CAD should develop a mechanism to ensure that the equipment purchased are cost-effective and public money are to be used in a prudent manner. In addition, it should set out both the pros and cons of a proposed project, including all potential risks and relevant contingent factors, in the funding applications to the Legislative Council for Members to make an informed decision on whether to support the projects.

Lastly, I wish to record my appreciation of the contributions made by members of the Committee. Our gratitude also goes to the witnesses who attended the hearings held by the Committee. I would also like to express our gratitude to the Director of Audit and his colleagues for their unfailing support, and last but not the least, to the Secretariat of this Council.

Thank you, President.

QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 24(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Apart from six oral questions for this meeting, I have permitted Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Helena WONG to respectively ask an urgent question under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12205

As the three urgent questions are about the contingency measures for coping with the epidemic of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, to facilitate Members' follow up, I will first call upon the three Members to ask their urgent questions and the public officer to reply to the three questions respectively. I will then invite CHAN Han-pan, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG and other Members to respectively ask supplementary questions. I will appropriately adjust the time for Members to ask supplementary questions.

First urgent question.

Urgent Measures to Prevent Epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in South Korea from Spreading to Hong Kong

1. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, a man, who had come into contact with a confirmed patient of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, arrived in Hong Kong by flight from South Korea on the 26th of last month. It has been reported that the man was questioned, as he had a fever, by a health officer about his conditions at the boundary control point at the airport, but he concealed his history of contact with a confirmed MERS patient and was finally allowed entry into Hong Kong. Subsequently, this man went from the airport to Huizhou in Guangdong Province via Sha Tau Kok by taking two cross-boundary coaches, and he was confirmed later to be a MERS patient. Since the man travelled together with quite a number of people on public transport during his stay in Hong Kong, quite a number of members of the public are concerned that MERS may spread in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the urgent and effective means adopted by the authorities for tracking the passengers who had come into close contact with the man when they travelled on the aforesaid two cross-boundary coaches, so as to take follow-up actions immediately;

(2) of the contingency measures adopted by the authorities to handle the situation where persons entering the territory conceal from quarantine officers information relating to an epidemic; whether the authorities currently have the statutory power to compulsorily place a person at the boundary control points under isolation and 12206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

compulsorily arrange the person concerned to receive further examination when the authorities have reason to believe that the person concerned is infected with MERS; and

(3) given that the number of new MERS cases in South Korea has continued to rise in recent days, whether the authorities have grasped the latest situation of the MERS epidemic in South Korea, so as to take corresponding and urgent measures immediately; whether the authorities will, in response to the prevailing situation, immediately raise the alert response level and issue health advices and warnings to those Hong Kong people who intend to travel to South Korea for sight-seeing?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) is a viral infection caused by a novel coronavirus (that is, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV)) which has not been identified in humans before. The virus is different from any coronaviruses (including SARS-coronavirus) already found in humans or animals. Infected persons may present with acute serious respiratory illness and symptoms including fever, cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. Most patients also develop pneumonia. It is still uncertain how MERS-CoV is transmitted. Based on the available information, people may be infected with MERS upon exposure to animals (such as camel), environment or other confirmed patients (such as in a hospital setting).

Since September 2012, MERS has been made a statutorily notifiable disease in Hong Kong under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Cap. 599). The Centre for Health Protection (CHP) under the Department of Health (DH) is to be notified of any suspected or confirmed cases for investigation and follow-up actions. To enhance the effectiveness of response to possible risks of MERS, the Government announced the Preparedness Plan for MERS on 12 June 2014, which sets out in detail the Government's preparedness and response measures for the disease. The Alert Response Level under the Preparedness Plan for MERS was activated on the same day, having regard to the information released by the World Health Organization (WHO) and various factors.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12207

Against the above background, my reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) It came to the notice of the CHP of a 44-year-old man (the target patient), who was a close contact of the third MERS case in Korea (a 76-year-old man), arrived in Hong Kong from Korea and transited to the Mainland on 26 May 2015. The CHP immediately liaised with the WHO and the health authorities of the Mainland and Korea to obtain the latest updates.

Epidemiological investigations revealed that the target patient was a passenger of OZ723 of Asiana Airlines and arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport at around 1 pm. He then set off for Huizhou via Sha Tau Kok by taking two buses operated by Eternal East Cross-Border Coach Mgt. Ltd. in the afternoon of the same day.

Even before the target patient was confirmed by the Mainland authorities as infected with MERS, the CHP had already taken precaution measures. Together with other parties (including the Immigration Department, the airline company and Eternal East Cross-Border Coach Mgt. Ltd.), the CHP traced the contacts of the target patient, including those on the same flight and bus. The results show that among the 158 passengers on board OZ723 of Asiana Airlines on 26 May 2015, 81 were in the same cabin with the target patient, and 29 of them were within two rows of him and are thus classified as close contacts. As for the buses, the CHP immediately contacted Eternal East Cross-Border Coach Mgt. Ltd. to trace the staff members who had contacted the target patient (including the drivers who drove the above buses). As no passenger list was kept for the buses, the CHP released the bus information to the public as soon as possible and appealed repeatedly to anyone who had contact with the target patient to get in touch with the CHP for follow-up.

As at 3 June 2015, all the 29 close contacts on board the flight were identified. Nineteen of them were asymptomatic and had been sent to the Lady MacLehose Holiday Village for isolation and surveillance. The remaining 10 close contacts were not in Hong Kong and their information had been delivered to the Immigration 12208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Department. Another 32 persons were confirmed as other contacts (including a member of ticketing staff of Eternal East Cross-Border Coach Mgt. Ltd., the driver of the buses and a bus passenger) and are under medical surveillance. Contact tracing is ongoing and the CHP has also set up a hotline to encourage relevant persons to contact the authorities concerned as soon as possible.

(2) The DH has been conducting body temperature checks of all inbound travellers at boundary control points, and those with fever will be examined. There is an established set of criteria for compulsory referral in respect of MERS, which consists of clinical criteria and epidemiological criteria. The clinical criteria include body temperature at or above 38°C and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. The epidemiological criteria include having travelled to or resided in a country or region affected by MERS before onset of illness, or having close contact with patients infected with MERS. If an inbound traveller fulfils both the clinical and epidemiological criteria, the Port Health Office will compulsorily refer the traveller to a hospital under the Hospital Authority (HA) for further examination in an isolation ward.

At present, port health officers are empowered by the laws of Hong Kong to require a person suspected to be infected with specified infectious diseases (including MERS) for further examination. In accordance with the Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation (Cap. 599A), if a health officer has reason to suspect that a person is a contact or is infected with a specified infectious disease or is contaminated, the health officer may subject the person to medical surveillance or a medical examination or a test. To achieve effective health screening at the border, we need full co-operation of the public and travellers in providing correct and comprehensive information for assessment and follow-up by health officers. If a traveller intentionally provides false information to health officers, the DH will consider taking enforcement action having regard to the advice of the Department of Justice.

In view of the latest outbreak situation in Korea and the fact that we have yet to obtain from the Korean authorities information on the healthcare facilities affected by MERS, the DH has enhanced LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12209

surveillance measures in this regard. Inbound visitors who have recently visited healthcare facilities in Seoul and have fever and respiratory symptoms will be classified as suspected MERS cases. All visitors with fever will be referred to the port health officers for diagnosis. They will also be required to sign the health assessment form and reminded of the legal liability for providing false information.

(3) Upon activation of the Alert Response Level under the Preparedness Plan for MERS, a simplified response command structure has been put in place. The Food and Health Bureau will co-ordinate and steer Government response while the DH and the HA are mainly responsible for assessing the nature and level of risks. After activating the Preparedness Plan for MERS, the Government conducts risk assessment from time to time to determine whether adjustment to any measures is required. According to the health authorities of Korea, all MERS cases in Korea (including the exported case of the target patient) have been epidemiologically linked to the first MERS case there. There is currently no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission taking place in the community of Korea. Having regard to the risk assessment, we consider that it is not necessary to raise the response level at this stage. Nevertheless, we convened an inter-departmental meeting in the morning of 3 June 2015 to update relevant departments on the latest situation of MERS so that they could take preventive measures accordingly. In addition, Hong Kong residents travelling to Seoul, Korea are repeatedly reminded to avoid unnecessary visit to the healthcare facilities there. Hong Kong's healthcare facilities and personnel are advised to suspend all exchange or visit activities with healthcare facilities and personnel in Seoul. We will continue to closely monitor the latest developments overseas and maintain liaison with the WHO as well as the Mainland and neighbouring health authorities. The local response and health surveillance will also be adjusted if necessary.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second urgent question.

12210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Immediate Measures to Curb an Outbreak of Epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in Hong Kong

2. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, in South Korea, a spate of 20-odd infection cases of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) has occurred recently. On the 26th of last month, a man who had come into contact with a confirmed patient of MERS in South Korea came to Hong Kong on a flight, and he then went from the airport to Huizhou in Guangdong Province via Sha Tau Kok by taking two cross-boundary coaches one after another. The mainland authorities subsequently confirmed that the man was a MERS patient. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) since the outbreak of the MERS epidemic in South Korea, whether the authorities have enhanced the mechanism for mutual notification and assistance with that country and other relevant countries regarding the MERS outbreak, so as to curb the spread of MERS in Hong Kong; if not, whether they will immediately do so;

(2) whether the authorities will immediately draw up a list of MERS-infected areas which Hong Kong people should avoid visiting; if so, of the details; if not, the circumstances under which they will consider drawing up such a list; and

(3) whether the authorities will immediately review if the existing public healthcare system (including the isolation wards, healthcare personnel, medical apparatus and drugs in various public hospitals, as well as isolation facilities for providing temporary accommodation to people suspected of being infected with MERS) is capable of coping with an outbreak of the MERS epidemic?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President,

(1) Following the emergence of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemic in some Middle East countries in 2012, an imported case has triggered an outbreak of the disease in Korea recently. The Centre for Health Protection (CHP) has been keeping close liaison with the World Health Organization (WHO) and health LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12211

authorities of the Mainland and Korea, and so on, to obtain the latest information. We will continue to closely monitor the latest developments abroad and communicate with the WHO and health authorities of the Mainland and other neighbouring places so as to update our response strategy and health surveillance measures accordingly.

(2) The Government has been closely monitoring the MERS outbreak in the Middle East region and Korea. So far there is no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission of the disease taking place in the community. Having regard to the relevant risk assessment, we consider that it is not necessary at this stage to raise the relevant Alert Response Level. Nevertheless, we convened an inter-departmental meeting in the morning of 3 June 2015 to update relevant departments on the latest situation of MERS so that they could take preventive measures accordingly. Besides, reminders were issued urging travellers to take heed of personal, food and environmental hygiene and avoid visits to healthcare facilities with MERS patients. In particular, Hong Kong travellers to Korea should avoid unnecessary visit to the healthcare facilities in Seoul. Farms, barns and markets with camels should also be avoided. Hong Kong's medical institutions and personnel are advised to suspend all exchange or visit activities with healthcare facilities and personnel in Seoul.

(3) The Hospital Authority (HA) has formulated a comprehensive contingency plan for MERS. Measures taken include urging front-line healthcare personnel to heighten vigilance, report suspected cases timely and conduct early examinations. In respect of protective equipment, HA has kept over 1 million N95 masks and 30 million surgical masks, maintaining a contingency stockpile level sufficient for 90-day use. Besides, HA monitors the utilization of isolation wards regularly. As at 1 June 2015, HA provided about 1 300 isolation beds in 630 isolation wards.

The HA also maintains contact with the CHP. When a suspected case is detected, the subject person will be immediately referred to the Infectious Disease Centre in Princess Margaret Hospital for 12212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

isolation and further tests. All hospital clusters will provide support when necessary. Moreover, HA will update the information from time to time and maintain communication with its staff through its intranet. Under the contingency plan, each cluster has contingency measures for staff deployment and service provision which can be put into operation when required.

Moreover, public hospitals have stepped up their infection control measures. These measures include requiring visitors to Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments and out-patient clinics to put on surgical masks; and requiring patients who have fever and influenza symptoms but without travel history to stay in the Influenza-like Illness Segregation Area in the A&E departments while waiting for consultation. Virus testing and isolation arrangements have also been stepped up. Patients who have fever and respiratory symptoms, and with history of travel to affected areas (including healthcare facilities in Seoul, South Korea) in the past two to 14 days will be arranged for viral test and immediate isolation.

On the other hand, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, the Government will implement quarantine arrangements on close contacts of cases of MERS in accordance with Part 5 of the Prevention and Control of Disease Regulation (Cap. 599A). Regarding local response to the first case of MERS exported from Korea to mainland China, the Government converted the Lady MacLehose Holiday Village in Sai Kung under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department into a quarantine centre on 29 May 2015 for quarantine of asymptomatic close contacts. As at 2 June 2015, 19 close contacts in Hong Kong are being quarantined and they present no symptoms so far.

The Administration will continue to monitor the latest developments and adopt appropriate measures for prevention, isolation and treatment to protect public health.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third urgent question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12213

Requirement for People from Middle East and South Korea to Complete and Submit Health Declaration Forms

3. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Given that 20-odd confirmed cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) have recently been found in South Korea and that the authorities have enhanced the infection control for MERS in public hospitals, will the Government inform this Council whether it will require with immediate effect all people from the Middle East and South Korea to complete and submit health declaration forms when entering Hong Kong by sea or by air; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Department of Health (DH) has been conducting body temperature checks on all inbound travellers at boundary control points, and those with fever will be examined. There is an established set of criteria for compulsory referral in respect of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), which consists of clinical criteria and epidemiological criteria. The clinical criteria include body temperature at or above 38°C and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. The epidemiological criteria include having travelled to or resided in a country or region affected by MERS before onset of illness, or having close contact with patients infected with MERS. If an inbound traveller fulfils both the clinical and epidemiological criteria, the Port Health Office will compulsorily refer the traveller to a hospital under the Hospital Authority for further examination in an isolation ward.

In view of the latest outbreak situation in Korea and the fact that we have yet to obtain from the Korean authorities information on the healthcare facilities affected by MERS, the DH has enhanced surveillance measures in this regard. Inbound visitors who have recently visited healthcare facilities in Seoul and have fever and respiratory symptoms will be classified as suspected MERS cases. All visitors with fever will be referred to the port health officers at boundary control points for diagnosis. They will also be required to sign the health assessment form as a confirmation that the information provided is correct and reminded of the liability for providing false information.

The Administration will keep in view the development of MERS and modify the preventive and control measures as appropriate.

12214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now invite Members to ask supplementary questions.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, although the Government responded quickly this time and was able to timely track the patients and quarantine them, the Government has yet to obtain from the South Korean authorities information on the healthcare facilities that have treated or are treating MERS patients. Given the frequent exchanges between Hong Kong and South Korea, many Hong Kong people go to South Korea for holiday, studies and work, and with the summer holiday approaching, many Hong Kong people intend to go to South Korea for holiday. However, as the Government has not issued any travel advice or alert, people are greatly perplexed and do not know what to do. I would like to ask under what circumstances the authorities would issue an Outbound Travel Alert on South Korea due to the epidemic outbreak.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, one of the important authorities we should draw reference from is of course the WHO, as its monitoring of epidemic outbreaks in various regions in the world should be the most comprehensive and authoritative. Up till now, the WHO has not recommended imposing travel restrictions on South Korea or any other MERS-affected regions. However, as stated by Mr CHAN, owing to the frequent exchanges between Hong Kong and South Korea and the fact that many Hong Kong people will visit South Korea for various reasons, we are greatly concerned about the situation. According to the information in hand, in this epidemic, all 30 cases in South Korea are directly or indirectly linked to the first patient (the target patient in South Korea) who returned to South Korea after visiting the MERS-affected places in the Middle East.

According to the information we have in hand, there are no signs of sustained community transmission of MERS in South Korea. Hence, at present we only target at the riskiest places, that is, the healthcare facilities. We urge all Hong Kong residents who go to South Korea for sight-seeing or for any other reasons to avoid visits to any healthcare facilities there. If they must visit the healthcare facilities for whatever reasons, they must take appropriate protective measures including wearing a mask and keeping their hands clean.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12215

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, having experienced the SARS epidemic in 2003, no one in Hong Kong would forget the painful lesson, and neither should the Secretary. It has been reported that some healthcare staff were infected after coming into contact with a MERS patient for just five minutes. This South Korean target patient could be a super spreader of the disease. It is well-known to all that we must make long-term consideration. First, we should not forget that up till today, the South Korean authorities have not disclosed the names of the healthcare facilities affected. At present, visitors arriving in Hong Kong from South Korea are required to sign a health assessment form only if they have a fever, that is, they might have been infected. Why not require all people who had come into contacts with MERS patients or who had been to hospitals to report on their health conditions even if they do not have a fever; or require all people arriving in Hong Kong from the affected regions to undergo a health assessment even if they do not have a fever but have symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection? Can the authorities be more foresighted?

The Secretary talked about having to wait for the instruction of the WHO, to which I somewhat disagree. We can recall that during the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong, those who had the most information in hand and who were most experienced were the local …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please do not make lengthy comments.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Yes, President. I wish to say that the incumbent Director-General of the WHO is Dr Margaret CHAN and we all remember that she was the Director of Health at that time. Since she could not provide appropriate advice for us then, if the Secretary looks to the WHO for advice on whether to raise the alert response level or on other actions to be taken, including …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Member please ask the supplementary question at once.

12216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … Will it be a bit risky to look to Dr Margaret CHAN for advice? Will the Secretary promise to take precautionary measures and not to wait till there is the third or fourth generation of transmissions? By then, it will be too late.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I wish to make two points. First, as I have already said, we do not only require people with a fever to undergo health assessment, people showing symptoms such as those relating to respiratory system infection are also required to undergo health assessment.

Second, I also have to point out that the measures that we are taking are already more stringent than the guidelines adopted in other places in the world, including the WHO. As we have not yet received the list of affected healthcare facilities in South Korea, we have taken a number of measures. For example, anyone who had visited any healthcare facilities in South Korea or Seoul and is showing relevant symptoms will immediately be treated as a suspect case. Also, I urge all Hong Kong residents to avoid visiting any healthcare facilities in Seoul. Moreover, a more precautionary approach is to suspend all exchange activities between the medical personnel of Hong Kong and South Korea.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please leave the time for other Members to ask questions. There are 17 Members still waiting for their turn to ask question.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered the last point of my question. I asked him about preventive measures, such as issuing travel alerts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think that the Secretary has already answered. Even if the Secretary has not fully answered your supplementary question, other Members will follow up.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12217

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned several times that he was unable to obtain information on the healthcare facilities in South Korea that had treated MERS patients. Has he tried to negotiate with South Korea for the information through the WHO or the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China in Hong Kong? Although the Secretary urges the public to avoid visits to hospitals or healthcare facilities in Seoul, sometimes it is inevitable as people who go to Seoul for sight-seeing or work may fall ill and have to seek treatment in hospital. If they avoid going to hospital and delay seeking medical treatment, their conditions may deteriorate. The Secretary should force the South Korean authorities to provide useful information on what hospitals to be avoided; instead of asking people to avoid all hospitals. Has the Secretary sought help from the two agencies?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, you have already raised your supplementary question. Please sit down and let the Secretary answer.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, since we were unable to obtain information directly from the South Korean health authorities, we have already sought help from the WHO in the hope of obtaining the relevant information through it. On the other hand, Hong Kong also maintains liaison with the South Korean representatives stationed in Hong Kong.

DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): President, will the Secretary provide more clinical information about this disease, for example, the symptoms and special features, and how to distinguish between MERS and other respiratory infection diseases? Apart from inquiring the patient what places he had been and what animals he had come into contact with, how can we confirm if a patient had contracted MERS and how much time is needed for the confirmation; are there any special treatment for MERS and what is the prognosis? I have heard that elderly patients would be more seriously affected while the impact on younger patients is less serious. Can the Secretary provide more clinical information?

12218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I may not have all the information requested by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, but I will try to provide the information that I can grasp. I can provide additional information should Dr LEUNG has such a demand.

As I have explained, MERS is caused by a coronavirus, which is different from those that have caused other diseases such as SARS. According to the information we have in hand, this disease is mainly transmitted by respiratory droplets. The symptoms mainly include fever and other respiratory infection symptoms. I believe we are all aware that it is hard to tell whether a patient has contracted MERS or just common seasonal flu by the symptoms alone. Therefore, clinically, we must also check if the patient meets the epidemiological criteria in order to confirm whether it is a MERS case or not.

Regarding tests, Hong Kong can now conduct a genetic test; a rapid test can be completed within a day to confirm or rule out whether a case is related to MERS or not.

As regards treatment, up till now we do not have a special drug that specifically treats MERS. Hence, in the whole treatment process, supportive treatment is very important, which include rehydration, maintaining the metabolic balance, supporting the breathing and preventing invasive infection, and so on.

As for the medication to alleviate the symptoms, some experts opine that certain drugs used for treating SARS, such as interferon, can be used for treating MERS. However, these are no specialized drugs for treating the virus that caused MERS.

In respect of the risks, chronic patients or patients with lower resistance to diseases have higher risks.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has actually done a good job this time. If a certain region is in a state of political turmoil, the Security Bureau will issue alerts and advise people not to go there. After the issuance of travel alerts, travel agencies will automatically refund their customers or change the itinerary. I wonder if this would become more common because people have more frequent exchanges with one another. Have the authorities thought of declaring a certain place a MERS-affected area at a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12219 certain point and urge the people not to go there? If people have already paid the tour fees which cannot be refunded but if they insist ongoing there, mishaps might happen. Has the Secretary thought about how to handle such a situation?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the CHP has all along been providing information on its website informing the public on areas to note in relation to their health when travelling to other places in the world. Given that public health is a rather complicated issue, we cannot simply delineate the risks of visiting a certain place as level one, two and three; instead, we need to consult experts' medical views. The DH also provides port health services. If Hong Kong residents plan to visit Africa or tropical regions for sight-seeing purpose, they can surf website or consult the Port Health Office. The Office will tell them the places where malaria is prevalent and what preventive medication should be taken before the trip; as well as places where yellow fever is prevalent and what kind of vaccination is needed before the trip, and so on. We have made great efforts in helping the public in this area.

In respect of the development of MERS, we will upload on the website the new measures taken in the last few days and our advice. For example, the most important message is that people should not just focus their attention on South Korea as the Middle East is still the main region affected by MERS. We will provide detailed guidelines about visits to the Middle East and South Korea, urging people to avoid contact with animals, wild animals and birds, and also avoid visiting farms; and if people visit the Middle East, in particular, they should avoid coming into contact with camels, or products or environments related to camels, and they should also avoid visits to healthcare facilities where there are MERS cases.

Of course, the situation in South Korea is somewhat special in the sense that we do not know which healthcare facilities have been affected. Hence for the time being, we can only advise people against visiting any healthcare facilities in Seoul. If they must go to such facilities, what should they do? Let me explain. If someone falls ill or is injured during his visit to Seoul or the Middle East and has to go to hospital, he has to wear a mask and keep his hands clean in the hospital. Concerning that, we will provide detailed information instead of just issuing an alert.

12220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, WHO announced in the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network on 24 May the emergence of the first MERS case in the United Arab Emirates and then similar cases appeared in Hong Kong. On 29 May, China reported to the WHO about a confirmed case.

According to the information on the website, there have been 1 135 MERS cases with 427 deaths, and the mortality rate is as high as 37%, I wish to ask the Secretary whether MERS is a deadly disease? Although the WHO website does not advise countries to take any special measures relating to immigration control or issue travel alerts, as MERS has such a high mortality rate and we are not sure about the epidemic situation in South Korea, will the Government take some more proactive measures to prevent this disease from being spread to Hong Kong?

Besides, the website also advises the public against drinking fresh camel milk and camel urine or eating uncooked camel meat. Has Hong Kong imported camel milk, camel urine or camel meat?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, from my reply just now, Members can see that on the one hand, we have to make reference to the WHO's policies or guidelines, especially in respect of whether we should issue travel alerts on certain places from the healthcare point of view, and that is where the WHO's power lies. On the other hand, however, as regards what actions to take, we do not totally follow the WHO's guidelines. In respect of MERS, we have a comprehensive contingency plan and many of the measures we adopt are not required by the WHO.

At present, since MERS in South Korea is mainly spread in healthcare facilities, we urge people not to visit any healthcare facilities in Seoul and we also advise all local healthcare personnel to suspend their medical exchange or visit activities with their counterparts in South Korea. We have also added this element to the definition of a suspect case. All these measures, coupled with the body temperature checks conducted at all boundary control points, can prevent the disease from spreading to Hong Kong. Many people would query if body temperature checks are effective and it has been proven so. Every day, dozens of inbound travellers with a fever have been detected and they need to undergo LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12221 health assessments at the port health posts. These health assessments give us the chance to obtain from these people who show symptoms detailed contact information as well as their travel and contact histories, and to understand their physical conditions, so as to determine whether to list them as suspected cases and have them hospitalized for quarantine and further examination.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): Has Hong Kong imported camel products?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I beg your pardon; we do not have the information at the moment. I will look it up later on.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are 13 Members on the waiting list to ask questions. According to our usual practice, I will give the priority to those Members on the list who have asked the fewest questions in the past. As Members keep joining the queue, the order of asking may change and that is why the order of waiting is not shown on the screen.

The next three Members on the list are Mr Steven HO, Prof Joseph LEE and Mr Alan LEONG.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I believe that having learned about the incident, Hong Kong people will heighten their alert when they travel to South Korea or other special places. However, I worry about the number of Hong Kong people who are caught off guard and the risk of a mass outbreak in Hong Kong. The target patient from South Korean took two cross-boundary coaches to the boundary and another one into the Mainland. I have learned from the newspaper that the incubation period of this disease is 14 days. In other words, some Hong Kong residents in the Mainland may go back to Hong Kong during this period. I would like to know how the Government estimate the number of Hong Kong people who may be caught off guard and contract the disease under such circumstances, and how high this risk is.

12222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): First of all, I must point out the views raised in Mr Steven HO's supplementary question that I disagree. Hong Kong's preventive measures against MERS are relatively stringent when compared with those taken by many other countries. If we are to estimate the risk of an outbreak of MERS in Hong Kong, one must understand that not only MERS but all infectious diseases have an incubation period. There is always the possibility that someone shows no symptom when entering Hong Kong during the incubation period. Hence, I must make it clear to the public that we cannot rule out this possibility. In other words, there is always a risk that someone having contracted the disease in the Middle East or South Korea but is asymptomatic when entering Hong Kong, but fell sick later and spread the disease in Hong Kong.

Most importantly, first, we have put in place relatively stringent monitoring measures at all boundary control points. Anyone entering Hong Kong showing any symptoms such as fever or respiratory tract infection symptoms will be required to undergo a health assessment and then sent to hospital for quarantine and further examination. For anyone who is asymptomatic when entering Hong Kong but come down with MERS later, all our front-line healthcare personnel are very clear about the guidelines on how to deal with such cases. These guidelines are drawn up on the basis of clinical and epidemiological criteria.

The clinical criteria include a body temperature at or above 38°C and respiratory tract infection symptoms. Of course, one may argue that according to these criteria, it may not be able to tell if a person has contracted MERS or other respiratory tract infections diseases, but at least patients with these symptoms can be identified. Compared with an asymptomatic patient during the incubation period, a patient showing symptoms will more likely spread the disease. After checking against the clinical criteria, we will check against the epidemiological criteria, which is also very important. We keep expanding the scope of screening. For example, at first only people arriving from the affected regions in the Middle East were screened but now people from South Korea are also screened. We also specify that those who have had contacts with MERS patients or wild animals (such as camels) or their environments or products, who has visited the Middle East or South Korea, or who have been to medical facilities that may be treating MERS patients will have to be quarantined. In respect of South Korea, as I do not know which healthcare facilities have been affected, I have included all such facilities in Seoul in the monitoring scope.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12223

With these two sets of criteria, our front-line healthcare personnel will heighten their alert and when people who enter Hong Kong asymptomatically but later show symptoms and seek medical attention, they can be identified as soon as possible. After these cases are identified, we have a rather mature way of dealing with these cases. As we have the guidelines, once a suspected case is identified, we will immediately send the patient to hospital for quarantine. If a person is asymptomatic but has had close contact with a confirmed MERS patient, we will also take swift action. That is why we were able to quickly identify the people who had had close contact with the target South Korean patient. Now all 19 close contacts are under quarantine in Hong Kong. As long as they do not show any symptoms after 14 days of isolation, they should be safe.

Even though we cannot rule out there are patients who enter Hong Kong asymptomatically during the incubation period but fall ill later, we have the capacity to make corresponding arrangements that allow us to identify these patients quickly and have them monitored or isolated appropriately or even send them to hospital for treatment.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary just gives an account of what should be done to prevent the spread of the disease from the viewpoint of a technocrat. The Secretary mentioned about the epidemic in South Korea and urged Hong Kong people not to go there and avoid visits to healthcare facilities there in particular. I consider what the Secretary said was common sense. We all know that we should avoid dangerous places and do not need the Secretary to remind us. The crux of the problem now lies with the Secretary, apart from explaining the disease prevention work from a technocrat's point of view, has he, as an accountability public officer, properly handled the political issue concerning the lack of co-operation on the part of South Korea which refuses to provide us with the necessary information. When answering Mr CHAN Han-pan's main question, the Secretary said that South Korea had not provided the information but in answering Dr KWOK Ka-ki, he said that South Korea had provided the latest information. His answer was rather confusing but he has just admitted that he could not get the information.

Some Members have mentioned the WHO and the Secretary has said that he had consulted it. As a politically accountable public officer, has the Secretary considered complaining to the WHO and taking a tougher stance to 12224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 demand the relevant information from the South Korean authorities when implementing the inspection and quarantine policies in Hong Kong? This is the first point. Second, as the South Korean government has not provided the information, as the public officer in charge of healthcare in Hong Kong, will he consider using political tactics to tackle this problem? For example, in response to its rather unco-operative attitude, will Hong Kong conduct special inspections on all incoming South Koreans?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, if Members have paid attention to what I said just now, they will know that we have … As far as I understand, Prof LEE asked if we could handle this issue from the political point of view, that is, if we could directly ask the South Korean authorities or the WHO what medical facilities had accepted MERS patients, we could have a more direct approach; but if we could not obtain the information, would I lodge a complaint with the WHO against the South Korean authorities. For me, even if we elevate this issue to the political level, the most important consideration is still to protect public health in Hong Kong.

As regards South Korea, we have made the appropriate response but the response is not purely or simply a political repercussion or political consideration; rather, because we are unable to obtain the relevant information, we can only treat all healthcare facilities in the Seoul area as high-risk places and advise Hong Kong people against going to such facilities when visiting Seoul; and if they must pay a visit, they must take precautionary measures. At the same time, we have also suspended all academic exchanges between the local healthcare personnel and bodies and their counterparts in Seoul. If Prof LEE accepts my explanation, he will see that because we are unable to obtain the relevant information from South Korea, we must expand the scope of screening. To a certain extent, from the perspective of protecting public health in Hong Kong, I think we have appropriately responded to the lack of transparency on the part of South Korea.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Next I will invite Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and …

(Prof Joseph LEE stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12225

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. My question was whether Hong Kong would, in response to this situation, conduct more stringent inspection on people arriving in Hong Kong from Seoul, South Korea? He has not answered this question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As 14 Members are waiting for their turn to ask questions, I will not let Members follow up the questions that the Secretary has not answered. I believe if the Secretary has not answered a Member's question, other Members who are waiting will certainly follow up. Next, I will invite Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr LEUNG Che-cheung to ask questions.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, having experienced the SARS epidemic in 2003, the people of Hong Kong would turn pale at the mention of such diseases and they would stay highly alert. The Secretary has already mentioned about the South Korea Government's evasiveness or lack of transparency. My question is: because of South Korea's lack of co-operation, which I describe as cover-up or non-transparent, will the authorities step up the preventive measures? I recall that during the SARS epidemic in 2003, all Hong Kong-bound passengers were required to undergo health screening on board the airplane. Will the authorities consider taking these measures again and require all inbound passengers on flights from South Korea in particular to undergo appropriate health screening to prevent the spread of the disease in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr IP for the question. Our colleagues from the Port Health Office have kept close contacts with the relevant sectors, including the tourism industry and airline companies. Allow me to explain a little more in detail in respect of MERS. I have already mentioned that every week there are over 200 Hong Kong-bound flights from South Korea and we have contacted all relevant airline companies. As far as I know, these airline companies have stepped up, or are going to step up, the preventive measures, including broadcasting messages on board the airplane when they enter the territory of Hong Kong, reminding passengers that they must contact the Port Health Office personnel if they have any symptoms or risk factors. We have also reminded airline companies to pay closer attention to the physical conditions of the passengers on board the airplanes. This is what I would like to add.

12226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I find the Secretary's remarks absurd. When other countries do not co-operate with us, we take corresponding measures. But when I was refused entry by the Malaysian Government, they said they would not interfere with other countries' business. What kind of Government is this?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, over 10 Members are waiting to ask questions.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I just want to say that since the Government does not even dare to offend a country like South Korea, how about Mainlanders who come to Hong Kong? Do not forget that the SARS epidemic in 2003 was caused by the Mainland's cover-up of the situation there. Although so many boundary control points have been set up to screen the people who come to Hong Kong by air and by sea, how are screening conducted on people who come by car? Do they get screened? If everyone is like WANG Yang, who came to Hong Kong by car to have dinner with LEUNG Chun-ying, do you dare to screen them? Have we wasted our time by setting up so many boundary control points? I am now asking you, President, when you led a delegation of Members to visit the Mainland, did they check your body temperature? Of course not. Did they dare to do so? Did they check your body temperature? (Some Members in their seats said yes) If they did, how do we check the body temperatures of the incoming Mainlanders?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please ask your supplementary question immediately.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): We have to undergo checking when we go to the Mainland, how about the incoming Mainlanders? I wish to ask the Secretary KO how the health examination is conducted at the boundary control points we keep setting up? Have detailed guidelines been drawn up? If the passengers in a vehicle are shielded from sight by curtains, will these passengers be pulled out of the vehicle for examination?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12227

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have already asked your supplementary question. Please sit down and let the Secretary answer.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, I wish to ask how many boundary control points there are; how many people have been examined and if their examination records have been kept. Some people do not have to go through the boundary control points …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have asked many questions. Please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): One other question. Are there special persons who need not hold any travel documents to get through the customs? Would these persons be pulled out of the vehicle for examination? Or will the examination be done on the vehicle …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down at once and let the Secretary answer.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … Did you hear my question clearly? I repeat. Are there records? Are there persons who come to Hong Kong without holding any diplomatic documents? How are these people examined?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, concerning the preventive measures of MERS, I wish to point out that we have contacted all airline companies that operate Hong Kong-bound flights from South Korea and asked them to pay close attention to the health conditions of the passengers and remind the passengers to report their health conditions if they have relevant symptoms.

We are conducting temperature screening at all boundary control points and all persons having a fever or respiratory infection symptoms are required to undergo a health assessment. This is conducted in accordance with the local 12228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 legislation. We have prepared a health assessment form, delineating the personal particulars that a visitor must provide, such as his contact information in Hong Kong, symptoms shown during the health assessment, and most importantly, contact history and travel history. In respect of the travel history, he would be asked if he had been to any of the MERS-affected areas. As regards the contact history, he would be asked specifically if he had come into contact with any confirmed MERS patients or he had been to any healthcare facilities.

Lastly, after asking the visitors such questions and assessing their health conditions, the port health staff will sign the record. Starting from yesterday, we have reminded the visitors that they also bear legal responsibility and asked them to confirm the health assessment record by signing it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Member asked if there were certain incoming visitors exempted from temperature screening and health assessment due to their position or the way they entered Hong Kong.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): All incoming visitors must have their temperatures checked. If any visitors are found to have a fever, our staff will certainly ask them to undergo a heath assessment.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, he has not answered my supplementary question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the Secretary has answered your supplementary question. Please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, he did not hear clearly. Those holding entry or exit documents are travellers but those not holding such documents are not travellers. He has answered the other part but are there records of such people coming to Hong Kong?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12229

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, it is you who have not heard clearly. The Secretary has answered your supplementary question. Please sit down. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please ask your question.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, MERS is transmitted by respiratory droplets. When answering Mr CHAN Han-pan, the Secretary mentioned the definition of a close contact, that is, among the 158 passengers on board the flight, 81 were in the same cabin with the target patient, and 29 of them were within two rows of him and only they were classified as close contacts. After investigation, those 29 passengers were quarantined. Secretary, though we have the experience after the SARS epidemic and we know how to avoid contracting infectious diseases, I worry that if the target patient had moved around on board the flight or changed his seat, would the authorities have overlooked some people who might have been infected but not been quarantined …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Member please ask the supplementary question at once.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): We are very worried about such a case. May I ask if the Secretary would advise the passengers on board all flights or coaches to wear masks?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, it would not be a problem for anyone to wear a mask for health or any other reasons but we will not require all people to wear masks.

On the other hand, when we defined which persons had close contacts with the patient on board the flight, we of course gave full consideration to scientific evidence. As this disease is transmitted by respiratory droplets, what matters is the distance between the target patient and the close contacts and the duration of contact.

12230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

When we set down the specific definition, we also made reference to the standards of advanced countries, such as Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom. Besides, we have also defined those who constantly moved around on board the plane, such as the cabin crew, as close contacts. The risks are certainly relative. No one can say the person sitting next to the patient was 100% at risk while the one sitting at the back of the cabin was absolutely safe. Therefore, we could only calculate each person's risks of exposure to the patient's respiratory droplets based on his distance to the patient and the duration of contact.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Next I will invite Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Ms Cyd HO to ask questions.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, in accordance with the current legislation, if an incoming traveller with a fever provides false information in the health declaration form, he is liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months if convicted. However, the South Korean target patient left for Huizhou soon after arriving in Hong Kong and fell ill in Huizhou. Under such circumstances, how can the authorities enforce the law? If the law is not enforced, there will be no deterrent effect. Do we have to wait till he has recovered and transit to Hong Kong before returning to South Korea to institute prosecution against him?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, this patient did provide false information to the port health officers when a health assessment was conducted. We will treat this case very seriously. We will consult the Department of Justice and if the Department considers there is sufficient evidence, we will consider taking legal action.

Of course, the Member has also mentioned that the patient is not in Hong Kong now and we have to wait till he is in Hong Kong before we can take any action.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12231

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, having experienced the SARS epidemic in 2003, the people of Hong Kong will be scared just at the mention of MERS. In the light of the present situation in South Korea, Secretary, some people in Hong Kong are perplexed, because if their work requires them to go to South Korea and in the absence of a travel alert, they will have no choice but to go there.

The Secretary advised people to avoid unnecessary visits to healthcare facilities there but if they really fall ill, they will have no choice but to visit these facilities. What should they do if they need to seek medical treatment there? Will the Hong Kong Government provide assistance to Hong Kong residents in South Korea who need medical services but are reluctant to go to the healthcare facilities there? Will a hotline be set up for Hong Kong residents to make enquiries? For Hong Kong residents who have visited the healthcare facilities in South Korea, will they be quarantined when they return to Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I have just said in my answer, if people have to go to Seoul, South Korea for whatever reasons, we would advise them not to make unnecessary visits to healthcare facilities as far as possible. However, if they have to go to such facilities because of illness or other important reasons ― fortunately, we know that MERS is transmitted by respiratory droplets ― it is most important for them to wear a mask to protect themselves and wash their hands after coming into contact with any objects. That is the most effective way to prevent the MERS infection.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): I hope the Secretary can force the South Korean authorities, through the WHO, to disclose the information about the epidemic situation there. My question is a follow-up of Mr IP Kwok-him's question. Passengers on board a plane are confined to a small space for a few hours and they may be very close to a disease carrier.

We are now conducting a temperature screening of incoming travellers. However, if the situation in South Korea worsens, will the authorities consider requiring the relevant airline companies to conduct temperature screening of passengers of all Hong Kong-bound flights from South Korea before they board 12232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 the plane? In doing so, at least the airline companies would know that no passengers have health issues. Even though drastic actions such as barring passengers from boarding the plane might not be taken, at least passengers who require special care can be identified.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): As I have said earlier, the actions taken by Hong Kong at present are already relatively stringent. There are over 200 Hong Kong-bound flights from South Korea every week, we have contacted the relevant airline companies and requested them to broadcast appropriate messages when the plane was approaching Hong Kong to remind the passengers and also to pay attention to the health conditions of the passengers on board the plane. I believe those are the most important measures.

Of course, when we conduct health assessments on incoming passengers and if we find any passenger having a fever or respiratory infection symptoms, and his contact history or travel history indicates that he had come into contact with MERS patients or had been to medical facilities, he will be considered a suspected case. As regards whether we can request other countries to do anything on outgoing travellers heading for Hong Kong, I believe it will be rather difficult for us to do so.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I am referring to airline companies, not countries.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, concerning the question about airline companies, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I have nothing to add.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Next, I will invite Miss Alice MAK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Dr Kenneth CHAN to ask questions.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12233

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, after the SARS epidemic outbreak in Hong Kong, I believe our healthcare personnel have the experience and they will be very careful in preventing the spread of diseases. We have confidence in them. However, what we are dealing with is an irresponsible counterpart. The South Korean President, PARK Geun-hye, has also admitted her country's inadequate response measures in handling the epidemic. We have to face an irresponsible counterpart and the information provided is inadequate. When answering Mr CHAN Han-pan and Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the Secretary said that according to the information provided by the South Korean authorities, there is no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission of the disease in the South Korean community. But since the South Korean authorities are so irresponsible that they do not even provide the list of healthcare facilities affected, would it be possible that they have underestimated the seriousness of the epidemic in South Korea? I am not saying that the Secretary has intentionally underestimated the situation, but the information provided has led him make the mistake. Then, will the Secretary take the precautionary measures and instead of advising the public not to go to the healthcare facilities in South Korea, just tell them not to go to South Korea at all? Will a travel alert be issued?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): As I have said just now when answering various questions, we mainly have to draw reference from the WHO's practice when deciding whether to issue a travel alert or impose travel restrictions on a certain place, and most importantly, we have to see if there is a sustained transmission of the disease in the community of the place concerned.

Of course, I understand Miss MAK's feelings. However, I must clarify one point. When we said that the South Korean authorities have not been transparent in the provision of information, we only refer to the fact that they have not provided the list of healthcare facilities affected by MERS. As regards other aspects, such as the information on the number of reported cases (30 cases so far), and the places where the patients contracted the disease, and so on, relevant information has been provided. Hence, according to the information provided, we estimate that there is no sustained transmission of the disease in the community of South Korea. Under such circumstances, a travel alert should not be issued according to the standard of the WHO.

12234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Anyhow, we are duty-bound to remind the public. Our advice is already more stringent than that given by the WHO or any other places. We urge the public to avoid visits to the healthcare facilities in South Korea as far as possible and we also ask our healthcare personnel to suspend all exchanges with their counterparts in South Korea. We have also incorporated this element into the definition of a suspect case. As a matter of fact, we have gone as far as we can.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, fortunately the filibuster has been cut off; otherwise, we could not raise this oral question which is the prime concern of the people.

President, it has been reported earlier that the personnel conducting temperature screening at the boundary control points are contract staff. Their morale is low because they do not get "equal pay for equal work" and they do not have adequate medical insurance coverage. I wish to ask if the Secretary is concerned about this problem. Can he clarify whether the personnel conducting temperature screening at the boundary control points are contract staff? It would be ideal if they are not contract staff but employed on civil service permanent terms. But if they are contract staff, how will the Secretary boost their morale and ensure that they will not be exposed to any life-threatening danger and can thus properly discharge their duties of conducting temperature screening?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, at present there are over 600 staff working at various boundary control points and they include both government employees and outsourced contract employees. I can tell Mr WONG very clearly that we have provided relevant training to both kinds of employees. The number of staff needed to carry out the temperature screening work very often varies, depending on whether there is an outbreak of infectious diseases. When the demand is high, we need to increase the manpower temporarily. Hence, we have an agreement with the outsourced service providers that they have to provide training not only to staff who are on duty, but also to some other workers in advance, so that when there is a demand for manpower on a temporary basis, we will have trained staff to carry out the work.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12235

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered if the contract staff have the same level of medical insurance coverage. I did not ask about staff training.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, I have already said that many Members are waiting and I will not allow Members to follow up on the answer of the Secretary.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, while we are now discussing this problem, some university students already set off on an exchange tour in South Korea yesterday. There are also many other people who, due to work requirement, go to South Korea or the Middle East region or pass by those areas. As such, may I ask the Secretary to review the issuance of travel alerts every day in their inter-departmental meeting; otherwise, more and more people will be exposed to unnecessary risks during the summer holidays.

President, the Secretary mentioned just now in his answer that the South Korean patient went to the Mainland via Hong Kong. Among the 29 passengers who had been in close contact with him on board the plane, 19 were found and the other 10 are yet to be contacted. The Secretary said that their information has been passed to the Immigration Department. My supplementary question is whether those 10 persons are permanent residents of Hong Kong. If they return or come to Hong Kong, what procedures will they have to undergo to ensure that our guard against the invasion of this infectious disease is secure?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as regards Dr CHAN's first question, we are actually reviewing the situation every day. We monitor closely the increase in the number of cases in South Korea, especially if there are cases beyond the third-generation transmission and if there are fourth-generation transmissions or even cases with unknown sources of infection for these are signs of a sustained transmission in the community. Although we may not convene an inter-departmental meeting every day, I am monitoring the epidemic situation closely.

12236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

The second question is related to the other 10 close contacts, we have turned their information to the Immigration Department mainly because if they come to Hong Kong again, we will be able to find them. One of the 19 close contacts was located through this system when he re-entered Hong Kong.

As regards the 10 close contacts not in Hong Kong, it is learnt that six of them are being monitored in the Mainland and the other four have returned to South Korea. We have passed their information to the Immigration Department as well as to the South Korean health authorities so that appropriate monitoring can be conducted. If these people come to Hong Kong again, the Immigration Department will also be aware.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do the authorities know if there are Hong Kong residents among these 10 persons?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I do not have the information in hand. I can provide it in writing later on. (Appendix I)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Next I will invite Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Paul TSE to ask questions.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Last year when there was an outbreak of MERS, the authorities invited the travel agencies for a meeting. The Secretary attended the meeting to introduce to us the precautionary measures. That was a very good approach. As more Hong Kong people will travel to South Korea than to the Middle East, in the light of the epidemic outbreak in South Korea, will the authorities enhance the publicity to remind travel agencies or people who plan to go to South Korea or the Middle East to take proper precautionary measures?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YIU for his supplementary question. We have been liaising closely with the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong, providing it with the latest information and relevant guidelines in a timely manner, so that travel agencies can take proper LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12237 care of their clients during the tours and pay attention to their health conditions. More importantly, we keep reminding travel agencies that if they operate any tours to visit the Middle East regions, they should not arrange their clients for camel riding or contacting any camel-related products or environments, no matter such activities are self-financed or not. We will hold a seminar if necessary.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, in general, tourists will not go to healthcare facilities unless in case of emergency such as traffic accidents or sports injuries. However, as South Korea is famous for cosmetic surgeries, will the Secretary urge men and women not to go there for such surgeries for the time being? Are the facilities performing cosmetic surgeries considered as healthcare facilities? If they are, will the Secretary urge people not to have cosmetic surgeries for the time being?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I have clarified on a number of occasions that when I talk about the healthcare facilities in Seoul, South Korea, I also refer to facilities performing plastic or cosmetic surgeries.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, among those tracked by the DH for having contact with the South Korean patient and being quarantined, there was a student from Pui Kiu Middle School. It has been reported that Pui Kiu Middle School has taken precautionary measures, which is desirable. If the disease was spread in Hong Kong, schools are places of high risks because children tend to have much physical contact. Hence, has the Secretary considered issuing an alert or guidelines to schools, reminding them to take proper precautionary measures?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for his supplementary question. As a matter of fact, at this morning's inter-departmental meeting, colleagues from the Education Bureau indicated that they had been in close liaison with schools, informing them of the CHP's instruction, especially the part concerning the educational institutions. During this time, I also agree that educational institutions must be reminded to keep an 12238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 eye on the children's health conditions. If any children have a fever or feel unwell, they should be advised to take rest, wear a mask and seek treatment as soon as possible. This advice is always applicable.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, you can say that people "turn pale at the mention of the tiger" or "fear of darkness after seeing the ghosts", the truth is that Hong Kong people are very worried about this problem. Having heard the many supplementary questions this morning, I think there is an imbalance here. Are we overly scared? How are we to maintain a balance between the social health and economic vibrancy in Hong Kong? Is South Korea the only place that we should worry about?

In respect of Outbound Travel Alerts or advice given by the DH concerning health issues, so far there has only been one alert related to the Ebola virus disease in Guinea. The latest report only advises that we should be alert to MERS cases. According to the WHO's statistics, as at 29 May, there were 1 139 MERS cases worldwide and 43 deaths, with 24 countries affected. In Asia, apart from South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines are also on the list. Many other countries in the world have also been affected.

Under such circumstances, I hope that members of the public and the Government of Hong Kong will not over-emphasize that this is a problem concerning South Korea only, which is not fair. More importantly, we should strike a right balance. For instance, during the SARS epidemic, the closure of Metropark Hotel Wan Chai dealt a heavy blow to Hong Kong's economy and the tourism industry …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please ask your supplementary question.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is: regarding the command structure or inter-departmental body mentioned by the Secretary and in the paper, are there any representatives from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau or the Tourism Commission? These representatives can make appropriate assessments so that we would not take any measures detrimental to Hong Kong's economy and tourism industry out of our excessive worries and fear.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12239

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I can clearly inform Members that as clearly pointed out by me in press releases in the past few days, South Korea is not the only country affected by MERS, many Middle East countries are affected as well. I have also pointed out time and again, including just now, that the Government has not urged members of the public not to visit the Middle East; instead it advises them or the travel agencies to be very careful and avoid contacts with wild animals and birds, including camels, as well as camel-related products and environments should they go to the Middle East. Therefore, I hope Mr TSE will understand that the Government will not target any particular countries or places and implement policies that are unfair to them. Among those attending the inter-departmental meetings, there are also representatives from the relevant Policy Bureau and department just mentioned by Mr TSE. Hence, our policies will not be imbalanced.

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, my greatest concern is to protect people's health. Will the Government consider advising or warning, not all people in Hong Kong but at least certain groups who are more susceptible to infection diseases as regards their visits to South Korea? As I have yet to hear any such warnings, I would like to ask the Secretary to tell us on behalf of the Government when such alerts will be issued? As the WHO is far away from us, if we have to wait for the WHO's instruction, I wonder how long we will have to wait. Out of our concern for the people of Hong Kong, we wish to ask the Government when it will take such actions.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, to put it simply, I can tell Mr LEONG that I have kept reminding Hong Kong people to avoid unnecessary visits to the healthcare facilities in South Korea. In particular, we must point out that chronic patients and people with lower resistance to illnesses are exposed to higher risks. Wherever they go, be it the Middle East or South Korea, they should bear in mind that they would face even higher risks in places of high risks; and hence, they should avoid going to such places. If they must go, they must take the precautionary measures that I have mentioned earlier, which I will not repeat.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Urgent questions end here.

12240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

Full Implementation of Plastic Shopping Bag Charging Requirement

1. MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The plastic shopping bag (PSB) charging requirement at the retail level was fully implemented on 1 April this year. Free distribution of plastic bags is banned at all points of retail sales of goods, and customers must pay a charge of no less than 50 cents for each plastic bag requested by them. Owing to food hygiene considerations, plastic bags used to carry foodstuff which is without packaging, in non-airtight packaging or chilled or frozen state are exempted from the charge. Also, plastic bags provided alongside services are exempted from the charge. Some members of the public have relayed to me that since the Government's publicity efforts are insufficient and the information it disseminated is confusing, both shop operators and customers generally do not understand the details of the PSB charging requirement, resulting in frequent disputes over PSB charging between them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as a member of the public has relayed to me that he was charged a fee for a plastic bag provided to him by the shop operator which was used for carrying both foodstuff in non-airtight packaging and items not provided alongside services, whether the charging of the fee was mandatory under the PSB charging requirement; if so, whether the authorities have assessed if such a requirement will give rise to confusion, resulting in members of the public being overcharged and shop operators breaching the law inadvertently;

(2) as I have learnt that operators of small and medium shops generally have little understanding of the PSB charging requirement, whether the authorities will consider adopting a lenient approach in handling non-compliance cases during the initial stage of the implementation of the PSB charging requirement; if they will, of the general handling approach and procedures; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the authorities will step up publicity on the PSB charging requirement, in particular by explaining to operators of small and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12241

medium restaurants as well as market traders the scope of the PSB charging requirement so as to allay their doubts; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, the first phase of the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags (the Levy Scheme), which was launched in 2009, applied to some 3 500 chain or large outlets. In order to further address the problem of excessive use of plastic shopping bags (PSB), the PSB Charging has been fully implemented from 1 April 2015 to cover all retailers in Hong Kong.

Under the amended Product Eco-responsibility Ordinance (Cap. 603) (the Ordinance), all retailers in Hong Kong, irrespective of the scale of operation and business nature, have to charge customers not less than 50 cents for each PSB provided in retail sales of goods, save for situations where there is exemption. The PSB charge is to be retained by the shops. Under the Ordinance, businesses which provide PSBs in offering services are not required to charge for PSBs.

Furthermore, certain types of food, drink or medicine for human or animal consumption (collectively as "foodstuff") are entitled to exemption for food hygiene reasons. Specifically, PSBs that contain only foodstuff in frozen/chilled state or in non-airtight packaging are exempted from the PSB charge.

My reply to Mr Tommy CHEUNG's questions is as follows:

(1) As I have explained above, foodstuff in non-airtight packaging are entitled to exemption, and retailers are not required to charge customers for providing PSBs to carry only such items. However, if the same PSB also contain items which are not entitled to exemption, the PSB should be charged in accordance with the Ordinance. Nonetheless, for a take-away meal where eating utensils and sauces provided by a restaurant are put in the same PSB, the exemption will still apply as such utensils and sauces are ancillary items of the take-away meal.

The exemptions under the Ordinance adequately cater for the daily needs of the general public and the common trade practices of the businesses, and strikes a balance between food hygiene concerns and 12242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

environmental protection. The exemptions had been vetted and approved by the Legislative Council before they were finalized for implementation. When members of the public shop at supermarkets and similar outlets, it is common that purchases would cover both items entitled to exemption and those not entitled to exemption at the same time. Allowing retailers to provide free PSBs under such situations would likely undermine the effectiveness of the PSB charging measure.

The PSB Charging has been implemented for two months, whilst members of the public have gradually adapted to the new requirement. I believe that the community at large adopts a reasonable approach in implementing the legislative requirements. Nonetheless, the simplest and most direct way is to "Bring Your Own Bag" (BYOB) while you shop. Apart from saving the PSB charge, one would also help reduce the use of PSBs and protect our environment.

(2) The scope of the PSB Charging has been extended from some 3 500 retail outlets under the first phase to over 100 000 retail points in the territory, and together with the new exemptions, it would be necessary for the general public and retailers to adapt to the new arrangement. Therefore, in the first month of the implementation of the PSB Charging, we had adopted an educational and publicity-based approach by giving verbal warnings and on-site explanations of the legal requirements to retailers who were found to have contravened the requirements. Since 1 May, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) no longer give prior warnings but would take immediate enforcement action against any contraventions, by issuing a $2,000 fixed penalty notice or initiating prosecution proceedings.

(3) In supporting the retail trade to prepare for the implementation of the PSB Charging, we had kick-started extensive publicity and public education activities to raise the awareness of the retail trades since mid-2014. Some 60 briefings were held, covering around 70 trade associations of various retail and catering sectors, to provide information and explanations on the legislative requirements of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12243

PSB Charging. In response to Mr Tommy CHEUNG's earlier suggestion, we conducted an additional briefing for the catering trade on 20 April. We also collaborated with the District Councils and held briefings at each of the 18 districts to disseminate the key messages to local small retailers during the fourth quarter of 2014.

In addition, during January to March 2015 before the implementation of the new measures, the EPD arranged visits to retail outlets in all the districts to distribute publicity materials and to promulgate the legislative requirements. A total of around 32 000 retail outlets were covered in our visits, including some 3 600 restaurants and 9 000 market stalls.

During initial implementation between March and end of May 2015, the EPD had also arranged trained personnel to station at major retail outlets throughout the territory, such as major shopping malls, department stores, supermarkets, and so on, to help explain the PSB Charging requirements to customers and to provide support to retailers.

President, the key objective of the full implementation of the PSB Charging is to provide an economic incentive to reduce the indiscriminate use of PSBs by retailers and the general public, and to deepen the "BYOB" culture among members of the community, which in turn would contribute to effective waste reduction at source. Through continuous publicity and public education, coupled with enforcement actions, the general public and the trade have gradually adapted to the new measures in the first two month of its implementation. With the participation by the public and the concerted support of the trade, I believe PSB Charging will be implemented successfully, and "BYOB" will become part of Hong Kong's "Use less, Waste less" culture.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the situation mentioned by the Secretary in part (1) of the main reply is exactly about the problem I told him two months ago, the problem faced by restaurants. Specifically, when selling hot foodstuffs, restaurants must charge customers for the PSBs used due to the accompanying tomato ketchup or mustard in airtight packaging, or they will be 12244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 fined. After listening to me, the Secretary considered that this was not desirable, so he took the advice and immediately made certain administrative changes to spare operators any penalties under such circumstances.

From this, it can be seen that though the Ordinance has already come into operation, the devil in the details must still be noted. I did not take part in the scrutiny of the relevant bill, but this is not why I think it is not well drafted. Now that the Ordinance has come into operation, may I ask the Secretary whether the Bureau will commence a review to see what improvements can be made? I think that at present, members of the public and the relevant industries (both wet markets and restaurants) still disagree very greatly on the circumstances under which the PSB charge should apply.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, the amended Ordinance has been in force for over two months. As can be observed from my colleagues' contacts with the industries and customers, people have gradually become accustomed to and familiar with the requirements of the legislation. In the past one month, for example, the authorities no longer issued any verbal warnings, but simply took enforcement actions forthwith. Most of the cases clearly involved the contraventions under the Ordinance, one example being the distribution of free PSBs to customers by retailers of slippers or clothing who thought that they would be lucky enough to avoid penalty. Overall, the legislation is clear, and contraventions have occurred merely because certain shop-operators are not yet quite so psychologically ready.

Hence, we consider that the public generally find the relevant requirements acceptable. But in case the industries (especially small shop-operators) still do not have a clear understanding in this regard and we thus need to enhance communication with them, we will be more than happy to do so and step up our education and publicity efforts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12245

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My focus is not the overall or general situation. Rather, my focus is whether the Secretary will commence a review to see how the relevant requirements of the legislation can be perfected, now that the Ordinance has been in force for two months or so.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will the Government conduct a review?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Ordinance has been in force for only two months or so. We will of course closely monitor the various scenarios associated with its implementation and review its effectiveness in due course. But I think it is too early to propose any review at this moment.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in the first phase of the Levy Scheme, large supermarket chains and personal product chain stores must turn over the levy proceeds to the Government, but in the second phase, it is not necessary to do so. The amount involved is some $35 million per annum. In the legislative process, the Government undertook to the legislature that it would require large chain stores to spend the collected proceeds on the cause of environmental protection or donate the money to green groups, rather than allowing them to keep the money for themselves. May I ask the Government to disclose the progress in this regard?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr CHAN for the question. Since the drafting stage of the legislation, the Government has always taken the stand of encouraging the industries to do so. As the Ordinance must cater for shops of different scales, operators are allowed to handle the collected proceeds on their own. As Members can see, we encourage shop-operators to make good use of such proceeds a far as possible by spending them on charity or environmental protection-related projects. Members may also notice that some green groups have already initiated collaborative campaigns and appealed to shop-operators for support.

12246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

As far as I know, such campaigns have received quite satisfactory response over the past few months. More than 10 large-scale shops and companies have agreed to support the green groups concerned by spending the collected proceeds on various environmental protection initiatives.

Furthermore, I understand that some organizations have their own commercial considerations in promoting green actions. Therefore, more time is needed to observe the progress. But on the whole, I think that there is general support for this direction.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, since the implementation of the PSB charge, we have kept receiving complaints and enquires from many members of the public because they think some shops are overcharging. A Member also mentioned this situation a moment ago. I hope the Secretary will make more publicity and education efforts.

My supplementary question is: when will the Government publish statistics on the reduced usage of PSBs in Hong Kong following the implementation of the new levy? Besides, will the reduced usage of PSBs lead to the increased usage of paper bags? How do PSBs and paper bags compare with each other in terms of environmental impacts? When will the Secretary conduct an assessment and report its findings to this Council?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Dr QUAT for the question. In the light of past experience, we will evaluate in due course the waste-reduction effectiveness of the PSB charge. Basically, several aspects of work will be involved.

First, investigation at landfills will be conducted to assess changes in the disposal volume of PSBs. Statistics in this regard will be published on a yearly basis.

Second, we will follow up the issue with various retail trade associations. Previously in the first phase of the Levy Scheme, retailers were required to submit returns to the Government on the amounts of levy proceeds collected and the quantities of PSBs used. Although the requirement on turning over levy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12247 proceeds is abolished in the second phase, these retailers have still agreed to report the relevant statistics on a voluntary basis following our mentioning of the issue to them. Hence, most retailers who previously reported their PSB usage figures will continue to do so. These are also the statistics we will make reference to.

Third, we plan to conduct some scientific and empirical investigations, with a view to grasping the situation relating to "BYOB" and the use of PSBs among members of the public after the full implementation of the new levy. We will adopt this three-pronged approach as a means of collecting relevant statistics. Nonetheless, time is needed to collect meaningful statistics because the effectiveness of the legislation will become clear only after some time.

Regarding the use of paper bags, we will closely monitor market changes. On the whole, we think that cases of switching to paper bags will be few and far between because in comparison, the costs of paper bags are generally higher than those of PSBs. Hence, a significant change is not quite so likely.

Generally speaking, both PSBs and paper bags produce environmental impact. Hence, our policy emphasis is "BYOB". If "BYOB" becomes a general practice in society, then the usage of such throwaways will certainly decrease, regardless of how shop-operators choose between PSBs and paper bags.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, our experience in the first phase of the Levy Scheme is that members of the public did reduce their use of PSBs, but the usage of non-woven bags and paper bags increased substantially at the same time, and some shop-operators also used paper bags or non-woven bags in place of PSBs. The use of PSBs and non-woven bags will both add to the burden on landfills.

May I ask the Government whether it has noticed the same trend since the second phase of the Levy Scheme came into operation? If it has, how is it going to deal with this trend? I know that some PSBs are also biodegradable. Are they similar to non-woven bags or paper bags in nature? How can the Government manifest the effectiveness of its regulation?

12248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr MA for the question. The question involves two issues. First, when the first phase of the Levy Scheme was launched in 2009, society was apparently in strong support of using reusable shopping bags, and large quantities of reusable shopping bags were then manufactured. But after the passage of almost six years, I think society has generally come to agree that people have already amassed large quantities of reusable shopping bags in their homes, so when it comes to the production of new reusable shopping bags, a more prudent and measured approach should be taken.

We can also notice that apart from discouraging the production of new reusable shopping bags, many people or organizations in the community have even started to promote the recovery and reuse of used reusable shopping bags. This means that we may turn over the surplus reusable shopping bags in our homes to community organizations for distribution to families in lack of such bags, thus achieving the purpose of recovery and reuse. We can thus see that the overall social atmosphere and perception are positive. But of course, we will closely monitor the development in the future.

The second issue relates to biodegradable PSBs. In foreign countries, composting or other methods may be more widely used for waste treatment. But for various reasons, Hong Kong still relies on landfilling as the principal means of treating municipal waste. Hence, given the relatively enclosed environment of landfills, the constructions of PSBs and whether they are biodegradable will not make too much difference. In foreign countries, circumstances may be conducive to encouraging the use of such PSBs, but in the existing context of Hong Kong, the difference is honestly not too big.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, confusion has indeed arisen from the various exemptions under the new legislation since its enactment. But I would like to hear the Secretary's response to one particular exemption. When selling cold beverages such as soft drinks, iced tea or coffee, many fast-food chains will automatically use custom-made PSBs for carrying the drinks. Such custom-made PSBs are exempt from the levy. But as we all know, this is something we do not want to see because we all hope to reduce the quantity of PSBs disposed of in landfills.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12249

Secretary, regarding the use of such exempted PSBs, do you agree that we should issue a joint letter to fast food-chains or shops that are still using such custom-made PSBs, advising them that even though exemption is granted, they are nonetheless not supposed to use such PSBs automatically, but should first, as a matter of procedure, ask their customers as far as possible whether they need any plastic bag? Such PSBs are for holding one single cup of drink only. A few minutes later, when the customer finishes the drink, the bag may be disposed of right away. Apart from causing a waste of resources, this will also exert mounting pressure on landfills.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Dr CHAN for the question. I can appreciate the Honourable Member's opinion, and I agree with him in principle. Actually, this situation aside, one more example is the purchase of bread frequently mentioned by Members. This example similarly involves the indiscriminate use of exempted PSBs, and such indiscriminate use was particularly serious before the commencement of the new legislation.

Nonetheless, Members may have noticed that since the new legislation came into operation, the awareness of both the public and bakery shops has increased. As result, bakery shops now use fewer PSBs for carrying bread in the course of business operation, and they may even ask customers beforehand whether they need any PSBs at all. Overall, everybody's awareness in this regard has increased. Hence, I will give thoughts to Dr CHAN's suggestion. Apart from looking into the given examples, I will also seek to ascertain how we can increase everybody's awareness of the need to use fewer exempted PSBs in a much more extensive range of scenarios, so as to minimize the indiscriminate use of PSBs.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, since April this year, what used to be a government levy has become a levy charged by shop-operators. May I ask the Secretary whether the authorities will conduct any follow-up surveys in the future to ascertain the amount of levy collected by each shop-operator, and whether the proceeds are spent on the cause of environmental protection? Can the Government conduct any follow-up surveys and report 12250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 periodically to the Legislative Council and the general public on how the authorities have been closely monitoring the uses of levy proceeds, so as to ensure that the money is used for reasonable environmental purposes?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): As the Ordinance must cater for small, medium and large shop-operators alike, the levy proceeds collected are retained by shop-operators. But when discussing the policy, we said that we would encourage shop-operators, especially the larger ones, to use the collected proceeds properly for making contribution to society, or for promoting charity and environmental protection. Our approach is one of encouragement, and we will proceed with an active attitude.

We will maintain close communication with various retail trade associations, so as to gain an understanding of their work in this regard. And, through our co-ordination with trade associations, we will, as far as we can, rely on them as a channel of promoting the proper use of levy proceeds. As for Member's question on what we will do, I would reply that we will follow up the issue all the way and collect the relevant data. However, regarding the extent of our effort, I hope Members would understand that it is just an administrative measure meant for encouraging participation. We will closely monitor the situation and report to the Council in due course.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Second question.

Electricity Tariffs

2. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, between January 2009 and March this year, the average net tariffs of the Hongkong Electric Company Limited and the CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (the two power companies) increased respectively by 15 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) from 119.9 cents/kWh to 134.9 cents/kWh (at an increase rate of 12.5%), and by 25 cents/kWh from 89.2 cents/kWh to 114.2 cents/kWh (at an increase rate of 28%). On the other hand, the Consumer Price Index (A) (CPI(A)) rose from 109.5 in December 2009 to 128.6 in February this year (at an increase rate of 17.4%). Some members of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12251 the public have relayed to me that the aforesaid increase rates for average net tariffs were close to or higher than that for CPI(A) in the same period, which have imposed a financial burden on them. Regarding electricity tariffs, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, between January 2009 and March this year, the average monthly tariff expenditures of the residential electricity users of the two power companies, the average electricity tariffs per kWh and their increase rates in the period, broken down by consumption block based on bi-monthly electricity consumption (i.e. below 500 kWhs, 500 kWhs to below 1 000 kWhs, 1 000 kWhs to below 1 500 kWhs, 1 500 kWhs to below 2 000 kWhs and 2 000 kWhs or above); in the same period, the average monthly tariff expenditures of the commercial electricity users of the two power companies, the average electricity tariffs per kWh and their increase rates in the period, broken down by consumption block based on bi-monthly electricity consumption (i.e. below 2 000 kWhs, 2 000 kWhs to below 5 000 kWhs, 5 000 kWhs to below 10 000 kWhs, 10 000 kWhs to below 20 000 kWhs and 20 000 kWh or above);

(2) as the tariffs of residential electricity users are computed on a progressive basis while those of commercial users are calculated on a regressive basis, whether the authorities have assessed if such computation methods for tariffs will encourage commercial users to consume huge amounts of electricity, and result in residential users subsidizing the electricity expenditures of commercial users; whether the authorities will consider providing the electricity charges subsidy again to residential users to alleviate their financial burden; and

(3) as it is learnt that the two power companies may purchase several gas-fired generation units in the coming few years to cope with the new fuel mix and emission standards, and power generation units are part of the assets of the power companies, whether the authorities have assessed if electricity tariffs will rise as a result; whether the authorities have studied the impacts on basic tariffs of lowering the permitted profit rate of the two power companies from the current 9.9% to 6%; if so, of the details ?

12252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President,

(1) As CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (CLP Power) calculates electricity charges for its residential customers based on their total bi-monthly electricity consumption, we provide the relevant tariff information on a bi-monthly basis. Please refer to Annex 1.

(2) According to our understanding, there is no cross-subsidization of electricity charges among the residential customers, small and medium enterprise customers, and non-residential customers with high consumption of the two power companies.

The tariff structures of the two power companies are their own business decision. They would make reference to factors such as the cost of electricity supply in serving different groups of customers, international tariff structures, environmental consideration, and so on, in working out their tariff structures and avoid cross-subsidization among different groups of customers.

Facing competitive business environment, small and medium enterprise customers are expected to adopt all possible energy-saving measures to reduce their electricity expenditure. Using more electricity would only increase their operating costs. Thus, the current tariff structure will not encourage them to use huge amount of electricity.

For commercial and industrial customers with high electricity consumption, their tariff structure primarily reflects the cost-effectiveness of electricity supply. These customers may obtain electricity directly from high voltage power system, which could reduce the extra cost of transforming high voltage power to low voltage power. Moreover, these high electricity consumption customers usually draw high volume of electricity at centralized locations which require less network facilities. Hence, it is more economically effective and will lower the cost of electricity supply to these customers.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12253

Besides the energy charge based on electricity consumption, the two power companies also charge their commercial and industrial customers with high electricity consumption a "demand charge" based on their maximum power demand, that is, the higher the demand, the higher the "demand charge" would be. Hence, there is also no incentive for these customers to consume huge amount of electricity.

In any case, customers have to pay higher electricity charges for each extra unit of electricity consumed. The more electricity they consume, the higher electricity charge they have to pay.

Regarding the electricity charge subsidy provided in the past, it was a one-off relief measure instead of a standing arrangement. The Government will consider the economic and financial situation of each year and at present there is no plan to provide the electricity charge subsidy.

(3) It is mentioned in the "Public Consultation on the Future Development of the Electricity Market" that the percentage of local gas generation will be increased to around 50% of the total fuel mix in 2020. In order to increase the use of natural gas, we envisage that power companies will need to build a small number of additional gas-fired generation units. Together with the expiry of cheaper gas supply contracts entered into years ago, it is expected that the future electricity tariff will cost more than the present level.

The adjustment on tariff would depend on a host of factors, including the international oil price movement, fuel costs, the retirement schedule of generation units, the pace of capital investments, the cost of new infrastructure, and so on. Moreover, electricity tariff in a particular year will also be affected by other factors including operation costs, sales volume, as well as movements in the Tariff Stabilization Fund and the Fuel Clause Recovery Account. Thus, we are unable to estimate the tariff implications for any particular year regarding the proposals of new gas generation units or lowering the permitted rate of return.

12254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Annex 1

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12255

12256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, Annex 1 to the Secretary's reply can hardly answer part (1) of the main question. His main reply, however, reveals some facts which eventually disprove a belief held by us as "can't-be-wrong" so far. Everyone says that the tariffs charged by Hongkong Electric Company Limited (HEC) are higher than those charged by CLP Power. But is this true? Based on Annex 1, this belief can be disproved. We may just look at residential electricity accounts. The electricity consumption of one such account will not be very high, and may be just about 500 kWhs in a two-month period. Here, the HEC will charge 98.9 cents/kWh, but the CLP Power will charge more than $1 for 1 kWh, at 110.2 cents/kWh. Everybody thinks that CLP Power tariffs are lower than HEC tariffs, but this is certainly not the case with residential accounts.

Second, in the case of CLP Power tariffs, residential accounts must subsidize non-residential accounts (that is, commercial accounts). For example, in 2015, the average rate of tariff increase for all types of accounts was 3.1%. But the rate for residential accounts was 3.4%, and that for commercial accounts was only 2.8%. As for "sub-divided units", which are of particular concern to us, they must pay tariffs at $1.3/kWh though they are not luxurious residential units, because they use common electricity meters and the consumption levels are bound to be over 2 000 kWhs. Focusing on the use of common electricity meters in "sub-divided units", which makes the tenants pay the highest tariffs even when compared with commercial users, how is the Secretary going to help them?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for the supplementary question. First, I have to clarify one point. The Honourable Member said that there was cross-subsidization because as shown in Annex 1, the rate of tariff increase for residential accounts in 2015 was 3% or so, while that for commercial accounts was around 2%. I want to clarify that as we understand it, there was no cross-subsidization whatsoever. It is true that the average rate of tariff increase for commercial accounts was around 2%. However, since it was decided after discussion between the authorities and the two power companies that there would be no tariff increase for residential accounts with low electricity consumption levels in the next few years, the rates of tariff increase for residential accounts were in fact not uniform, with higher rates for some and lower rates for others. Nevertheless, cross-subsidization will not arise as a result. This point is very clear.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12257

As for the problem of "sub-divided units" mentioned by the Honourable Member, I think it is a concern of society. We have held discussions with the two power companies on different ways to resolve the problem. I think the two power companies will certainly offer help to residents of "sub-divided units" in the installation of individual electricity meters. For example, in co-operation with different organizations, the CLP Power has, as far as possible, sought to obtain the consent of the relevant property owners and install individual electricity meters for some residents of "sub-divided units" free of charge. The deposit required for opening electricity accounts for the tenants concerned will also be waived. It is, I repeat, the free installation of electricity meters and even the waiving of the deposit for the residents concerned. As for the HEC, it will also explore various ways to help residents of "sub-divided units". We will actively follow up the matter and encourage the two power companies to help residents of "sub-divided units", so as to achieve the results desired by the Honourable Members.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, it is pointed out by the Secretary in part (2) of the main reply that the tariff structure for commercial customers with high electricity consumption primarily reflects the cost-effectiveness of electricity supply. But I am also aware of the relationship between the CLP Power's fuel mix and the peak load of electricity consumption. May I ask the Government whether it would hold discussions with the two power companies and ask them to consider the imposition of a surcharge on accounts with high electricity usage during the peak load of electricity consumption, so as to encourage such users to adopt more measures to save energy and spread their overall electricity consumption more evenly?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr WU for the supplementary question. As far as my understanding goes, the CLP Power has already put in place some measures to reduce the overall peak load of electricity consumption in Hong Kong. The CLP Power has adopted some incentive arrangements and measures for accounts with high electricity consumption. Such users, for instance, are encouraged to adjust their patterns of electricity usage and reschedule periods of high consumption to the night. Besides, tariff adjustments are also offered to reduce electricity consumption. Regarding the choice between tariff increase and tariff reduction, I think it is up to the power companies to come to agreement with the organizations or 12258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 companies concerned. But the general direction aligns with the Honourable Member's advocacy ― adopting various means to reduce the overall peak load of electricity consumption in Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, I can tell Members that we are now conducting consultation on the future development of the electricity market. Honourable Members or relevant organizations are welcome to offer their views on enabling us to make more proper use of electricity in the future.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Tariffs for high electricity consumption are now charged on a regressive basis, which is why I have asked about peak load tariffs and domestic electricity tariffs …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered by the Secretary.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I want to pursue just one question with the Secretary. Will the Government present a direct demand to the two power companies, asking them to increase the tariffs for high usage accounts during peak periods of electricity consumption or impose a surcharge on them?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, we must understand that the current tariff structures of the two power companies are their own commercial decisions. The different time patterns of electricity consumption associated with different organizations are very much based on their respective modes of operation. At present, organizations and companies with the highest electricity consumption in Hong Kong include the MTR Corporation Limited, hospitals and universities. The electricity consumption levels of these hospitals and universities are probably related to their operational needs. If we lightly increase the tariffs during the peak load periods in the daytime, we may fail to take care of the different needs of our society. Therefore, we must consider the matter thoroughly and pay attention to the commercial decisions of these organizations. Since we are conducting public consultation at the moment, we are pleased to hear any positive suggestions from Honourable Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12259

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): These days, the Secretary has frequently reminded Hong Kong people that tariffs would surely increase in the future. On the other hand, the consultation document this time around talks about lowering the permitted rate of return to 6% to 8%. In that case, members of the public will probably ask the Secretary why the rate is not reduced further, and they will also wonder whether a further reduction of the rate of return can reduce tariff increases, thus helping to alleviate people's burden. Apart from having questions about the rate of return, people also want to know whether there are any others way to help them save tariff payments. For example, a power company has said that smart meters can effectively help people reduce electricity consumption. Will the Government provide any encouragement and support in this regard? If so, what will be the amount of investment involved? And, honestly, will tariffs really go down, or will they go up instead?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr QUAT for the supplementary question. Basically, our hope is that we can employ various means to help people protect the environment and at the same time maintain electricity tariffs at reasonable levels. We hope that with the adoption of different measures, we can improve the air quality of Hong Kong and reduce its carbon emissions. But society must realize that to achieve these goals, we must pay a price and make commitment. We do understand people's concern about tariff increases, which is why in the present consultation, we have highlighted the need to understand this concern. Having considered the international situation, we are of the view that there is room for reducing the permitted rate of return. Naturally, the greater the reduction is, the lower the tariffs will definitely become. But tariffs are also determined by various other factors.

I think what the Honourable Member wants to know is whether it is possible to adopt various means such as technologies or smart meters to help people understand their electricity consumption patterns or situations. He wants to know whether this can protect the environment and at the same save money and energy. The Government's consultation document also gives treatment to this aspect. In fact, one of the five major issues we raise is how people think about energy conservation and emissions reduction, that is, what we call demand-side management. The consultation document mentions that the technology of smart meters has already become increasingly well-developed. If the public can provide us with more views, we will be able to hold follow-up 12260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 discussions with the two power companies on how to make proper use of such technologies and new ideas from overseas cities, in a bid to help Hong Kong people save both energy and money.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): I do not quite understand. The Secretary replied just now that if the permitted rate of return was lowered, tariffs would certainly be lowered, but he did not explain why the consultation document proposed to set the permitted rate of return at 6% to 8%, instead of a lower level.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, Dr QUAT, as I have said on different occasions, before we wrote up the consultation document, a consultant was commissioned to conduct a study for us and provide us with information. The consultant then conducted a study to ascertain the approximate rates of return for a power company's investment in power generation or electricity grids in foreign places with circumstances identical or similar to ours in the past. The consultancy study indicates that the rates of return range from 6% to 8% approximately. These are the objective levels around the world at present.

However, we have also mentioned that such levels may change as time passes. After the completion of this consultation exercise, we will commission a consultant to update the global situation. If necessary, we will do some updating and fine-tuning. The rate of return is based on the consultant's empirical study and is provided as a kind of reference to the public in this consultation.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, people are very concerned that the CLP Power has hastened to launch the advance works for installing new power generation units even before the public consultation period comes to an end. They query whether the CLP Power is actually trying to increase its fixed assets by installing new generation units, so as to provide a reason or justification for increasing tariffs in the future. Is the Secretary aware of this? Has he followed up the matter, reprimanded the CLP Power and stopped it from doing so?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12261

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for the question. I wish to raise several points in my reply. In the consultation document on the future fuel mix for electricity generation published last year, the authorities already mention that for reasons of air quality improvement, and so on, old coal-fired generation units will be phased out and replaced by new gas-fired generation units. I believe everybody can appreciate this environmental initiative of replacing old units with new ones.

I believe the concern of Members is whether the quantity of generation units to be replaced is too large, or whether the installation of new generation units will cause any over-expansion of capital costs. The Administration will closely follow the matter and monitor the situation carefully. Actually, in the past, there were cases where the Government rejected the development plans of the CLP Power. Simply put, Members may be concerned about the power reserve margin. In the document published by the authorities earlier, it is mentioned that the reserve margin in the past was too high, but it is envisaged that it will be reduced to about 20% to 30% in the future. We will monitor the situation in different ways to ensure that the reserve margin of the generation units is set at an appropriate level.

However, Members must understand that the installation of new gas-fired generation units will take quite a long time for planning and environmental impact assessment. We also understand that the two power companies are making preparations for the relevant work. This is in fact good to Hong Kong. When the two power companies submit their specific plans to the Environment Bureau for approval, we will guard the gate closely, so as to ensure that while the quantity requested or proposed can meet the needs of Hong Kong, it will not be excessive.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the authorities cannot guard the gate well for the public in drawing up the Scheme of Control Agreements with the two power companies, and people are left entirely at the mercy of the power companies as result. This is definitely regrettable. At present, the tariffs paid by many residents of "sub-divided units" to their landlords or principal tenants are often higher than the tariffs for their actual consumption. Usually, their electricity consumption may just be 200 kWhs or even less than 100 kWhs. But they must pay tariffs at the rate of $1.3/kWh, $1.4/kWh, or an even higher rate. The rate for their actual consumption should 12262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 just be $0.9/kWh. Secretary, we understand that at present, our legislation does not provide for any specific regulation of electricity resale or tariff overcharging. Will the Bureau consider the idea of amending the legislation, so as to forbid unscrupulous landlords to collect from impoverished residents of "sub-divided units" tariffs that are higher than the correct amounts?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr CHEUNG for the question. "Sub-divided units" are not one of the issues I am most knowledgeable about. However, my opinion is that apart from electricity tariffs, the rents and other charges of "sub-divided units" are also complicated issues. As I mentioned in response to the question raised by another Member, we hope to provide some expeditious or instant assistance to residents of "sub-divided units" to make their expenditure more reasonable. As I said earlier, the authorities have liaised with the two power companies. We understand that they have taken active steps and are willing to work with various organizations to figure out some schemes agreeable to landlords and acceptable to residents of "sub-divided units" for the free installation of electricity meters. In addition, the CLP Power will waive the deposit for opening an electricity account for these residents. After the installation of individual electricity meters, residents of "sub-divided units" will have a clearer idea of how tariffs are charged. The HEC has responded positively to this initiative of the CLP Power. We will strengthen our communication and co-operation with the two power companies to assist residents as much and as expeditiously as possible. I believe this is the most direct solution.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent nearly 23 minutes 30 seconds on this question. We will now move on to the next question. Third question.

Measures to Assist Low-income Households in Home Purchases and Flat Renting

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, may I ask who is sitting next to Under Secretary YAU Shing-mu?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12263

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr YAU Shing-mu is attending the meeting today as Secretary for Transport and Housing.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I see. He is a stand-in in that case.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please read out your question.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to give Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG 15 minutes to enable him to come to this meeting. I think a quorum is not present. I hope he will come when he hears the summoning bell. Secretary Dr KO is here. Secretary WONG Kam-sing was also here just now. Who is that person?

I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, before I ask the Clerk to ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber, I must remind you that it is the Administration which makes the decision on which public officers are to attend the meetings of this Council.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You are right. But I am scolding the Government precisely for that.

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)

12264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please raise the third question.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I must first ask the Under Secretary why there is no written reply. You know, when you are invited to a banquet, you must still send a gift to the host even if you are not available. President, this is a matter of dignity to us.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the main reply is contained in the paper. Do you have the paper?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, I have not received it. I do not have it here. It is as simple as this.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All Members should have received copies of the main replies. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, in the future, please check the papers you have received carefully.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I really do not have it, buddy. From time to time … President, please don't give me such a flippant smile. The Government sometimes provides papers, but sometimes it does not. If it provides papers every time, I will certainly ask questions if it does not do so all of a sudden. You yourself also have such experiences. Sometimes, there are papers, but sometimes, there are not. In that case, reform is required. There must be … Why feel shameful?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the Administration is duty-bound to provide Members with written replies to the main questions before the meeting. If it fails to do so on time, it must give this Council an explanation.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I really have not received any.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12265

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please stop wasting time and read out your question now.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the persons around me are talking. I hear Mr NG Leung-sing talking.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please stop wasting the time of this Council. Read out your question right away.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, should I be blamed when people around me keep talking? Losing your temper does not help. Why should I be blamed when people around me keep talking? What is the point of losing temper? You should make them observe discipline.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I will not issue any further warning. If you do not read out the question right away, you will be contravening the Rules of Procedure, and I will order you to leave the Chamber.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): But you condone their acts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Read out your question right away.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You are so bossy. You are just not fair. What more can I say?

3. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): In February this year, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority lowered the maximum loan-to-value ratio for self-use residential properties with value below $7 million to 60% across the board. Quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that after the introduction of such a measure, the prices of low-priced residential flats have risen rather than dropped, which has also pushed up the rents of residential units continuously, causing members of the public enormous hardship. On the other 12266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 hand, quite a number of members of the public hope that the Government re-launch the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

(1) whether the Government will go along with the wishes of the public by considering afresh the re-launch of TPS, which on the one hand allows the existing tenants of public rental housing (PRH) in the territory to purchase at low prices the PRH flats in which they are living and on the other reduces the fiscal deficit of the Hong Kong Housing Authority; if so, when it will re-launch TPS; if not, of the reasons for that;

(2) as the Government said in reply to my question on 3 December last year that it would not be appropriate to implement rent control measures, whether the Government has any new measures to effectively help members of the public (especially those living on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payments and those renting cubicle apartments and bed spaces) in the short run to rent private residential flats at reasonable rents; if so, of the implementation date and details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the Government is turning a blind eye to the problem that members of the public cannot afford high rents; and

(3) as the Government pointed out in the reply mentioned in (2) that there was currently a serious demand-supply imbalance in Hong Kong's housing, whether the Government will immediately introduce measures to further restrict non-local residents in purchasing residential properties in Hong Kong and comprehensively implement the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" policy to honour the pledge of assisting middle-income families in buying their own homes made by the Chief Executive in his election manifesto; if so, of the timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the Government has no intention to honour the Chief Executive's pledge, and ignores the home purchase aspirations of members of the public?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12267

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the crux of the rise in flat prices and rentals in the past few years lies with the supply-demand imbalance in housing and the inadequate supply of land. The current-term Government is determined to solve the problem at source by adopting a supply-led strategy, setting a 10-year housing supply target and continuously increasing supply of land and housing, with a view to gradually averting the supply-demand imbalance. At the same time, two rounds of demand-side management measures were introduced in October 2012 and February 2013 respectively to curb external and speculative demands to prevent the market from being overheated.

The Government notes that the property market in Hong Kong turned buoyant again in the second half of 2014, with increasing risk of a bubble. In view of this, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority announced a new round of supervisory measures on property mortgage in late February 2015 to strengthen banks' risk management and resilience, and to enhance borrowers' ability to cope with the impact in the event of a property market downturn in the future. These measures aim to safeguard the stability of the banking and the financial system.

My replies to the three-part question by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung are as follows:

(1) During the public consultation on the Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS), there were suggestions to re-launch the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS). However, in light of the management problems arising from the coexistence of individual owners and tenants of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) in TPS estates, the HA decided that apart from the existing 39 TPS estates, new TPS estates will not be launched. Nevertheless, there are still suggestions in society that subsidized sale flats with prices lower than that of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats could be provided to public rental housing (PRH) tenants to facilitate them to achieve home ownership.

To this end, in his 2015 Policy Address, the Chief Executive proposed to the HA that suitable flats should be identified among its PRH developments under construction for sale to eligible Green Form applicants, mainly PRH tenants, in the form of a pilot scheme, with prices set at a level lower than those of HOS. Generally 12268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

referred to as the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Pilot Scheme (GSH), this proposal is a response to the LTHS's general direction of expanding the forms of subsidized home ownership.

The HA has decided on the implementation details of GSH, including the eligibility criteria, price setting mechanism, resale arrangements, selected site, and so on. The Housing Department (HD) will follow up accordingly.

(2) The Government appreciates the impact of high rental level on the public (especially the impact on the grassroots), and notes that there are views in the society suggesting the Government to regulate the level of private residential rent and its rate of increase. However, both local and overseas empirical studies suggest that tenancy control measures can lead to unintended consequences, including reducing supply of rented accommodation (instead of increasing); higher asking rents and encouraging certain behaviour from landlords to offset the impact of the tenancy control measures; limiting access to adequate housing by the socially disadvantaged; and discouraging proper maintenance of rented accommodation by landlords, and so on. The Government considers that introducing tenancy control measures in the midst of a severely tight housing supply may bring even more disadvantages to tenants before the benefits could be realized. This is not in the interest of tenants at large, nor those inadequately housed households and the general public. The fundamental solution to address the supply-demand imbalance and to curb rental increase lies with a continued increase in housing supply.

To meet the housing needs of the grass-roots citizens, the Government will spare no efforts in identifying land to build more PRH units and to ensure the rational use of PRH resources. At the same time, the Government will also work with relevant organizations such as the Estate Agents Authority to enhance public education efforts, advertise tenants' rights, and promote good tenancy practices.

At present, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) has provided a safety net for those who are unable to support themselves financially to meet their basic needs. Moreover, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12269

Community Care Fund has rolled out various assistance schemes to provide residents with special needs with further economic support. For those having imminent housing needs, they may consider applying for Compassionate Rehousing through the recommendation of the Social Welfare Department. They may also apply under the Express Flat Allocation Scheme for earlier allocation of PRH flats.

(3) According to the Development Bureau, the policy objective of the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" (HKPHKP) measure is to accord priority to Hong Kong Permanent Residents in making use of our scarce housing land resources when there is a tight supply-demand situation in the property market. The Government announced in September 2012 that the HKPHKP measure would be applied to two residential sites in the Kai Tak Development Area. The two sites were sold through tender in mid-2013. Subsequently, the various demand-side management measures targeting at the property market implemented by the Government have effectively curbed the demand of non-local purchasers. Stamp duty statistics from the Inland Revenue Department indicate that purchases of residential properties by non-local individuals and non-local companies during the first quarter of 2015 stood at a monthly average of 93 cases (1.5% of the total transactions), markedly below the monthly average of 365 cases (4.5% of the total transactions) during the period from January to October 2012 (that is, before the introduction of the Buyer's Stamp Duty). Hence, the Government is of the view that there is no pressing need to extend the HKPHKP measure to other sites at this stage.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): According to part (3) of the Secretary's main reply, the HKPHKP measure no longer exists. This means that LEUNG Chun-ying has just been giving empty talks. One unfulfilled undertaking in his election manifesto that we want him to honour is tenancy control. Tenancy control can be divided into two parts. One is …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you can only ask one simple supplementary question.

12270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am doing so.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are making a long speech. Please raise your supplementary question as quickly as possible.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A long speech? Alright. Regarding the two parts of tenancy control, namely rent and length of tenancy, may I ask the Secretary whether the authorities have set any timetable for the flexible handling of rent and length of tenancy? Are there any roadmap and timetable? Or, is there going to be total inaction?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, tenancy control is a very controversial topic and consensus has yet to be reached in society. We have carried out studies to examine the effectiveness of the tenancy control measures previously introduced in Hong Kong, and we have also referred to overseas experience. In July last year, we also reported to the Legislative Council Panel on Housing that as shown by local and overseas empirical studies, tenancy control might lead to a series of unintended consequences as mentioned in my main reply. Therefore, after weighing the pros and cons and in the absence of any social consensus, coupled with the possibility that the relevant measures may achieve the opposite result of doing harm rather than good to the broad masses of tenants, the Government is of the view that it will not be in the interest of the inadequately housed households and of the general public to introduce any tenancy control measures in Hong Kong.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is mentioned by the Secretary in the main reply that at present, the supply of land is inadequate and there is a supply-demand imbalance in housing. The Secretary talks about the TPS, tenancy control and HKPHKP respectively in the three parts of his main reply. But these three parts aside, the Secretary has not given any reply on ways of resolving the housing shortage, particularly the problems with the existing Well-Off Tenants Policies. As a matter of fact, the incomes of many PRH tenants are two to three times higher than the income limit. And, the Secretary should know only too well that an income which is two or three times higher than the income limit is by no means substantial, because the income limit is honestly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12271 much too low. Yet, certain tenants with extremely high incomes are still allowed to live in PRH units (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, who earns $80,000 to $90,000 a month, is an example). How is the Secretary going to rectify this unfair phenomenon?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we are also aware of the abuse of PRH resources. The HA and the HD have held discussions on the matter and introduced measures to reduce abuse. We will also step up inspection and enforcement.

Regarding the Well-Off Tenants Policies, the HA has conducted comprehensive discussions, and well-off tenants must now observe a number of requirements and regulations. In the past discussions of the HA, there were heated debates on whether the existing policies should be revised. Thus, before there is a clear direction, we will adhere to the existing practice for the time being.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, concerning the housing problem, the Government has made strong efforts to increase supply through the introduction of measures and policies over the past two to three years. Yet, distant water cannot put out the fire nearby. Deputy President, many people think that current property prices are high, so may I ask whether the Government has conducted any studies on determining the levels at which property prices should be considered reasonable?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on the question of whether the property market or property prices are at exuberant levels, our major concern is the impact of the property market on the overall economy and financial market of Hong Kong. When the Financial Secretary discussed the economic development of Hong Kong this week, he also referred particularly to the property market. We admit that short-term supply is tight, so the Government must continue to implement demand-side management measures. We have not set any particular level of property prices as the threshold of further actions or measures, and we will decide on the necessity of further actions after giving holistic consideration to the overall property market 12272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 and its impact on economic and financial stability. Therefore, we will continue to closely monitor the property market and introduce appropriate measures when necessary.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have heard from the Secretary's reply to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's main question that now is not the appropriate time for introducing tenancy control. However, the rents paid by many grass-roots people are as high as $80 sq ft, even higher than the rents for accommodation in the Mid-Levels. This is a serious blow to the grassroots. How can one support a family of three or four when half of one's income is spent on rent payment? Furthermore, the rent allowance under the CSSA Scheme is totally unable to keep pace with the times. So, isn't this already the appropriate time for implementing tenancy control? Secretary, what do you mean by the appropriate time for implementing tenancy control?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have just explained, we notice from past studies that the implementation of tenancy control may lead to unintended consequences, rendering the people we want to help unable to receive any assistance, because any forms of tenancy control may result in rent increases and reduced supply. Therefore, after weighing the pros and cons, we do not consider it appropriate to implement tenancy control.

We can certainly understand the point raised by the Honourable Member just now, that is, the point that the lower strata of society are truly under immense housing pressure. We are therefore of the view that the ultimate solution should lie in a faster pace of PRH construction. In the short run, if any individual households think that they face any housing problems, they may seek assistance through various channels. For example, after assessment by the Social Welfare Department, they may file applications under the Compassionate Rehousing Scheme or the Express Flat Allocation Scheme. We think these measures can, to a certain extent, provide assistance to grass-roots households.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, has your supplementary question not been answered?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12273

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): The Secretary has failed completely to give any reply on the appropriate time for implementing tenancy control. If he is talking about five or 10 years later, what should the grassroots do in these five or 10 years …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, you have already pointed out the part that the Secretary has not answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

(The Secretary for Transport and Housing indicated that he had nothing to add)

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is by no means easy to resolve the housing problem, especially when efforts on all fronts are required as pointed out by the Government. Yet, rather than succeeding in ameliorating the situation after making efforts, the Government is instead chided by the public for achieving nothing. This is mainly because the Government must wait for the completion of flats and the availability of vacant land lots. And, all this normally takes eight or 10 years.

I therefore think that the Government should seriously consider the suggestions of my colleagues, especially the advice of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. If tenancy control is not implemented, is it possible to provide rental subsidy? The Community Care Fund has already provided some degree of assistance in form of rental subsidy for poor applicants. These measures can be help to the nearly 300 000 household and individual applicants awaiting PRH in addressing their problems. But why has the Government still failed to extend the coverage of rental subsidy to grassroots awaiting PRH, so as to enable them to address their immediate problem and in turn reduce their criticisms of the Government? Will the Secretary consider extending the coverage of rental subsidy to all Waiting List applicants?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we have already considered Mr LEUNG's suggestion very seriously. However, after considering the supply shortage in the market, we are worried that the provision of any forms of rental assistance may backfire. This is because 12274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 when landlords know that large numbers of tenants are in receipt of government subsidy, they may increase rents, thus reducing the rental subsidy provided by the Government to landlords' additional rental income and rendering tenants unable to enjoy any real assistance.

Furthermore, the provision of this permanent form of rental subsidy to some tenants will not only impose a long-term financial burden on the Government, but may also subject tenants who cannot receive any rental subsidy for various reasons to the pressure of further rental increases, thus adding to their burden. In the end, the beneficiaries will not be residents but landlords instead.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has explained loud and clear that any rental subsidy provided by the Government will end up benefiting landlords. We very much agree to this. We are also aware that in the absence of any complementary measures, the provision of rental subsidy by the Government will induce landlords to increase rents right away, with the result that the subsidy will end up in the pockets of the landlords. We therefore request the SAR Government to introduce complementary measures. What kind of complementary measures? Tenancy control measures. The Government should first introduce tenancy control measures before providing any rental subsidy. This is the only way to provide an integrated package of complementary measures that can prevent rental subsidy from falling into the pockets of landlords. How come the Government has not considered introducing an integrated package of initiatives? Has the Government ever considered helping tenants of "sub-divided units" who are facing enormous housing difficulties?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government has also considered Mr WONG's suggestion. Even if the two complementary measures mentioned above are introduced, certain acts not desired by the Government may still occur. We believe landlords will definitely resort to many different means to collect what can be called "rents in disguise", which may be charged in the form of other fees payable by tenants to landlords. This will not only raise the level of burden indirectly, but will also impose an additional burden on existing tenants. Therefore, after carefully considering the loopholes of the relevant measures, we do not think that it is appropriate to put them into practice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12275

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

Hawker Control and Management

4. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been reported that this year, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department stepped up enforcement efforts against unlicensed hawkers, resulting in the night bazaar in Sham Shui Po, which had emerged during the Chinese New Year holidays in the past few years, no longer operating. On the other hand, the Financial Secretary has indicated in his Budget Speech this year that the Government will consider introducing food trucks, which are popular abroad, to Hong Kong. Moreover, the Food and Health Bureau put forward some improvement proposals in March this year after reviewing the existing policy on hawker control and management. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of licensed hawkers and prosecutions instituted against unlicensed hawkers in each of the past three years; whether it has studied the causes for the year-on-year changes in such numbers;

(2) of the difference between the licence the authorities intend to issue for food trucks and itinerant hawker licence; whether the authorities will consider, in issuing such licence, giving priority to the existing itinerant hawker licence holders who intend to change their business to operate food trucks; and

(3) in view of the changes in the number of licensed hawkers in the past few years and the problems caused by unlicensed hawkers, of the policies the authorities will put in place in future to tackle the problem of illegal hawking; whether it will adjust the existing policy on hawker control and management in the light of the introduction of food trucks?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, over the years, it has been the Government's policy to properly regulate the hawking activities of licensed hawkers and take enforcement actions against illegal hawking. Under the existing enforcement strategies, where hawking 12276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 activities are not taking place in major thoroughfares, areas of high pedestrian flow or markets/hawker bazaars, officers of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) will usually seek to disperse the hawkers by giving verbal warnings. Prosecutions will be instituted if the verbal warnings are unheeded. For hawking activities that are taking place at any of the aforesaid locations, such as major thoroughfares which I mentioned earlier, they will take prosecution action without giving any prior warning. The same will apply to hawking activities involving the sale of prohibited/restricted food or cooked food, which are strictly forbidden under all circumstances. The above enforcement practices are adopted to strike a reasonable balance among a number of considerations, including the needs to uphold the normal operation of licensed hawker stalls in the district; safeguard environmental hygiene, food safety and the personal safety of pedestrians; and reduce the potential noise nuisance to the local community, and so on.

My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The number of hawker licences in 2012, 2013 and 2014 is 6 739, 6 434 and 6 347 respectively.

In view of the various problems arising from on-street hawking activities, it has been the Government's position that no new hawker licences should normally be issued, while the succession and transfer of different categories of hawker licences already issued are either subject to stringent restrictions, or not allowed at all as in the case of itinerant hawker licences. In addition, the Government has rolled out since mid-2013 an assistance scheme under which an ex-gratia payment is offered to hawkers in fixed-pitch hawker areas who opt for voluntary surrender of their hawker licences to the Government. As a result, there has been a continuous drop in the number of licensed hawkers.

Front-line FEHD officers have been taking enforcement actions in the light of the actual situation on the ground in respect of unlicensed hawkers, illegal hawking activities and obstructions to passageways, and in response to public complaints. The number of prosecutions taken out in the past three years against unlicensed hawking is 27 457, 29 243 and 26 025 respectively.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12277

(2) and (3)

For those parts of the question related to food trucks, the joint reply from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Food and Health Bureau is as follows.

Food truck is a new idea put forth by the Financial Secretary in his 2015-2016 Budget Speech. With a view to enriching the variety of culinary delicacies available to tourists and local people, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is, in collaboration with the Food and Health Bureau, the FEHD, the Transport Department and other relevant departments, studying various aspects such as the vehicle specifications and requirements, licensing requirements, mode of operation, food safety and environmental hygiene.

At this stage, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is actively collecting and studying relevant information on overseas systems and experience (such as those of North America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Europe and Australia). Details of the implementation plan, including whether the current licensing requirements for the food industry are applicable to food trucks, the eligibility of applicants and the feasibility of mobile operation, will be subject to the outcome of the study.

The trend in the past few years is such that the number of both licensed hawkers and unlicensed hawkers has been declining. Details are as follows:

Year Number of licensed hawkers Number of unlicensed hawkers 2010 7 171 1 876 2014 6 347 1 444

On the subject of unlicensed hawkers, the FEHD will continue to adopt the strategies of mobile patrol and raiding to deter illegal hawking.

The Government is committed to ensuring food safety and maintaining a clean and hygienic living environment for the people of Hong Kong in particular those residing in the vicinity of areas 12278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

designated for hawking. For the Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD, this commitment must be fulfilled, regardless of whether the prevailing hawker policy is targeted at regulating or supporting hawking activities.

The Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD made our stance in this respect clear on 2 March 2015 when we discussed the local hawker policy with the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy under the Legislative Council Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene.

From the policy perspective, the Government seeks to formulate a hawker policy which is striking an optimal balance between allowing licensed hawking business to thrive and meeting other legitimate concerns such as avoiding unreasonable nuisance to the local community in addition to ensuring food safety, environmental hygiene and public safety. From the practical implementation perspective, the Government keeps an open mind towards concrete proposals on developing the hawker trade in any locality, so long as food safety and environmental hygiene are not compromised, public passageways are not obstructed and local community support is obtained.

Although the detailed plan for bringing in food trucks is still subject to the outcome of the study and yet to be finalized, the mission of the Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD, that is, ensuring food safety and maintaining a clean and hygienic living environment for the people of Hong Kong, should not be affected by the introduction of this new idea in any way.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Financial Secretary's idea of food trucks has drawn the attention of the public and the tourism sector. The authorities indicate in the main reply that they are actively collecting and studying information on other countries' experience, and details of the implementation plan will be subject to the outcome of the study.

May I ask the Secretary if the authorities have a timetable for launching such a plan? If they do, when will be the approximate time of implementation? If they do not, what are the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12279

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as stated in the main reply and mentioned by Mr YIU, we have been following up this matter and collecting information on various aspects. We hope that the project of food trucks can be launched as soon as possible if no substantial amendment of the existing legislation is required. At this stage, I can only tell Mr YIU that we are now going about the task actively and at full speed, and we also hope to work out a clear and concrete scheme as soon as possible.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me take this opportunity to thank the Financial Secretary once again for taking on board the proposal of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong on food trucks. I remember that he raised many questions when we introduced the idea of food trucks to him.

May I ask whether the Government will consider the idea of setting side certain places once again for establishing night bazaars similar to the former Sheung Wan Gala Point, or allowing food trucks to park in certain old districts, roadsides, vacant streets or on-street parking spaces for the purpose of operating night-market business? These arrangements can help boost the economy of Hong Kong and create elements of uniqueness and job opportunities in certain old districts or places. If the Government has such plans, how will it deal with such issues as water and electricity supply? Have the authorities considered where to set up such night bazaars, and how to deal with the issues of water and electricity supply and even waste disposal?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Food and Health, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, perhaps let me reply first. I believe the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development will give a supplementary reply if need be.

12280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

On 2 March, we gave a briefing on the hawker policy formulated by the Government to the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy under the Legislative Council Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene. One of the points raised then was related to Mr LAM's supplementary question. At the time, we put forward eight principles and five proposals. As pointed out in the last of the five proposals, we keep an open mind about the establishment of open-air bazaars (including night bazaars) with local characteristics, and we are prepared to advise operators on food safety and environmental hygiene.

In our view, the relevant proposals must command local support, and must be district-led and bottom-up. More often than not, when we look for a site for setting up a certain kind of establishments, say bazaars, we will find that the greatest concern is not just about water and electricity supply or hygiene arrangements as mentioned by Mr LAM just now. If the site selected is suitable and has the support of the local community, we can assume the responsibility of co-ordinating the provision of such assistance among different government departments. Very often, however, the greatest resistance is from the local community, because if the site selected is not suitable, nearby residents will think that the project concerned may cause various nuisances to them, such as poor environmental hygiene, noises, traffic congestion, and so on. I believe that no one wants to see this happen.

For this reason, earlier on, after the meeting with the Subcommittee, I have updated the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the 18 District Councils (DCs) on the refined hawker policy discussed by the Food and Health Bureau and the Subcommittee. I have also encouraged the DCs to set up working groups under them for discussing, exploring or selecting some locations widely considered as suitable in their districts, and then propose the mode in which they would like to operate a bazaar. A bazaar may be operated in many modes. It may operate every day, only on Sundays, once a month, or only in the morning or at night. They can propose the mode of operation of the bazaar, and indicate whether the bazaar is intended for selling cooked food or other dry goods. If the site selected can receive the acceptance of nearby residents at the DC level, we will assume the responsibility of co-ordination and act on their behalf to approach other government departments, so as to resolve the issues of water and electricity supply, hygiene and waste disposal as mentioned by Mr LAM just now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12281

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Since its visit to the United States last year, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has, on various informal occasions, advised the Government to introduce food trucks, and the feedback from the Government has been positive. Recently, the idea of introducing food trucks raised in the Budget has also drawn widespread public attention. But this policy of the Government has not made any substantial progress to date. What is most disappointing is a remark made by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau earlier: due to the lack of an appropriate licensing regime for food trucks at present, food trucks must initially be subject to the existing licensing requirements for food factories under the laws of Hong Kong. As a result, in the initial stage after their introduction, food trucks will not be allowed to operate on a mobile basis but will be required to operate at fixed locations. But why does the Government think that investors are prepared to devote huge resources to operating food trucks in the transition period? Will the Government end up making mobile food trucks immobile? May I ask the Government to explain the development direction of licensing? I do not want to see the abortion of the food trucks proposal.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): As I said a moment ago, at this stage, we are continuously collecting information on relevant overseas experience, licensing regimes and modes of operation. Members should understand that owing to the unique circumstances in Hong Kong, we must consider various physical factors, such as our relatively dense population and congested roads. We must therefore holistically consider how this project should be handled before we can come up with a specific approach to site selection.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): In my view, the root cause of this policy confusion is the Government's failure to recognize the need for Hong Kong to develop a dual economy. One component of this dual economy should be the mainstream economy composed of six or four major industries, and the other should be intended to create room for all members of the public, including small business operators in the creative and cultural sectors, to operate and develop 12282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 their business. Nonetheless, the current proposal on food trucks is neither fish nor fowl. To be fair, what the Secretary said just now is true. When we asked the Financial Secretary which bureau would be responsible for food trucks, he casually put them under the purview of Gregory SO …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, please ask your supplementary question.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will come to the point very soon. I must state the root cause before you can understand this policy confusion. Under such circumstances, ― I am telling the truth ― different departments are put together. Mr YIU's question is very clear. He asked why the night bazaar operated in Sham Shui Po during the Chinese New Year holidays in the past has disappeared. We do have what it takes to set up a night bazaar. Those are handcarts or mobile carts, so why can't it be done? This policy, if implemented, is proof that it can be done, and from an objective point of view, we have what it takes to do it. Thinking that long-term hawking activities will lead to ill-feelings, the Government wants to drive hawkers out of business, and in the end, we now have this food trucks proposal, which is neither fish nor fowl.

I still wish to talk about one more thing. To be fair, Secretary Dr KO …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, this is the oral question session.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Please listen to me first, Deputy President. I will ask my supplementary question very soon. Secretary Dr KO …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In this session, Members should not comment on government policies. Please ask your supplementary question at once.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12283

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I know, and I will ask my question right away. Secretary Dr KO deserves my praise. As for the five proposals put forward this time around, while I do not buy some of them, I do buy the substance of them; the authorities must formulate their hawker policy with an open mind. Now, to show the Government's resolution, the Financial Secretary is bringing the two sides together to conduct a joint study on whether Hong Kong needs a diversified economy. My question is: as the hawkers operating with mobile carts at Kweilin Street and the Government's current proposal on food trucks both share the same basis, can the authorities issue mobile food cart licences under the existing system also to food trucks?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, if I can understand Miss CHAN's supplementary question correctly, I would say that the case of the hawkers at Kweilin Street is a bit different from the case of food trucks. A so-called "Kweilin Night Market" appeared at Kweilin Street before the Spring Festival the year before last. But as I understand it, most if not all of the hawkers in this night bazaar were unlicensed hawkers, and the cooked food they provided posed problems of food hygiene and public health. Besides, they also caused a certain degree of nuisance to the neighbourhood. Therefore, in Sham Shui Po DC, there were strong voices against this kind of hawking activities, that is, the operation of a bazaar in a place randomly chosen by hawkers. Actually, I believe that after our discussions with the Subcommittee and the DCs, everybody should have come to a consensus: if we are to operate a bazaar in any form, the prime concerns must always be food safety, environmental hygiene, public safety, and whether any undue nuisance would be caused to people in the vicinity.

On this basis, the best course of action must always be a bottom-up approach under which ideas are mooted at the district level and all people can join hands to identify suitable sites. Once a mode of operation is proposed for a suitable site, and as long as nearby residents also accept the mode and think that there is unlikely to be any significant adverse impact on their living or the various aspects mentioned by me just now, the Government will offer assistance and deal with the water and electricity supply, hygiene and waste disposal of the site mentioned by me a moment ago. What is more, when there is a need to issue licences, we will also consider appropriate licensing arrangements.

12284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My supplementary question is very simple. Will the authorities consider the licensing of food trucks under the existing arrangements for issuing itinerant hawker licences? He has not answered this question. As for those major principles, I have no objection.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I said just now, the case cited by Miss CHAN actually involves some unlicensed cooked food hawkers whose business we will definitely ban. As for the way forward, we will fully support the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in its work of exploring whether there can be a new type of licences for the operation of food trucks. That said, I do not think that we have such licences at present, and we cannot find any types of licences suitable for the purpose either. So, if we are to implement the relevant proposal as soon as possible without legislating for a new type of licences, one feasible approach should be to permit the operation of food trucks in the form of food factories on a provisional basis. However, I believe that ultimately we may still need to devise a new type of licences, but this will take a longer time because, as we all know, this involves the enactment of legislation.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Regulation of Online Television and Radio Programmes

5. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): With the advancements in information technology and the prevalence of the Internet, viewing online television programmes or listening to online radio programmes through computers and smart phones is increasingly popular among the public. Some members of the public have relayed to me that as online television and radio programmes can reach out to different sectors of society, the views of the public (and in particular the younger generation) about social affairs may be influenced by online programmes. They consider that instances of the hosts of online programmes using indecent expressions or spreading objectionable ideas are quite common. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12285

(1) as online programmes are not currently subject to regulation under the Broadcasting Ordinance and other relevant legislation, whether the authorities will consider establishing a framework (such as by enacting legislation or introducing a licensing regime) to regulate the operation of online television and radio stations as well as the contents of online programmes (including the expressions used by the hosts), as well as conducting studies and extensive consultation in this respect; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(2) how the authorities handle public complaints against online programmes at present; whether they handled and followed up relevant complaints in the past five years; if they did, of the ways in which they handled the complaints?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the aim of the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO) (Cap. 562) is to regulate television (TV) programme services. Online TV stations deliver their TV programmes through the Internet, which is one of the many forms for online dissemination of information. Since Internet service is exempted from regulation under the BO, it follows that it is not subject to the regulation of the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards issued by the Communications Authority (CA). On the other hand, as programmes of online radio stations are not sound broadcasting services transmitted via radio wave, they are not governed by the Telecommunications Ordinance (TO), and hence not subject to the regulation of the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards issued by the CA.

Broadcasting services under the regulation of the BO and the TO are mainly provided through designated frequency of radio waves or exclusive fixed networks. The above two media, capable of transmitting broadcasting signals for extensive reception by more than a million of audience or listeners across the territory at the same time in a direct and stable manner regardless of the volume of Internet traffic, are the most effective and reliable broadcasting channels currently available. They provide a major source of information and entertainment to households. Therefore, one of the objectives of the BO and the TO is to monitor the contents and quality of such programmes targeting mainly 12286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 local audience in Hong Kong. This is an appropriate and effective approach. Traditional TV and radio programmes are regulated by similar local laws in developed countries around the world.

As for Internet service (including "online television stations" and "online radio stations", collectively referred to as "online stations"), this is a service of disseminating information through the Internet, with its mode of operation and target clients different from those of the traditional broadcasting service. Internet service is ubiquitous; any information uploaded online can be disseminated to all Internet users around the globe. On the other hand, Internet users in Hong Kong may readily receive information from websites provided in any parts of the world.

With the rapid advances of Internet technology, the threshold for using online media becomes increasingly lower. For example, people in many different areas of the world may disseminate information in the form of image, voice, photo or text to Internet users all over the world via a host of online media such as Facebook, YouTube, or even self-constructed websites at any time they like. Dissemination of information through an online station is no different from uploading information onto the Internet. The production team and viewers/listeners of an online station are no longer limited to Hong Kong people. Instead, they spread widely over the world. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to regulate overseas websites effectively by Hong Kong legislation.

My consolidated reply to the two-part question is as follows:

Regarding the question on whether the Government should consider establishing a framework (such as by enacting legislation or introducing a licensing regime) to regulate the operation of online stations as well as the contents of online programmes as suggested by the Member, as I have just explained, there are practical enforcement difficulties to regulate the dissemination of information by the public via the Internet. Regulation will become difficult if the operators upload the information onto websites outside Hong Kong. In fact, programmes of the so-called Hong Kong online stations may not necessarily be produced in Hong Kong. Moreover, as compared with the traditional TV or radio stations which can reach millions of people at the same time, ordinary online broadcasting via the Internet is still lagging behind in terms of scale. Based on the above reasons, the Government has no intention of enacting legislation to regulate online stations at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12287

As far as we understand, some overseas countries like the United States, Canada and Australia do not have regulatory control over online stations or consider such stations as providing broadcasting services, which is similar to the case of Hong Kong. We will keep in view the developments in overseas countries and review our regulatory policy as and when appropriate.

Although online programmes are not subject to regulation by the BO and the TO currently, their contents, just like those published via online platforms or in writing, are subject to regulation by general laws of Hong Kong, including the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (COIAO) (Cap. 390). The COIAO regulates the publication of articles with obscene or indecent contents (including material which is violent, depraved or repulsive), including articles published on the Internet.

In view of the vast volume of ever-changing information available on the Internet, the Government adopts a complaint-driven and co-regulatory approach to control obscene and indecent contents on the Internet. Together with the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association, the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA) has developed a Code of Practice. Under the Code of Practice, if the content under complaint is indecent, the webmaster will be requested to add a warning notice as required by law or remove the indecent article. If the content under complaint is likely to be obscene, the Internet service provider concerned will block access to the article or request the webmaster to remove it. Moreover, the OFNAA will refer cases involving obscene articles to the Police for follow-up actions.

Over the past five years, the OFNAA has received a total of 15 complaints about the contents of online programmes. After investigation, one of the complaints was found to involve an online radio programme that contained indecent language in its contents, and the website concerned has put up an appropriate warning notice in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Practice. One other complaint was found to involve an online TV programme that contained obscene contents, and the OFNAA has referred the case to the Police for follow-up actions. None of the remaining cases was found to involve contents that contravened the legislation.

In the second round of public consultation on the review of the COIAO, most of the respondents are in support of maintaining the existing co-regulatory approach for the new media. Taking into account the views received, we plan to 12288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 establish a liaison group comprising information technology practitioners, representatives of Internet service providers and government representatives to enhance the existing co-regulatory framework and to update the Code of Practice in dealing with public complaints about the Internet. We will also step up our efforts in publicity and public education to promote the positive and healthy use of new media among youngsters. Furthermore, to achieve a greater deterrent effect, we plan to increase the maximum fines and terms of imprisonment prescribed for offences under the COIAO. We briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting on the details of the improvement measures in March 2015. Drafting of the amendment bill concerned is in progress.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): I have raised this question for reasons of a complaint I received at the Complaints Division, and I believe the complaint reflects the concern of many parents who are worried about the exposure of their children, particularly minors, to objectionable information on the Internet. I of course understand that these days, any proposals on legislative control or a licensing regime may easily be labelled as "Article 23 for the Internet" or suppression of free speech. However, I am of the view that online stations are for purposes of a broadcasting nature, so if no restraint whatsoever is imposed, it will be difficult to protect the rights of listeners and balance such rights with parental' care for children.

As I have long since pointed out, the existing BO and TO are unable to regulate online TV and radio stations. This is well-known to all, and the reply of the Bureau is very clear. It can be summed up in just seven words without any need for a two-page explanation: "no easy task, no guts, no expertise". May I ask the Bureau how it can strike a balance between free speech and listeners' rights on the one hand, and parental care for children (particularly the protection of minor children) on the other? The main reply merely refers to some countries with no regulation of online media. Are there any foreign countries with such regulation? Will the Government conduct any studies and analyses before it launches any consultation again?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): In fact, co-regulation of online media by the Government and the Internet industry is now a global trend, an apt example being the approach of joint LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12289 regulation adopted in Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Nevertheless, we also notice that in certain countries, some sort of mandatory measures are adopted. In France and Australia, for example, Internet service providers must provide their customers with filtering software or inform them where such software can be purchased. In Germany, content providers need to use an age verification system to ensure that children cannot access restricted contents. However, since people in these places are extremely concerned about the efficacy of such measures and how they impact online information dissemination and free speech, there are considerable controversies over these measures in the aforesaid countries. We will continue to follow the work and developments of foreign countries in this regard and review our regulatory measures at an appropriate time.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): It was only just yesterday that the Panel on Security discussed section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance and the pro-establishment camp moved a motion, proposing to widen the applicability of section 161 as much as possible. But today, Mr KWOK Wai-keung has already hastened to put forward a proposal to crack down on online expression of opinions. Fortunately, the Secretary has simply given a scripted reply. He is well aware that the Internet can hardly be put under regulation. It is not that the Government does not want to put impose regulation. Rather, it is because there are all sorts of technical difficulties. Well, anyway, such questions asked by Mr KWOK Wai-keung can show us that this young Legislative Council Member is so very conservative and fossilized in mindset.

According to the main reply, the Government may make use of the COIAO to regulate online opinions that are obscene and indecent in nature, and it has already developed a Code of Practice together with the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association. The Government has no alternative, and there is only one solution for it: a Legislative Council composed entirely of pro-establishment Members. If all winners in the next election are pro-establishment candidates, then all bills can definitely be passed …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, what is your supplementary question?

12290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): My question is very simple. I hope that regarding the two parts in Mr KWOK Wai-keung's question, the Secretary can once again tell us very clearly that the COIAO and the Code of Practice formulated together with the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association are the means adopted to handle the issue mentioned in the second part. I would like the Secretary to make it very clear to Mr KWOK Wai-keung and all of us once again that online stations cannot be regulated, nor can we enact any legislation to put them under regulation.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have said just now, the Government currently adopts a co-regulatory approach. We have formulated a Code of Practice together with the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association, and we exercise control over the Internet through a co-regulatory and complaint-driven approach.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): The main question asks whether the authorities will consider "establishing a framework" and "enacting legislation or introducing a licensing regime". The Secretary should reply in the negative unambiguously.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we have no such intention at this stage.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): It is okay then. The same question should be put to the Secretary for Education. We had better ask him, okay?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please sit down.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12291

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, recently, the Internet-related actions of various sides have really caused great worries and concerns. Abusing the provision of "access to computer with dishonest intent", the Police have been making indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions. And, right here and now, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) is virtually assuming leadership in requesting the Government to suppress and control the Internet, in declaring war on all netizens in Hong Kong. Obviously, the FTU is making a formal declaration of war on all netizens in Hong Kong, and it wants to suppress them …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your supplementary question?

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my supplementary question is as follows. The Communist Party or the Beijing Government is intent on tightening Internet control in Hong Kong, and the FTU has made this request to the Government for the Communist Party. Does the Secretary feel any political pressure? Since the Communist Party has already voiced its intention of suppressing the Internet through a formal request presented by the FTU to the Secretary, will the Secretary succumb to this sort of pressure, accepting this political mission on both knees?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have said just now, we have no intention of changing our regulatory framework at this stage. We currently work with the industry under a co-regulatory approach, and we are of the view that the work of regulation is very satisfactory at present.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Does the Secretary feel any political pressure? I will commend him if he answers in the negative.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

12292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have nothing to add.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the idea of banning online stations from using foul language is highly unrealistic. Secretary, some journalists have even heard G4 bodyguards of the Chief Executive's Office using foul language inside the Legislative Council Complex. One who wants to ban foul language should put on earplugs when walking around, because foul language is heard everywhere in the streets.

Deputy President, a big knife, section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance, already looms over freedom of online speech at present. May I ask the Secretary whether he can tell the public and Members from the FTU very clearly that given the existence of this knife, no separate legislation needs to be enacted? Will section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance also be used for pressing charges against online broadcasting offences because the invocation of this section can lead to successful conviction most easily? Conversely, will the Secretary confirm that the existing legislation is already able to deal with obscene or indecent online contents, and the Government will not invoke section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance as a kind of cyber police in the future?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have said in my main reply just now, online expression of opinions and writing are regulated by the legislation currently in force.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, will the Secretary answer whether the existing legislation is already adequate and there is no need to invoke section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): We will review from time to time the regulation of online expression of opinions under the existing legislation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12293

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when we are vigorously defending freedom of speech under the political climate and undemocratic system of today, pro-establishment Members however seek to grasp every opportunity to ask for stronger surveillance. For instance, when we discussed section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance yesterday, we wanted to protect people from unjustified arrests, but they instead requested the expansion of police power. It looks like the Member who has raised the question today will not be happy until after the Government has even sought to regulate online stations by introducing a licensing system. The problem now is that the establishment of online stations by some people is due to the fact that the Government refuses to issue licences for them to formally operate TV stations. For this reason, online stations have basically become the last defence or bottom line for freedom of speech.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your supplementary question?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, last year I raised a question in this Council on the numerous restrictions faced by online stations in their coverage of government activities. I have recently received a complaint, in which it is said that even for uncontroversial events like the Cheung Chau Bun Festival, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department still refused to permit reporters from online stations and even companies duly registered with the OFNAA to enter the venues to do news coverage. The department even indicated that this was a new requirement of the Information Services Department. Deputy President, my supplementary question is as follows. Will the Government consider ― I also want to make a request for "establishing a framework" ― permitting reporters from online stations to enter the relevant venues to do news coverage, or formulating an application mechanism that is fair and conducive to the free dissemination of information and freedom of the press, so that online stations can enjoy the right to news coverage by meeting the same requirements applied to others?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr MOK's supplementary question actually falls outside the policy portfolio of the Commerce and Economic Development 12294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Bureau. But based on the reply made by the Secretary for Home Affairs in the Legislative Council on 22 January 2014, we can provide the following information: "With the threshold for creating a media platform substantially lowered by the prevalence of the Internet, almost everyone can set up a media website. This, coupled with the fast and ever-changing development of social networking websites and the diverse means of online dissemination of information, has made it difficult to get hold of the exact number of such media. Moreover, operating in different modes, such websites do not follow the traditional practice of the mainstream media."

When the Government organizes public functions, it will usually invite news media to do coverage. Generally speaking, news media include registered printed newspapers and periodicals, radio stations, television stations and news agencies. Regarding the so-called online reporters, they are not subject to any registration or licensing regime under the law as in the case of mainstream media. The Government is therefore unable to distinguish the large numbers of online reporters, nor is it possible to grant access to all those so-called online reporters for news coverage as far as practical arrangements are concerned.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Why are reporters from companies already registered with the OFNAA also denied access?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I have nothing to add in this regard, Deputy President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, free speech in Hong Kong is increasingly at stake. Today, the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the International Federation of Journalists and the Independent Commentators Association have called on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to drop the reference to Hong Kong in the proposed national security law, lest freedom of speech in Hong Kong may be impaired. The topic raised by this Member belonging to the FTU is against the tide and aimed at restricting free speech in Hong Kong. As Members are well aware, Stanley NG, a member LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12295 of the FTU, once vowed to make the knife looming over Hong Kong, the national security law, fall down. May I ask whether the Government is "tangoing" with certain pro-establishment Members, in an attempt to create a fait accompli, so that the national security law to be implemented on the Mainland can likewise be implemented in Hong Kong, and the media and the Internet can be put under control?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr KWOK's supplementary question actually also falls outside the portfolio of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Generally speaking, however, Hong Kong people are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press enshrined in the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Government has all along adopted a lenient policy and provided an appropriate environment where freedom of the press can thrive, and the professional and accurate coverage of news and current events by journalists can be facilitated. However, I would like to reiterate that any inappropriate words or acts online or otherwise that involve criminal offences are subject to regulation under the relevant legislation. The contents of online programmes as well as other online writing and publications are likewise subject to regulation under the laws of Hong Kong in general.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not given a reply to my question on how the Government will address the issue of the national security law.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I have nothing to add, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

12296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Constitutional Reform Package for Selecting Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage in 2017

6. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on 22 April this year, the Government published the Consultation Report and Proposals on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage (Consultation Report and Proposals). In addressing this Council on that day, the Chief Secretary for Administration pointed out that "after the Chief Executive is selected by universal suffrage through 'one person, one vote' in 2017, the ultimate aim of the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage as prescribed in Article 45 of the Basic Law will have been attained." There are comments that as the pan-democratic Members of the Legislative Council have repeatedly indicated that they will vote against the constitutional reform package proposed by the Government for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the chance for the passage of the constitutional reform package by this Council is very slim. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Government will, after the constitutional reform package is negatived by this Council, expeditiously restart the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform regarding the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, so as to attain the ultimate aim of the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage as prescribed in Article 45 of the Basic Law; if it will, of the specific timetable;

(2) as some members of the public have criticized that the public consultation conducted by the Task Force on Constitutional Development (comprising the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs) was not comprehensive, ignoring the views of some members of the public, whether the Government has assessed if the three Secretaries of Departments and Director of Bureau should be held politically accountable for the constitutional reform package being negatived by this Council and tender resignation; if it has, of the details; and

(3) given that Article 50 of the Basic Law stipulates that if the Legislative Council refuses to pass a budget or any other important bill introduced by the Government, and if consensus still cannot be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12297

reached after consultations, the Chief Executive may dissolve the Legislative Council, whether the Chief Executive will dissolve the Legislative Council after the constitutional reform package is negatived by this Council, so as to restart the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform regarding the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the SAR Government published on 22 April 2015 the Consultation Report and Proposals. The proposals for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage put forward by the SAR Government are constitutional, lawful, fair and reasonable. We sincerely hope that the general public and Members of the Legislative Council would support the proposals, so that 5 million eligible voters of Hong Kong could select the next Chief Executive by universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" in 2017 as scheduled. Our reply to the questions raised by Dr KWOK is as follows:

(1) The SAR Government has repeatedly emphasized, and also stated clearly in the Consultation Report and Proposals as well as in the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Administration on 22 April at the Legislative Council meeting, that according to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2016, if the motion to amend Annex I to the Basic Law concerning the method for the selection of the Chief Executive is not endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive in 2017 would continue to be elected by the 1 200-member Election Committee. Constitutional development will come to a standstill, the aim of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will fall through, and it would then be even more difficult to know when the aim of selecting all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage could be achieved. Some people suggest vetoing the proposals so as to restart the "Five-step Process" immediately. However, this is legally infeasible and impracticable in terms of legislative timetable, and hence is an unrealistic proposition. Therefore, the SAR Government urges 12298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Legislative Council Members and political parties to demonstrate their courage and determination at this critical moment, act in the overall and long-term interests of Hong Kong, heed the strong aspiration of the majority of Hong Kong people, and support the constitutional development proposals, so that Hong Kong could achieve universal suffrage as scheduled, and allow constitutional development to continue to move forward.

(2) Since the establishment of the Task Force on Constitutional Development (Task Force) led by the Chief Secretary for Administration on 17 October 2013, the SAR Government has conducted two rounds of extensive and systematic public consultations on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, and truthfully reflected the views of the public received during the consultation periods. All the written submissions received were uploaded in full to the constitutional development website for public inspection. We absolutely disagree with the unreasonable allegation made by Dr KWOK that the public consultations conducted by the Task Force were "not comprehensive, ignoring the views of some members of the public".

At this moment, the most important task of the SAR Government is to strive to secure endorsement of the proposals for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage by a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council, so that 5 million eligible voters could select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 through "one person, one vote". The Legislative Council has an important constitutional role and responsibility in the constitutional development of Hong Kong. I urge all Members to act in the overall and long-term interests of Hong Kong and support the proposals put forward by the SAR Government.

(3) The concept of "important bill" under Article 50 of the Basic Law only applies to local legislation. Amendments to the method for selecting the Chief Executive are, by nature, amendments to the provisions of Annex I to the Basic Law, and hence are part of the constitutional arrangements, not amendments to local legislation. Therefore, Article 50 of the Basic Law is not applicable to the amendments to the method for selecting the Chief Executive.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12299

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I initially wanted to give the Secretary a chance to speak honestly. He has deceived the public for one year. Last year, he put forward the slogan "Let's Talk", but the remarks of LI Fei and WANG Guangya have finally shown that it is just a lie. According to LI Fei, when it comes to the implementation of universal suffrage, the binding force of the 31 August Decision will be long-lasting, rather than being limited to just one election. WANG Guangya's words are even more explicit: all people who are opposed to the Central Authorities must be excluded; they must be prevented not only from joining the contest but also from winning. And, even if they are lucky enough to win, the Central Authorities will definitely refuse to appoint them.

All this is the total opposite of "Let's Talk", and nothing but fake universal suffrage. Rather than discharging its duty of speaking honestly, the Government has deceived us for one year, wasting huge sums of public money. If the constitutional reform proposals are negatived, the "trio" comprising the Secretary, Carrie LAM and Secretary Rimsky YUEN must be held responsible. First, they have failed to fulfil their responsibility of reflecting the opinions of Hong Kong people, nor have they relayed the voices of the 1 million people who participated in the Umbrella Movement, …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your supplementary question?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my question is very simple. When it is necessary for the "trio" of the Government to show political accountability, such as giving consideration to resignation, how can they face Hong Kong people with a clear conscience if they refuse to do so? How can they still serve as accountability officials in that case? How can the Secretary, Carrie LAM and Secretary Rimsky YUEN show their accountability to the public?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first, it is absolutely impossible for us to accept Dr KWOK Ka-ki's unreasonable accusation. Throughout the whole process, the Task Force has conducted consultation and put forward proposals according to 12300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 legal requirements. And, we must remember that there is still two more weeks to go before the Legislative Council scrutinizes and votes on the relevant proposals.

As I mentioned in the main reply, more than 100 000 written submissions were received in the two rounds of consultation. All the submissions were uploaded in full to the website and made available for inspection by the public and Members. In the past two years, we also arranged … we arranged at least five open meetings for Legislative Council Members to voice their views directly to the relevant officials of the Central Authorities. Members also had an opportunity to fully reflect their views to the Central Authorities a few days ago. In addition to the report submitted by the Chief Executive and the SAR Government, the relevant departments of the Central Authorities have also listened to the views collected through other channels before making a decision. Therefore, we cannot accept Dr KWOK Ka-ki's accusation.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I must put my question more clearly. What kind of political responsibility must he bear …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you only need to point out the part of your question that the Secretary has not answered.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the question is about political responsibility. My question is very clear. What kind of political responsibility must he bear?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me advise Dr KWOK Ka-ki that he should not hasten so soon to shift the blame for voting down the proposals to others.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12301

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I heard Dr KWOK talk about political responsibility. The third step of the "Five-step Process" is about the responsibility of the Legislative Council. I cannot quite understand one point. And, I want to ask the Secretary whether he will redefine the concept of democracy. Is democracy about obeying the majority? Or, is it about obeying the minority instead? Majority should not be defined as two thirds, as majority can also mean one half. Deputy President, the responsibility should fall on us, rather than government officials. Therefore, I cannot quite understand Dr KWOK's question. How can he ask the Secretary or any officials to resign? If the package cannot be passed, the only reason will be the disagreement of the minority.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

May I ask the Secretary whether the concept of democracy needs to be redefined to mean obeying the minority rather than the majority?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, Mr SHEK's words are very true. This is the third step of the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform, and the proposals will be considered by the Legislative Council in two weeks' time. We respect the different views of Legislative Council Members on the proposals of the SAR Government. But we understand that whether the proposals are to be passed is within the power of Legislative Council Members. As representatives of public opinions, Legislative Council Members will make their decisions after listening to public opinions. I believe that all people must bear the consequences of their own acts, so Legislative Council Members will definitely be held responsible once they have made the decision.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, last Sunday, Basic Law Committee Chairman LI Fei referred to the constitutional reform proposals as a significant touchstone, remarking that endorsement of these proposals would mean support for "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, while rejection of them would signify negation of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law.

12302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Secretary, at this moment, at least 40% of Hong Kong people reject the constitutional reform proposals. Does this mean that all these people negate "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law? Secretary, do you agree with Chairman LI Fei?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I am looking at his actual remark. As shown by the transcript, Chairman LI Fei actually made this remark in the context of Members' voting stances. The actual remark of LI Fei does not touch upon the views and positions of the several million Hong Kong people. So, I do not think that Mr Dennis KWOK's question is related to those mentioned in Chairman LI Fei's actual remark.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I want to know if he agrees with LI Fei.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I suppose the questions raised in the Legislative Council should not seek to ask government officials to comment on any specific opinions.

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, in its reply to Mr Dennis KWOK's question, the Government says that in case its constitutional reform proposals are negatived, our constitutional development will mark time, in the sense that the aim of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will fall through and the goal of returning all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage will be nowhere in sight. The Secretary also says that if the constitutional reform proposals are negatived, restarting the "Five-step Process" immediately is legally infeasible and impracticable in terms of legislative timetable, and this is an unrealistic proposition. Put simply, the Government wants to tell the general public that voting down the constitutional reform proposals of the Government will be tantamount to cutting off the road to the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, and the democratic development in Hong Kong will be severely impaired. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12303

President, here is my supplementary question. If the constitutional reform proposals are unfortunately negatived ― the Secretary is right in saying that their passage needs a miracle ― what does the Government plan to do regarding the democratic development in Hong Kong and the promotion of constitutional development in the two whole years from 30 June 2015 to the expiry of its current term on 30 June 2017? What are the things it will be capable of doing or incapable of doing? Will it simply keep on grumbling, blaming the pan-democrats for refusing to support the Government's present constitutional reform proposals?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, we should not make too early an attempt to guess the voting outcome two weeks later, though the chance of passage for the proposals is very small. I do not think that discussions on constitutional development in the community will thus come to a halt. I notice that private think tanks and many organizations have recently organized many seminars to discuss how we can learn from the present experience in the post-constitutional reform era, with a view to carrying out future constitutional reform more smoothly. There have been many related discussions recently.

If the present constitutional reform proposals cannot be passed by the Legislative Council, the SAR Government will certainly be very disappointed. However, the authorities will soon be holding four elections as required by the law. The SAR Government and the Legislative Council must jointly deal with many issues related to these four elections. In the future, if there are any specific issues that require exploration by the current-term Government, Members can raise these issues at the meetings of the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs at any time. Yet, as mentioned in my main reply, I am afraid that from the standpoints of the law, time available and practical circumstances, restarting the "Five-step Process" to amend Annex I under another statutory process will be totally beyond the capability of this Government within the two years remaining in its current term .

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's reply to my supplementary question is not to-the-point. I am not asking him to tell me his feelings about the voting down of the constitutional reform proposals. Even if 12304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 the proposals are negatived, democratic development must somehow continue. I only ask the Secretary to tell us how the Government will promote democratic development in Hong Kong in the next two years.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the Secretary has answered your supplementary question.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, as to whether the Chief Executive can be selected by universal suffrage in 2017, the Secretary has remarked that the hope is slim. I am very disappointed and find this very regrettable. It looks very likely that the 5 million electors will not be able to select the Chief Executive through the ballot box in 2017.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki simply spoke like Satan reproving sins just now. He lashed out loudly at others, dismissing the proposals as a form of fake universal suffrage and criticizing the Secretary for speaking dishonestly. He looked downright sinister and disgusting.

The Secretary has said publicly that he will continue to approach Members to lobby for their support ― probably the opposition's support because the pro-establishment camp has clearly indicated support. May I ask the Secretary when he will really do so. When will he do so? How big is the chance of success?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, as I said yesterday, starting from today, the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office will be sending invitations to meetings to Legislative Council Members, especially democratic Members, so that in the time to come, probably from tomorrow onwards, we can have exchanges with them on the latest situation and see if there are any chances of narrowing the gap between the two sides. The authorities have already sent out invitations, and I understand that several political parties and groupings have confirmed the meeting dates. This will be our task in the coming two weeks.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12305

Some media people have asked me whether there is still any point to have such meetings, given the slim hope of securing the passage of the proposals. My reply is that as long as the Legislative Council has not conducted voting, all sides should not give up so early and should instead continue to lobby for the passage of the proposals. As Mr IP Kwok-him said earlier, we want to give the 5 million eligible electors the right to vote, so that all of them can cast their votes two years later. This is the most important goal. Even though the hope is slim, we still maintain that we should continue to fight until the last minute.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, I believe universal suffrage is the concern of all Hong Kong people. As representatives of public opinions, Legislative Council Members should obey public opinions. Some pan-democratic Members frequently ask whether the officials concerned will resign if the constitutional reform proposals cannot be passed. Yet, they have never asked themselves what they are going to do. This is simply not fair.

President, only two weeks are left, but many pan-democratic Members are still expressing views that are incompatible with the Basic Law and the 31 August Decision of NPCSC. I think this is quite a difficult problem to deal with. May I therefore ask the Secretary how you are going to handle views? How will you persuade them to accept the Government's proposals, so that the 5 million eligible Hong Kong people can elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" in 2017?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, yesterday was the last day in the notice period for the resolution to be proposed by the authorities. I therefore gave a notice, in the hope that the Legislative Council could examine and vote on the proposals two weeks later. The resolution I am moving and the proposals announced by the authorities on 22 April are basically the same in contents. We naturally hope that Legislative Council Members will render their support. Yet, I understand that many Members hold a negative attitude towards our proposals. We will do the best we can in the next two weeks, and I hope we can receive Members' support.

12306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Over quite a long period of time, at least about a year and a half, different opinion polls have been conducted in society. Various organizations have conducted different surveys and asked different questions. But all of us can invariably notice that those who support the forward development of our constitutional system, the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 and the Legislative Council's endorsement of the proposals formally put forward by the Government yesterday have consistently outnumbered the opponents in percentage terms. The gap between the two is sometimes very narrow, but it may widen a bit at times.

Although these opinion polls have yielded different findings and there are very big differences in public opinions, we notice that the general public still hope that the Legislative Council can pass the proposals at the end of the day. If the rate of support for the proposals is, say, 50%, then the rate of those who think that the Legislative Council should pass the proposals may be higher by a few percentage points. These people think that although the SAR Government's proposals are not satisfactory and they are not yet satisfied, taking a step forward is always better than marking time. Therefore, they think the Legislative Council should pass the proposals.

These are not the findings of just one or two opinion polls. Rather, they have been the views of the public for prolonged periods. And, in the two rounds of consultation conducted by the authorities, we also heard lots of similar opinions. Hence, as I said earlier, the most important objective of the present constitutional reform is to strip the Election Committee of the right to vote, and transfer the right to the 5 million eligible electors. Since this is the most important goal, public opinions are extremely important. If more than 50% of the community think that we should take a step forward, should Legislative Council Members consider the factor that their voting decisions two weeks later will determine whether the 5 million people will each have one vote? This is a historic step, and I hope that in these two weeks, Members can prudently consider how they should respond to public opinions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 22 minutes 30 seconds on this question. Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12307

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Community Rehabilitation Day Centres

7. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Chinese): President, at present, there are four subvented Community Rehabilitation Day Centres (day centres) in Hong Kong, namely Haven of Hope Christian Service Haven of Hope Community Rehabilitation Day Centre, Christian Family Service Centre Community Rehabilitation Day Centre (Family Service Centre), SAHK NTE Community Rehabilitation Day Centre (SAHK Centre) and The Neighbourhood Advice-Action Council NT West Community Rehabilitation Day Centre (Neighbourhood Centre). The day centres provide treatment and rehabilitation training services for specific categories of newly discharged patients to help them integrate into the community, and provide training for the family members/carers of these patients to help enhance their caring capabilities and relieve the pressure faced by them in taking care of patients on a long-term basis. On the other hand, if there is a need for the day centres to replace worn-out therapeutic apparatuses with replacement costs exceeding $50,000 each, the day centres may, under Chapter 5 of the Lotteries Fund Manual, apply for major (other) grants under the Lotteries Fund for the replacement, provided that the apparatuses have been approved by the Social Welfare Department to be standard items required for providing the services (the approved standard items). Regarding the number, service quotas, manpower and therapeutic apparatuses of day centres, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that in 2013-2014, the average daily attendance for the physiotherapy/occupational therapy and training services provided by the SAHK Centre was 145, which was two times more than the attendance of 60 stipulated in the Funding and Service Agreement (FSA), and the attendance for the relevant services provided by Neighbourhood Centre in the same year was 99, which also exceeded the attendance of 80 stipulated in the FSA, whether the authorities will provide additional resources for these day centres to increase their service quotas and manpower; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, the number of people waiting for the services of Neighbourhood Centre stood at a yearly average of 220, which was significantly higher than those of the other three day centres and reflected a great demand for such 12308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

services from New Territories West residents, whether the authorities will consider setting up an additional day centre in the district; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that in 2013-2014, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) recipients accounted for nearly 25% of the service recipients of the four day centres on average, and the relevant percentage for Family Service Centre was even close to 40%, reflecting a great demand for such services from CSSA recipients, and yet it has been learnt that some CSSA recipients have given up receiving rehabilitation treatment services due to their inability to pay the fees, whether the authorities will consider relaxing the policy to allow CSSA recipients to receive rehabilitation treatment services provided by the day centres for free; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) of the details of the approved standard items; of the number of applications for grants for replacing apparatuses made by the various day centres as well as the amount involved in each of the past five years and, among them, the number of applications rejected for the reason that the apparatuses were not standard items (with a breakdown by day centre); and

(5) whether the authorities will conduct a comprehensive review of the policy on day centres, including the number, manpower, service space and therapeutic apparatuses of day centres, and whether they will provide additional resources for the various day centres to assist them in enhancing their services; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the questions raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che is as follows:

(1) and (2)

According to the Funding and Service Agreement (FSA) between the Neighbourhood Advice-Action Council NT West Community Rehabilitation Day Centre and the Social Welfare Department LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12309

(SWD), the average daily attendance of discharged patients for its rehabilitation training programme should be no less than 80 people. In the past five years, the average daily attendance of the Centre was 146. Collaborative arrangements have all along been in place between the Centre and Tuen Mun Hospital, under which the latter will refer service users to the Centre for receiving post-discharge transitional services for six months. As regards the other three Community Rehabilitation Day Centres (day centres) mentioned in the question (that is, Haven of Hope Christian Service Haven of Hope Community Rehabilitation Day Centre, Christian Family Service Centre Community Rehabilitation Day Centre, SAHK NTE Community Rehabilitation Day Centre), the average daily attendance over the past five years for rehabilitation training (81 people, 91 people and 59 people respectively) was similar to that stipulated in the FSA (80 people, 80 people and 60 people respectively).

After the regularization of the home care service for persons with severe disabilities (HCS) and the integrated support service for persons with severe physical disabilities (ISS) by the Government in 2014, service operators have actively publicized and promoted these two new services among the healthcare personnel in the districts. In April this year, the Neighbourhood Advice-Action Council examined the classification of cases with Tuen Mun Hospital so as to refer discharged patients to the centre and the above two new services as appropriate, with a view to serving more discharged patients in need through optimizing the use of various existing community support services. The SWD will closely monitor the use of the said services and review the service needs.

(3) Under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, eligible recipients are provided with special grants to cover fees for rehabilitation training services, outreaching home visit services provided by physiotherapists or occupational therapists, day respite care services and day care services for persons with severe disabilities in the day centres and relevant travelling expenses.

(4) In handling the applications to the Lotteries Fund (LF) for grants for replenishing or replacing rehabilitation devices made by day centres, the SWD will assess these applications taking into account the 12310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

individual circumstances of a day centre, including whether the devices can raise the service quality and standard. According to the records of the SWD, the SAHK NT East Community Rehabilitation Day Centre was granted $95,000 from the LF in 2014-2015 for procurement of rehabilitation devices. The other three day centres mentioned in the question (that is, Haven of Hope Christian Service Haven of Hope Community Rehabilitation Day Centre, Christian Family Service Centre Community Rehabilitation Day Centre and the Neighbourhood Advice-Action Council NT West Community Rehabilitation Day Centre) did not apply for grants from the LF to procure rehabilitation devices in the past five years.

(5) Day centres provide short-term and transitional rehabilitation services for newly discharged patients, with a view to enhancing their capabilities of living independently in the community and facilitating their integration into society. On the other hand, HCS and ISS also provide home-based rehabilitation services for newly discharged patients with severe disabilities. The SWD will closely monitor the development of and the demand for the above services and the co-ordination with other community support services, and will review the relevant service arrangements in a timely manner.

Retail and Car Parking Facilities in Yan On Estate

8. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in December last year, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) entered into a tenancy agreement with the successful tenderer for the lease of the shop located at No. 1, Ground Floor, Yan Hei House, Yan On Estate, Ma On Shan. However, some residents in Yan On Estate have complained to me that the tenant has not yet commenced business in the aforesaid shop, which manifestly constitutes a violation of the requirement that a tenant has to commence business of the designated trade within one month from the effective date of the tenancy agreement. However, HA has not followed up on the matter so far, and has been alleged of harbouring the tenant and ignoring the need of the residents for retail services. Meanwhile, these residents have also pointed out that there is a serious shortage of both monthly and hourly parking spaces in Yan On Estate. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12311

(1) of the trade that the tenant intends to run in the aforesaid shop;

(2) whether the tenant signed the commercial tenancy agreement for the aforesaid shop in the name of a company; if so, of the name of the company concerned;

(3) whether HA is aware that the tenant has not yet commenced business in the aforesaid shop; if HA is, of its follow-up actions, including whether HA will consider terminating the tenancy agreement;

(4) whether the tenant has been paying monthly rent and quarterly rates since it entered into the tenancy agreement; if the tenant has not, of the amount of rent in arrears; if the tenant has, whether it is acceptable to HA for the tenant to only pay rent and rates but not conducting business as required;

(5) whether HA will conduct a fresh tendering exercise for the tenancy of the aforesaid shop; if HA will, of the timetable of the tendering exercise; of the factors to be considered by HA in deciding whether or not to conduct a fresh tendering exercise, and whether they include the complaints received by the authorities from the residents in the housing estate concerned;

(6) given that there are only a Hong Kong style cafe, a convenience store and a mini-supermarket in Yan On Estate at present, whether HA will consider converting the unoccupied spaces or passages on the ground floor of each of the buildings in the housing estate into shop premises for the provision of more retail services for the residents; if HA will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(7) of the current numbers of monthly and hourly parking spaces in Yan On Estate; the number of persons currently waiting for monthly parking spaces, with a breakdown by type of parking spaces; whether HA will designate parking spaces on the ground floor of each of the buildings in Yan On Estate to tackle the shortage of parking spaces; if HA will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

12312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(8) whether HA will convert the existing carpark in Yan On Estate into a multi-storey shopping centre-cum-carpark in the light of the needs of the residents in Yan On Estates for retail services and parking spaces; if HA will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, in response to the various parts of the question raised by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, my consolidated reply is as follows.

As pointed out in our reply issued on 3 December last year, Yan On Estate is a public rental housing (PRH) estate under the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) which consists of three domestic blocks with 2587 PRH units. The HA provides retail and carparking facilities in PRH estates mainly to facilitate local residents to shop for daily necessities and live their daily lives. The scale and the type of retail facilities to be provided are primarily determined with reference to the actual circumstances and the population of the estate and the availability of relevant facilities in the vicinity.

Shop No. 1 at Ground Floor of Yan Hei House in Yan On Estate was originally an empty bay. In order to increase residents' choices in shopping and services, the HA has decided to convert it into an independent shop premises and arranged an open tender for its letting in November 2014 under the multiple trades of "Medicine, Cosmetics and Dried Sea Food (With Chinese Medicine Practitioner Services)" or "Education and Cultural Centre". The tender was awarded to the tenderer operating the trade of "Education and Cultural Centre".

According to the established practice of the HA, signing of tenancy agreement will only be arranged upon completion of the conversion works of the shop premises. As such, the HA has carried out the necessary conversion works which was completed in late May this year. The HA has then arranged the prospective shop tenant to sign the tenancy agreement and to complete the formalities for handing over of the shop early this month. Upon the completion of such formalities, the tenant can commence fitting-out work and then start its business operation. Given the above, there are no questions of rent arrears or breaching of tenancy agreement, and so on, by the tenant before the signing of the tenancy agreement for the premises.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12313

Regarding the facilities in the estate, Yan On Estate is a relatively small PRH estate. Available retail facilities include a convenience store, an eatery shop, a frozen food and general provision shop and an Automatic Teller Machine. Also, there are commercial and community facilities provided in the vicinity including a wet market, shopping and eatery facilities as well as a community hall, a children and youth centre and an elderly centre in Heng On Estate.

On parking spaces, there are a total of 104 monthly parking spaces in Yan On Estate including 85 for private cars, eight for light goods vehicles and 11 for motor cycles. Furthermore, there are 14 hourly parking spaces, including nine for private cars, two for light goods vehicles and three for motor cycles. At present, there are 26 applications on the waiting list for monthly parking spaces including 21 for private cars, one for light goods vehicle and four for motor cycles.

Other than the four loading and unloading areas provided in Yan On Estate, all remaining empty space at ground level of the estate has already been designated either as recreation area or emergency vehicular access. As there is not much vacant space or other space available for conversion works in the estate, the HA considers it inappropriate to carry out any conversion into commercial use or additional parking spaces. However, the HA is formulating an extension proposal for Yan On Estate which includes the building of new PRH units and converting the existing carpark into a multi-storey shopping centre cum carpark to increase the retail and carparking facilities to cope with the need of the community. The conversion works concerned is scheduled for commencement in 2018 and for completion in 2021.

Accommodation for Tourists

9. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Chinese): President, in the biennial Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report released recently by the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong ranks the 13th among 141 countries and regions around the world, two places higher than its ranking last time. However, Hong Kong's ranking in price competitiveness, one of the 14 groups of indicators, is only the 127th, being dragged down by the rankings in purchasing power parity, fuel prices and hotel room rates. Some members of the tourism industry have relayed to me that the high and greatly volatile room rates of local hotels have significant impacts on the industry. They have also pointed out that low-priced 12314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 and diversified local guesthouses can provide tourists with more accommodation options and help alleviate the shortage of hotel rooms during peak tourism seasons. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the Hong Kong Tourism Board anticipates that the number of rooms in local hotels will increase to some 82 100 by 2017, and the authorities project that visitor arrivals in Hong Kong will exceed 70 million by then, whether the authorities have assessed the supply and demand situation of hotel rooms during that time;

(2) whether the authorities have looked into the respective differences between the highest and the lowest room rates in hotels of various classes during the low and peak seasons of the tourism industry; whether they have studied the impacts of such differences on the tourism industry;

(3) of the total number of licensed guesthouses in Hong Kong at present; whether it knows the number of occupants and average room rate of such guesthouses in the past three years; and

(4) whether the authorities will consider promoting and publicizing Hong Kong's guesthouses overseas, and driving guesthouses to enhance their quality, with a view to alleviating the tight supply of hotel rooms during peak tourism seasons; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the development of the tourism industry of Hong Kong. The sustained competitiveness of our tourism sector was reaffirmed by "The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2015" (the Report) recently published by the World Economic Forum. According to the Report, Hong Kong's position in the overall ranking advances by two places comparing to two years ago and we continue to rank high in the Asia Pacific region. Focusing on price competitiveness, the ranking of Hong Kong is comparable to those of some other regional destinations such as Singapore and Japan. We note that hotel room rates in Hong Kong have been adjusted downwards recently and believe that the adjustment would help attract visitors to Hong Kong. Also, the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12315 will continue to drive the development of tourism-related infrastructures and carry out tourism promotion actively through the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB), so as to maintain and enhance the overall appeal and receiving capacity of our tourism sector in a multi-pronged manner.

Our reply to Mr WONG's question is as follows:

(1) In view of the continued growth in visitor arrivals in recent years, it is anticipated that overnight visitors' demand for hotel rooms will remain keen in the near future. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach to encourage investors to develop different types of hotels. Nevertheless, the supply of hotel is largely market-driven. Developers will decide on and adjust their hotel development plans and construction pace with reference to various factors such as their forecasts on visitor arrival growth, economic prospect, hotel business environment and profitability, and so on. All in all, it is expected that more new hotels will be coming on stream in the years ahead and the total supply of hotel rooms is expected to grow to around 84 000 in 2017.

(2) The HKTB has been collecting information on the average monthly hotel room rates of different categories of hotels. In 2014, the average room rates of High Tariff A, High Tariff B and Medium Tariff hotels per night ranged from $2,212 to $2,673; $1,079 to $1,335; and $676 to $863 respectively. Indeed, the hotel room rates of different tourism destinations including Hong Kong have been adjusting according to the demand-supply situation in the market. In general, the demand and supply of hotel rooms become tighter during year-end and festive seasons, and the hotel room rates during such time are normally higher than that of the low season. However, it is noted that the hotels in Hong Kong, in face of regional competition, already adjusted their room rates downwards in the first few months of 2015 with a view to attracting more visitors to stay overnight. We believe the hotel sector will closely monitor and determine the suitable level of hotel room rates, so as to maintain the competitiveness of Hong Kong's tourism industry.

(3) According to the information provided by the HKTB, there were a total of 1 262 licensed guesthouses providing 11 083 rooms in total 12316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

as at end April 2015. The HKTB does not maintain records on the average occupancy rates and average room rates of licensed guesthouses for the past three years.

(4) Licensed guesthouses are part of Hong Kong's tourism resources. Their relatively lower room rates attract visitors who are more sensitive to prices or have limited budget. The HKTB provides accreditation to visitor accommodation through its Quality Tourism Services (QTS) Scheme, where QTS-accredited visitor accommodations must pass stringent annual assessments to ensure that the quality of their services meets the prescribed standards. The HKTB also promotes QTS-accredited visitor accommodations to visitors through various channels including its website. In addition, visitors can also search for the details (including addresses) of all licensed guesthouses through the website of the Office of the Licensing Authority under the Home Affairs Department as well as its mobile application "Hong Kong Licensed Hotels and Guesthouses".

Back Payments to Staff Members of Subvented Organizations in Relation to Civil Service Pay Adjustments

10. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, the Finance Committee (FC) of this Council approved the 2014-2015 civil service pay adjustment proposal at its meeting on 16 January this year. The Secretary for the Civil Service said at the meeting that the authorities would forthwith make administrative arrangements so that the employees of subvented organizations could receive back payments before the Chinese New Year. However, I have recently received complaints from some former teachers of the Vocational Training Council (VTC), a subvented organization, that they have not yet received back payments. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether subvented organizations may set the following requirement on their own: employees must still be in service when FC approves the civil service pay adjustment proposal for them to be eligible to receive back payments; if so, of the reasons for that;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12317

(2) of the amount of subventions additionally allocated, in each of the past five financial years, by the authorities to VTC as a result of civil service pay adjustments; whether such amounts included the sums required for making back payments to those teaching staff members who left service during the period between the beginning of the corresponding financial years and the time when FC approved the civil service pay adjustment proposals; whether it knows the number of such type of teaching staff members each year, and whether VTC made back payments to them; if VTC did not make back payments, of the reasons for that;

(3) whether it knows the surplus amounts of the subventions in each of the past five financial years as a result of VTC not making back payments to those departed teaching staff mentioned in (2) above; of the use of such balances, and whether such balances are required to be returned to the Government; and

(4) what measures are in place to ensure that the subventions additionally allocated by the authorities to subvented organizations for making back payments are all used for this purpose; whether it has reviewed the related arrangements; if it has, of the improvement measures?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Vocational Training Council (VTC) is a statutory body in Hong Kong established under the Vocational Training Council Ordinance (Cap. 1130). With recurrent funding from the Education Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the VTC provides vocational education and training to about 250 000 students and in-service personnel each year. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) According to section 20(1)(c) of the Vocational Training Council Ordinance, the VTC may make rules not inconsistent with the Ordinance for matters related to the conditions and terms of employment of persons employed or engaged by it.

There are two remuneration packages, namely the old remuneration package (ORP) and the new remuneration package (NRP), in the VTC. For staff under the ORP, their salary is pegged to pay points 12318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

of the civil service pay scales and their pay adjustment mechanism is similar to that of the Civil Service. That means even if they have left the service before the approval of the civil service pay adjustment proposal for the year, they are eligible to receive back payments with retrospective effect from 1 April of the corresponding financial year when the proposal is approved by the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council. The NRP is applicable to staff appointed on or after 1 April 2004. For staff under the NRP, their salary is set within a pay range with reference to their ranks. In addition to the rates of civil service pay adjustment approved by the FC for the corresponding financial year and the relevant data, their pay is also adjusted according to the general market condition and the staff recruitment and wastage position of the VTC. To be eligible for the pay adjustment, they must be in service when the pay adjustment proposal for the corresponding financial year is approved. Pay adjustment arrangements under the NRP were clearly specified in the VTC staff circular entitled "Annual Pay Review and Adjustment Mechanism for Staff on New Remuneration Package". Such arrangements are also set out in the VTC staff circulars on annual pay adjustment matters.

(2) According to the financial arrangements with the Education Bureau, the VTC submits its manpower figures on 1 April to the Education Bureau each year for seeking funding support for back payments arising from pay adjustment. Upon formal approval of the civil service payment adjustment for the corresponding financial year by the FC, the VTC will arrange for back payments to eligible staff members under the ORP and NRP.

The amount of additional subvention allocated to the VTC by the Education Bureau as a result of the civil service pay adjustments in the past five financial years is as follows:

Financial year Additional subvention ($) 2010-2011 15,354,000 2011-2012 112,268,000 2012-2013 105,047,000 2013-2014 65,910,000 2014-2015 102,799,000

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12319

The number of staff members who left the service, including those under the ORP and NRP, during the period between the beginning of the corresponding financial years (1 April) and the time when the FC approved the civil service pay adjustment proposals is set out below:

Financial year Number of departed staff 2010-2011 41 2011-2012 57 2012-2013 59 2013-2014 66 2014-2015 358

Only some staff members included in the above table, that is, those under the NRP, could not receive back payments. For the 2014-2015 financial year, a larger number of staff members left the VTC during the period between 1 April and the date of approval of the civil service pay adjustment proposal by the FC. This is because the relevant pay adjustment proposal was only approved in January while proposals for each of the previous four financial years were approved in July.

(3) and (4)

Under the financial arrangements between the Education Bureau and the VTC, expenses related to pay adjustments for all staff members appointed after 1 April, whether for filling existing vacancies or newly-created posts for new projects or activities, are to be fully met by the existing resources of the VTC. The Education Bureau will not provide any additional subvention to the VTC for this purpose. The manpower establishment of the VTC expanded progressively in the past few years. Although the VTC does not make back payments to departed staff members under the NRP, it has to bear the expenses arising from pay adjustments for new staff members appointed after 1 April. Take the 2014-2015 financial year as an example, there were 292 newly-appointed staff members after 1 April 2014. The expenses arising from pay adjustments for these new appointees were much more than the surplus subvention from non-making of back payments to departed staff members under the NRP.

12320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Regarding the additional subvention arising from civil service pay adjustment, the VTC has been following the relevant financial arrangements by making back payments to eligible staff members under the ORP and NRP. The Education Bureau will review the relevant arrangement where appropriate in due course.

Development of Hydroponic Farming

11. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, in 2013, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department spent $6.5 million to establish at the Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Vegetable Market the first "Controlled Environment Hydroponic Research and Development Centre" (C.E.H.R&D Centre) in Hong Kong to promote the use of vacant units in factory buildings for indoor hydroponic farming and explore a new way forward for developing local agricultural industry. In addition, the authorities published at the end of last year the consultation document entitled "New Agricultural Policy: Sustainable Agricultural Development in Hong Kong", proposing to explore the feasibility of establishing an Agricultural Park to fortify the development and adoption of modern and diversified production methods in local farms. The consultation document has also pointed out that it is technically feasible to turn vacant factory buildings into "plant factories" which adopt hydroponic farming practices. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed the cost-effectiveness of C.E.H.R&D Centre; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct a review;

(2) whether it has specified the period of operation of C.E.H.R&D Centre; if it has, of the arrangement upon expiry of the specified period of operation; if there is no arrangement, the reasons for that;

(3) whether hydroponic farm is one of the permitted uses of factory buildings under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) and the land lease conditions of factory buildings; if it is, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether, in the past three years, it reviewed Cap. 131 and the relevant land leases in order to facilitate the establishment of hydroponic farms in factory buildings; if it did, of the details of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12321

proposed amendments put forward in the last review, and the implementation time; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct such a review;

(5) what policies and measures are currently in place to regulate the establishment of hydroponic farms in factory buildings, including the major conditions to be met for operating such farms;

(6) of the number of applications received by the authorities in each of the past three years for establishing hydroponic farms in factory buildings, with a breakdown of the numbers of approved and rejected cases by district; if there were rejected cases, of the relevant reasons;

(7) in the past three years, of the number of complaints received by the authorities about hydroponic farms in factory buildings, the number of law enforcement operations carried out in response to such complaints, and the respective numbers of cases in which prosecutions were instituted and the relevant warning letters were registered at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance") for contravention of the law; whether it knows how many of the hydroponic farms which had been prosecuted closed down their businesses; and

(8) whether it has adopted measures to encourage hydroponic farming on agricultural land (in particular fallow agricultural land which reportedly covers an area reaching 3 800 hectares); if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has all along been actively supporting the modernization of local farming techniques and the production of premium vegetables. In recent years, the AFCD has been making efforts to introduce into Hong Kong different modern production methods, such as hydroponics. At the end of last year, the Government put forward the new agricultural policy and proposed to adopt a more proactive approach towards the modernization and sustainable development of local agriculture, including adopting new farming techniques to enhance productivity. The views we 12322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 collected during the consultation period are largely in support of developments in the directions proposed. We will accordingly consider other policies and measures in support of developments in this respect.

My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Under hydroponic production, plants are grown in nutrient solution. It may be deployed for factory-like mass production in a completely controlled indoor environment in multi-storey buildings. In 2013, the AFCD set up the Controlled Environment Hydroponic Research and Development Centre (Hydroponic Centre) in collaboration with the Vegetable Marketing Organization to study and demonstrate the advanced techniques and facility involved in order to showcase its merits for the easy reference of the trade and other interested investors. The Hydroponic Centre is not a profit-making commercial project, but a research undertaking aimed at developing agricultural techniques with a view to enhancing the technology level and output of local vegetable production. Before the establishment of the Hydroponic Centre, a few local hydroponic farms were operating in Hong Kong. With the Centre in place, hydroponic farming has attracted media interest as well as the attention of some investors about the positive potential of hydroponic production in Hong Kong. According to the AFCD's observations, the trade has invested over $60 million in local hydroponic production. There are now some 20 hydroponic farms supplying hydroponic vegetables to local consumers. This has given local vegetable production wider room for further development in terms of production method and market share.

(2) The main purpose of setting up the Hydroponic Centre is to study and develop completely controlled environment hydroponic techniques, demonstrate the production methods and facilitate technology transfer to the trade. In the coming years, the AFCD will continue to develop and improve the techniques and explore further development plans with the partnering organization. At this stage, we do not have a specified expiry date for the operation of the Hydroponic Centre.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12323

(3), (4) and (5)

To appraise the present-day situation regarding the use of areas zoned for industrial use, the Planning Department (PlanD) is conducting the latest round of review. In view of the industrial uses emerging within industrial buildings, such as hydroponics, the PlanD is in the course of consulting relevant bureaux and departments on the operational requirements and technical feasibility of such uses in industrial buildings; the findings will help the PlanD consider whether the Master Schedule of Notes to Statutory Plans and the Definition of Terms should be reviewed. As the relevant work is still in progress, the PlanD is at present unable to give a definition or categorization to "hydroponics" in industrial buildings.

With regard to land leases, the conditions of land leases for industrial buildings in general specify that only "industrial and/or godown" uses are permitted. Under these circumstances, the setting up of hydroponic operations in industrial buildings is generally not in compliance with the "industrial and/or godown" uses stipulated in such land leases, unless the owner has applied to the Lands Department (LandsD) for a waiver of the relevant lease conditions and obtained approval.

Should an owner wish to apply for a change of the existing use of the industrial building, he/she should make sure beforehand that the proposed new use is in compliance with the relevant statutory plans. The owner may then apply to the LandsD for lease modification for a change in use, or apply for a waiver to relax the restriction of the lease conditions temporarily. If the application is approved, the owner will be required to pay land premium or waiver fee. In the course of processing the application, the LandsD will consult the relevant departments. Having regard to the result of the PlanD's review and the advice of the relevant departments, the LandsD will consider whether it is appropriate to make adjustments to the conditions of new land leases.

12324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(6) Between 2012 and 2014, the LandsD received one application which involved the setting up of a hydroponic operation in an industrial unit in Kwun Tong. Since the applicant had not demonstrated that the statutory plan requirements had been complied with, the LandsD was unable to process the application.

(7) Between 2012 and 2014, the LandsD received six complaints which involved the setting up of hydroponic operations in industrial buildings. The LandsD took lease enforcement action against one confirmed case of non-conforming use. In that case, the owner rectified the non-conforming use within the period specified in the LandsD's warning letter requiring rectification of the irregularities. Therefore, the LandsD did not register the said warning letter at the Land Registry.

As a land lease, being a form of private contract, is enforced by the LandsD in its capacity as the landlord and a party to the contract, such action does not involve contravention of the law or prosecution.

(8) Modern hydroponic farms may be set up indoor (such as in industrial building units) or on agricultural land. It provides more flexibility in site selection. While the Government is seeking to promote diversification in and the modernization of local vegetable production, we consider that decisions as to where and in what way the production facility should be set up are best left to the farmers themselves. The AFCD would provide information on hydroponics for reference by the trade as an alternative option for agricultural production.

Establishing modern hydroponic farms, when compared with traditional or organic farms, would require a higher amount of upfront investment. The recurrent expenditure may also be substantial. As such, operators need to have sufficient funding to meet the requirements of hydroponic farming. They should also be well prepared in terms of acquiring sufficient knowledge and understanding of the operation and production techniques, the competitiveness of their products in the market and their marketing strategies in future. In setting up the production facility, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12325

would have to ensure that the necessary approval in terms of land use has been obtained from the relevant regulatory authorities before they kick-start any construction work. The AFCD will not indiscriminately encourage the trade to invest and engage in hydroponic farming. Rather, we will advise investors to take all relevant factors into thorough consideration before making any decision, such as the characteristics of hydroponic farming, operating risk, financial liability and the investor's own capability and capacity.

Briefing Out of Civil Cases

12. MR DENNIS KWOK: President, it is an established practice for the Department of Justice (DoJ) to brief out some of the criminal and civil cases, when there is a need for expert assistance where the requisite skill is not available in DoJ, or when there is no suitable in-house counsel to appear in court for the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of cases, among the civil cases briefed out by DoJ in 2014, handled by the top 50 counsels;

(2) of the total number of civil cases briefed out by DoJ in the past three years, with a breakdown by set of chambers;

(3) of the total number of counsels engaged by DoJ in civil cases briefed out in the past three years and, among them, the respective percentages of the counsels who had and had not been previously engaged; and

(4) given that one of the stated objectives of DoJ's policy to brief out cases is to promote a strong and independent local Bar, particularly the junior Bar, whether DoJ will consider briefing out civil cases to a greater diversity of junior counsels in different sets of chambers; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

12326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE: President, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has been briefing out certain criminal and civil cases, according to fee schedules approved by the Finance Committee, or at negotiated fees in specified circumstances. Briefing out is mainly to meet operational needs. Generally speaking, the DoJ may resort to briefing out when:

(i) there is a need for expert assistance where the requisite skill is not available in the DoJ;

(ii) there is no suitable in-house counsel to appear in court for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

(iii) there is a need for advice or proceedings involving members of the DoJ;

(iv) there is a need for continuity or economy when handling a case;

(v) as a matter of prudence, it is deemed appropriate to obtain independent outside counsel's advice or services so as to address possible perception of bias or issues of conflict of interest; and

(vi) the size, complexity, quantum and length of a case so dictate.

Further, where appropriate, some criminal cases are briefed out with the objective, among others, of promoting a strong and independent local Bar by providing work, particularly to the junior Bar, and of securing a pool of experienced prosecutors to supplement those within the DoJ. This practice is also intended to help change the commonly-held perception that all prosecutors must be government lawyers whereas the private Bar can represent only the defence in criminal cases.

As regards the handling of civil cases, the selection of briefed out counsel will be made in accordance with established internal guidelines on briefing out so as to ensure propriety of the process and avoid any possible favouritism. The selection criteria include the briefed out counsel's years of experience and suitability in terms of areas of expertise and availability for the case concerned. The level of fees charged by the briefed out counsel is also one of the factors to be taken into account, since public money is involved.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12327

The DoJ's reply to the four-part question raised by Mr Dennis KWOK is as follows:

(1) In 2014, there were a total of 203 civil cases briefed out to outside counsel. The respective ranges of number of cases handled by individual briefed out counsel are as follows:

Number of cases handled by Number of counsel briefed out counsel 16 to 20 3 11 to 15 3 6 to 10 9 5 or below 54

(2) In the past three years (that is, 2012 to 2014), a total of 763 civil cases were briefed out to outside counsel. Unless under special circumstances (for example, the engagement of a junior counsel for a selected senior counsel in the same chambers for better work efficiency where the circumstances so required), the chambers to which a counsel belongs is not one of the considerations of selecting a briefed out counsel. Instead, as stated above, the selection criteria include the relevant counsel's years of experience, suitability in terms of areas of expertise, availability and level of fees. As such, we do not keep separate records on the sets of chambers involved.

(3) A total of 140 counsel were engaged by the DoJ in the 763 civil cases briefed out in the past three years as mentioned above. About 80% of the counsel concerned had previously been engaged whilst the remaining 20% had not been previously engaged.

(4) We repeat the selection criteria stated above when briefing out civil cases. Where appropriate, we will allow junior counsel to participate in our handling of civil cases. As stated above, the chambers to which a counsel belongs is generally not one of the considerations of selecting a briefed out counsel. Besides, whilst we support the promotion of a strong and independent local Bar, such a factor is not and cannot be the sole factor when briefing out civil cases.

12328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Tree Management

13. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Member's Office of mine received a complaint alleging that some people felled a large number of healthy old trees aged over 100 years on private land. The complainant sought assistance from various government departments, but in vain. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the existing policies and relevant legislation on the maintenance and conservation of trees on government and private land;

(2) given that the Secretary for Development said last year that "regulating tree maintenance on private land has far-reaching implications, we must handle it carefully", whether the authorities are currently conducting a relevant study; if they are, of the progress and outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether the Government will now consider, by following the approach adopted for protecting antiquities and monuments, enacting specific legislation for conserving old trees or precious trees with conservation value; if it will not, of the reasons for that;

(4) given that the Government has indicated that one of the prerequisites for the enactment of legislation on tree management is an adequate supply of personnel with relevant professional qualifications and experience to implement the relevant work, whether the Government has set any target on the number of tree management personnel with professional qualifications; of the specific work carried out in the past three years for the purpose of increasing the number of such personnel and the progress of such work; and

(5) of the latest progress of the enactment of tree legislation by the Government?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government adopts an "integrated approach" for the management of trees on Government land. Simply put, the department responsible for the maintenance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12329 of a particular site, including the slope and facilities, is also responsible for the maintenance of the trees thereon. Private property owners are also responsible for the proper maintenance of the trees within their properties.

(1) Existing ordinances related to the protection of trees on Government and private land include but not limited to the following:

Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96);

Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208);

Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132);

Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200);

Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210);

Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228); and

Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53).

For private lots that contain a tree preservation clause in their leases, the Lands Department (LandsD) will take action as appropriate on a case by case basis upon detection of any removal and pruning of trees within the leased lots without prior written consent from the LandsD. These actions include issuing warning letters to the lot owners and requiring the lot owners to carry out compensatory planting or pay a premium. Regardless of whether the clause requiring the private lot owner to properly maintain the trees within his lot is included in the lease, the lot owner is responsible for the proper management of his property, including the trees thereon. Private lot owners may be held liable for any casualty or property loss arising from their failure to properly maintain the trees within their properties.

(2) and (5)

The Government keeps a cautiously open mind towards the proposal of legislating mandatory inspection of trees within private properties. 12330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

To further understand the current situation of tree management in private properties, the Tree Management Office (TMO) has undertaken a questionnaire survey with property management companies. The data collected will serve as reference for formulating policies.

The number of personnel with professional qualifications in arboriculture has grown in recent years in response to market demand. But given the huge number of trees in Hong Kong, we still need a large number of tree work personnel with appropriate education attainment, professional qualification and working experience to provide quality service in tree management and maintenance. To improve the service quality, the Government has accorded high priority to working with the industry in further enhancing the knowledge as well as skill and management standards of tree work personnel.

Currently, the TMO is planning a survey on the manpower resources of the arboricultural, horticultural and landscape management industries. The survey will help guide the planning of capacity building and enhance the professionalism of the industry.

In the course of these review and studies, the TMO has prepared a guideline on tree maintenance for the reference of private property owners and consultation of the industry and professional institutions. After the guideline is promulgated, we will consult the related government departments on enforcing the guideline through the building management legislation.

(3) As measures for preservation and maintenance of old or valuable trees (OVTs) are already in place, the Government has no intention to enact dedicated legislation for their protection. The policy on registration and preservation of OVTs has been set out in the Technical Circular ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 on Registration of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation for the compliance of all government departments. Trees on Government land may be considered for inclusion in the Register of Old and Valuable Trees (the Register) if they satisfy the following criteria:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12331

- Tree of large size;

- Tree of precious or rare species;

- Tree of particularly old age (for example, trees over 100 years old);

- Tree of cultural, historical or memorable significance; and

- Tree of outstanding form.

Trees listed in the Register are given special protection. Felling or removal of listed OVTs is strictly prohibited except in cases with very strong justifications, such as serious diseases. The area surrounding a listed OVT is designated tree protection zone where no construction work is allowed, except with prior approval from the LandsD.

(4) As regards training for tree management professionals, the Development Bureau has set up a Training Committee in 2010, as recommended in the Report of Task Force on Tree Management published in 2009, to formulate training and manpower development strategies. The objective is to ensure that the government departments and the industry have sufficient competent staff to duly perform managerial, supervisory and front-line duties in all areas of tree management. The Training Committee also conducts annual review on training demand for tree management and develops annual training programmes.

The TMO pursues a two-pronged strategy in taking forward the training work. In the first place, the TMO continues to facilitate and assist academic and training institutions in organizing relevant courses to meet the industry needs. New training courses in tree management and supervision offered in recent years include Certificate in Professional Tree Management programme (Qualification Framework (Q.F.) Level 3) of The Open University of Hong Kong; Advanced Diploma in Tree Management and Conservation programme (Q.F. Level 4) of HKU School of 12332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Professional and Continuing Education; and Professional Diploma in Horticulture and Landscape Management (Q.F. Level 4) of The Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong (THEi). The TMO has sponsored staff from government departments to attend these courses. Furthermore, two new programmes will be introduced in the 2015-2016 academic year, namely an Associate Degree Programme in Tree Management (Q.F. Level 4) of the College of International Education of Hong Kong Baptist University and a Bachelor Degree Programme in Horticulture and Landscape Management (covering tree management/arboriculture) (Q.F. Level 5) of THEi.

To help the arboricultural industry in Hong Kong move towards professionalism and standardization and the front-line practitioners gain professional recognition by enhancing their skills, the Vocational Training Council has introduced Arboriculture Vocational Assessment in 2014 with the encouragement and assistance of the TMO. The scope of assessment covers Safety Use and Maintenance of Chainsaw and Basic Tree Pruning. The TMO will continue to work with related institutions in organizing other professionally recognized programmes related to arboriculture, including tree climbing and use of lifting platform.

On its part, the TMO has also organized training courses related to tree management for government personnel engaged in tree management work. These courses cover tree risk management, tree identification, common tree problems, pest and disease control, proper tree care measures and tree protection during construction works, and so on. Some of these training courses are also open to government consultants and contractors' employees. The TMO has also conducted many seminars for the general public and professional bodies. The topics ranged from control and management of brown root rot disease, pre-wet season precautionary measures to tree management in private property. Since the establishment of Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section in 2010, these seminars have recorded an annual attendance of around 6 000 people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12333

Road Safety of Carriageways with Below-standard Widths

14. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, in recent years, quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that the carriageway widths of certain roads (especially some road sections in the Peak, Shek O, Sai Kung and Tai Tam Reservoir, as well as Keung Shan Road which connects Shek Pik Reservoir and Tai O) are less than the minimum carriageway widths recommended in the Transport Planning and Design Manual (TPDM). These members of the public are worried that such situation will affect road safety. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the names of the roads the carriageway widths of which are currently less than the minimum carriageway widths recommended in TPDM, as well as the respective lengths and locations of the road sections concerned;

(2) of the number of traffic accidents which occurred in the past five years at the road sections mentioned in (1); and

(3) whether it has plans to widen the road sections mentioned in (1) one by one, so as to enhance the road safety of the roads concerned; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Albert CHAN is as follows:

The design guidelines for the carriageway width in Hong Kong are set out in the Transport Planning and Design Manual (TPDM). The TPDM is prepared by the Transport Department (TD) with reference to overseas experience and its standards are comparable to those of developed countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The TPDM sets out in detail the recommended carriageway widths for various road types (for example, expressway, primary distributor road, district distributor road, and rural road, and so on) under different scenarios (for example, urban areas, rural areas, number of traffic lanes, and so on).

12334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

The carriageway width itself does not have a direct relationship with road safety. The safety of roads depends on how road users use the road, or driving attitude and driving speed of motorists. The TD has been closely monitoring the traffic flow of all roads, the loading and unloading activities and the traffic accident figures, and so on. The TD will implement appropriate traffic management measures to further improve the driving environment for motorists when necessary. These measures include restricting the use of large vehicles on narrow roads, imposing appropriate driving speed limit, providing traffic signs and road markings as well as implementing road improvement works, and so on.

The TPDM has clearly stated that the design guidelines should not be taken as rigid standards. The design guidelines will also be revised from time to time having regard to the circumstances. The revised guidelines will only be applicable to newly designed roads. The current TPDM was last revised in 2014.

As roads constructed in early years were built with reference to the then prevailing guidelines, their designs (including carriageway width) may not be the same as those stipulated in the current TPDM. Besides, some road types may have changed, for example, from rural slip road to rural road because of the development at neighbouring areas, which resulting in the carriageway widths of certain roads may be different from the design guidelines stipulated in the current TPDM. The TD does not have a list of all roads in Hong Kong the carriageway widths of which are less than the minimum carriageway widths recommended in the TPDM. The number of traffic accidents in the past five years at some road sections in the Peak, Shek O, Sai Kung and Tai Tam Reservoir, as well as Keung Shan Road is tabulated at Annex.

Given that carriageway widths which are narrower than the design guidelines recommended in the current TPDM will not pose any road safety concern, we have not devised any road widening programme solely based on this reason. The TD has been monitoring the traffic volume of roads, changes to their surrounding environment, road conditions, and so on, and will draw up road widening plans as necessary. In addition, when the existing roads are reconstructed, the relevant works departments will design the roads having regard to the actual circumstances and making reference to the latest guidelines stipulated in the TPDM.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12335

Although currently the carriageway widths of certain roads do not match with the design guidelines provided in the current TPDM, these roads are still wide enough for vehicles to pass through safely. Motorists should also pay due attention and drive with a safe driving speed.

Annex

Traffic Accident Statistics at Road Sections in the Peak, Shek O, Sai Kung and Tai Tam and Keung Shan Road

Number of Length District Name of Road (Road Section) Traffic AccidentsNote (m) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 The Peak Road (the whole section) 3 800 21 19 20 19 14 Peak Tai Tai Tam Road (the whole section) 6 700 35 36 41 32 48 Tam Shek Shek O Road (the road section O between the roundabout at Tai 5 000 10 14 11 17 15 Tam Gap and Cape D'Aguilar) Sai Nam Wai Road (the whole 1 120 0 0 0 0 1 Kung section) Tai O Keung Shan Road (the whole 3 800 2 3 4 6 2 section)

Note:

The majority (about 80%) are slight traffic accidents.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interests by Politically Appointed Officials

15. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, it was discovered two years ago that the family of the Secretary for Development (the Secretary) owned a farmland within the areas covered by the North East New Territories New Development Areas (New Development Areas) project. Some members of the public considered that the Secretary's private interests conflicted with his official 12336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 duties, and a member of the public lodged a complaint with the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). It has been reported that ICAC replied to the complainant last month that it would not conduct further investigation into this case, but it did not offer any justification for not instituting prosecution. The complainant told the media that ICAC did not seek additional information from her during its investigation. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:

(1) given that when handling the case of alleged sale of property by a non-official member of the Executive Council before the Government announced the introduction of the measures to stabilize the property market in 2012, the authorities made public the legal advice they received for the purpose of explaining why prosecution was not instituted, why the authorities have not made public the justifications for not instituting prosecution in this case; whether the authorities will make public the relevant justifications; if they will not, of the reasons for that; why ICAC did not seek additional information from the complainant during its investigation into this case;

(2) as one of the duties of the Secretary is to implement the New Development Areas project, and the aforesaid farmland had already been included in the areas covered by the New Development Areas when the Secretary assumed office in July 2012, but the Secretary stated that not until late September 2012 did he realize that the farmland was situated inside the New Development Areas, whether the authorities will improve the existing system of declaration of interests for politically appointed officials, so as to ensure that such officials declare in a timely manner their private interests that conflict with their official duties; and

(3) as it has been reported that the aforesaid farmland is still currently held by the younger brother of the Secretary's wife, and it is stipulated in the Guidelines for the Chief Executive in Handling Potential Cases of Conflict of Interest and Acceptance of Advantages and Entertainment Concerning Politically Appointed Officials (the Guidelines) promulgated by the authorities in August 2013 that where an official's "private interests" (defined therein as also covering the financial and other interests of the official's other relations and personal friends apart from encompassing the interests LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12337

of the official himself and his family) may conflict with his official duties, the official shall make a declaration, whether the interest associated with the aforesaid farmland held by a relative is a form of "private interest" that is required to be declared under the Guidelines; if so, whether the authorities have received any relevant declaration of interests; if they have not received the relevant declaration, of the reasons for that?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): President,

(1) Upon receiving a corruption complaint, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) will, on the basis of the information provided by the complainant, take follow-up action and interview the complainant with a view to gathering information that may be provided by the complainant for investigation purposes. It is noted that ICAC has followed up on the complaint in question according to the above procedures. The ICAC has earlier notified the complainant in writing that it had carried out an investigation as required by law and had sought legal advice from the Department of Justice (DoJ); that the investigation concerned was reported to the Operations Review Committee at its meeting on 29 April 2015; and that after deliberation the Committee endorsed that no further investigative action be pursued as ICAC had already completed all the necessary action that could be taken within its jurisdiction. It is also noted that in response to media enquiries on 6 May, the DoJ said it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage since it had already provided legal advice on whether or not the matter still involved any criminal acts or investigation falling outside the jurisdiction of ICAC.

(2) and (3)

The current declaration system requires Politically Appointed Officials (PAOs) of all ranks to declare their investment, shareholding, direct or indirect interest in any company; their directorships, proprietorships or partnerships in any company; and, if any, the specific details concerning their participation in any private company's affairs. They are also required to declare any investment 12338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

and interest held by themselves or in the name of their spouses, children or other persons, agents or companies, but are actually acquired on their account or in which they have a beneficial interest. According to the requirements of the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System (the Code), investments and interests declared by PAOs of all ranks in the prescribed form are made available on the websites of the respective offices/bureaux for public inspection. Such declarations will be updated annually.

Moreover, the Code also requires that PAOs shall report to the Chief Executive any private interests that might influence, or appear to influence, their judgment in the performance of their duties. PAOs shall refrain from handling cases with actual or potential conflict of interest as well.

The current mechanism for declaration of interests is rigorous and effective. The Government has no plan at present to amend the current declaration system.

On the Secretary for Development's (the Secretary) handling of the previous partial ownership of the farmland by his family members within the boundary of the North East New Territories New Development Areas and related matters, as the Government has stated repeatedly in the past, the Secretary had already made declaration to the Chief Executive in accordance with the Code. As a member of the Executive Council, the Secretary has also declared the relevant interests according to the system of the Executive Council. In this regard, the Secretary is in full compliance with the requirements of the existing declaration mechanism.

Allocation of PRH Flats to Households with Six Persons or More

16. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that no new three-bedroom public rental housing (PRH) flats have been built since 2009-2010, and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) will, depending on the circumstances, allocate two PRH flats concurrently to a household with eight persons or more, in order to shorten the waiting time of such category of households. However, some members of the public have relayed to me that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12339 waiting time of a household with six persons or more for allocation of PRH flats is longer as compared with other applicants on the PRH Waiting List. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of a breakdown of the number of PRH flats for households with six persons or more recovered by HA in each of the past three years by allocation district (namely, Urban, Extended Urban, New Territories and Islands) and by reason of recovery;

(2) of a breakdown by allocation district of the respective numbers of (i) households with six to seven persons and (ii) households with eight persons or more, which received the first PRH flat offers, as well as of the number of households with eight persons or more which were concurrently allocated two PRH flats, in each of the past three years;

(3) of the respective average waiting time of the (i) households with six to seven persons and (ii) households with eight persons or more, which received the first PRH flat offers last year, as well as the respective average time the aforesaid two categories of households had waited when signing the tenancy agreements last year;

(4) whether HA will, if consent has been obtained from the applicant concerned, allocate one two-bedroom flat to a household with six persons or more under the existing policy, in order to shorten the waiting time of such category of applicants; if HA will, of the number of such cases in the past three years; and

(5) whether HA will consider extending the scope of application of the arrangement for allocating two PRH flats concurrently to a PRH applicant to include households with six to seven persons?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, flats available for letting each year include both new and refurbished flats. The average household size in Hong Kong has been decreasing. Coupled with the fact that the number of public rental housing (PRH) applications from families of six persons or above accounts for a relatively low percentage out of the total number of PRH applications (as at end March 2015, PRH applications from 12340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 families of six persons or above accounted for only 0.45% of the total number of applications in the same period), in order to optimize the use of valuable land resources, currently large flats are no longer designed in new PRH projects. There are about 124 200 flats in the existing PRH stock which are suitable for letting to families of six persons or above. The demand from applicants with family size of six persons or above can partly be met by refurbished flats.

My reply to the five-part question from Mr WU Chi-wai is as follows:

(1) In the past three financial years (that is, from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015), the number of flats lettable to families of six persons or above, with breakdown according to allocation districts and reasons of recovery, are shown at Annex.

(2) In the past three financial years, a total of 16 family applicants with eight persons or above were allocated with two flats simultaneously. We have not kept record of the breakdown of first flat offers to applicants by districts.

(3) The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) does not compile separate average waiting time for applicants according to different household sizes. However, in view of the increasing number of PRH applications and the public's concern on the waiting time of PRH applicants, the HA conducted a special analysis on general applicants for PRH (that is, family and elderly one-person applicants) based on the data as at June 2014. Results of the special analysis can serve for reference purpose. The special analysis indicates that during the period from July 2013 to June 2014, about 750 general applicants with household size of five persons or above accepted flat offers and were housed to PRH. The distribution of their waiting time is set out in the table below. There is no breakdown of figures in the special analysis for households of six to seven persons or eight persons or above.

Applicants with household size of five Waiting Time persons or above who accepted flat offer ≤1 year 60 >1-≤2 years 70 >2-≤3 years 60 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12341

Applicants with household size of five Waiting Time persons or above who accepted flat offer >3-≤4 years 110 >4-≤5 years 160 >5 years 300 Total 750

Note:

Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Figures may not add up to total due to rounding. Waiting time refers to the time taken between registration for PRH and first flat offer, excluding any frozen period during the application period (for example, when the applicant has not yet fulfilled the residence requirement; the applicant requests to put his/her application on hold pending arrival of family members for family reunion; the applicant is imprisoned, and so on).

Some applicants would choose to accept the second or the third flat offer rather than the first one. However, according to the established formula, waiting time is calculated up to the first flat offer on grounds that the HA has already provided a housing opportunity to the applicant in the first flat offer. In other words, applicants would be housed if they accept the first flat offer. It is the applicant's personal decision whether to accept the first flat offer or wait for the remaining offers. Therefore, the HA has not compiled statistics on the time which PRH applicants have waited when they are finally housed and signed the tenancy agreement.

(4) PRH flats are mainly allocated in accordance with the prescribed allocation standards and the internal floor area of the flats. Allocation ranges are set for flats of different types and sizes. As newly-built two-bedroom flats are suitable for occupation of four to five persons households in accordance with the prescribed allocation standard, flats suitable for allocation to families of six persons are mainly refurbished flats. In the past three fiscal years (that is, from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015), we have successfully allocated about 700 refurbished flats to family applicants of six persons or above.

(5) From the perspectives of both optimizing the use of public housing resources and facilitating tenants to look after their families, allocating one large flat to a family of six to seven persons is better than allocating them with two flats. Besides, normally we can only 12342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

identify two adjacent flats which are suitable for allocation in new PRH projects. Therefore, hitherto we have been relying on refurbished flats for allocation to family applicants of six to seven persons. Taking into account the slight increase in new flat supply in 2015-2016 and the fact that distribution of flats among different districts is relatively even, starting from this financial year, we will exercise flexibility in allocating two adjacent flats to families of six to seven persons if their applications are due for allocation and if refurbished flats meeting the allocation standard of such family size are not available at that time. Recently, we have allocated two adjacent flats to six households with six to seven persons. However, we must stress that since it would consume more PRH resources in using two flats, instead of one, to meet the demand of families of six to seven persons, given the huge demand for PRH, we must utilize resources in a prudent manner.

Annex

Number of flats lettable to household size of six persons or above, with breakdowns according to allocation districts and recovery reasons, for the past three financial years (that is, 2012-2013 to 2014-2015)

Breakdown by allocation districts

Number of flats recovered for allocation to Allocation districts household size of six persons or above in 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 Urban 910 Extended Urban 660 New Territories 430 Islands 20 Total 2 020

Notes:

(1) The figures above do not include flats recovered from redevelopment estates.

(2) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12343

Breakdown by recovery reasons

Number of flats recovered for allocation to household size of Recovery reasons six persons or above in 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 Transfer 1 110 Purchase of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats offered for sale by the HA and HOS/Tenants Purchase Scheme 390 flats with premium not yet paid under the HOS Secondary Market. Voluntary departure of sitting tenants 380 Issue of notice-to-quit as a result of 140 tenancy enforcement action Others 10 Total 2 020

Notes:

(1) The figures above do not include flats recovered from redevelopment estates.

(2) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and may not add up to the total due to rounding.

Assistance Provided for Elderly Persons with Dementia

17. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that with ageing of the Hong Kong population, the number of dementia patients is rising gradually. Some concern groups have pointed out that symptoms of dementia include memory loss, forgetfulness, impaired language ability and judgment, etc., and cases of persons with dementia going missing have happened frequently in recent years, causing distress to both the patients and their family members. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of cases in which persons aged 60 or above (elderly persons) went missing in each of the past five years, according to the records of government departments and the Hospital Authority; among those cases, of the respective numbers of those in which the missing persons were subsequently located, could not be located and were found dead, with a breakdown by whether or not the missing persons were dementia patients/suspected dementia patients; 12344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(2) of the respective numbers of elderly persons diagnosed with dementia or suspected to be suffering from dementia who are currently living in the community, staying in hospitals and living in residential care homes, according to the estimation of the authorities and, among the elderly persons of the first two categories, of the respective numbers of those who are living alone; and

(3) of the measures in place to step up efforts in preventing elderly persons with dementia from wandering and losing their way; whether the authorities will encourage (e.g. by means of providing financial assistance) the family members of these patients to arrange for these patients to carry with them trackers and assistance-seeking devices equipped with positioning technology?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,

(1) The Police always attach great importance to cases of missing persons and work on every line of investigation when handling missing person reports. For cases where a crime is suspected, they will be referred to the relevant Crime Formation for follow-up action.

The number of reported cases involving missing persons aged 60 or above in the past five years are set out below:

Year Reported cases involving missing persons aged 60 or above 2010 1 022 2011 985 2012 1 059 2013 1 044 2014 1 040

The Police do not keep record on the number of missing persons who are found dead when located. Also, the Police do not maintain a breakdown of figures based on the medical record of the missing persons (including persons with dementia).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12345

The number of missing persons aged 60 or above located by the Police in the past five years are set out below:

Year Number of missing persons aged 60 or above located 2010 977 2011 947 2012 1 020 2013 1 003 2014 990

The above figures represent the number of missing persons located in the subject year who have attained 60 years of age at the time of report. These cases are not necessarily reported in the subject year but may have been reported in an earlier year.

The figures only represent the missing persons located by the Police. They do not include cases in which the Police cannot establish contact with the missing persons but find no suspicion after investigation (for example, when a missing person is found to act normal in CCTV footage after reported missing and his/her relative confirms his/her identity by viewing the CCTV record).

According to the record of the Advanced Incident Reporting System of the Hospital Authority (HA), the number of missing patients (that is, patients found missing from in-patient wards of the HA with their cases reported to the Police) aged 60 or above is set out in the following table:

Number of Number of Number patients who have patients who have of been contacted been contacted patients Year through various through various who Total channels and channels but could not returned to the refused to return be ward to the ward contacted 2010-2011 55 37 7 99 2011-2012 58 36 9 103 2012-2013 47 23 13 83 2013-2014 41 30 10 81 2014-2015 31 22 11 64

12346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

The HA does not have a breakdown of the number of missing patients by whether they are suffering from dementia.

Subsidized residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) and day care centres/units for the elderly (DEs/DCUs) will seek assistance from the Police direct if their service users are found missing. Hence, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) does not have statistics on service users of subsidized RCHEs and DEs/DCUs who have gone missing.

(2) According to the statistics of the HA, there were about 11 950 dementia patients being followed up by its psychiatric departments in 2014. The HA does not have statistics on the number of suspected cases and patients who are living alone.

The SWD does not maintain statistics on whether the persons receiving services from subsidized RCHEs and DEs/DCUs are diagnosed with or suspected to be suffering from dementia.

(3) The multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral teams of the HA are committed to providing holistic and continuous healthcare services for patients with dementia and their carers. Healthcare professionals will formulate individualized treatment plans for patients according to the severity of their conditions and provide medication, cognitive training and rehabilitation services according to the needs of each case. The HA also provides support and training for families and carers of elderly patients with dementia through different channels with a view to enhancing their understanding of the disease and the relevant caring skills. This could help prevent patients from wandering off or getting lost.

The use of trackers and assistance-seeking devices equipped with positioning technology may involve privacy issues. The HA will continue to keep in view the relevant technological development in order to meet patients' needs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12347

Intelligent Transport Systems

18. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, according to a paper submitted by the Development Bureau to the Panel on Transport of this Council in November last year, the third comprehensive transport study (CTS-3) completed in 1999 had laid down the need for the wider use of advanced technologies in transport management, and the Transport Department (TD) was developing a number of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) applications. Moreover, the Policy Address this year has proposed the study of building a "Smart City" using Kowloon East as a pilot area, and the study will include the use of intelligent data and technologies in transport management. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that CTS-3 laid down the need for the wider use of advanced technologies in transport management, of the scope, latest progress and effectiveness of the relevant study, the government departments responsible for the study, as well as the feasibility of the application of study findings;

(2) given that the authorities stated in the aforesaid paper that they would launch the Public Transport Strategy Study to examine the overall strategic arrangements for public transport services, of the reasons and justifications for the authorities not including ITS applications in the study;

(3) of the ITS that are currently in use in Hong Kong, and the relevant public expenditure in each of the past three years;

(4) whether the authorities will consider setting up more "Smart City" pilot areas, so as to conduct a more comprehensive and extensive study on ITS applications; if they will, of the details; whether the authorities will consider publishing the phased outcome of the study; and

(5) given that the Transport Information System developed by TD provides various services related to road traffic information, etc., whether the authorities have assessed if the usage of the various services meet expectations; whether the authorities will make public the usage statistics of the various services; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

12348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Charles Peter MOK's question is as follows:

(1) The Transport Department (TD) has implemented by phases the various intelligent transport measures mentioned in the Third Comprehensive Transport Study completed in 1999. The implementation progress is set out at Annex 1.

(2) In tandem with the further development of the railway network, the Public Transport Strategy Study (PTSS) will examine the role and positioning of public transport services other than the railway. The objective is to enhance their complementarily, so that the public can enjoy efficient services with reasonable modal choices on the one hand, and the public transport operators can enjoy long-term sustainable development on the other hand. The study will not cover topics that are not related to the role and positioning of public transport services, or policies that have been working well or issues that can be effectively handled under the existing mechanisms. Hence, the topic on intelligent transportation systems is not covered in the PTSS. Nevertheless, the TD has been closely monitoring the development of the intelligent transport system and will continue to study and enhance services relating to intelligent transport measures.

(3) The expenditures spent on Intelligent Transport System by the TD in the past three years are set out at Annex 2.

(4) The Energizing Kowloon East Office (EKEO) of the Development Bureau will carry out a pilot study in Kowloon East to examine the feasibility of transforming the area into a sustainable core business district by implementing measures such as making use of smart data and technology, creating a low carbon green community and enhancing walkability and mobility, and so on.

A consultancy study will be commissioned within 2015 to formulate the smart initiatives for implementation in the Kowloon East. The EKEO of the Development Bureau will continue to engage the relevant stakeholders during the course of the study and make available the interim findings. The Development Bureau will also continue to look closely for opportunities in introducing "smart city" elements into the New Development Areas (NDAs). Depending on the experience gained from the Kowloon East, suitable smart city initiatives will be introduced to the NDAs where appropriate. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12349

(5) The Transport Information System (TIS) developed by the TD provides the Road Traffic Information Service, Hong Kong eTransport and Hong Kong eRouting. The TD considers that the usage of these services has generally met the expectation. For example, the Hong Kong eTransport application has recorded over 1.3 million downloads so far, with around 18 000 visits per day. The TD also provides public transport information and real-time traffic information free of charge to the public through the data.gov.hk website. The average daily data download of the service is around 4 million.

The TD will continue to closely monitor the usage of these services, and update and enhance the services in a timely manner to ensure that they meet the public need.

Annex 1

Implementation Progress of Intelligent Transport Measures Mentioned in the CTS-3

Intelligent Transport Measures Mentioned Outcome and Future in the Third Progress Development Comprehensive Transport Study 1. Collect and The TD has launched the Hong Kong There are about transmit eTransport website and mobile application in 18 000 people using information on 2009 and 2011 respectively for the public to the Hong Kong public transport make enquiries about point-to-point public eTransport service service schedules transport route services. every day. The TD for travellers before plans to set up more and during their The TD has also set up Hong Kong Hong Kong trips eTransport Kiosks at six locations (including eTransport Kiosks to the Arrival Hall of the Hong Kong enhance the service International Airport Terminal 1, the Hong quality. Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, public transport interchanges and public estate shopping centres) for the public and tourists who do not have access to mobile data services to use the Hong Kong eTransport service. 12350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Intelligent Transport Measures Mentioned Outcome and Future in the Third Progress Development Comprehensive Transport Study 2. Automatically The Automatic Toll Collection System has At present, nearly 50% collect tolls and been extended to all tolled tunnels, the of the vehicles passing parking charges Lantau Link and the Ma Wan Control Area. through the tolled through a common In addition, drivers can also pay the parking tunnels and tolled transponder fees with Octopus cards at the Government roads are using the technology car parks and metered parking spaces. System. 3. Use traffic signal At present, traffic control and surveillance Traffic control and control, speed facilities have been installed at all road surveillance facilities control, lane tunnels in the territories, Tsing Ma Control enhance the efficiency control and ramp Area, Shenzhen Bay Bridge, Kong Sham of road and tunnel control systems Western Highway and Tsing Sha Control management, as well Area. Traffic control and surveillance as the proper and facilities will also be installed at the widened prompt handling of Tolo Highway as well as new and unforeseen incidents. reconstructed trunk roads. 4. Guide drivers and The TD set up the TIS in 2008. It is a The TD plans to the general public geographic information system based update the TIS to meet to reach their centralized data warehouse for the collection, operational needs and destination by processing and dissemination of enhance the system providing static comprehensive transport information. performance. transport information Also, the TD has since 2010 offered the The Hong Kong through a driver Intelligent Road Network for sale to the eRouting application information system public to facilitate private organizations to has a daily usage rate and a geographic develop other intelligent transport of about 2 200. information system applications such as car navigation, fleet based TIS management systems and personalized information services based on the traffic information in the TIS.

The TD has launched the Hong Kong eRouting website and mobile application in 2010 and 2013 respectively for the public to make enquiries about point-to-point driving routes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12351

Intelligent Transport Measures Mentioned Outcome and Future in the Third Progress Development Comprehensive Transport Study The TD has also installed Closed Circuit Television cameras at 180 locations, such that images of real-time traffic conditions can be disseminated to the public through the Internet and smartphones to facilitate drivers to select suitable routes in light of traffic conditions.

Annex 2

Expenditure Spent on Intelligent Transport System by TD in the Past Three Years

Expenditure (HK$ million) Intelligent Transport Systems in Use 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 TIS 11.90 12.97 14.51 Area Traffic Control Systems 88.61 88.03 90.47 Journey Time Indication System 4.60 4.60 4.60 Speed Map Panels in the New Territories 22.03 1.58 16.55 Expansion of the Red Light Camera 0.25 0.54 11.65 System, Phase 4 Expansion of Speed Enforcement 22.24 22.24 15.37 Camera System, Phase 2

Note:

Regarding the Intelligent Transport System installed in the Tsing Ma Control Area and the Tsing Sha Control Area, the relevant expenditures have been included in their respective management, operation and maintenance contracts, and are hence not included in the table above.

Monitoring of Administration by Trustee of an Estate for Charitable Purposes

19. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) handed down a judgment last month that the Chinachem Charitable Foundation 12352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Limited (Chinachem Foundation) was to hold an estate of tens of billion of Hong Kong dollars as a trustee and would not receive the estate as an absolute gift. In addition, as the will indicated that the testatrix wished to "entrust" the supervision of the Foundation to a managing organization outside the Foundation, CFA would exercise its inherent jurisdiction to establish a scheme for the administration of the charitable trusts. Following the handing down of the judgment, the Secretary for Justice (SJ) told the media that the Department of Justice would discuss with the relevant parties, including the Chinachem Foundation, the arrangements for and the details of the execution of the will. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether SJ will, in following up the CFA judgment, examine the past position concerning the administration of the estate, including checking and recovering all the unauthorized expenditures;

(2) whether it has initiated investigations to ascertain if the persons concerned have acted with negligence or wilful intent or even in conspiracy to commit a breach of trust in handling the estate; if it has, of the progress of the investigations; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether SJ, as the protector of charities, has monitored the operation, expenditure and debt positions of the Chinachem Foundation; if he has, of the details; and

(4) whether SJ has approached the persons nominated in the aforesaid will for appointment as members of the managing organization (e.g. the Premier of the State Council) to gain an understanding of whether they are willing to be appointed and to discuss with them how the Chinachem Foundation is to be supervised; if he has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, since 10 December 2007, the Estate of the late Mrs Nina WANG referred to in the question (the Estate) has, in accordance with a court order, been administered and preserved by independent interim administrators appointed by the Court. All the interim administrators are professional accountants. The judgment of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) dated 18 May 2015 does not affect the current independent interim administrators' discharge of the abovementioned duties to manage and preserve the Estate in accordance with the Court's appointment order until any further court order.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12353

A consolidated reply to parts (1) to (4) of the question raised by Mr Paul TSE is set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the interim administrators are authorized to manage the properties and affairs of the Estate. Their principal responsibilities are to get in and preserve the properties of the Estate, including making enquiries as they deem reasonably necessary or taking out relevant legal proceedings, and requiring any person(s) having custody, control or management of properties of the Estate to deliver or transfer to the interim administrators such properties, so as to ensure that the Estate is properly preserved.

Except with the prior consent of both the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited (Chinachem Foundation) or the Court's consent, the interim administrators shall not distribute any part of the Estate, and no unauthorized person shall use any property of the Estate.

The interim administrators, being "officers of the Court", owe a duty to the Court on matters relating to the interim administration of the Estate and the Court may give directions to the interim administrators if and when necessary. In discharge of their duties, the interim administrators shall investigate and take follow-up actions against any irregularity known to them which may prejudice the proper preservation and management of the Estate. The interim administrators are also required to submit periodical reports to the Court, the DoJ and the Chinachem Foundation on the conduct of the administration.

The DoJ has, at all times, paid attention to the administration of the Estate and kept contact with the interim administrators, including considering the periodical reports provided by the interim administrators; obtaining further information from the interim administrators; requiring the interim administrators to take follow-up actions and provide report as the circumstances require; assisting the Court in legal proceedings taken out by the interim administrators in the course of interim administration; and making applications to or seeking guidance from the Court on the interim administration of the Estate as may be required.

By its judgment dated 18 May, the CFA held that the Chinachem Foundation would hold Mrs Nina WANG's Estate as a trustee, rather than receiving it as an unconditional absolute gift. The judgment has clarified the proper interpretation of the Will at law, and provided a legal basis and clear guidance for the future implementation of the Will. 12354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

As the protector of charities, the Secretary for Justice is necessarily a party to charity proceedings and represents the beneficial interest or objects of the charity. Upon detailed consideration of the CFA's judgment, the DoJ will actively follow up on the detailed arrangements for the implementation of Mrs Nina WANG's Will, including continuing to keep in contact with the Chinachem Foundation as the trustee of the Estate and approaching other persons concerned, discussing the follow-up actions required and seeking guidance from the Court as may be required.

As regards whether the Secretary for Justice has monitored the affairs of the Chinachem Foundation, including its operation, expenditure and debts, charities are generally allowed to operate autonomously under their own governing bodies and in accordance with their own rules and regulations. Except otherwise prescribed by statute, the charity may operate autonomously and decide the manner in which the public is to be informed about its operation. Unless there is sufficient information or evidence which suggests a potential breach of charitable trust or maladministration on the part of any charities, the DoJ is not a "regulator" as such and would not regulate the daily management and operation of individual charities.

The Secretary for Justice will continue to closely monitor the interim administrators' work in managing and preserving the Estate and the litigation involving the Chinachem Foundation, and take such follow-up actions as may be appropriate, with a view to protecting and safeguarding the interest of the charity.

Unauthorized Structures Outside Legislative Council Complex and Central Government Offices

20. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that since the end of the occupation movement late last year, some people have erected unauthorized structures, such as tents, wooden sheds, etc., on the pavements outside the Legislative Council Complex and Central Government Offices. Moreover, the number of such structures is on the increase. They have pointed out that this situation will pose problems to the law and order as well as environmental hygiene. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12355

(1) of the respective numbers of reports and complaints about the aforesaid structures received by the Police from members of the public since December last year, and the nature of such complaints;

(2) whether it has assessed the problems of the law and order as well as environmental hygiene posed by these structures; if it has, of the assessment findings; and

(3) of the reasons why the authorities have not yet cleared these structures; of the legislation based on which the authorities may clear these structures at present; whether there are plans to clear these structures; if there are such plans, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, with respect to Mr CHAN Hak-kan's concern over the law and order and environmental hygiene issues caused by the allegedly illegal erection of tents and placement of objects by certain members of the public on the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road outside the Legislative Council Complex (LCC) and Central Government Offices (CGO), the Government's reply is as follows:

(1) and (2)

From 15 December last year to 31 May this year, the Police have received over 30 reports involving obstruction caused by the tents, erected structures and other objects on the aforesaid pavements. In respect of law and order, in the same period, a total of four persons concerning three cases were arrested by the Police on the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road for suspected common assault and criminal damage. The Police will continue to closely monitor the situation of the aforementioned pavements, maintain law and order, and combat illegal acts.

In the same period, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) has received 11 complaints on environmental hygiene pertaining to tent erection, odour emission and pest problems on the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road. While daily sweeping and refuse collection as well as regular pest control are being conducted on the aforesaid pavements, the FEHD 12356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

has been unable to carry out routine street-cleansing as usual since last December due to the illegal occupation of certain pavement sections of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road.

(3) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government respects the public in expressing their views in a lawful and peaceful manner. The Government, at the same time, also has the responsibility to safeguard the public's right of using the roads, as well as to ensure public safety, public order and public health.

The pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road are a public place and a main access to the CGO and LCC. While expressing their views, members of the public should respect others' right to use these roads and should not illegally occupy public place by means of tents, erected structures or other objects.

From the perspective of law and order, given that most of the tents on the aforesaid pavements are enclosed and that a few of them are indeed very large, it is difficult for passers-by to see from the outside what articles are stored inside the tents, or whether such articles are dangerous, offensive or illegal, and whether any person is lurking inside the tents for any criminal act, thereby causing concern amongst passers-by over their own personal safety. At the same time, some members of the community have already expressed dissatisfaction over the acts of illegally occupying the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road. Large-scale illegal occupation of pavements will heighten the risk of confrontation between people of different views at these locations. Besides, a section of the pavement on Tim Mei Avenue outside the CGO is a designated public activity area. Members of the public and the media often have to stand on vehicular access in order to stage demonstrations or cover news as the pavement is occupied by the tents, hence exposing themselves to danger. The abovementioned various factors will create risks in respect of law and order on relevant pavements.

On environmental hygiene, given that the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road outside the LCC and CGO have not been thoroughly cleansed for about half a year, coupled with the hot and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12357

humid summer of Hong Kong, the tents, erected structures and other objects currently occupying these pavements may trigger environmental hygiene problems such as mosquito and pest breeding as well as odour emission, and so on.

The HKSAR Government urges the protestors to remove the tents, erected structures and other objects from the pavements of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road outside the CGO and LCC, so that members of the public can use these pavements in the normal way. Relevant government departments will continue to closely monitor the situation of the aforesaid pavements, examine necessary follow-up measures and take appropriate law-enforcement actions at an appropriate time. It is not appropriate to reveal details at this stage.

Pilot Scheme for Redevelopment of Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Societies

21. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that for many years, owners of flats in buildings under the Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Societies Scheme (CBSs) have all along been asking the Government to offer them assistance in redeveloping such buildings. Considering the fact that redeveloping CBS buildings can release land to increase housing supply, the Development Bureau has recently put forward the proposal of rolling out a Pilot Scheme for Redevelopment of CBSs (the Pilot Scheme) by the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS). The Pilot Scheme will be implemented under a demand-led approach, whereby such owners themselves initiate application to HKHS. HKHS will lay down the eligibility criteria, including the requirements that a site must be at least 10 000 square feet in area and the relevant co-operative society must secure 100% owners' participation within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, HKHS will pay the Government the outstanding land premium that such owners owe the Government under the assignments of their flats, and will purchase the flats from the owners at market prices. Under the "no loss" principle, HKHS may offer acquisition prices slightly above market prices. On the other hand, where circumstances permit, HKHS may consider allowing the owners concerned to purchase the residential units from its "Flat-for-sale Scheme Secondary Market". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

12358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(1) given that 85 CBS sites have redevelopment potentials as assessed by the authorities, of the locations of these sites; whether the authorities have assessed the positive impacts of the redevelopment of such buildings on housing supply; if they have assessed, of the findings;

(2) of the difficulties encountered by the authorities in the past three years when it studied the feasibility of redeveloping CBS buildings; whether they have assessed if the implementation of the Pilot Scheme can help overcome such difficulties;

(3) whether the authorities have assessed if the Pilot Scheme can provide sufficient incentives to attract the participation of owners; whether they will consider relaxing the requirements under the Pilot Scheme, including lowering the requisite threshold of 100% owners' participation for redevelopment; whether they will encourage HKHS to offer more attractive acquisition prices to owners, and allow owners to purchase the units under the Home Ownership Scheme of the Hong Kong Housing Authority; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether the authorities have assessed the implications of the implementation of the Pilot Scheme on the manpower deployment and financial situation of HKHS; whether, on the premise of resolving the housing supply shortage in Hong Kong, the authorities will consider offering support to HKHS, including allowing HKHS not to pay full land premium, so as to assist HKHS in implementing the Pilot Scheme effectively; and

(5) whether the authorities will consider requesting HKHS to plan for the redevelopment of its rental housing estates in the areas concerned at the same time when it implements the Pilot Scheme (e.g. Lok Man Sun Chuen and Chun Seen Mei Chuen are in the vicinity of Ma Tau Wai Road, Kau Pui Lung Road and Ma Tau Chung Road where a large number of CBS buildings are located), so as to improve the housing developments in the areas concerned; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12359

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, at the meeting of the Panel on Development (the Panel) of the Legislative Council held on 15 July 2013, Members passed a motion on the "Redevelopment of Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Societies (CBSs)", urging the Government to launch redevelopment programmes for buildings developed under the civil servants' CBSs immediately so as to increase land supply in urban areas and to submit feasible proposals. After the meeting, the Development Bureau, together with relevant government departments and public organizations, conducted in-depth study on the justifications for facilitating the redevelopment of CBS buildings and possible ways to proceed. In the discussion paper we submitted to the Panel on 26 May 2015, we put forward three proposals, namely, (i) the launch of a Pilot Scheme for Redevelopment of CBSs (Pilot Scheme) by the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS); (ii) inviting the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to designate a queue for applications for facilitation service from CBS flat owners; and (iii) consolidating existing procedures of the Lands Department to facilitate the assessment of land premium involved in redevelopment.

My reply to the five-part question is as follows:

(1) Based on the parameters of those already redeveloped CBS sites, it is projected that, generally speaking, only those sites with redevelopment ratio (by comparing the floor area of the site after redevelopment with the current floor area of the CBS site) at or above two would stand a chance of the project breaking even or, in some cases, yielding a surplus. Among the 173 dissolved but yet to be redeveloped CBSs (involving 178 CBS sites), it is roughly estimated that only 85 have the potential for redevelopment (that is, the redevelopment may not incur a loss). These 85 CBSs are mainly located in the Kowloon City, Eastern, Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po Districts. It is also estimated that redevelopment of all these 85 sites will only yield some 230 000 sq m of additional floor area at maximum. As the 85 sites are scattered across the territory and may not be redeveloped as a whole, and given that each site is subject to its own constraints, the additional floor area that can actually be achieved will be even less.

(2) The Development Bureau, together with relevant departments and public organizations, has conducted in-depth study on the 12360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

justifications for facilitating the redevelopment of CBS buildings and possible ways to proceed. This is found to be fraught with much difficulty. Our major considerations are as follows.

CBS flat owners have called for land premium concession. Redeveloping CBS buildings generally involves two levels of land premium payment. The first level is the two-thirds outstanding land premium payable to the Government for the removal of alienation restriction on the CBS flat. The second level is the premium involved in modification of the lease conditions for achieving the maximum development parameters permitted under the outline zoning plan upon redevelopment of the CBS site. The first land premium payment is an outstanding debt owed to the Government. The second land premium payment is no different from the requirement for other ordinary redevelopment sites. Any concession on the payment of either premium will be a departure from established government policy and practice and must be supported by robust justifications.

We have considered whether, on the premise of increasing land supply, there are sufficient grounds for us to adjust the Government's established policy so as to facilitate the redevelopment of CBS buildings. While some of the CBS sites have not achieved their maximum development parameters, the redevelopment potential of the CBS sites as a whole is not as high as generally perceived. There are insufficient justifications to support concession on land premium payment for the purpose of releasing the development potential of these sites. Furthermore, if established government policy should be adjusted to facilitate the redevelopment of CBS sites on the ground of increasing land supply, then, on parity grounds, we should also subsidize the redevelopment of other old building sites which could release additional floor area with public funds. We do not think that this approach is in line with community expectation.

CBS flat owners have also called for intervention by the URA to help redevelop their sites. We have considered expediting redevelopment of CBS buildings from the perspective of urban renewal. As we have repeatedly explained, the purposes of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12361

URA are to undertake, encourage, promote and facilitate urban renewal, and to improve the standard of housing and the built environment of Hong Kong. It is the URA's priority to assist the redevelopment of buildings in poor and dilapidated condition. Since CBS buildings are generally better kept, their need for redevelopment is, relatively speaking, less imminent. It is therefore inappropriate for the URA to accord priority to the redevelopment of CBS buildings at the expense of other old buildings with greater urgency for redevelopment. That notwithstanding, CBS buildings may apply to the Demand-led Redevelopment Project (Pilot Scheme) of the URA, and be selected by the URA for redevelopment if they meet the requisite criteria of the URA scheme.

As the options stated above are found infeasible, we have examined with the HKHS the launch of a Pilot Scheme for Redevelopment of CBSs. The Pilot Scheme is intended to be a response to the call for redevelopment by some CBS flat owners with the underlying premise that it must be fair, reasonable, in line with public interest and represents a proper use of public funds.

The HKHS is not a profit-making organization and does not receive direct subsidy from the Government. It is a self-financing organization that has to bear the market risk of its projects. The Pilot Scheme as proposed is intended to strike a balance between the operating principles of the HKHS and the wish of some CBS flat owners for redevelopment and move out. We understand that the Pilot Scheme may not meet the expectation of all CBS flat owners, and this precisely reflects the complexity involved in balancing the various public interest considerations in the redevelopment of CBS buildings. We have proposed a Pilot Scheme for consideration to provide to the CBS flat owners an alternative to redevelopment by private developers.

At present, CBS flat owners who have a need to move out from the CBS flats have the following ways to do so. For the dissolved CBSs, the owners concerned may move out after paying the Government the outstanding two-thirds land premium and then sell their flats in the market. There is an established mechanism under the Civil Service Bureau to allow these owners to apply for a 12362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

temporary waiver so that they can sign sale and purchase agreements before paying the outstanding land premium. Under the current temporary waiver arrangement, the waiver is valid for a period of nine months. If the owners have a need, they can seek further extension. For those CBSs which have yet to be dissolved, the owners may transfer their CBS membership to other interested and eligible civil servants and move out from the CBS flats. No payment of premium is involved.

(3) On the various suggestions, namely, to lower the owners' participation threshold under the Pilot Scheme, for the HKHS to make higher acquisition offers and to allow CBS flat owners to purchase flats under the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA) from the HOS Secondary Market, our response is as follows.

Owners' participation threshold

The 100% owners' participation threshold proposed by the HKHS is based on the following three considerations:

First, the incumbent occupiers of CBS flats with alienation restrictions are either serving civil servants, retired civil servants or lawful successors-in-title of civil servants. To the serving civil servants, their CBS membership and their right to occupy the CBS flats is one type of housing benefit for which they may be eligible as government employees. Those serving civil servants who have obtained a legal title to their CBS flats upon dissolution of the CBS will no longer be eligible for other housing benefits. Therefore, unless all owners of a CBS agree to sell, it will be unfair to force those unwilling flat owners who are civil servants to move out and give up their housing benefit to fulfil the wish of the majority of the other owners.

Second, according to the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (the Ordinance), the Lands Tribunal will determine if it is satisfied that the redevelopment of a lot is justified due to the age or state of repair of the existing development on the lot before deciding whether to grant a compulsory sale order. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12363

CBS buildings are generally well kept, compulsory sale orders may not be granted under the Ordinance. If the HKHS is to take on applications with only 80% or 90% owners' participation under the Pilot Scheme, the HKHS would have to bear the risk of failing to obtain compulsory sale orders from the Lands Tribunal at the end, or having to pay much higher prices in order to acquire the remaining 20% or 10% property interests, as a result of which the project may not be able to proceed or will incur a significant loss. As a matter of fact, in all the 11 cases of CBS redevelopment, the developers had successfully acquired 100% of the property interests in each case. Obtaining unanimous owners' consent for CBS redevelopment is not unprecedented.

Third, the intention of the HKHS in launching the Pilot Scheme on a demand-led basis is to respond to the claim of some CBS flat owners that they are unable to pay the outstanding two-thirds land premium they owe the Government and call for government intervention to facilitate redevelopment so that they can move out from the CBS flats. Since the HKHS Pilot Scheme is meant to respond to these owners' wish to have their buildings redeveloped as soon as possible, it is but reasonable that the HKHS should only come on board where the owners have a desire to proceed with redevelopment.

Acquisition offer of the HKHS

We appreciate that the acquisition offer of the HKHS proposed under the Pilot Scheme may not meet the expectation of all CBS flat owners. The HKHS is not a profit-making organization and does not receive direct subsidy from the Government. It is a self-financing organization that has to bear the market risk of its projects. The acquisition offer now proposed is slightly above market price and has balanced the operating principles of the HKHS and the wish of some CBS flat owners to move out from their flats through redevelopment.

Purchasing subsidized sale flats from the Secondary Market

The Pilot Scheme aims to provide an alternative for the CBS flat owners to sell their flats at a price slightly above market price and, depending on their need, they may choose to purchase an HKHS 12364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

"Flat-for-sale Scheme" (FFSS) flat from the Secondary Market. The terms and conditions proposed for the Pilot Scheme should have suitably struck a balance amongst all relevant considerations. At present, there are about 10 360 subsidized sale flats under the HKHS' FFSS located in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. These subsidized sale flats should be able to provide a choice for the CBS flat owners.

All subsidized housing (including subsidized sale flats with premium not yet paid) involves the use of precious public resources and should be used with due care.

It is the HKHA's established policy that only persons who meet the eligibility criteria for Green Form status are allowed to purchase HOS flats with premium not yet paid in the HOS Secondary Market. The arrangement for White Form applicants to purchase this type of flats is still an interim scheme and subject to a quota. Besides, the persons concerned must also meet the eligibility criteria for White Form status, including income and asset limits set by the HKHA. We do not consider it appropriate or prudent to extend the Pilot Scheme to cover the HKHA's HOS flats with premium not yet paid. Such an extension may also be unfair to other members of the public.

(4) As the Pilot Scheme is launched on a trial basis, the HKHS has confirmed that the Pilot Scheme is still manageable within the HKHS' existing manpower and financial resources. The HKHS will review the manpower and financial resources requirements after the launch of the Pilot Scheme, having regard to the response of CBS flat owners and the experience gained from implementing the Pilot Scheme.

The Government supports the HKHS in implementing the Pilot Scheme. We will follow our established policy of premium concession in handling the land premium payable for the HKHS' subsidized sale flat developments.

(5) According to the HKHS, generally speaking, for the redevelopment of an HKHS housing estate to proceed, the subject site must have an area of not less than 4 000 sq m to 5 000 sq m so that a sufficient LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12365

number of rehousing units will be provided upon redevelopment. As site information (including location and area) of the CBS buildings which will participate in the Pilot Scheme is yet available, it is premature to assess how the Pilot Scheme may tie in with or facilitate the redevelopment of the HKHS housing estates.

Green Roof Projects

22. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that incorporating greening elements (e.g. green roofs) in buildings has become the major trend of environmental protection. Apart from beautifying the environment, green roofs can also help reduce the urban heat island effect and enhance the thermal insulation capability of buildings. Hence, quite a number of countries and places, such as Germany, Japan and Shanghai, are now making great efforts to promote green roofs. However, Hong Kong's performance is lagging far behind in this regard. Moreover, it has been reported that the roof greening projects implemented for government buildings by the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) are ineffectual. For instance, the green coverage in some of the sites where roof greening projects have been completed is extremely low, with only a small quantity of potted plants or small parcels of turfed areas being grown, which does not conform to the relevant standards and requirements set by the Development Bureau in 2012. However, ArchSD has responded that it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of the projects concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of sites where roof greening projects of government buildings were implemented and the total size of greened areas provided, in the past three years;

(2) of the criteria or guidelines currently based on which the authorities assess the effectiveness of roof greening projects, and whether they have made references to overseas experience regularly to update such criteria or guidelines;

(3) of the mechanism for monitoring the benefits of roof greening projects so as to prevent the greened areas to be provided by the projects from being too small;

12366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(4) whether it assessed in the past three years the number of government buildings or school premises suitable for implementing roof greening projects; if it did, of the assessment results; among these government buildings or school premises, of the respective numbers of those in which such projects (i) have been completed, (ii) will be completed/implemented, and (iii) have not been planned; whether it will commence roof greening projects expeditiously in buildings which are found suitable for but have not yet proceeded with the implementation of such projects so as to popularize green building;

(5) given that at present, roof greening projects in Hong Kong are mostly implemented in government buildings as well as primary and secondary school premises, whether the authorities will consider providing financial assistance to property owners of private buildings to carry out such projects; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) whether it will consider requiring roof greening projects to be carried out in new buildings or stipulating that a certain percentage of green roofs is required to be provided in new buildings to enhance the greening awareness of property owners; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(7) as it has been reported that the guidelines on roof greening currently provided by the Government to schools are very brief, whether the authorities will expeditiously formulate a set of detailed guidelines to help schools implement such environmental protection measure; and

(8) as some teachers have pointed out that schools encounter quite a number of difficulties at present in applying for the implementation of roof greening projects and the relevant financial assistance, e.g. the complicated procedures for vetting and approval of applications as well as the requirement for submission of greening project plans, and that the involvement of a number of government departments in such vetting and approval procedures has given rise to administrative confusion and unclear division of powers and responsibilities, thereby deterring a number of schools from making such applications, how the authorities will help schools and other applicants tackle the problems concerned; whether the authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12367

will pool resources from relevant government departments, as well as set up a green building information centre or a dedicated department to coordinate the vetting and approval of applications for roof greening projects and streamline the application procedures?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) The Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) has completed over 50 roof greening projects with total greened areas of over 50 000 sq m over the past three years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014.

(2) and (3)

In compiling the technical circular on the standards and requirements on greenery coverage, the Development Bureau has made reference to overseas experience and standards as well as the contents and recommendations of the Council for Sustainable Development's Report on the Building Design to Foster a Quality and Sustainable Built Environment and the ArchSD's Study on Green Roof Application in Hong Kong.

All new government building projects undertaken by government departments, including the ArchSD, must comply with the standards and requirements on site coverage of greenery for government building projects as set out in the Technical Circular (Works) No. 3/2012 of the Development Bureau. In other words, the greenery coverage must reach 30% for a site of 20 000 sq m or more in area and 20% for a site of 20 000 sq m or less. The ArchSD will comply with the above standards and requirements for greenery coverage as set out in the Technical Circular.

(4) The ArchSD has provided greening facilities for all new government building projects, including roof greening, in accordance with the Technical Circular (Works) No. 3/2012. For existing government buildings under its maintenance purview, the ArchSD has 12368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

encouraged management departments of these buildings to consider roof greening works, where conditions permit, when planning major renovation works.

The ArchSD will assess the suitability of roof greening works for buildings. Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014, it has completed over 50 roof greening projects with total greened areas of over 50 000 sq m. Currently, over 25 roof greening projects with total greened areas over 16 000 sq m are underway/under planning.

(5) Based on resources consideration, the Government has no plan to provide subsidy for roof greening works undertaken by property owners.

(6) To foster a quality and sustainable built environment in Hong Kong, the Buildings Department (BD) has implemented a package of measures since April 2011. One of these measures is, where applicable, to comply with the Sustainable Building Design Guidelines (SBD Guidelines) as promulgated in the Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers APP-152 when granting gross floor area concessions.

For the purposes of enhancing the environmental quality of the urban space, particularly at the pedestrian level and to mitigate the heat island effect, the SBD Guidelines require new building developments with site areas of 1 000 sq m to 20 000 sq m and more than 20 000 sq m to have minimum site coverage of greenery of 20% and 30% respectively. The greenery areas can be provided at pedestrian zone, communal podium roof/flat roof/main roof, slope and retaining structure.

(7) The Government is committed to promoting roof greening to schools and the general public. To help schools implement roof greening projects, it has provided detailed guidelines and information, including:

- a Pictorial Guide to Plant Resources for Skyrise Greenery in Hong Kong (the Pictorial Guide) compiled by the Development Bureau to facilitate proper plant selection and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12369

encourage the use of suitable plants for skyrise greenery. This bilingual Pictorial Guide provides detailed information on the technical aspects and growth conditions of over 100 types of plants that have been successfully used in skyrise greenery projects in Hong Kong to facilitate the schools and designers to select suitable plants for their skyrise greenery projects. A new search engine for skyrise greenery plants is also available for identifying plants suitable for the planting environment of schools. Apart from publishing the information on the Greening website , the Development Bureau has distributed printed copies to schools and public libraries for the public's information.

- the Greening website of the Development Bureau that provides detailed information on the application of green roof at schools, including the factors for consideration, design approaches, successful examples of roof greening projects and sharing of experience of implementing roof greening at schools. For details, please visit the following site: .

- seminars organized by the Development Bureau for schools to explain in detail the application of green roof, design considerations as well as other useful information in order to promote roof greening to schools and the general public.

- the Development Bureau assisted the Hong Kong Green Building Council to compile the Hong Kong Green School Guide. The section on Green Roof sets out relevant issues for consideration of schools and provides detailed and comprehensive guidelines for schools to go green step by step.

(8) Pursuant to the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) (BO), the BD is required to process the building plan submissions involving green roof in accordance with the provisions of the BO and its subsidiary regulations. Moreover, under the centralized processing system, the BD would refer the plans to relevant government departments for consideration on matters in their respective areas of concern or 12370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

purview. If the plans comply with the provisions of the BO and its subsidiary regulations, the BD is required to give approval of the plans under the BO. Contrarily, the BD is also required to refuse to give approval of the plans under section 16 of the BO.

The purpose of the centralized processing system for building plans is to ensure that all interested government departments are consulted and that their comments on private development proposals are collated by the BD within time limits allowed for processing building plans. For all comments relating to matters not governed by the BO, the applicants and their appointed building professionals may approach the relevant government departments direct to resolve the problem.

MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motions. This Council will now continue the joint debate on the two proposed resolutions under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development as well as a total of 32 amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Albert CHAN to the second motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 54A OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 28 May 2015

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12371

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, please speak.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, last week, I sat here and listened very attentively to the speeches made by the pan-democratic Members. Being shuddered by their speeches, I am compelled me to speak today. I suggest that Dr KWOK Ka-ki should review his speech made last week, which was a complete fabrication. He was making an excuse to evade responsibility, a thief crying thief, and that was disgusting. He described the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau as a political mission and a conspiracy, and depicted the support given to the information technology (IT) sector as an attempt to monitor the cyber world. Regarding the support provided to the IT sector, he said the 200 000 IT practitioners did not need to beg for grace from the Government. He chided the Government for not providing adequate support to the IT sector on the one hand, but disapproved the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau on the other. I hope the matter will not be procrastinated anymore as it has already dragged on for three years.

The opposition camp always accuses other people of being too aggressive, but after listening to the speech of Dr KWOK Ka-ki, people should know which Member or person is genuinely aggressive. Are they so desperate now that they have nothing left but aggression? There is no doubt that Hong Kong is not doing enough in technological development, and this is precisely why a dedicated Policy Bureau should be established for promotion and improvement. "Necessity leads to changes, and changes lead to prosperity" as the saying goes. Dr KWOK has refused to support the Government and disapproved the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau on the one hand, but criticized the Government for its lack of support on the other, so what actually does he want the Government to do? He should either stop hurling criticisms or let the Government make improvements in response to his criticisms. As in the case of political reform, while they cried for democracy and universal suffrage, they refused to support the political reform package. Despite our poor development in technology, they do not support the Government's proposal to develop technology. What do they want then?

Since I had previously worked in a technology company, I did have a chance to take a close look at the development and support of technology in Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, it is no easy task to commercialize the research and 12372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 development (R&D) results. Apart from money, hardwares and softwares are also essential. Software, in particular, is now lacking in Hong Kong. What does software mean? Looking back, it actually means a basket of policies through which the Government develops a market conducive to the development of technology. Here, I want to say that I have pretty high expectation of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, if it can be established, hoping that the Government will capitalize on our advantages and maximize the potential of local technology. Where is the biggest market of Hong Kong's IT sector? The biggest buyer is actually the Government, and thus I hope it will expand the Public Sector Trial Scheme. At present, the Government only procures technology products produced under its funding programmes, for example, products produced under the projects funded by the Commission on Innovation and Technology. Other technology products will not receive any government support, which does not help to create an atmosphere conducive to the development of innovation and technology.

Just imagine, if some people have achieved success in the research or development of innovation and technology without government subsidy, why not provide them with support or assistance? If they have the competence and courage to invest in and produce new products, which I trust are good ones, why not give them support? Let me give an example that I have previously cited. An engineer, on seeing windows falling from height in Hong Kong and realizing that the mandatory inspection of windows cannot solve the problem at root, has invented a simple, cheap, nice-looking and useful device to be installed on windows. People who have installed the device feel very relieved, and the invention is now very popular. When the engineer introduced his invention to the Government, he undertook to supply the device to the Government for free or at cost price for installation in public housing estates. However, the Government couldn't care less. I will certainly not blame the Housing Department for there is no government policy to adopt new inventions. In view of this, I hope that with the promotion of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, the Government will achieve some breakthroughs in its procurement approach or in the introduction of new technologies.

Secondly, I hope that the Government will change its procurement approach. Although the Hong Kong Government is governed by the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, I believe there is still much room for the Government to procure R&D results. Meanwhile, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12373

Government should also review the long-standing procurement principle of "the lowest bidder wins". If it insists on this principle, the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Hong Kong can hardly compete with large international organizations. This is because not only can the latter achieve economies of scale through mass production, supplies are also readily available given the huge markets, so how can local SMEs compete with them? If the Government really wants to support the development of innovation and technology, should it allocate a small portion of its annual spending, say 3% to 5%, for various departments to adopt IT results? In my opinion, the Innovation and Technology Bureau must be established without further delay; otherwise, a delay of 10 years will be resulted. I therefore hope that the pan-democratic camp will not procrastinate anymore. The benefits of establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau will be shared by all.

I think the various amendments are meaningless except for vetoing the proposed establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. One of the amendments, for example, proposes to change the commencement date from the 14th day to the 240th day, but what is the purpose of changing the date from the 14th day to the 240th day? Are they telling me it would be better for the Bureau to commence on the 240th day? The amendments are basically meaningless, not worthy of support and impractical, and they procrastinate for the sake of procrastination.

This is now the case of Hong Kong. Not only political reform, but also people's livelihood is affected. In that case, what will become of Hong Kong? I hope the pan-democratic Members will not be disgruntled, but think carefully who elected them. They must do justice to Hong Kong people and our young people. If they think dragging down Hong Kong is fun or can achieve their political goals, they might as well go ahead and voters will watch their every move. Therefore, I hope they will "put down the butcher's cleaver and become Buddha".

President, I so submit.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): On 22 May, the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland, published the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2014, in which Hong Kong came second among 61 12374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 countries. The SAR Government was so complacent that it issued a press release to welcome IMD's ranking of Hong Kong, without mentioning that the first goes to our rival, Singapore.

In fact, Hong Kong's ranking varies in a number of well-known global reports on competitiveness. I nonetheless think emphasis should not be placed on ranking alone, but also the reason behind the ranking. Since competitiveness is related to innovation and technology, I will share my views on the assessment of various competitiveness reports on Hong Kong.

Apart from the IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, another reputed competitiveness report is published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a very famous organization also from Switzerland. In the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015, Hong Kong ranked seventh, a slight improvement from last year's ninth. However, we must not forget that our rival Singapore is ahead of us and ranked second. Thus, there is no point in commending our improved ranking if we ignore why we have often been overtaken by our rival.

Let us look more deeply into why Hong Kong ranked seventh. It is noted that the WEF has developed 12 indicators known as the "12 pillars of competitiveness", which are grouped into three major categories. The first one is "Basic requirements", meaning infrastructure and institution, under which Hong Kong came third. But mind you, Singapore came first. The second one is "Efficiency enhancers", under which Hong Kong was highly ranked and took the third place. Yet, again, Singapore was ahead of us at the second place. The most important factor affecting Hong Kong's long-term competitiveness at the third level (the highest level) is concerned with whether an economy can promote self-enhancement as well as upgrading and re-structuring. It is called "Innovation and sophistication factors", which represents improvement and sophistication, and Hong Kong ranked 23rd whereas Singapore ranked 11th.

Recently, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has also published the Blue Book of Urban Competitiveness: Report on China's Urban Competitiveness (the Blue Book). President, I wonder if you have time to read through it because it is well-written and interesting. It showed that among the 290-odd Chinese cities, Hong Kong has been overtaken by Shenzhen for the first time in respect of Comprehensive Economic Competitiveness. Notwithstanding that, Hong Kong remains the top city in respect of Sustainable Competitiveness and a livable and business-friendly city.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12375

One of the reasons why we have lagged behind in Comprehensive Economic Competitiveness is our low innovation capacity. Therefore, in the light of reviews and reflections on various reports, the Government should establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau to categorically explore on innovation. We should not be complacent about the improvement in our ranking as reflected in certain reports, or feel satisfied so long as there is high degree of freedom, as stated by a senior financial official in his speech. If we still adopt such a mentality, we will become the earl of the He of Zhuangzi's The Floods of Autumn1, "The time of the autumnal floods was come, and the hundred streams were all discharging themselves into the He. Its current was greatly swollen, so that across its channel from bank to bank one could not distinguish an ox from a horse." After the earl of the He saw the floods of water, "On this the earl of the He laughed with delight, thinking that all the beauty of the world was to be found in his charge", thinking that he was terrific. But after he flowed to the east and saw the gigantic sea, "with his face to the east, without being able to see where its waters began", he looked at the sea and sighed: "What the vulgar saying expresses about him who has learned a hundred points (of the Dao), and thinks that there is no one equal to himself, was surely spoken of me." In other words, one should not be conceited simply because of his extensive knowledge or high scores in certain subjects. We should avoid becoming the earl of He by abandoning such a mentality. President, am I right?

I therefore consider it necessary to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I also agree with Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying that it should be named the "Innovation and Technology Bureau" but not the "Technology and Innovation Bureau", because the latter implies that innovation requires technology, which is not true. Innovation does not necessarily require technology. Summarizing the views of a number of academics, innovation has different aspects, including the innovation of theories or ideas. Our great motherland, the Mainland, has done a very good job by proposing new theories from time to time. For example, as described in the Blue Book on urban competitiveness, Shenzhen is an innovation-driven city whereas Suzhou is a city successfully transformed and upgraded from an old city. I think Mainland economists have done a great job in introducing new ideas and theories. There can be innovation of ideas, theories, systems, procedures and business models, but they are all lacking in Hong Kong and consideration must be given in this regard.

1 12376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

I am aware that Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG and Secretary Gregory SO are fully engaged, having to attend to tourism and film issues, and they also had to spend days travelling abroad to attend the Cannes Film Festival. How can they have the time to deal with so many issues? That is not possible. Coupled with the need to handle television licence applications, how can they spare the time to think about the innovation of theories and systems? I pity them for their laborious work, and it therefore makes perfect sense to identify an expert with a new mindset to work on innovation. I hope that the upcoming Innovation and Technology Bureau will come up with some innovative ideas, systems, procedures and business models.

Is innovation completely absent in Hong Kong? I do not think so. I wonder if Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG knows that the Forbes March edition has sung high praises of Hong Kong and named it the "innovation hub", with our ranking only second to the Silicon Valley. Of the five innovation hubs listed in the magazine, the Silicon Valley is certainly the top on the list. Hong Kong comes second, followed by the third Washington DC, the fourth Tel Aviv of Israel and London only comes fifth. What makes the magazine form such views? According to the magazine, Hong Kong has many startup breeding grounds and an in-depth study by the journalist concerned has highlighted a number of organizations. One of them is called the CoCoon ― I wonder if Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG has ever visited this organization ― which encourages co-working space. There is another organization called the AcceleratorHK. Of course, the journalist has also mentioned the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park Incubation Program. Though not mentioned in the article, I am aware that an incubation centre, the NEST, has been operating in the "Bird's Nest Street" 2 for some time. It has provided management knowledge to startup entrepreneurs, advised them how to obtain capital, improve management as well as market their products. It turns out that in the eye of the American journalist, Hong Kong is also an innovation hub.

I hope that the new Secretary of this new Policy Bureau, if established, will submit a report to this Council on resumption of office, detailing Hong Kong's innovation scene, the number of startup entrepreneurs in operation and whether they have received any assistance from "angels" like the NEST or CoCoon. In fact, apart from the United States, there are also well-known organizations in

2 The "Bird's Nest Street", located in Sheung Wan, was so named because it is lined with shops selling Chinese tonic food. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12377 other countries providing assistance for the development of startup entrepreneurs, such as the Plug and Play Tech Centre. I wonder if Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG has visited this Centre in San Jose, which is worth a trip. I think the Government should step up its efforts to explore the kind of assistance to be provided to startup entrepreneurs, and a lot can actually be done by the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Some colleagues criticize the small number of departments to be managed by this Bureau, but its small size will not limit the work that can be done so long as it has the heart to do so.

Next, I wish to talk about my views on technology. There is no doubt that the SAR Government should expeditiously catch up in technology because when compared with Japan, Korea, Singapore or many other Mainland cities (especially Shenzhen), we have lagged far behind in investment, technology or the promotion of technological entrepreneurship. I would like to raise a point for consideration by the Government. Noting that technology has an extensive coverage, including nanotechnology, biotechnology and even financial technologies ― Isn't our financial sector discussing about the FinTech? ― and is widely used in various industries, namely financial, logistics, big data and tourism, which kind of technology is most suitable for Hong Kong? Given that the Guangdong Province and even the entire nation are vigorously promoting e-commerce and cross-border online shopping, do we have any room for development in this regard? Biotechnology also has an extensive coverage, so should we accord priority to the development of, for example, new cancer drugs or new diagnostic equipment? The Government must carefully consider which kind of technology can be best developed on Hong Kong soil and will most likely bear fruit.

I think it would be very difficult for Hong Kong to develop new biotechnologies in the same way as major pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the United States, which often invest billions of US dollars and spend several decades for this cause. Major pharmaceutical companies have a pipeline of drugs or products, but the chance of developing a blockbuster drug is only 1% or 2% despite the injection of US$1 billion. Does Hong Kong have the resources and patience to commit in the relevant development? Hong Kong has joined hands with Sweden's Karolinska Institute to develop biotechnology, but what kind of research is being carried out? I hope the future Secretary will give an account of it.

12378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

The SAR Government has been criticized for allocating too few resources for research and development (R&D), and this is worthy of review. Noting that our R&D is less than satisfactory and has failed to nurture new industries, is this attributable to the allocation of too few resources or an inappropriate method of allocation? We are aware that of the two types of R&D, one is called "basic R&D", which is very important, and I have recently read an article written by Prof Tony CHAN on basic R&D. Also, I have watched a very good movie lately called The Imitation Game, in which the leading actor Alan TURING is a British computer genius. Without the invention of the Turing machine by this Mathematics genius during the Second World War, we would not have electronic computer today because the machine invented by him is actually the foundation of electronic computer, nor would there be artificial intelligence. And, without the study of Physics, there would not be semiconductors or various kinds of chips, which have provided mobile phones with multiple functions nowadays.

Basic R&D is the foundation of the many innovative products. Have we allocated sufficient resources to universities for basic R&D? Or, is it a wrong approach for various universities to bid resources on their own, such that not much can be done with the few millions of dollars allocated to each university? Should we pool all the resources to develop the basic R&D that has the greatest potential among the eight universities, with a view to expanding and strengthening, and producing a Nobel laureate for science in the future?

The case for applied R&D is similar. In Hong Kong, relevant organizations have been set up, such as the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks and the Applied Science and Technology Research Institute. What have they done in respect of applied R&D? Why can't we develop our research results into new industries in Hong Kong? What is the problem: insufficient land or low wages? Or, should we look at future R&D from the perspective of regional co-operation and global analysis amidst integration of production and examine the places that enjoy regional advantage, as pointed out by many Western academics? In other words, we may introduce division of work with Shenzhen to jointly develop new enterprises or products, or co-operate with Nansha and even Singapore. Opportunity is plenty and it is not a new idea at all. Overseas scholars on innovation and technology have already produced a lot of publications, which are worth reading by the future Secretary for sharing with Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12379

With these remarks, President, I support the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Although small in size, I think its early establishment will enable Hong Kong's innovation and technology to soar high. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

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

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, since all is void, where can the dust alight? This debate is the continuation of the debate held in the last Session on the resolution to set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau proposed by the LEUNG Chun-ying Government. Although the funding application was not approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee in the last Session, the Government has kept on fighting despite repeated setbacks, and it might fail again. Just now, many Members have spoken to support the establishment of the innovation and Technology Bureau, including Mrs Regina IP ― I am not sure if she supports the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau or gives it the thumbs down. She said that the Secretary and Under Secretary are very busy; they like to pay overseas visits and engage in other businesses, leaving them no time to sit down and consider seriously about this issue.

Does it mean that officials will only give serious consideration after the establishment of a new Policy Bureau? I think this comment is unfair to Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG sitting on the opposite side. Though the President could not remember Under Secretary Godfrey LEUNG's name at the Budget debate last year, I have known Godfrey LEUNG for some time. He is a senior 12380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 schoolmate of mine at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and we have known each other since then, but regrettably, we are in opposition to each other now. I think he is not a person who does not think or make efforts, but his ideas or creativity are not appreciated by Members such as Mrs Regina IP. Mrs Regina IP insisted on establishing a new Policy Bureau because in her view, only a new Policy Bureau will invite new ideas; is this really the case?

I have studied the objective figures and the statistical data provided by the Government or international rating agencies. Our information, communication, innovation and technology industries as well as the other closely related industries only account for 3% to 4%, not more than 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In order to play a gate-keeping role, I have tried to find out the percentage of our expenditures on research and development in GDP. The percentage is not too high, only about 0.7%; and only less than seven people among 1 000 working people are engaged in technology or research work. The relevant figures is really low, and we may feel ashamed, failing to understand why Hong Kong, being such a well-developed and prosperous city, would be lagging so behind when compared to other places in Asia and various parts of the world.

We have on different occasions and during debates of this Council mentioned that these industries should be developed because they are very important pillars and vital for the future economic development as well as economic restructuring. Can the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau deal with the issues properly? This leads to many interesting questions. As the Under Secretary majored in Government and Public Administration, he should well understand the self-expansion theory of bureaucrats. What is meant by the self-expansion theory of bureaucrats? In fact, some selfish motives or thoughts will arise in the bureaucracy. When there are voices in the community requesting the Government to do certain things, claiming that such actions would be conducive to Hong Kong and the State, government officials will consider what should be done. They may consider creating certain posts, recruiting staff, setting up Policy Bureaux or departments, so as to respond to the demands of the community and the pressure from the Legislative Council.

We learn from the literature on public administration or policy studies that the self-expansion problems have emerged in the development of the so-called LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12381 welfare states since the 1940s. As the state or the government had to undertake a lot of tasks, additional staff had been recruited and various rules and regulations, laws and policies had been formulated. Problems of overregulation or an oversized government had emerged, and coupled with other policies, the situation was sickening. In the 1980s, the situation started to change slightly. While measures to gradually reduce, simplify and decentralize have been implemented, there are also relaxations on powers, policies and resources. That is the general trend.

The Government advocates a "small government" and efficiency on the one hand but refuses to allocate substantial resources in the right place on the other, and conversely it proposes to establish a Policy Bureau. If the establishment of this Policy Bureau really creates a breakthrough for our economic situation and enables the innovation and technology industry to take off, and the relations between the two is definitely not merely a conjecture or a hypothesis, we can continue to hold debates. Nevertheless, the problem is that we are not discussing a new subject that has never been heard or discussed. Instead, the subject has existed for more than a year. We have reviewed the paper provided to us by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau between last year and this year, as well as the paper prepared by the Commission on Strategic Development (CSD) for the meeting on 16 March 2015. Legislative Council Members who have reviewed such papers agreed that some thoughts have been given to the production of the papers, the contents of which were well-balanced, and some work would be undertaken. However, when we asked specifically how the work would be implemented and what substantial changes would be made, no answers were given. The Government should not merely tell us that the Policy Bureau would be responsible for co-ordination and promotion. Co-ordination and promotion are actions to be taken, but what tangible results would be brought about by such actions, so as to give us a sense of security, we fail to get any answer.

For example, in paragraph 7 of the paper submitted by the Administration to the Legislative Council, it is stated that, the Innovation and Technology Bureau "will continue to build on the foundation established over the years and co-ordinate the efforts and activities dedicated for working with the innovation and technology sector to achieve maximum complementary synergy for commercialization of research and development deliverables". Though this paragraph sounds very practical, we have not heard anything substantive. This 12382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 is the paradox, and it seems like nothing has been said. These empty talks are commonly found in the political circles or within the Government; people just make empty talks but they do not take actions. Building on the foundation for commercialization of research and development deliverables is tantamount to rising a big hot-air balloon into the sky. We do not know what will happen afterwards, and this is by no means down-to-earth.

In the document submitted by the CSD, which contains the results of the deliberations by those appointed by the LEUNG Chun-ying Government, there is a paragraph substantially related to me as I am working in a university. It is stated that "Some perceived that one of the main obstacles in innovation and technology development in Hong Kong stems from the difficulties in the collaboration among stakeholders, that is, government, industry, academic and research sectors. To facilitate the commercialization of research and development results and technology transfer, efforts should be stepped up to strengthen the linkages among these stakeholders. Consideration should be given to providing incentives to encourage academics to recognize and to put in more efforts on the commercialization of research and development results. Recognition of knowledge transfer has a lower priority than academic research paper publishing. This has created a gap between academically generated intellectual property rights and full commercialization". In other words, the universities attach importance to writing or publishing research papers, and publishing research results in top journals. This is very theoretical, cutting-edge and sophisticated. However, after publishing these papers, we have to start working on another research project at once. Knowledge transfer and commercialization has nothing to do with me because the university will not include these factors in the performance appraisal which will affect my promotion. Although the Government wants to promote the commercialization of research and development results, and the CSD document also mentioned promoting the commercialization of research, there is no effect. What is all this about? Will setting up a Policy Bureau, and having the Secretary, the Under Secretary and the Political Assistant be able to resolve all problems? I cannot find the answer and I dare not say that this is impossible. However, the existing documents and discussions have not provided the actual answers, and Secretary Gregory SO and the Under Secretary have only said that this would be done after the establishment of the Policy Bureau.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12383

At this stage, Mr Nicholas YANG has recently come to light. He has been appointed as an Executive Council Member and the Advisor on Innovation and Technology to LEUNG Chum-ying. Since Mr YANG has a title now, taxpayers naturally have to pay emolument to him. As he is now an Executive Council Member and an advisor, let us give him some time to develop his potential, and observe how he co-ordinates the co-operation among the government, industry, academic and research sectors and promotes the commercialization of research, as well as convince his colleagues in universities to put in more efforts on knowledge transfer. Let us give him some time to prove that he can undertake all such tasks. We would be surprised if he cannot do so. Mr LEUNG Chun-ying likes Nicholas YANG very much and Nicholas YANG also wants to take up the post; he thus told us that he has a lot of ideas but he would only disclose these ideas after he has taken office. This head hunting approach may be adopted in the business sector. A person may boost that he has a lot of ideas and experience, as well as having a secret master plan, but he would only work hard after getting paid. This is simply the same as fortune-telling, and only charlatans would say so. However, if a person is committed to serving the public and wants to create a breakthrough for creativity, innovation and technology in Hong Kong, I think he should not have such an attitude. It is useless for him to lobby us. Can he solve the problems by calling us to arrange for discussions, keep expressing his enthusiasm and ideas, and continuously making emotional appeals? If he is so capable, he should show us his ability as soon as possible, instead of handling the problems only after his appointment. I think this is not the best approach.

Concerning the arrangements for the establishment of Policy Bureaux and the appointment and removal of Directors of Bureaux, there have been endless arguments since the reunification. Although all Directors of Bureaux shall be appointed by the Central People's Government, should the Legislative Council be involved in the process? Can the Legislative Council be more involved in the appointment and removal process? As in the case of the appointment of principal officials of the Congress in the United States, the relevant committees will be involved to conduct thorough investigations. They are not only concerned with facts, but also with individuals. As "one single man" Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, in his capacity as the Chief Executive, thinks that Nicholas YANG is a competent person, the whole legislature and all taxpayers have to endorse this carefully selected person and provide him with the required resources. This is not a desirable approach. Now that Mr YANG has been 12384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 selected, should the Government and the legislature discuss how a meritorious and interactive procedure of appointment and removal can be established for personnel appointment? I believe this may be able to convince the public; otherwise, I am really worried that the same mistakes may recur.

In the current-term Government, a considerable number of principal officials have disappointed and infuriated us in terms of their popularity, qualifications and performance. Can we tolerate LEUNG Chun-ying making the same mistake again? Money comes from taxpayers not from him. Such a disastrous arrangement is made just to satisfy LEUNG Chun-ying's ambition, which is unacceptable to us.

With these remarks, President, I oppose the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. We support developing innovation and technology by practical means and putting in resources, instead of setting up a Policy Bureau.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, today, you and I argued about whether the Directors of Bureaux should attend this meeting. Frankly speaking, President, just read the Basic Law. It stipulates the ranking of Members and as well as your ranking. The Government must be monitored by us, though some Members have let people down by failing to attend meetings frequently. If the Directors of Bureaux do not come to this Council, what is the purpose for us to deliver speeches? They cannot hear us.

Consider the example of Anthony CHEUNG. Whom is he having lunch with today? It is alright if he is out of town, but I do not know if he is. If the system remains unchanged, the Directors of Bureaux do not have to explain why they do not attend meetings. It was 1.30 pm when I asked whether he would attend this meeting, which was lunch time. Even if he has a lunch appointment with a political dignitary or an important person, he should not have made the appointment on Wednesdays, am I right? Since he knows that he has to attend the Council meeting, his behaviour would be an insult to cultured people …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed. Please speak on the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12385

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Regarding the Bureau now under discussion, Fanny LAW said that we would be doomed if it was not established. If that is the case, where is the Secretary now? Is he having afternoon tea? In which hotel? Someone told us that we would be doomed if the Bureau was not established and the Government wanted our votes for the proposal, but how come the Secretary has not attended this meeting. How can that happen?

President, suppose you were invited to a wedding banquet. But the bridegroom and the bride were absent, how then could you participate in the banquet? President, even the most unexpected thing could happen in the Legislative Council. Earlier, I was speaking to uphold the dignity of this Council and frankly speaking, I should be allowed to carry on. However, since you have made the ruling, I will not pursue, but we fail to uphold our dignity. As declared by Mrs Regina IP, if one could not even guard her own hairstyle, what more could one say?

President, I ask you once again. Do you condone the Secretary's absence from the meeting?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the Administration has informed this Council long ago that Secretary Gregory SO would leave Hong Kong for official duty.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You should have told him that he could not do so. What kind of important engagement does he have? Buddy, we are dealing with a resolution now. If we vote against it, we will be reprimanded for failing to deal with important things first. I had to go to Malaysia, but why did I change my itinerary and return to Hong Kong? Initially, I planned to come back on Sunday, but I cancelled the arrangement and came back on Saturday instead. Even though I knew I only had 1% chance to go to Shenzhen, I still returned because one has to behave respectably.

Let me return to the subject. The subordinates will follow the behaviour of their supervisors. LEUNG Chun-ying … President, you have to understand that the proposal to establish the so-called Innovation and Technology Bureau, was included in LEUNG Chun-ying's plan to reorganize the government 12386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 structure, that is having five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux, and under this plan, the proposed establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau was blocked by Members? Why?

President, let me give you an example … look at me, why have you lowered your head? You should hold your head high. This is a copy of the "Supplemental Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Report No. 63 of the Director of Audit on the Results of Value for Money Audits" which is at least one inch thick. Now, the Government has proposed to set up a Policy Bureau which is part of the government establishment. Once a bureau is established, it is difficult to remove it. But the document provided by the Government is very thin. So, what has the Secretary been doing? Buddy, the document is so light that it will be blown away by the wind. One has to behave respectably. How come the Director of Audit could write that much in his Report? He focused his examination on a few issues. Since people say that Nicholas YANG is invincible, just ask him to prepare a document, buddy. Does he have anything more to say after attending the job interview? Under Secretary, do you think Members will take nonsense as key principles?

I have taken reference from the practices in some overseas places, for example, Singapore, Taipei and London. Although these places have not established a body similar to the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau, they have all produced a thick document. You can say that the voluminous document will be menacing, but buddy, some work has to be done nonetheless. Let me ask you, the Under Secretary, since you have participated in the work, how come the document only consists of a few pages? Is it because of environmental reasons? Is it because of environmental consideration that the Government has given us a document which consists of a few pages only?

President, how can you help him? It will not help even if you reprimand me angrily. Justice lies in people's hearts. Since the Government stressed the importance of this issue, and the Legislative Council, being an institution responsible for monitoring the Government, has to ask for some justifications, but the Government failed to provide justifications accordingly.

President, since you have been a Member of the Legislative Council for so long, you can tell us how much trouble the Legislative Council has created in the past. Take the Securities and Futures Ordinance as an example. Some years LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12387 ago, on seeing the lack of business for bankers, the bursting of the property market and the poor performance of the stock market, TUNG Chee-hwa introduced some financial derivatives into the market. President, you were a Legislative Council Member back then. TUNG Chee-hwa asked us to give him a blank cheque, a real blank cheque and he provided us with the details one year later. Finally there came the Lehman Brothers incident. In 2003, the International Monetary Fund already wrote to tell us that we could not sell those derivatives because of the problems involved and it warned us to be careful.

President, fortunately, people won their court cases in the Lehman Brothers incident and got back their money. This is not the first time that the Government had adopted this approach. President, in the case of the Cyberport, the project was described as magnificent, and only a few-page document was submitted.

President, let me ask you, why did you pass the Cyberport proposal back then? Would Hong Kong be doomed without the Cyberport? You were one of the Members who voted for the proposal and you were the Chairman of your party back then. Do you have to pull your ears to remember what had happened? Buddy, you were involved. The Link REIT proposal was also passed under your leadership, not of the Legislative Council, but of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. The same thing happened with the Link REIT proposal, President, do you remember? At that time, I was a novice in this Council. When the public officials attended the meeting at the old Legislative Council Building, they said that due to time constraints, they would not provide papers to Members. Members would know the details of the proposal during the road show and a paper was prepared for their perusal when the Link REIT was listed in the stock market. It turned out that the paper to which the Members could really read was the prospectus.

President, tell me, how much compensation should you pay to those who have been affected by the Link REIT? At present, some people jeered at me and said, "Long Hair, you demanded the Government to buy back the Link REIT, but how is that possible given the high price?" I said to them, "If you were so smart, you should have stopped the Link REIT from being listed back then, buddy."

President, the same applies to other matters, that is, urgent meetings are convened. I believe the same approach will be adopted for the constitutional reform proposal, that is, the proposal will be passed after an urgent meeting is 12388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 convened. Therefore, may I ask the Under Secretary, have you tried to persuade Gregory SO to attend this meeting or have you asked Gregory SO to prepare a paper for you to read out in this meeting? Our comment is that you are simply making useless gestures. Have you done any practical work? No. Buddy, am I right? What kind of innovation is the Government trying to develop? Many Members now present support the Government's proposal to establish the new Policy Bureau, they have treated "innovation and technology" as "innovative technology", but I call it "Traumatology and Technology Bureau". Those people query why innovative technology is not good. President, these are two separate issues, right? Members who support the Government say that "innovative technology" is good; are they idiots?

President, LEUNG Chun-ying tried to reform his regime by proposing to establish two posts, namely Deputy Financial Secretary and Deputy Chief Secretary for Administration. If LEUNG Chun-ying was successful in his reform, the new Policy Bureau would have been established, but he failed. Besides, our expenditure on research and development (R&D) only accounted for 0.7% of our GDP which was extremely low. Let me ask the Under Secretary, if you wanted to promote R&D, you should levy a tax, shouldn't you? Will the establishment of the new Policy Bureau increase revenue for no reason at all? President, I wonder if you have heard this joke before. Some people think that if the cock does not crow, the sun will not rise. LEUNG Chun-ying has a similar mentality; he thinks that if the new Policy Bureau has not been established, innovation and technology cannot be developed in Hong Kong. In fact, we have a group of stupid people who think that if the cock does not crow, the sun will actually not rise.

President, when Dr Kenneth CHAN spoke earlier, he kept mentioning some famous universities; I do not understand why he likes to talk about universities so much. Is that because he is a learned person? President, I think you know the circumstances under which Princeton University and Harvard University were founded. As some rich people at their deathbeds were afraid of going to hell, they donated money to set up universities, am I right? When rich people in Hong Kong do not follow suit, the Government can levy a tax on them to finance its plans. In fact, the most important factor for promoting the development of innovation and technology is education, but President, our expenditure on R&D only accounts for 0.7% of the GDP. President, let me ask you a question since you are concerned about education. People often say that Hong Kong, being an international metropolitan city, must develop a knowledge-based economy and the availability of talent is our lifeline. But, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12389

President, do you know how much the Hong Kong Government has invested in subsidizing university education? I will give you 15 seconds to answer the question. Do you want to tell us? The amount of funding provided is so little that our ranking is the lowest in this respect.

Suppose we establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau and imagine that our competitors are Singapore and Taiwan. What will be the percentage of government funding on training young people as a share of our GDP? Under this circumstance, am I right in saying that young people had no choice but to participate in the Umbrella Revolution? Education makes a country prosper; will the establishment of a policy bureau make a country prosper? President, LEUNG Chun-ying had indeed made some special arrangements in the past. He made dinner arrangements to meet the man nicknamed "Shanghai Chai". That would be an example of "making special arrangements to make a country prosper".

President, let me report to you that the $50 million lawsuit concerning LEUNG Chun-ying has not been concluded. President, just now I was lazy and I watched television in the common room upstairs. I saw in the news that Joseph S. BLATTER has stepped down. Do you know who he is? He was the President of FIFA. He stepped down only four days after he assumed the position of President because people were inquiring into the corruption allegations about him, buddy. FIFA is a non-governmental organization and BLATTER has to step down because he is suspected of corruption. He got into trouble after his 11 subordinates at FIFA were arrested. Nevertheless, our Chief Executive remains safe and sound even though his fans have caused a series of troubles.

President, one cannot but suspect that TUNG Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive, used the Cyberport proposal to recompense the political services of others. As everyone knows about the matters of Donald TSANG, I do not need to go into details. The third Chief Executive is like a leper who has lumps on his face. He has been accused of corruption even during his tenure and the question is whether he will be prosecuted. Once prosecuted is instituted, he has to resign. But, this Chief Executive told us that he had been honest and open. He tried to convince us that "one plus one equals zero". In other words, if a basement was constructed and covered, there was no basement. Such a Chief Executive has proposed to establish the so-called Innovation and Technology Bureau. Concerning the information of this Policy Bureau, I would like to ask Dr Elizabeth QUAT a question. Since she has spent so much time on reading 12390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 the information, does she know if the Chief Executive has told us what kind of business this Policy Bureau will engage in? He has not. If the Chief Executive can tell us, I will immediately vote for the proposal, but he cannot do so. What kind of innovation will be developed? What kind of technology will be developed? The Taiwanese film director HOU Hsiao-hsien has been awarded a prize. He produced a movie based on a story which consists of only a few pages and won a prize at the Cannes Film Festival, buddy. Is it necessary for Taiwan to establish an innovation and technology bureau? This Taiwanese film director has been awarded such a prize for the second time now, idiot.

President, you may say I do not trust LEUNG Chun-ying, but I have to tell you something frankly. How will I know what his real intentions are by putting forward such a proposal out of the blue, or what promises he has given to others? He has not provided any justifications or figures, has he? We tried to stop him from establishing the new Policy Bureau because we wanted him to provide certain information, but he had not done so. Instead, he told everyone in Hong Kong that the Legislative Council tried to stop him from establishing the new Policy Bureau. President, if you want to buy a flat and a real estate agent told you, "Buy it, Mr TSANG, there is no problem with the flat. You don't have to make any enquiries at the Land Registry; you don't have to check whether anyone has jumped to his death from the flat and whether any encumbrance has been imposed on it. Buy it, pay the deposit now!" President, will you buy the flat under such circumstances? Surely not.

Is the suggestion of establishing the "Traumatology and Technology Bureau" any different from the real estate agent persuading you to buy the flat and move into it as cited in the above example? Instead of speaking in a seemingly learned manner, I talk about common sense. The Government wants to establish a new Policy Bureau, but it has provided us with only a flimsy document and it has failed to provide the information requested by Members. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, do you agree that this is cheating? Suppose a rogue selling tonics approached me and said, "Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you look terrible and you will die soon, but I have some tonics for you." I asked him, "Where did you get them? Do you have prescriptions?" The rogue said, "You don't need the prescriptions, we have sold these tonics for 18 generations". Will that work?

President, it is useless for you to be angry with me, you cannot help this Government. It is useless for you to reprimand me because I scold the Government every day. I take advantage of all opportunities to express my LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12391 views every day because I want to win some credit for Hong Kong. Let me tell you that many young people sent me WhatsApp messages to express their views on the question of establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau. They asked me to stop the passage of the motion. They said that the proposal would put money into the pockets of the rich instead of their pockets (The buzzer sounded) …

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Labour Party, I speak to oppose the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. First things first, as a matter of principle, we absolutely support the development of innovation and technology; what we cannot support is LEUNG Chun-ying's proposal to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau. LEUNG Chun-ying Government or he himself made the proposal out of spite, rather than to promote the development of innovation and technology.

First of all, Members should consider why LEUNG Chun-ying is so hell-bent on setting up the Innovation and Technology Bureau this time, even to the extent of withdrawing the funding proposal in relation to the Fisheries Development Loan Fund (which is supported by this Council) in order to secure our approval for setting up the Innovation and Technology Bureau as soon as possible. In fact, his true intention is not developing innovation and technology, but reinstating his previous proposal on five Secretaries of Departments and 10 ― I really cannot remember the exact number of Policy Bureaux he proposed; suffice to say he was unhappy off about his reorganization package being rejected or foiled at that time. His present proposal is meant to stir up trouble, rather than a bona fide plan to establish a bureau to promote innovation and technology. That is why he is so scary. Actually, what is the justification for setting up the Innovation and Technology Bureau? Of course, convincing reasons have been given on paper. But what is the real motive? LEUNG Chun-ying's motive is simply trying to get even with us. We stopped his proposal back then, and he was pissed off. Now he is hell-bent on getting this proposal through and our support. Okay, even if he gets his way in the end and we concede, what happens after we support the proposal? That is all. The Government will have a new bureau and a new Secretary. The new Secretary is most likely a person on whom LEUNG must bestow favour. Given the lack of suitable vacancy in the Government, LEUNG must create a new bureau before he can make the job offer. The justification is merely lip service, and he is not genuinely committed to developing innovation and technology.

12392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

A case in point is the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN), and I always cite this case whenever the matter is debated in the Council. HKTVN is known for its creativity and drama productions. It submitted an application to the Government, in the hope of becoming a free television broadcaster. Yet the Government was determined to reject its application and changed the rules arbitrarily. Under the original plan, three new licences would be issued. HKTVN could provide services the soonest because it is already up and running with the necessary manpower, while the other two applicants are more or less also-rans. Who would have thought that the Government just issued the licence to the two also-rans and not HKTVN. The arbitrary selection in this case is similar to the so-called "members recommendation" and "committee nomination" for candidates in the Chief Executive election under the constitutional reform package. Candidates who cannot get to the stage of "committee nomination" would be cast aside, and two candidates would be selected for voting by electors. The story is the same.

If the Government is really keen on promoting innovation and technology, why did it discourage a company with creativity and commitment like HKTVN? Worse still, the Government arbitrarily moved the goalpost on the pretext that the market might not be able to sustain so many operators. Hence, it could only issue two licences, and HKTVN must be left out. If that is the case, how committed is the Government in encouraging innovation? Now HKTVN is forced to air its programmes on the Internet. As we can see, HKTVN is really an innovative company, at least much better than Television Broadcasts Limited, yet it is stifled by the Government.

The problem now is that while the Government seeks to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau, it is stifling all creative trades and industries. In our view, the market must not be dominated by one broadcaster, and more competition should be introduced. In order to be innovative, it would be most important to provide an environment conducive to innovation and competition. But the Government has allowed one broadcaster to dominate the market, and it has not provided an environment conducive to innovation and cultivation of talent. This is an example.

The second question is not only related to LEUNG Chun-ying, but also people with vested interest in Hong Kong, that is, the representatives of the industrial and commercial sectors in the Nominating Committee, who are always favoured by the Government. None of these retiring representatives of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12393 industrial and commercial sectors is now engaged in innovative undertakings. Most of them become wealthy through property speculation and real estate development, while factory owners make money by exploiting workers, first workers in Hong Kong and then workers in the Mainland. None of them is engaged in innovative undertakings. Yet people with this mentality are now proposing the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I think their view is totally irrelevant because they have absolutely no sense of innovation and have never invested in any innovative undertakings. Is that not simply anti-intellectual? LEE Shau-kee said, "All in all, if the constitutional reform proposal is passed, the Hang Seng Index will hit 30 000 points, and I will donate $1 billion." What an arrogant statement from the rich and the powerful! How innovative can Hong Kong be if they are pulling the strings? The same applies to LI Ka-shing who spoke to the media publicly again today. How innovative can Hong Kong be if people only have time for flattery and pledging allegiance? All those people are engaging in property speculation.

As I see it, if those rich people in Hong Kong truly believe in innovation, why do they make no investment in innovation? It is because they never believe that profits can be yielded by innovation and hence, the saying, "high-tech, losers; low-tech, winners". Those people are all for "low-tech" and stay away from "high-tech". If the rich are committed to promoting innovation, they should invest in the research and development (R&D) of new products. But they have not done so because riches come easily from property speculation, and they need not use their brains. For these people, using their brains is a hard chore. It is the saddest thing for Hong Kong. This is the first major problem.

The second major problem concerns the obstacles created by these people. Apart from their reluctance to invest in innovative undertakings, they keep on pushing up property prices and rentals as real estate is their major source of profits. Business starters must first resolve the problem of high rental, or else they can hardly start a business at home. Of course, nowadays, some enterprising young people would operate online businesses from home. But they are just forced to do so without any other alternative, and they cannot rely on the Government. Nonetheless, real estate creates a so-called crowding out effect which effectively pushes out all innovative industries or, for that matter, all other industries. Yet no action has been taken by the Government or LEUNG Chun-ying to resolve this problem. Many Members from the pro-establishment camp or the commercial and business sector who have already spoken or will speak later do not engage in innovation undertakings themselves. Their only 12394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 specialism is property speculation, and they will continue to defend the predominance of real estate whole-heartedly which is a major problem. I often say that two elements are critical to the development of innovation and technology, and the first one is investors' interest. Investors are not interested in making such investment because property speculation is more profitable. LEUNG Chun-ying always stresses the status of Hong Kong as a financial centre of the country. If people can make huge profits from property speculation alone, why do they need to venture into innovation and technology? The Government often encourages people to take part in certain trades and industries. Now it wants to encourage people to take part in the financial industry. Of course, people can make easy money from the financial industry, but they can go bankrupt just as easy. On the one hand, the Government says that it would promote the development of innovation and technology, but on the other hand, it encourages some people to make speculative investment in the stock market or the financial market. How can such practice be conducive to promoting innovation and technology?

Apart from investors, persons of abilities are also indispensable. Where have Hong Kong's talented persons gone? Are there no talented persons in Hong Kong? There is of course talented persons in Hong Kong, but what about those who go all out for innovation? The truth is that some have already gone to overseas countries. Notwithstanding their interest in science or invention, talented persons who stay in Hong Kong may have second thoughts because the entire society is telling them that science hardly yields any financial return and it is hard work to undertake scientific research and science. Working in innovation and technology, especially those in invention, would require the necessary academic background because most jobs are related to basic research rather than applied research. How can Hong Kong develop innovation and technology if we cannot attract these talented persons?

If we look around, it is clear that most post-graduate students are studying courses with potentials in making money. How many Hong Kong people are undertaking research work? Not many. Yet a relatively large number of Mainlanders have come to Hong Kong to do research work. Why do Hong Kong people not undertake research work? That is because such an ambience or environment is lacking in society as a whole. But the Government does not intend to resolve these problems. All in all, LEUNG Chun-ying simply takes the view that all problems would be resolved with the establishment of this Bureau. This is the point I disagree with the most. Much can be done by Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12395

Kong, yet the Government has been unwilling to take any action. Now it is saying that with the establishment of this bureau, everything would be fine. Of course, we strongly support the commercialization of R&D results from inventions made by Hong Kong people. But without the necessary investment and academic support, the development of innovation and technology is but a lip service.

Who will gain from the development of innovation and technology? Unlike what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung said a moment ago about the rich pocketing all profits, I am inclined to think that gains would eventually be made by some people working in innovation and technology. I hold that some people will benefit eventually, but the problem is: Who are getting more benefits? In this world, there are always bread crumbs falling from the table so that some people can pick them up. But we do not only want to give bread crumbs to the aspiring people. We truly want to create the right environment for them. Regrettably, we do not trust that the Government is committed to creating this environment. I do not trust that groups with vested interest in Hong Kong are keen to create this environment. They are only keen to develop the financial market because it is so declared by the Communist Party of China (CPC). They are keen to engage in real estate business because it is most favoured by property developers. What then is the position of innovation and technology?

The mentality of the entire Government must change. In our view, the LEUNG Chun-ying Government is hopeless and insincere. I have no idea why news is flying around that LAU Ming-wai, son of Joseph LAU and Chairman of a listed company, will take up the post of the Under Secretary. LAU Ming-wai is the one who remarked that people with a monthly salary of $15,000 could achieve home ownership if they visited Japan less frequently. I reckon Hong Kong's young people must be furious when they heard such a remark. How many young people of Hong Kong can afford to visit Japan frequently? Home ownership is out of the question for young people with a monthly salary below $15,000, even if they never travel to Japan or scrimp on food and clothing. Hence, he should neither insult the wisdom of Hong Kong people (especially young people) nor trample on our dignity. A person does not only live to achieve home ownership as many worthy pursuits exist in this world. But LAU Ming-wai is seemingly blaming us for just seeking pleasure and not working hard. How can we have confidence if this person or his like is responsible for promoting the development of innovation and technology?

12396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Of course, some people would say that Nicholas YANG is also a suitable candidate for the job. Let us assume he is a good person, and he has taken up some duties. But if he becomes the Secretary, he might not be able to perform well because his portfolio covers many areas of work. The Innovation and Technology Bureau as a whole must deal with problems way beyond allocating resources under the Fund to different people, which can readily be achieved without setting up a new bureau. Nicholas YANG has to tackle problems concerning the priorities of Hong Kong's overall development or the ambience problems which are insurmountable. Hence, the new bureau is useless unless the Government revises its position by saying that financial services is a low intelligence industry because speculation is its only business, and that Hong Kong is no longer a financial centre because it will concentrate on developing high technology from now on. But will Hong Kong give up its position as a financial centre? In a financial centre, hot money just comes and goes, without making any contribution towards Hong Kong's sustainable development in terms of introducing new knowledge, raising people's standard and benefiting the industries. Having that said, the Government will not give up financial services because the CPC has already positioned Hong Kong as a financial centre. Why do we still need to develop innovation and technology?

In my view, it is nothing but a bogus proposal from LEUNG Chun-ying. Members should perform the gate-keeping role on behalf of the people and put it to a halt because worst of all, this bogus proposal is not only about setting up a bureau in name, but also incurring several ten million dollars of expenditure annually. We will definitely guard the gate for the public. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, you may now speak on the amendments.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, in order to summon Members back to listen to the speech, I request a headcount.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12397

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 speak.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the amendments proposed by Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen are basically the same as those proposed by them last year against the original resolution and were all voted down. The amendments can be grouped into two major categories, namely postponing the establishment date of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and changing the name of the new Policy Bureau.

People from all walks of life, especially the innovation and technology sector, have expressed very strong and clear aspiration for the early establishment of the new Policy Bureau to focus on leading the development of Hong Kong's innovation and technology. Also, the majority of Legislative Council Members do support the early establishment of this new Policy Bureau.

The establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau would enable Hong Kong to capitalize on the opportunities brought about by technology development, and ensure that our economy can have a diversified and sustainable growth. It has been nearly one and a half year since the Chief Executive announced the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau in the Policy Address delivered in January last year, we really do not see any need to postpone the establishment date of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Therefore, we oppose any proposal to postpone the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau.

Concerning the name of the new Policy Bureau, the new bureau will take over the policy responsibilities in innovation and technology from the existing Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and the two government departments overseeing innovation and technology matters, namely the Innovation and Technology Commission and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, will report to the new Policy Bureau.

12398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Given the scope of policy responsibilities of the new Policy Bureau, we consider that the name Innovation and Technology Bureau can most accurately and clearly reflect the work of the new bureau. Thus, I hope Members would support the two original motions and negative all the amendments.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the first motion moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes.

(Mr Frederick FUNG signalled a problem with the voting buttons)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please press the voting button of your choice again.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12399

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to cancel the voting button; I only want to press the "Present" button.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please mark it down: Mr Frederick FUNG only pressed the "Present" button. Has any other Member pressed the wrong button?

(There was no indication from Members)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, which button have you pressed wrongly just now?

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I pressed the "No" button, but I only want to press the "Present" button.

(Some Members talked loudly in their seats)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In other words, there should be one less negative vote. I now declare the voting result.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, 12400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Christopher CHUNG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 55 Members present, 38 were in favour of the motion and three against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

(Some Members were still talking loudly)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Council will now deal with the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's and Mr Albert CHAN's amendments.

I will first call upon the Secretary to move the second motion, and put to vote the amendments one by one. I will call upon the Secretary to reply after all the amendments have been put to vote. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied. Lastly, this Council will put to vote the original motion or the motion as amended.

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, you may now move your second motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12401

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 54A OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I move that my second motion proposed under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, as set out on the Agenda, be passed. Thank you, President.

The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that ―

(1) in this Resolution ―

commencement date (生效日期) ―

(a) subject to subparagraph (b), means the 14th day after the day on which the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council (the Committee) approves, under section 8 of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2), the proposal to make changes to the Estimates of Expenditure 2015-16 to provide for the following matters arising from the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau ―

(i) the creation of a new head of expenditure and new subheads in that head of expenditure;

(ii) supplementary provision in those subheads;

(iii) variations in the establishment of posts; or

(b) if this Resolution is made and passed by the Legislative Council under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 12402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(Cap. 1) after the day on which the Committee approves the proposal mentioned in subparagraph (a), means the 14th day after the day on which this Resolution is made and passed;

(2) with effect from the commencement date ―

(a) the functions exercisable by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) be transferred to the Secretary for Innovation and Technology, and to give full effect to the transfer, the definition of Secretary in section 2(1) of that Ordinance be amended by repealing "Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development" and substituting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology";

(b) the functions exercisable by the Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (Communications and Technology) under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) be transferred to the Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology, and to give full effect to the transfer, the definition of Permanent Secretary in section 2(1) of that Ordinance be amended by repealing "Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (Communications and Technology)" and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology"; and

(3) in addition to and without derogating from section 23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) ―

(a) anything lawfully done before the commencement date by or in relation to a public officer from whom any function is transferred LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12403

under this Resolution (former officer) pursuant to or in connection with that function is, on and from that date, to be regarded, in so far as necessary for the purpose or in consequence of that transfer, as done by or in relation to, as the case may be, the public officer to whom that function is transferred (new officer);

(b) anything that, immediately before the commencement date, may be done and is in the process of being done by or in relation to a former officer pursuant to or in connection with any function transferred under this Resolution may, on and from that date, be continued by or in relation to, as the case may be, the new officer;

(c) anything that, immediately before the commencement date, is required to be done and is in the process of being done by or in relation to a former officer pursuant to or in connection with any function transferred under this Resolution is, on and from that date, to be continued by or in relation to, as the case may be, the new officer;

(d) without limiting subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), and in so far as necessary for the purpose or in consequence of the transfer of functions under this Resolution ―

(i) any document, agreement or arrangement creating or giving rise to legal rights or obligations that ―

(A) refers to a former officer, or was prepared, made or entered into by a former officer on behalf of the Government; and

12404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(B) is in force immediately before, or is to come into force on or after, the commencement date,

is, on and from that date, to be construed as if the references to the former officer included references to the new officer;

(ii) in any legal proceedings ―

(A) in which a former officer is a party; and

(B) that are subsisting immediately before the commencement date,

the new officer is, on and from that date, to substitute for the former officer as that party;

(iii) any right of appeal to a former officer that is subsisting immediately before the commencement date is, on and from that date, treated as being a right of appeal to the new officer;

(iv) any form that is specified or prescribed before the commencement date for use in connection with any function of a former officer that is transferred under this Resolution may, on and from that date, be used despite the fact that it contains references to the former officer, and those references are to be construed as references to the new officer;

(e) without limiting subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), and in so far as necessary for the purpose or in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12405

consequence of the transfer of functions under this Resolution, any document, agreement or arrangement that ―

(i) contains any reference to a public officer or a policy bureau (former officer or bureau) specified in column 1 of the Schedule;

(ii) was prepared, made or entered into by any public officer on behalf of the Government;

(iii) does not create or give rise to any legal right or obligation; and

(iv) is in force immediately before, or is to come into force on or after, the commencement date,

is, on and from that date, to have effect as if the reference is substituted by a reference to the public officer or policy bureau specified opposite to the former officer or bureau in column 2 of the Schedule in so far as the substitution is necessary for or conducive to the attainment of the purposes of the document, agreement or arrangement.

Schedule [para. (3)(e)]

Substitution of References to Public Officer and Policy Bureau

Secretary for Commerce and Secretary for Innovation and Economic Development Technology

Commerce and Economic Innovation and Technology Bureau" Development Bureau

12406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second motion moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now begin to put to vote the amendments to the second motion one by one. The contents and voting order of the amendments are set out in Appendix III to the Script.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 1 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 1, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), by deleting everything after "commencement date ( 生效日期 )" and substituting "means 1 September 2016;"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12407

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Albert HO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr Dennis KWOK did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

12408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, five were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of "the second proposed resolution under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance" moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I fail to hear any convincing argument made by Mr Andrew LEUNG. Why must the division bell be rung for one minute but not one and a half minutes? I would like to propose that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12409 division bell should be rung for six minutes, one minute more than the original duration. I fail to hear any convincing argument to justify that the division bell should be rung for one minute. I do not think that we should be so reckless, and I therefore propose that six minutes should be considered. May I move that this Council do proceed to vote immediately after the division bell has been rung for six minutes, one minute more than the original duration? Why must the bell be rung for one more minute? It is because pro-establishment Members blame me for requesting frequently a headcount, and they are tired having to come down to the Chamber. It is tiring to come down to the Chamber in one minute. I hope that you, as an elderly person, will uphold the spirit of respecting the elderly and treat such elderly persons better by granting them six minutes instead of one minute, which is very inhumane.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

12410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr Albert HO and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the motion.

Mrs Regina IP voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present and 21 were in favour of the motion; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12411 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion and one against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of "the second proposed resolution under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance" moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 2 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 2, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting everything after "commencement date ( 生效日期 )" and substituting "means 1 January 2016;"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

12412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Albert HO did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12413

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 22 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 3 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 3, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the 12414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

definition of commencement date, by deleting everything after "commencement date ( 生效日期 )" and substituting "means 30 June 2017;"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12415

Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, four were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 4 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

12416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 4, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting everything after "commencement date ( 生效日期 )" and substituting "means 31 December 2016;"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12417

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

12418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 5 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 5, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 240th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12419

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP 12420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 6 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12421

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 6, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 240th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau"."

12422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12423

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 7 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 7, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council 12424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 240th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12425

Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 8 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

12426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 8, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 240th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12427

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

12428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 9 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 9, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 90th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12429

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, 12430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 10 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 10, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12431

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 90th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

12432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12433

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 11 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 11, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 100th day"."

12434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12435

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 12 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 12, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council 12436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 100th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12437

Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 13 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 13, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

12438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 730th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12439

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

12440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 14 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 14, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 730th day";

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12441

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

12442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12443

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 15 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 15, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 730th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

12444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12445

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 16 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 16, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 730th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

12446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12447

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 17 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 17, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 330th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau";

12448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12449

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 12450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 18 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 18, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 330th day";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12451

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

12452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 22 were present and 22 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 13 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 19 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12453

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 19, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 330th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

12454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12455

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 20 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 20, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, by deleting "the 14th day" (wherever appearing) and substituting "the 330th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

12456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12457 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 21 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 21, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 240th day";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

12458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12459

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Gary FAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 22 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

12460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 22, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(c) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(d) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for New and Advanced Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "New and Advanced Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12461

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

12462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 21 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 23 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 23, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau";

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12463

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 100th day";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

12464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12465 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 24 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 24, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(c) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Information and High Technology";

(d) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Information and High Technology";

12466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Information and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12467

HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present and 20 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 25 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

12468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 25, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 730th day";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12469

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

12470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 26 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 26, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12471

(a) in paragraph (1), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(c) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(d) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Originality and Applied Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Originality and Applied Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

12472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12473

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 27 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 27, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 330th day";

(c) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

12474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

(d) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(f) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12475

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 17 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

12476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 28 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 28, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended ―

(a) in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (a), by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau";

(b) in paragraph (2)(a), by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(c) in paragraph (2)(b), by deleting "Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology" (wherever appearing) and substituting "Permanent Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(d) in the Schedule, by deleting "Secretary for Innovation and Technology" and substituting "Secretary for Invention and High Technology";

(e) in the Schedule, by deleting "Innovation and Technology Bureau" and substituting "Invention and High Technology Bureau"."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12477

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

12478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 29 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 29, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12479

meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 240th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, 12480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 30 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12481

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 30, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 100th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

12482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 18 were present, two were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12483

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 31 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 31, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 730th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

12484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12485

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 19 were present and 18 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 19 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now proceed to deal with Amendment No 32 as set out in Appendix III to the Script.

Mr Albert CHAN, you may now move the amendment to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's second motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Amendment No 32, as set out in Appendix III to the Script, be passed.

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following amendment:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development under section 54A of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) at the Legislative Council meeting of 20 May 2015 be amended, in paragraph (1), in the definition of commencement date, in subparagraph (b), by deleting "the 14th day" and substituting "the 330th day"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Albert CHAN to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

12486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12487

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Emily LAU, Ms Claudia MO, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 20 were present and 19 were against the amendment; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 20 were present, three were in favour of the amendment and 11 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, you may now reply.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I am going to briefly respond to the speeches made by Members earlier.

Secretary Gregory SO has given an account of the background of the two resolutions in his opening speech, and in the past year or so, we have also explained time and again the importance and urgency of the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau on different occasions.

As a matter of fact, it has been the aspiration of the industry to expeditiously establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau for many years, and various sectors of the community have also expressed their wish to promote the development of Hong Kong's innovation and technology through the new designated Policy Bureau, with a view to facilitating a more comprehensive and long-term sustainable development of our economy and enhancing our competitiveness in the global competition. As noticed from the 2015 Blue Book of Urban Competitiveness recently published by the Chinese Academy of Social 12488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Sciences, Hong Kong's ranking in respect of Comprehensive Economic Competitiveness has dropped to the second for the first time in 13 years. Notwithstanding Hong Kong's sound basis and strong competitiveness in the world, our neighbouring regions and cities have been following closely behind us. The Academy's report has precisely shown Hong Kong's narrowing lead over other Mainland cities. Thus, we must speed up our progress in order to avoid being left behind. The establishment of the new Policy Bureau will provide further impetus to the development of Hong Kong's innovation and technology, or even the economy at large. I therefore implore Members to support the second resolution and endorse the early establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the second motion moved by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12489

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted against the motion.

Ms Emily LAU, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 43 Members present, 33 were in favour of the motion, six against it and three abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions.

Mr Andrew LEUNG will move a motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to take note of the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of 12490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Schedule 7) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015, which were included in Report No. 18/14-15 of the House Committee laid on the table of this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): According to the relevant debating procedure, I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant item of subsidiary legislation, Mr IP Kwok-him, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion.

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion, as printed on the Agenda, under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure so that Members can debate on the following two items of subsidiary legislation in the Report No. 18/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments:

― District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015; and

― Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12491

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 18/14-15 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 6 May 2015 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(2) District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015 (L.N. 49/2015)

(3) Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (L.N. 50/2015)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, I would like to present a report in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015 and Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015. The two pieces of subsidiary legislation aim at increasing the subsidy rate for candidates of District Council (DC) elections from $12 per vote to $14 per vote and increasing the election expenses limit for DC elections from $53,800 to $63,100 for District Council Ordinary Elections to be held in late 2015. The Subcommittee notes that the adjustments are made taking into account the expected cumulative increase of 17.3% in the Composite Consumer Price Index from 2012 to 2015.

Some members opine that the proposed increase of the subsidy rate is merely an adjustment on the basis of inflation and there is no substantive increase. These members advise the Administration to review the calculation method of the amount of financial assistance, such as considering allowing the eligible candidates to receive the highest, instead of the lowest, of the three amounts as calculated under the existing mechanism concerned, or granting 12492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 subsidy in accordance with the total number of valid votes obtained by the candidate without imposing any other limits, so as to increase the financial assistance for candidates and encourage more candidates to take part in the elections.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

The Administration indicates that if the proposal of granting the highest of the three amounts is adopted, any candidate who obtains 5% of the total number of valid votes cast will receive a subsidy that is equivalent to 50% of the election expenses limit, and the proposal contradicts the principle of prudent use of public funds. Regarding the proposal of granting subsidy in accordance with the total number of valid votes obtained by the candidate, the Administration points out that the principle of prudent use of public funds has to be observed. While there was previously no financial assistance at all, the Administration has extended the financial assistance scheme to cover DC elections since 2007, and the level of assistance has gradually been increased taking into account the movements of the Composite Consumer Price Index. The Administration therefore has no intention to adopt the proposal for the time being.

In addition, certain members consider that the Administration should review whether it is still appropriate to adjust the subsidy rate and the election expenses limit by taking into account the estimated movements of the Composite Consumer Price Index in the relevant period. Such members point out that election expenses are mainly publicity and printing costs, and the estimated increases in such costs are believed to be larger than the cumulative increase in the Composite Consumer Price Index in the same period. The Government explains that the Composite Consumer Price Index offers an objective indicator, but the Administration will consider specific suggestions made by Members on alternative objective indicators that can replace that Index.

Deputy President, the Subcommittee does not object to the two pieces of subsidiary legislation. The Subcommittee and the Administration have not proposed any amendment. The following are my personal views. I will speak briefly on the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12493

The DAB welcomes the Government's decision of increasing the subsidy rate for candidates of the 2015 DC Election from $12 per vote to $14 per vote and increasing the election expenses limit for the DC Election from $53,800 to $63,100. Though the relevant amounts are adjusted upward on the basis of the Composite Consumer Price Index, the adjustment is nevertheless substantive and is a kind of tangible encouragement to people who intend to stand for election. It will be unfair to taxpayers if the candidate is to receive the highest of the three amounts concerned, meaning that the candidate can receive financial assistance in accordance with the total number of valid votes obtained, or a candidate who has obtained few votes and whose election expenses are low can receive financial assistance that is equivalent to 50% of the election expenses limit. The proposal to increase the subsidy rate from $12 per vote to $14 per vote is acceptable.

Regarding the increase of the election expenses limit, the issue has two sides. If the amount is increased substantially, I believe it will attract another criticism from society, that is, people who are wealthy or who are well-financed will benefit, and this will lead to another kind of unfairness. As a DC member for many years, I have witnessed the continuous adjustment of the relevant election expenses. Election expenses will never be sufficient for more expenses will incur when more publicity activities are held. I believe it will be fair to all candidates if they are subject to an election expenses limit when standing for election. I find it acceptable to increase the election expenses limit to $63,100. For this reason, the DAB will support the relevant contents of the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we do not have strong views about the proposal to increase the expenses limit of the District Council (DC) election from $53,800 to $63,100. We hope that the authorities would try their best to encourage and advocate a clean political system and clean elections in Hong Kong, and that our system would not become corrupt, as we used to criticize Taiwan in the past. I also hope that the authorities would strictly enforce the law so that Hong Kong would have a relatively clean political system. We do not have strong views about setting the election expenses at several ten thousand dollars. As pointed out by Mr IP Kwok-him, some political parties can 12494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 spend several hundred thousand dollars running for a seat, and they could raise more than $60 million at a dinner party. Deputy President, some political parties can afford any election expenses, and this is the harsh reality in Hong Kong.

Regarding increasing the subsidy rate from $12 to $14 per vote, given that the DC election expenses limit is merely several ten thousand dollars, the subsidy rate of more than $10 per vote is not an issue. However, in the case of the Legislative Council elections, we have been requesting the authorities for years to promote party politics and finance the operation of political parties, so that they need not rely on the bigwigs for funding. However, the authorities did not agree and granting the subsidy of $10 or $12 per vote was deemed as a bestowal of mercy. Deputy President, the total subsidy amount is at most only 50% of the election expenses or even less, and political parties cannot get any money. The candidates are only given a little subsidy based on their election expenses; how can this promote party politics? We have raised this issue to the authorities for numerous times.

As the German Government had recently invited us for a duty visit, we will later have a debate on the German system, and we can then make reference to their practice. The authorities seem to treat political parties as ghosts. For some political parties, including the party to which the President belongs, as well as other political parties, they are so rich that no subsidies are needed. But that is not the case for some other political parties, and the authorities are unwilling to provide subsidies. I am really furious, especially the constitutional reform has now torn our society apart. I do not know what will happen to our society after the constitutional reform package has been negatived.

We earnestly hope that young people would think that engaging in politics has good and attractive prospects, so that they would be willing to join us. Let us see how many people will stand for the DC election in November. Many people are not very interested and not many wealthy political parties can afford to subsidize several ten thousand dollars to candidates each month to conduct publicity on the street with the aim of defeating their competitors. Deputy President, why are people not interested to take part in the DC election? One of the reasons is the low remuneration of DC members, but the most important reason is that DCs do not have specific functions. DCs are only advisory bodies, the Government would consult DCs if it wants to but will ignore DCs at other times. In many cases, when examining the papers submitted to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, Members would ask if DCs have been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12495 consulted and how DCs have been consulted; it turns out that the Government has not really consulted DCs and has just taken advantage of DCs. Would Hong Kong people who aspire to engage in politics like to be taken advantage of?

We have discussed this issue for many years. Though the relevant amendments have nothing to do with this issue, it is most important to give DCs powers and responsibilities. Deputy President, when the two Municipal Councils were dissolved back then, the Government indicated that their powers would be transferred to DCs, but this has not yet been materialized more than a decade later. People thus query about the functions performed by DC members. Sometimes, some DCs do not bother to have meetings because government officials do not attend the meetings, and sometimes, only a paper is submitted, assuming that the Government has responded. Can the paper make verbal responses? This is really outrageous. The Government has completely ignored DCs, and have the Legislative Council Members representing DCs said something in this regard? The Government does not deploy officials to attend DC meetings, and many officials look down upon DCs because DCs do not have powers and they have to rely on the Government. Thus, this system is very corrupt and fails to perform.

Supposedly, DCs should help to nurture the next generation of political talent in Hong Kong, allowing them to gain experiences, so that they can become political leaders in the future. However, DC members sometimes act like parrots, indicating their support for the Government. To make the constitutional reform happen, DC members attended meetings to show their support for the reform. Deputy President, people who have dignity do not like to do so, they want to express their views, hoping that the Government will listen. DCs have the responsibilities and DC members should dare query why the Government wants the passage of the constitutional reform package. To pass the package, the Government has the responsibilities to share with DCs its powers and responsibilities; but the Government has not done so. Even if the constitutional reform package is passed, I do not know what benefits this will bring to constitutional development. I hope the Secretary would tell the truth, unlike what he did yesterday when he said that Hong Kong people had a real choice under the 31 August framework. People were furious upon hearing that.

The DC election would be held in November but many DC members may be elected unopposed. Those elected will be delighted; will this be conducive to allowing capable people with competitive edge to compete for seats? The DC 12496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 system is undesirable and the Legislative Council is half-alive, and we are not allowed to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Deputy President, I am really infuriated. This issue has been discussed for many years and I hope the authorities would think of ways to promote the development of political parties, so that party politics would flourish. Unfortunately, the Government is just engaging in empty talks and it has not done anything. It even makes retrogressive moves, causing many young people to lose interest in running for election. Some political parties said that they could not find people standing for election. Who would like to do such things? In which direction does the Government want to lead Hong Kong? This is extremely outrageous.

Deputy President, I do not know how much longer the Secretary will hold this position, and I hope the authorities would establish a dynamic, competitive and attractive political system for the benefit of Hong Kong, allowing competition among a number of political parties. One day, we would be able to elect the Government by "one person, one vote", and DCs would have powers and responsibilities, and they could also play a role in the management of the communities. I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the amendment to the maximum amount of election expenses allowed for District Council (DC) elections. I am an elected DC member myself. Given the hardship of being a DC member, I have to speak for my friends currently serving as DC members. In fact, regardless of their political affiliations, many DC members have been performing their duties conscientiously and working laboriously. As far as I can see, they are all dedicated to their job.

I also agree that DC membership is a very good ladder for grooming political talent. However, can the present legislation really encourage true talent to stand for DC elections? I think this has become increasingly difficult. Before entering politics, I had studied the electoral legislation and found that all such legislation, be it related to the Election Committee, the DCs or the Legislative Council, was riddled with unnecessary hurdles which discouraged people from standing for elections, and not many new ideas could be put into practice in elections because of the numerous general restrictions. After a candidate gets elected, there will be many … As we all know, during an election, there are always rivalries among political parties or groupings, which seek to find fault with one another. I absolutely agree that we should have a clean, fair and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12497 impartial election in which candidates can demonstrate their abilities in various aspects. As DC constituencies are actually very small, what matters most is whether the candidates are really committed and passionate about the job, so that they will work diligently if elected.

I must declare that I have helped LEUNG Wai-kuen, an ally of mine, who used to be a DC member for three terms. He happened to overstep the mark by failing to comply with one provision of the electoral law. It is a provision to the effect that in order to obtain the consent of support from relevant individuals, their consent of support must be given in writing. In fact, the Judge, or Members who have stood for elections, should know that during an election, candidates like LEUNG Wai-kuen who do not have the backing of large political parties must rely on volunteers for resources and manpower. Volunteers, after all, are not professionals and may not be able to comprehend the electoral legislation. In particular, an election expenses limit of slightly more than $60,000 is really not high. He had to rely on volunteers, who were not professionals. They simply wanted to help this candidate. While they forgot to submit the consent forms, the individuals concerned had subsequently all signed the forms retrospectively during the investigation to bear out their genuine support for this candidate. In the end, however, according to the electoral legislation, no matter whether it is an administrative oversight, or a criminal offence such as vote rigging or bribery … those are criminal acts which truly warrant punishment, and should be eradicated and severely penalized.

That said, LEUNG Wai-kuen did not have this problem, for it was merely an administrative oversight on his part. Anyone who has stood as a candidate should know that most candidates (nearly 99%) have been to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and each of them has had coffee there. I have heard of a case of miscalculation of accounts in the sum of $140-odd. The candidate involved in the case, who was later elected, was required to go to the ICAC for a cup of coffee from time to time throughout his four-year term of office. Was the case so complicated? Every time he went to the ICAC, it gave others the impression that he was suspected of contravening the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance rather than an administrative oversight. This would exert immense psychological pressure on the candidate, or rather the elected candidate, particularly if he was elected for the first time. In this connection, I think the authorities should, apart from slightly raising the election expenses limit, seriously consider whether the resources of the ICAC should be used like that. I once offered assistance to a candidate who claimed to be an "independent 12498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 candidate", as he really had no political party background. He described himself as "獨立候選人" in Chinese (meaning "independent candidate"), but he merely used the word "independent" in English. After he was elected, someone actually lodged a complaint against him, querying whether he was a supporter of "Hong Kong independence"; yet no one had ever made such a complaint before he was elected. In fact, in this case, the discrepancy between the Chinese and English version could be regarded as an omission in translation. Nonetheless, the Registration and Electoral Office (REO), without hesitation, referred this case to the ICAC, and two ICAC officers spent three hours looking into it. These resources should have been better utilized in the investigation and prevention of bribery. The time of ICAC officers should not be spent in that way.

Can the authorities review the functions of the REO? Minor problems such as mere administrative errors or grammatical mistakes should no longer be investigated by the ICAC, but should be dealt with by the REO, which should hire one or two additional legal professionals well versed in the electoral legislation to adjudicate on such cases. If the problem is not criminal in nature, a fine should be imposed or, in the most serious circumstances, the candidate should be disqualified. For any young people intending to stand for DC elections, if they are to be penalized for just an administrative oversight, they should, at worst, only be disqualified from holding office as a DC member, instead of being convicted of a criminal offence; the highest penalty should be the invalidation of their election.

If a fine is to be imposed, the maximum amount should be set at the election expenses limit. In other words, the defendant would not need to retain a lawyer to defend him or her against a criminal charge, the conviction on which might prompt him or her to lodge an appeal. In the case of LEUNG Wai-kuen, he personally had to pay $2-odd million for defence in the end. Even his total remuneration for being a DC member for three terms was insufficient to offset this amount. He was not engaged in vote rigging. There was another person who rigged the vote, and that was his political opponent whom he complained against.

Secretary, to be honest, many people are very worried by his case. If a person did not think it through before standing for a DC election … Given the limited scope of functions of DCs, DC members are only responsible for street management despite their enthusiasm. As regards the Legislative Council, whose functions are broader in scope, the election expenses limit is over a million LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12499 dollars, or even higher for some constituencies, so even if a candidate is involved in a blunder, he or she may consider that the price is worth paying. But in my view, this should not be the case for the Legislative Council elections either. If it is an administrative oversight, it should be adjudicated upon by officers designated to deal with administrative oversights. If a candidate is suspected of committing a criminal offence, he or she should be taken to court and, if really found guilty, be held criminally liable.

I very much hope that the Secretary can study this issue seriously. We have talked for two or three years … Back in 2012, when the last Legislative Session was about to end and this Legislative Session had yet to commence, the Legislative Council discussed many such matters and we all considered that the electoral legislation not only failed to encourage people to stand for elections, but also burdened candidates with red tape. Members did not spend time on debating, but wasted their time on dealing with such red tape. The election expenses limit was so low that a candidate could not even afford to hire assistants, and all candidates felt that they were unable to fulfil themselves. During the current term of the Legislative Council, we did not have a lot of discussion on these issues. In fact, we did not have much time to discuss these issues as the business of this Council was often filibustered. Even Mr Gary FAN was once involved in such matters, which were subsequently brought to court. As different political parties or groupings have to face the same legislation, we should conduct serious studies with a view to providing a fair and reasonable law for candidates from different political parties or groupings to follow when standing for elections, especially for DC elections. This will make it easier for us to attract newcomers who are willing to enter politics and stand for elections.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I have strong views on this subject, yet I support the amendments in question. In my view, the Government as a whole has not addressed many issues involving the District Councils (DCs). Regarding the increase in the election expenses limit and the other amendments, I consider them necessary, but these reforms are not radical enough, as evident in two aspects. The existing legislation on DC elections in Hong Kong is by and large stringent, though we of course have our own opinions on certain parts of it. 12500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Sometimes it would bring a lot of inconveniences to candidates and cause them to run into difficulties, but on the whole, we are able to overcome them. As far as I am concerned, it should be stringent.

The Government needs to consider the roles of DCs. After "scrapping" the two Municipal Councils, the Government was supposed to devolve powers to DCs, but I think the Government had failed to do so. Deputy President, as a serving member of the Wong Tai Sin DC, I think DCs can take up a lot of district administration work, including improving the district environment and tackling many problems existing in the district. DC members can be very busy, with plenty of work to do. But very often, the Government does not quite listen to the voice of DCs.

Deputy President, at a DC meeting held a few days ago, I noted another matter which has to be taken up with the Secretary or the Chief Executive. My current term of office as a DC member will expire at the end of this year. I have been advocating certain means that we are compelled to resort to when we are ignored despite repeated attempts to make our voice heard. Secretary, why is that the case? I would like to cite an example. As Wong Tai Sin District is not covered by various medical networks, there is a long-standing shortage of both daytime and evening clinic services in the district, and it is particularly difficult for elderly people to seek medical consultation at night. This situation has been discussed in the DC for a decade or two, and has been followed up in the Legislative Council on countless occasions, yet the problem is still unresolved.

Another example is an issue concerning Kwun Tong District that we dealt with yesterday. There are undoubtedly some ascending roads on hillsides in the district; we had raised this issue "N" times, and the government departments had ignored us "N" times. In the end, again, it was brought up in the Legislative Council. Secretary, do you know how things have turned out now? As the Deputy President knows, DC members are invited twice a year to have meals with Legislative Council Members and to exchange views on various issues. At such gatherings, DC members voiced a lot of opinions and, in particular, they queried how the Government as a whole looks upon DCs and which departments they can turn to for assistance if there are issues they cannot resolve during the process of consultation. The DCs look to the Legislative Council for help, but the Legislative Council is unable to help them. This is troublesome.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12501

I have mentioned here that on one occasion, when the Legislative Council invited DC members (including the Wong Tai Sin DC, to which I belong) to a gathering … among the several dozen members of the Wong Tai Sin DC, only a few indicated that they would attend the gathering. Eventually, only five of them, or seven if Mr WU Chi-wai and I were included, attended the gathering. Deputy President, generally at least 10 to 20 DC members would attend such a gathering, so I asked other DC members what was going on, and they replied that there was no need for them to come because even the Legislative Council could not resolve issues raised by DCs. I would like to tell the Secretary that such a situation is not only confined to Wong Tai Sin DC and Kwun Tong DC; many other DCs are facing similar problems. If, as suggested by the Chief Executive, "district issues are addressed at the district level", then theoretically DCs should be able to make some achievements, but in reality, DCs have been unable to do so, or fulfil the functions expected of them.

I do not want to talk about the issue of funding. More importantly, when DC members try to fulfil their functions and work in DCs, there is simply no way for them to improve the district. As I have often said, DCs are in the front line of taking care of various government policies and reaching out to those who are most sensitive and have the most opinions about the policies. DCs serve as an important channel to extensively collect people's views, but they have been unable to perform this role, resulting in the accumulation of problems over time. During my service with DC over the past few years, I had to take up each and every case directly with the Secretary; if the Secretary ignored me, I had to take it up directly with CY. Our District Officer did not want this to happen either; he wanted to solve the problems but to no avail. Take, for example, the issue concerning Kwun Tong District that we discussed yesterday. I will not go into details, but a relevant official from the Home Affairs Bureau met with us and said that we had stepped on the line. As the small amount of resources set aside for community or district projects is not sufficient for us to do the work, we need more money, but no one in the District Management Committee is responsible for that. Deputy President, perhaps you have also heard your colleagues talk about this issue. Four departments are involved in this issue relating to the foot of a bridge constructed to ensure the smooth flow of traffic. When four departments are involved, it is impossible to accomplish anything …

12502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, let me remind you that this motion is about the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015. If you have any grievances against the Government, please air them on other occasions.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I know. But, for one thing, as I have heard other Honourable colleagues express their opinions, I have to express my point of view as well. Thank you for reminding me, Deputy President.

When I first returned to this Council, I very much hoped to discuss with the Secretary how to enhance the functions of DCs in respect of home affairs or constitutional affairs, but I was given the brush-off. If this problem persists, what will DC members think in the end? Even though the remuneration of DC members is not high and their work is demanding, and despite being required to comply with many election-related systems, such as this system to be passed today, a lot of people are still willing to stand for DC elections with a view to serving the community. The Government should reflect on this matter.

Deputy President, originally I did not intend to speak. I have risen to speak because as far as I am concerned, regarding the matter now under discussion, I am in favour of and support the Government's stringent legislative approach to the existing problems faced by DCs ― I am referring to the problems with the electoral system ― but this does not mean that the Government does not have to review what it has done within this framework.

Deputy President, allow me to make one more point. In my case, for instance, I belong to the "super DC" Functional Constituency, but no one attends to the issues raised by me. While the Government has established this "super framework", there is no mechanism whatsoever in the Legislative Council or DCs to deal with issues raised by Members like me who belong to this echelon. How does the Government enable us to fulfil our functions as Members returned by all Hong Kong people? The Government has never thought about that. In any event, I support the amendments proposed by the Government today, yet I hope that the Secretary will not just sit on his hands after listening to what I have said. He must think things over and pay heed to this Council.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12503

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken. I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to speak. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for reporting just now on the discussions of the Subcommittee, and I am grateful to members of the Subcommittee for their views expressed during the process of deliberation. Just now a few Members also gave their opinions. While some of these opinions have no direct relevance to the subject of this motion today, they are relevant to issues such as the operation and functions of District Councils (DCs). I believe that such issues can definitely be followed up at the meetings of other Panels or on other occasions in the Legislative Council.

Deputy President, the District Councils Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (District Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 respectively seek to increase the subsidy rate of the financial assistance scheme for candidates of DC elections and the election expenses limit for DC elections. As the Composite Consumer Price Index is expected to increase by 17.3% on a cumulative basis from 2012 to 2015, the Government has proposed that starting from the DC ordinary election to be held in late 2015, the subsidy rate of the financial assistance scheme for candidates of DC elections will be increased accordingly from $12 per vote to $14 per vote, while the election expenses limit for DC elections will be increased from $53,800 to $63,100.

There were views from some members of the Subcommittee that the Government should further increase the subsidy rate per vote of the financial assistance scheme for candidates of DC elections, and review the method of calculation of the total amount of financial assistance payable to each candidate.

12504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Financial assistance for election candidates was first introduced in 2004 to Legislative Council elections, with the aim of encouraging more public-spirited candidates to participate in Legislative Council elections and cultivating an environment to facilitate the development of political talent in Hong Kong.

In 2007, the financial assistance scheme was extended to DC elections, and at the time of the DC ordinary election in 2011, the subsidy rate was raised to take account of such factors as changes in the Composite Consumer Price Index. Now, it is appropriate for us to propose that the subsidy rate be further increased to $14 per vote starting from the 2015 DC ordinary election. On the other hand, as to the existing method of calculation of financial assistance, amendments to it were only passed by the Legislative Council in 2011 and first implemented in the election for the current-term DCs. As we believe that the existing calculation method has been able to strike a reasonable balance between encouraging candidates to take part in the elections and ensuring prudent use of public funds, currently the SAR Government does not plan to alter the arrangements.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Just now Dr Priscilla LEUNG talked about the operation of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. I must stress that the SAR Government is committed to upholding the openness, fairness and integrity of our electoral system. With this principle in mind, regarding the concerns about the operation of the Ordinance mentioned by the Honourable Member just now, we wrote to all Legislative Council Members last year to solicit specific suggestions on improvements to the operation of the Ordinance. The Government also conducted an internal review on the common breaches found in election returns, and reported on the review findings and the proposed improvement measures to the Panel on Constitutional Affairs in April this year. Relevant departments are actively following up the improvement proposals with a view to providing more specific written guidance on completing election returns for candidates in the DC ordinary election to be held at the end of this year, so as to prevent the common breaches from occurring.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12505

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debates on motions with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of the motions each may speak, including making a reply, for up to 15 minutes, and have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of the amendments each may speak for up to 10 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.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The motion debate on "Enacting legislation on standard working hours".

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

I now call upon Miss CHAN Yuen-han to speak and move the motion.

ENACTING LEGISLATION ON STANDARD WORKING HOURS

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. President, the Federation of Trade Unions has been striving for standard working hours for more than 10 years. I still remember that the first time I moved a motion in the Legislative Council on setting the minimum wage and stipulating the maximum working hours was in 2004. At that time, we proposed regulating working hours, and compensation for overtime work should be calculated at 1.5 times of the basic pay rate. In the past 10 years or so, legislation on minimum wage had been enacted but the enactment of legislation on standard working hours is not within the foreseeable future.

Recently, an employer has written an article in a newspaper, depicting the attitudes of employers towards standard working hours. It is mentioned in the article that trade unions ask for overtime compensation, but after calculating the 12506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 costs, employers are unwilling to pay overtime compensation calculated at 1.5 times of the basic pay rate; instead they would rather employ staff working in three shifts. According to his theory, employees would earn less because of standard working hours. However, the threats of employers may not necessarily come true. I remember when we discussed enacting legislation on minimum wage a few years ago, employers said that numerous small and medium enterprises would close down for they could not afford the minimum wage. What is the situation now? Employers basically cannot hire workers by paying the minimum hourly wage at $32.5. Workers in the market currently have bargaining power; most salespersons demand an hourly wage of $40 and employers may not be able to hire dishwashing workers at an hourly wage of $50. Many shops have closed down, definitely not because of the minimum wage but because of rental increase year after year. Just ask employers and they will tell you that rental takes up the largest proportion of operating cost, resulted in operational difficulties. Therefore, unlike what the employer has said, standard working hours will not drag down our economy.

President, on the issue of standard working hours, not only employers have different views, some professionals who are wage earners and the management class also have reservations about standard working hours. These people work very hard and they still go all out in work even if they are sick, and they will only stop working when they are hospitalized. Since they work almost 20 hours a day without taking a rest, they wonder why their subordinates demand for rest, demand for getting off work on time and demand for overtime pay. In some clerical or professional work types, the management class has such strong ideas. Of course, this spirit of perseverance is commendable but the situation of each individual is different. Some people pursue further education after work, some need to go to elderly home after work to visit their parents, and some may have to buy food and rush home to prepare for dinner. Without setting standard working hours, employees will not have the right to choose how to use their spare time. While employers or senior management officers may choose to work more than 10 hours a day, they cannot force employees to make the same choice.

Long working hours have significant impacts on health. A number of professors have studied this issue and the study conducted by Prof Paul YIP in 2013 revealed that people who worked excessively long hours were prone to physical and mental health problems. Concerning physical illness, the best known case is death from overwork which originated from Japan. Excessive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12507 overtime work trigger heart attack or stroke; that is, excessively long working hours is harmful to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. There are psychological problems in addition to physical problems. Those who work excessively long hours are prone to problems such as depression, anxiety, insomnia, tension and bad temper. Employees in workplace frequently suffer from depression or mania and they also have stronger suicidal tendencies. The relevant studies pointed out that these are cases of overwork suicide. Standard working hours may relieve the pressure of wage earners and reduce the cases of death from overwork or overwork suicide.

President, in my motion, I clearly urge the Government to enact legislation to set the number of standard working hours at 44 per week, which means that the FTU does not accept "contractual working hours" now proposed by the Government. We agree that the situation of each industry is different but a basic indicator is very important. For example, in South Korea and Japan, standard working hours are not more than 40 hour per week and in France, it is not more than 35 hours per week. Nevertheless, there are exemptions in different countries; for instance, exemptions are granted to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries in Japan and South Korea; and exemptions are granted to employees at and above the manager level in Japan and France. Thus, a standard must be set as the basis of regulation; otherwise, all sectors and industries will not know what course to take. If an industry needs to impose some special conditions, they should be agreed upon by the employers and employees concerned, and regulated by legislation.

Various countries in the world have rich experiences in the implementation of standard working hours, which can serve as reference for the Hong Kong Government. The Government, civil organizations and trade unions have conducted repeated studies and have cited relevant examples. To be honest, we definitely do not agree with the proposal of the Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC) which requires employers and employees to agree upon and specify the "contractual working hours". According to foreign experience, there is unified regulation by legislation with exemptions given to individual industries. The SWHC adopts a laissez-faire approach, allowing employers and employees to agree upon and specify the "contractual working hours" to be regulated. I think this is simply ridiculous. Given the disparity in the bargaining powers of employers and employees, how can ordinary wage earners bargain with their employers? I would like to tell the Secretary that those who come up with this approach are absurd.

12508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

The SWHC announced two days ago that enactment of legislation would be further considered. I would like to tell Honourable colleagues, after the studies by the Council, the matter is referred to the committee for deliberation, and after the deliberation by the committee, the matter will be referred back to the Council for further deliberation. I do not know what the Government intends to do. I would like to invite all members to consider the position of workers and give up the idea of "contractual working hours" ― the Government is just trying to procrastinate through conducting studies ― and specify standard working hours for the sake of the families and health of employees.

President, I would like to listen to the remarks of Honourable colleagues before responding as this is not a new issue and discussion has already been held for years. I do not want the arguments to go on and I just want to make my stance clear. In the face of workers' overwork death and overwork suicide, and the fact that more and more people are suffering from mania and depression, how would the Government and the community treat wage earners? Why not allow workers have the time for pursuing continuing education, taking care of families and enjoying life? Why has our society become so merciless? I would like to listen to the speeches of Honourable colleagues before responding.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council urges the Government to expeditiously enact legislation on standard working hours, the contents of which must set the number of standard working hours at 44 per week and rates of overtime pay."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Miss CHAN Yuen-han be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Five Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the five amendments.

I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr YIU Si-wing, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Dr LEUNG Ka-lau; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12509

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, an Honourable colleague has proposed a motion on "Enacting legislation on standard working hours" again today and we are now having a debate on this motion. I really have strong feelings because Hong Kong is lagging behind various parts of the world by almost 80 years, less than 100 years. Within a few years after 1920, many places … The first International Labour Organization Convention specified the eight-hour day. The Secretary and LEUNG Chun-ying should look for a place to hide. Today, Hong Kong has not yet enacted legislation on standard working hours.

The first International Labour Organization Convention is about working hours; what is the origin of 1 May, Labour Day? More than 100 years ago in 1886, workers in the United States took to the streets and strived for working eight hours a day. The Government opened fire to disperse them, which triggered protests around the world. In the end, 1 May was declared Labour Day to commemorate the incident and the workers' fight for working eight hours a day. Back then, the slogan was "eight hours of work, eight hours of rest and eight hours of learning." Learning time is actually time at our disposal. In Hong Kong, we are still discussing enacting legislation on standard working hours; we are still discussing whether Hong Kong workers should work 10 hours, 12 hours or 14 hours a day. Container terminal workers have to work continuously for 24 hours, sometimes 48 hours. President, we are still discussing these issues. When the whole world is talking about working hours, Hong Kong lags far behind. Some places set the number of working hours at 35 per week, Taiwan in Asia has recently discussed 40 hours of work per week and South Korea has just set the number of working hours at 40 per week. Nonetheless, we are still discussing whether legislation should be enacted in this respect.

How does the Government treat local workers? Does it treat local workers as slaves? Workers are asked to sell their bodies or their blood ― wage earners describe overtime work as selling blood. Workers are really selling their blood and their bodies; why do they do so? They do so to provide for their families, not for getting rich but merely for making ends meet. They have contributed their whole life to our economy, but in return, they only get meagre pay and they have also sacrificed their health. They have lost their own life, their family life, and even everything. I think young people simply do not have time for dating; they may have to resort to "arranged marriage" as they basically do not have time for dating.

12510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Why has our society retrogressed to such a pass? Hong Kong people are not leading a balanced life; the Secretary often talks about "family friendly" practices, why has he promoted "family friendly" practices? According to the population policy, families should have more children. Government officials only hypocritically make fair-sounding remarks. When I ask the Secretary whether there are policies to help the public lead a balanced life, he will say conceitedly that the authorities have enacted legislation on three days of paternity leave. It seems as if three days of paternity leave is a big deal, and he does not feel bashful when mentioning this point. While workers are working 12 hours or 14 hours per day, he said that the legislation on paternity leave has been enacted. Apart from Dr Kenneth CHAN who is especially awesome, most people only have one or two children; the authorities acted as if it had done a lot of the benefits of workers.

I think we should blame the functional constituencies and the Election Committee behind the Government. The 300 people with broad representativeness only represent their own wallets. They have always impeded the enactment of legislation on standard working hours and the LEUNG Chun-ying Government has not honoured its promise. LEUNG's Manifesto is touching as he states that a committee will be set up to study standard working hours and examine legislative proposals on standard working hours. To our surprise, the Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC) only delays the enactment of legislation.

According to the Secretary, he can do nothing as a consensus has to be reached by various parties. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's amendment today is really rubbish as she states that legislation can be enacted after a consensus has been forged. This argument is rubbish. Frankly speaking, if a consensus can be forged, it is basically unnecessary to enact legislation, as we can rely on the consensus forged between employers and workers in Hong Kong. Are bosses really so friendly that they will not impose any restriction and that they would allow workers to have rest time? Certainly, the two parties will not forge a consensus because interests are involved. As the interests of functional constituencies are involved, they will definitely oppose enacting legislation on standard working hours.

The LEUNG Chun-ying Government has not honoured its promise. It has manipulated the procedures by establishing the SWHC and appointing some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12511 members and then it has been procrastinating. Two working groups have been established under the SWHC to carry out research and consultation. It is also proposed that a subcommittee will be set up under the Legislative Council.

As I have said many times, after the SWHC has completed its work, according to the current progress, it is basically impossible to complete the enactment of legislation within this term. In my amendment, I express regret that the Government has taken advantage of the SWHC to procrastinate while it requires the introduction of a bill within this term. If the Government procrastinates in this way, it is simply impossible to complete the enactment of legislation within this term. This work will not be completed in 2016 by the new-term Legislative Council, and the LEUNG Chun-ying Government will not be able to complete the work by 2017 because his tenure will end soon unless he is conspiring to serve another term, which will be disastrous.

The Government just keeps procrastinating. Recently, the SWHC has a new trick, proposing that working hours should be prescribed in the contract ("contractual working hours"). It is proposed to stipulate in the contract the number of hours a worker is required to work, that is, stipulating how they will be exploited and that there is no overtime compensation. If a worker works more than 44 hours, he will have overtime compensation calculated at 1.5 times of the hourly rate, and he will not have to undertake uncompensated overtime time.

At present, many clerical workers have to undertake uncompensated overtime time. Supposedly, they finish work at 6 pm but they have to work until 10 pm, meaning that they have to undertake four hours of uncompensated overtime time. The proposal on "contractual working hours" informs workers that they are required to work overtime without compensation, and they have to sign the humiliating contracts and agree to undertake uncompensated overtime work. Some people say that it is very difficult to recruit workers; workers have bargaining power and they will not arbitrarily sign contracts.

If that is the case, security guards will not have to work 12 hours, catering workers will not have to work 13 to 14 hours, and retail workers do not need to stand 10 hours a day. As we can see, the relevant figures have not been lowered; Hong Kong still has the longest working hours in the world as 700 000 people have pushed up the working hours. Workers who work excessively long working hours are engaged in the transportation, retail, security and other 12512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 industries as mentioned earlier. Therefore, proposing "contractual working hours" is simply exploiting workers; yet, the authorities will continue to procrastinate.

I hope The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions … Madam Han has just mentioned that she would leave some time to respond to my comments and she has just made it clear that she opposes "contractual working hours". But I do not quite understand her. We can say that Stanley NG, being inexperienced, has been arranged to join the SWHC and he also casually remarked that a consensus should be reached gradually. Yet, the worst thing is that CHENG Yiu-tong said … we cannot say that CHENG Yiu-tong is inexperienced, but he said that the SWHC's proposal on "contractual working hours" could be accepted first, because that was tantamount to opening the door and taking the first step in enacting legislation on standard working hours.

I would like to ask Madam Han to give an explanation. While she just said that she opposed "contractual working hours", CHENG Yiu-tong has indicated his support. Their comments sometimes perplexed us. I am not sure when they have been deceived and when they have not. This issue is hard to deal with, and I hope she would have time to respond later. I hope Honourable colleagues would support my amendment and oppose "contractual working hours", and demand for the early enactment of the legislation.

Thank you, President.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan mentioned earlier about undertaking uncompensated overtime work, I believe teachers are typical examples, which is very pathetic. Last year, the Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC) conducted a special topic survey and a public consultation on the working hours of employees. The interviewees considered that there was a need to enact legislation on standard working hours because employers and employees are not on equal standing and the rights of employees can only be protected by way of legislation. Organizations representing employees generally consider that the number of standard working hours should be set at 44 per week, employees should be given overtime pay at 1.5 times of their basic wage rate and they should have the right to accept or decline requests to work overtime. The SWHC announced last month that it has agreed in principle to regulate employee working hours, including setting a mandatory LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12513 requirement for employers and employees in general to enter into written employment contracts specifying working hours arrangements. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has also mentioned this point earlier.

That is the situation of employees in general. Let us consider the situation of teachers now. Teachers are even more pathetic than employees in general. As the representative of the education sector, I believe the teaching profession is one of the job types with the longest working hours. Over the years, surveys conducted by various organizations have proven that teachers work excessively long hours and suffer immense pressure. Members can refer to a survey on job burnout among teachers and I guess Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, having been a teacher for many years, would certainly understand the situation. I do not know if Mr LEUNG and his colleagues have ever suffered the following conditions: fatigue, hypertension, muscle tightness and pain, sadness, depression, insomnia, headaches, and so on. In fact, many psychiatrists have told me that an increasing number of their clients come from the education sector. There is an increasing number of teachers suffering from emotional disturbances and from time to time, we would also hear cases of suicide. These incidents do not happen accidentally.

According to the Report on the Workload of Teachers in Hong Kong Primary and Secondary Schools compiled by The Hong Kong Institute of Education, the weekly working hours for teachers is 36% higher than the median of 44 in Hong Kong. In other words, the weekly working hours for teachers is about 60. Teachers work about 10 hours per day during the teaching days from Monday through Friday. On Saturdays and Sundays, they have to attend meetings, make lesson preparation, handle administrative work, correct homework, interview parents, give students disciplinary guidance, counsel students, lead students to attend extra-curricular activities and competitions and give supplementary lessons. These will take 10 hours even by a conservative estimation. Thus, the total weekly working hours will be 60. But, that is only the general situation. The situation for many teachers is even worse, particularly language teachers, teachers of long whole-day kindergartens and young teachers.

I received a complaint from a contract primary school teacher earlier. This teacher has to reach school by 7.15 am every day and help students with their homework in a tutorial class before teaching the regular classes. He teaches five to six sessions every day. Around noon time, he has to stay in the classroom to keep an eye on the students while they are having lunch and he has 12514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 to finish his lunch quickly. The students finish school at 3 pm, but he has to supervise the students who stay behind, correct homework and attend many meetings. Very often, the first thing to do after school is to attend meetings which may last until 6 pm to 7 pm. After that, he has to liaise with parents and will only be able to leave school around 7 pm to 8 pm. Teachers like him work from about 7 am to 7 pm which is 12 hours per day. When I started teaching back then, the situation was different. I remember in the first year of my teaching, school servant would lock the gate at 5 pm; but today, school servant will not lock the gate because he knows that teachers have to continue with their work at school. Although all teachers are already tired out when they leave school, they have to take home one or two bags of homework or test or examination papers for correction. They continue to work on Saturdays and Sundays and lead inhumane lives isolated from their families and friends.

President, the situation of working long hours is not an isolated or exceptional case and one of the contributing factors is the education reform. After the implementation of the education reform, the workload and difficulty of teaching each key area have increased. Besides, there have been many changes to the academic structure and curricula and teachers have to strain themselves in each of the reforms. Shifting the paradigm to the student-centred mode has also greatly increased the demand on teachers. We are not saying that such changes are undesirable, but the workload has increased enormously because of the changes. With the growing complexity of our social environment, the increasing risks in schools and the implementation of integrated education, the need to provide counselling and disciplinary guidance to students has increased substantially. In addition, owing to the regulatory requirements imposed by the education authorities and the school, as well as the demand for accountability by parents and society, the administrative workload has also increased. Recently, the Government has also asked schools to organize study tours. With the incessant introduction of new policies by the authorities for enforcement by schools, and coupled with the inadequate staff establishment, teachers have been weighed down with work and their working hours have become even longer.

In the past, we used to think that teaching was a fine job. Teachers have many holidays, including summer holidays, Christmas holidays and Easter holidays. These holidays are more than enough to compensate the hours of their overtime work. But, is it true? President, according to the existing regulations, there are 90 days of school holiday, but those are only holidays for students, not for teachers. At present, it is very common for teachers to give supplementary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12515 lessons. Besides, since teachers have to participate in study tours mentioned earlier, the number of holidays for teachers is further reduced. Most teachers will start their summer holidays in the middle of August and finish shortly after because they have to attend meetings around 20 August. Therefore, many teachers can only go on short trips like Members do. If we deduct the number of holidays which fall on Sundays and public holidays, there are actually only 36 days of holiday for teachers, but they have to undertake innumerable hours of unpaid overtime work and they have to work overtime almost every day.

President, certainly, teachers must be caring and they must be willing to make contributions. But, being humans, teachers also have their own lives and families. They should be protected under the policy on standard working hours and we should definitely not give up on protecting teachers because of certain technical problems. Most advanced societies in the world have laid down clear rules on the working hours of teachers after careful consideration of their capacities and the principles of education. However, in Hong Kong, we do not have such rules and availability of resources is often the prime factor for consideration. Many new policies are implemented on the premise of not involving additional staff. With such an approach, it is hard to maintain a high standard of teaching. At present, teachers in Hong Kong still have excellent performance and our system is still functioning properly despite many difficulties, but things may change in the future.

Teachers are now playing different roles. They are teachers, counsellors, administrators, escorts of study tours and persons responsible for conducting tender exercises, and so on. When teachers have to undertake all such tasks, how can they perform well? If the situation persists, the quality of teaching will be affected in the long run. Therefore, I propose to regulate the working hours of teachers in three ways. First, the number of standard working hours at 44 per week should be equally applicable to teachers in general. Setting standard working hours will not prevent teachers from doing a good job. Second, the number of teaching hours should be regulated. Most places in the world have regulated the number of teaching sessions or hours of teachings so that the workload of teachers and the quality of teaching can be maintained at reasonable levels. We should set similar standards for compliance by schools. Third, the proportion of non-teaching work in the total workload should be set out. Administrative work and organizing study tours are not major tasks of teachers. We should allow teachers to focus on their core business of teaching. Non-professional administrative work should not be handled by teachers on a 12516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 long-term basis; it should be done by clerks or administrative support staff instead. The objective of removing the barriers should not merely be a slogan; we should try to achieve it by regulating working hours. In this way, teachers can do a good job which will benefit students.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, as a free economy, Hong Kong certainly allows various trades and industries to set their own number of working hours according to their actual circumstances. On the other hand, some wage earners really face problems of long working hours and a lack of standard working hours. Therefore, they continue to call for enacting legislation on standard working hours. In fact, a number of countries and places such as Europe, South Korea and Japan, have implemented standard working hours when the conditions were ripe. In general, they have set overtime pay at 1.25 to 1.5 times of the normal wage rate.

There are a number of advantages in enacting legislation on standard working hours. It will allow employees to make suitable arrangements regarding their hours of rest and work and provide them with reasonable overtime pay. Thus, the proposal will surely win the support of the majority of the public. But, why is a decision still pending despite various studies conducted on enacting legislation on standard working hours? Many Members, particularly Members from the labour sector, have all along suspected that the Government has slackened off or the business sector has resisted the proposal. In fact, due to Hong Kong's actual circumstances, a number of problems have to be thoroughly discussed before a balance can be struck between the pros and cons of the proposal.

First, implementing standard working hours will significantly increase the operating costs and impede the economic vitality and competitiveness of society. When compared with countries which have implemented standard working hours, Hong Kong's situation is different with regard to the background, conditions and timing, and we have to be more cautious. At present, the unemployment rate of Hong Kong has maintained at about 3.3% for a long time, which is close to full employment. Many trades have to face the problem of labour shortage and have to be flexible in staff deployment, the case is particularly so for the service industry. Given that workers will not be imported, if the Government rashly enacts legislation on standard working hours, enterprises have to employ additional staff to resolve the labour shortage problem. When various trades and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12517 industries compete for manpower, the tight supply of the labour market would be aggravated, making recruitment more difficult, and as a result, the standard of services provided by enterprises will certainly be greatly lowered and Hong Kong's competitiveness undermined.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make up 98% of all enterprises in Hong Kong and they employ nearly 1.18 million employees. As wages account for 35% of the total operating costs, any significant increase in labour costs will undoubtedly exert a heavy burden on SMEs. Therefore, in promoting the enactment of legislation on standard working hours, we have to fully consider the capacity of enterprises, particularly SMEs, and assess whether their competitiveness will be undermined, resulting indirectly in the monopolization of consortia.

Second, implementing standard working hours will push up commodity prices and induce inflation. After the implementation of standard working hours, enterprises will have to employ more staff members and increase the rate of overtime pay in order to maintain their current scale of operation. The operating costs will surge and operators of various trades and industries will have to increase their prices to solve the problem. Inflation will certainly follow. Employees may have a pay rise as a result of inflation which will enable them to meet their basic daily needs, but the lives of the unemployed and the retirees will be greatly affected. With an ageing population in Hong Kong, there will be an increasing number of elderly people without income. If these people have to bear the burden of a soaring inflation rate and an ever increasing cost for daily necessities over a long period of time, the standard of their living will inevitably decline and the wealth gap will widen even further.

Third, implementing standard working hours will impose pressure on employees with long years of service. In order to reduce costs, some enterprises may consider reducing the number of overtime hours undertaken by employees with long years of service and whose salaries are relatively higher; they may even replace those staff with new recruits or part-time staff. In Japan, Korea, Australia and the United Kingdom, after the implementation of standard working hours, there is an apparent increase in the number job types being converted into part-time jobs so as to reduce the expenses on staff costs. For example, in Japan, the percentage of part-time staff has increased from 11.9% in 1993 to 16.6% in 2010.

12518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Fourth, the inflexibility of standard working hours makes it difficult to implement in the tourism industry. As Members would know, the tourism industry provides a relatively wide scope of service and the working hours are more flexible than the service industry in general. For example, tour escorts or tourist guides may have to provide service 24 hours a day during an outbound tour and they may have to handle emergencies anytime. The escort has to be on call even in the small hours to meet the different needs of customers; he cannot say that "I am now taking rest" and ignore the customer's need. Employees working in the back office of a travel agent also have to be on call round the clock. Should an accident happen during the tour, or if a tour member has encountered problems such as failing to get on board, change of air ticket, change of itinerary, and so on, he may call the back office for help. Owing to the time difference, the employee may receive a request for help in the small hours, and he has to provide assistance immediately. Similarly, in providing services to customers, coach drivers may not be able to get off duty as scheduled owing to some unexpected incidents. For example, he is caught in a traffic jam or the tour group has run behind schedule for various reasons. It is inevitable that drivers have to work overtime.

People may say that exemptions can be given to the abovementioned jobs because of their special nature. However, in 2009, in the case of doctors in public hospitals claiming for overtime compensation, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that doctors on non-resident calls who had not been called upon to work at the hospitals could not be regarded as having taken a rest day or a statutory holiday. The Hospital Authority had to pay compensation leave or overtime allowance to the doctors and could not only pay nominal damages on the ground that they had not actually worked. Applying the same principle, if we have enacted legislation on standard working hours, when employees of a travel agent are on call outside office hours, will the employer have to pay for these hours during which no specific work has been assigned to the employees? I believe that Members will be hesitant to give an answer in the negative immediately. If the principle applies, travel agents will not be able to bear the great burden of paying overtime allowances. At present, the average profit margin of travel agents is lower than 10% and many may have to close down as a result. Therefore, if we implement standard working hours rashly, it will be disastrous for the tourism industry.

President, there is no free lunch in the world and everything has its pros and cons. While the labour sector is actively striving for the implementation of standard working hours, the Government has to listen to the views of the business LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12519 sector. Just now, I have considered problems from the perspective of the tourism industry. I guess other trades similar to the tourism industry will face the same problems which are difficult to resolve. Certainly, I perfectly understand that as the society progresses, there will be gradual improvement in the salaries and benefits of employees. But, implementing standard working hours will have an extensive impact. Since the nature of various trades and industries differs greatly, there is no need to set a limit for all trades and jobs across the board. In fact, reference can be taken on the successful and unsuccessful experiences of countries which have implemented standard working hours for many years. In assessing whether the conditions of Hong Kong are suitable for implementing standard working hours, the Government should consider the unemployment rate of Hong Kong, the affordability of various trades and industries and the competitiveness of Hong Kong. There is no need for the Government to push the proposal forward with full knowledge of its many disadvantages. Therefore, in my amendment, I have proposed that in enacting legislation to set the number of standard working hours, the Government should fully consult various trades and industries, so as to avoid creating negative impact on society and the economy as a result of hasty enactment of legislation.

President, I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): According to the report of the Census and Statistics Department published in March this year, the median weekly working hours of wage earners is 44 hours, and workers providing services related to catering, property management, security and cleaning work more than 50 hours per week. It is also stated in the report that more than 60 000 wage earners in the territory work 72 hours per week, far more than the ideal of 40 hours per week recommended by the International Labour Organization.

A number of Members have mentioned just now that long working hours have negative impacts on wage earners; for example, they suffer from urban diseases, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and so on. Very often we find people taking the MTR after work extremely tired and they hardly wear a smile. When a person is too tired, he naturally has lower resistance to disease and he will easily get sick for various reasons. Such problems will gradually appear when they get older.

12520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Long working hours also affect family friendly situation and parent-child relations as we have recently discussed. Last time when I visited Tin Shui Wai, some parents told me that owing to inconvenient transportation, they had to spend more than an hour travelling to and from work each day, that is, they spent nearly three hours on the road. How could they have time to take care of their children or take their children to the park? Therefore, long working hours really affect family and parent-child relations.

Hong Kong is a service-oriented city and service attitude is very important. Yet, the service workers are sometimes so tired that they do not want to smile. A recent survey showed that Hong Kong scored lower than the global average in terms of smiles, greetings and rating of sales workers, and Hong Kong ranked fourth from the bottom in terms of smiles. President, many Hong Kong people really find it hard to smile.

Undeniably, long working hours and immense work pressure often affect employees' attitudes. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) therefore agrees that the Government should expeditiously promote in-depth discussion in society on matters relating to the regulation of working hours. We understand that the standard working hours system is rather complex and absolutely should not be underestimated. The working environment in Hong Kong is special as there are many diversified job types and each industry is different. Employees have divergent views on standard working hours and overtime compensation. Some workers opine that the number of standard working hours should be set at 44 per week, some 48 per week, and some others even say that working 50 hours per week is not a problem so long as there is overtime compensation.

Some political parties suggested that employers and employees should enter into contracts and agree upon the overtime compensation. Some parties said that the overtime compensation for wage earners should not be calculated on the ratio of 1:1 but on the ratio of 1:1.5, and even twice the hourly rate.

The various arguments have raised queries by many people and organizations. The object of setting standard working hours is to allow wage earners to have more time to improve parent-child relations and take part in family friendly activities; how come the present proposal suggests that if overtime compensation is provided, no problem will arise? I am not certain about the specific ideas of the two major trade unions and I hope that Members representing trade unions will explain their ideas clearly when they have the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12521 opportunity to speak. On the one hand, they say that the provision of overtime compensation can solve the problem, but on the other hand, they claim that workers do not have time to have dinner with family members. Why should the weekly working hours be limited to 44? We can look at the issue of standard working hours from different perspectives. This issue is very complicated and highly controversial.

Should standard working hours be set for real estate agents and reporters … there are many reporters outside the Chamber, or should standard working hours be set for tour guides? While some trade unions demand the setting of standard working hours, the employers state that it is difficult to set standard working hours given the highly flexible working hours of employees. Some academics have also suggested that employers and employees should draw up the so-called "non-compliance provision". What is meant by "non-compliance provision"? This arrangement allows employees to voluntarily work overtime and receive overtime pay.

Another school of academics say that if the "non-compliance provision" is signed, the legislation will not be able to regulate working hours and standard working hours will no longer exist. We can thus conclude that many matters relating to the enactment of legislation on standard working hours have yet to be unresolved at this stage. Since trade unions have not reached a consensus, and employers as well as employees have different views, I do not know when an outcome can be reached through discussions.

The Government has recently published a survey report. Among 10 275 employed persons being interviewed, 61.1% (that is more than half) of them whose employment contracts have not stipulated how overtime work will be compensated. In other words, the contracts have not stipulated the number of working hours and whether compensation will be provided in the form of payment or leave. Employees are working continuously but employers ask them for a favour to work until 8 pm or 9 pm. It is absolutely inappropriate for employers to do so. When will employees be protected?

The survey also studied the views of employed persons on standard working hours or the policy directions on working hours. Among the respondents, 93.7% of them supported stipulating in the employment contract the number of working hours and the arrangement for overtime work and compensation. As regards enacting legislation on standard working hours, the 12522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 employment contracts of 67.1% of workers do not provide the relevant protection. Hence, the most urgent task is to provide these workers with the protection as soon as possible.

President, owing to the above problems, the DAB proposed an amendment, requesting the Standard Working Hours Committee to continue to promote in-depth discussions in society on the regulation of working hours, so as to expeditiously forge a consensus on enacting legislation to regulate standard working hours or on other proposals to regulate working hours. We believe the best interests of employers and employees should come first.

President, regarding Miss CHAN Yuen-han's original motion and the amendments of Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr YIU Si-wing and Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, the DAB will abstain from voting. As for Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment, since we think that the contents of his amendment are just berating others without offering any constructive ideas, we will vote against it.

I so submit.

DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): President, Miss CHAN Yuen-han has just said that we have discussed standard working hours for more than 10 years, but I do not understand why there are still so many controversies and why in-depth discussions are still warranted. It seems that many Members do not quite understand standard working hours, which is really strange. After joining this Council for such a long time, how come they do not understand standard working hours? I would like to tell Miss CHAN Yuen-han, I do not oppose setting the weekly working hours at 44. This is just a strategy because a broader issue will easily gain the support of more people. How many hours will be appropriate? The answer must be 44 hours.

I would like to discuss a few issues. First, the statutory "contractual working hours", that is, specifying in the contract the number of working hours and the method for providing the compensation. If it is specified that no compensation will be provided, can this still be considered as a compensation method? Does "contractual working hours" mean that compensation must be provided and it must not be lower than the basic hourly rate? What would happen if it is not specified that compensation must be provided?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12523

Over the past 10 years or so, I have been involved in legal proceedings concerning working hours and I have collected some information for the purpose. I found that there are precedents in the common law of foreign countries; even if the contracts have stipulated the number of working hours, if employers ask employees to work overtime, employees cannot decline under reasonable circumstances or they may be dismissed. This is the provision under the common law.

In another case, there is no overtime compensation if the contract has not so specified. Some suggest that only the number of working hours should be stipulated in the contract and overtime compensation should not be stipulated. It does not make much sense to do so. Even if the contract provides that the employee must work overtime upon the employer's request, he will not necessarily be given compensation, which is not much different from not specifying that compensation will be provided.

If there are suggestions that "contractual working hours" should be implemented, it is most important to specify that overtime work must be compensated. The contract should not only specify how compensation will be provided ― employers can specify zero compensation ― but also specify that the compensation must not be lower than the basic pay rate. Then, I think we can pocket "contractual working hours" first since overtime work will at least be compensated.

I often say that it is most important for overtime work to be compensated; in this case, is it meaningful to argue about standard working hours? I do not think it is very meaningful. Why? If an employer often requires his employees to work 48 hours a week, and if legislation is enacted to set the number of standard working hours at 44 per week, the employer will have to give overtime compensation for the additional four hours of work, which may be calculated at 1.5 times of the basic pay rate. How will the employer or the market react in the long run? Market forces are always the strongest; if the sector or the employer can afford the overtime compensation, the employees will have an extra income. But if the employer or the market cannot afford the overtime compensation, and the employer wants to remain in business, he has to calculate how much he can afford to pay for wages and expenses. After deducting the money payable at basic pay rate, the amount left will be used to pay for the additional four hours of work of employees, and the overtime compensation will be calculated at 1.5 times of the hourly pay rate.

12524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015

Since the market force is the dominating factor, I do not need to consider whether the number of standard working hours should be set at 44 per week. Even if the number of standard working hours is set at 40 per week, if the employer cannot afford the operating expenses, he has to calculate afresh. Many sectors think that this would lead to the closure of many small and medium enterprises and the substantial increase in operating costs, but in my view, the market forces are the strongest, hence if a company is really going to close down, the employees will naturally accept a lower basic pay rate. If the company will not close down, it means that it can afford the payment, why not allow employees to benefit? It does not matter whether the number of standard working hours is set at 40, 44 or 48 per week, and even if the number of working hours is not specified in the contract, it is most important to specify that compensation for overtime work must not be lower than the basic pay rate. Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion has not stipulated the hourly rate; she can actually mention this point.

I would like to use the remaining speaking time to discuss the term "across the board" which has frequently been used in the recent discussions about standard working hours. What is "across the board"? Perhaps each person has his own interpretation about this term, but it carries a negative connotation. It seems to suggest that due consideration should not be given, and equal treatment should be made without any flexibility. We have used this negative term because we see no reason for adopting any measure across the board. I believe we should not use the term "across the board" to describe how standard working hours should be set. For example, we can use the expression "flexible arrangements".

For most countries implementing standard working hours or maximum working hours, the element of flexible arrangement must be included in the relevant legislation. For example, adjustments can be made to even out the working hours. In setting the number of standard working hours, workers will not be required to work 44 hours a week and compensation must be provided for overtime work. In most places, arrangements are made to set the average working hours within one, three or four months.

Madam Han thinks that there is no problem, right? Such flexible arrangements can solve the problem of unstable working hours in many industries. For example, if a reporter works longer hours today, he can work shorter hours tomorrow. If he has worked longer hours this week, he can take LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 12525 leave for one or two more days next week. The key is that if an employer gives employees compensatory leave, he must hire enough people so that he will not have the intention or incentive to ask employees to work overtime without compensation. In other words, the employer will only make overtime arrangements when essential.

Another flexible arrangement is the so-called "opt-out" option. An employee may, in the light of his own situation, enter into an agreement with his employer on overtime work. In fact, there are similar arrangements for rest days in Hong Kong. An employee should have a rest day every seven days and he may work as usual on a rest day upon mutual agreement but the pay rate is not specified. If an employee is asked to undertake uncompensated overtime work, he may ultimately initiate proceedings in court. If the Judge considers that the employee has involuntarily worked overtime, he will adjudicate that the employer should make compensations.

Mr YIU Si-wing has just said that tour guides in the tourism industry have to be on call for a long time during tours and he has also mentioned that I initiated the proceedings concerning rest days. I hope Mr YIU Si-wing would understand that the law stipulates that employees can take rest on rest days. If an employee does not need to be on call at his workplace, he will not be considered as working or taking rest. The Court has earlier ruled that an employee will not be considered as working if he does not need to be on call at his workplace. Mr YIU Si-wing can feel relieved.

Lastly, with only dozens of seconds left, I would like to say that this issue is very complex as some Honourable colleagues have said. I believe that whether an issue is complex or not depends on a person's wisdom. Perhaps people like me with little wisdom would consider such issues very simple (The buzzer sounded) … President, I so submit.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 8.01 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 3 June 2015 A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Food and Health to Dr Kenneth CHAN's supplementary question to Urgent Question

As regards prevention and control measures for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), the Administration indicated in its reply to the urgent oral questions that 29 passengers on board OZ723 of Asiana Airlines on 26 May 2015 sitting within two rows of the target patient were classified as close contacts. Among the above 29 passengers, 10 were found not in Hong Kong as of 1 June 2015. According to available information, these 10 close contacts, who were not in Hong Kong, are not Hong Kong residents.