LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7379

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 14 April 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

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 CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7381

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

7382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

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.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG NGOK-KIU

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7383

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

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

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

MR SHIU SIN-POR, S.B.S., J.P. HEAD, CENTRAL POLICY UNIT

PROF SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

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

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

7384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bill

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members.

(Mr WONG Kwok-hing continued to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, the meeting has started.

The Council now resumes and continues with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2016.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2016

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 24 February 2016

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I think the Budget this year can take care of the needs in various aspects. It has taken into account helping small and medium enterprises (SMEs), supporting the tourism industry, developing healthcare services and taking care of the middle class and the disadvantaged. Although the measures proposed may not be sufficient, it has nonetheless responded to many of society's aspirations. Meanwhile, the Financial Secretary has also proposed many measures to promote the development of innovative technologies. I consider this the path which Hong Kong must take. As Hong Kong has to shoulder massive social expenditure, it is necessary for us to open up new income sources. If we only know how to spend and do not know how to make money, Hong Kong will "dry up" one day.

The Hong Kong economy is facing a substantial downward risk this year. At present, the performance of external trade, retail sales and the tourism industry is very weak. Coupled with the drop in the property market, it is estimated that it will be increasingly difficult to do business in the latter half of the year, and there is a worry that the unemployment rate will also rise. Therefore, I have called on the Financial Secretary to have precautionary measures in place.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7385

The Budget has proposed a series of measures, targeting the SMEs and the tourism industry in particular. However, economic data released at present all reflect that the economy has reached a very precarious state. In February, retail sales value, inbound visitor numbers and import and export value have seen alarming decreases. In face of such miserable environment, the precautionary measures in the Budget may have become insufficient. I wish that the Financial Secretary can pay close attention to the development and has on hand ready emergency easing measures, including the enhancement of support for the SMEs. Currently, the SMEs have already bore the brunt. Many are finding it hard to operate or are even folding. I believe the unemployment rate will rise very soon and many social problems will also surface.

Thus, it is imperative for the Government to get prepared. It should not make belated and desperate attempts. I wish that colleagues of this Council (regardless of their parties) should also have a clear understanding of the present situation. Once Hong Kong is economically hit, we have to help the SMEs and the unemployed to tide over the storm and reinvigorate Hong Kong's economy.

Furthermore, I would also like to discuss the development of innovative technologies. I have always supported their development. With the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, the Budget has also pushed vigorously for development in this regard. This indicates the strong determination of the Government to develop innovative technologies.

In recent years, the neighbouring Pearl River Delta Region has developed into a manufacturing hub of advanced technology products. Hong Kong has lagged behind for years in this regard. We should do our best to catch up. Actually, Hong Kong is already equipped with world-class information technology facilities. If we can enhance the development of scientific research talent and institutions, grasp the opportunity to co-operate with nearby regions to create synergy effect, Hong Kong's innovative technologies can be driven towards internationalization. As the development of the Hong Kong economy is not balanced, we must explore new openings outside the pillar industries. The enhancement of innovative technologies can precisely drive re-industrialization in Hong Kong and bring new opportunities to the territory.

Through mobile communications technology and artificial intelligence, the integration of technology into financial development has become the major global trend. The Budget has decided to vigorously develop financial technologies (Fintech) such as electronic payments, robo-advisors and crowdfunding. I 7386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 believe the Steering Group on Financial Technologies can implement more researches and explore the feasibility of applying new technologies to various financial services.

However, while developing Fintech, I wish that the Government can address the problems faced by the Fintech sector as soon as possible. First, the present legal framework for monitoring the traditional financial institutions fail to dovetail with the rapid development of Fintech. I wish that the Government can soon implement a set of legal framework applicable to the current Fintech so that support for the development of Hong Kong's Fintech can be more comprehensive. Then, pertinent Fintech talents will naturally be more at ease to come and take part in infrastructure investment.

Moreover, the Government should pay great attention to the impact created by technological development on talents of the traditional financial services industry. With development in Fintech, computers, artificial intelligence and machines are more widely applied to the different types of work in the financial services industry. There is bound to be a change in the demand for manpower. For people who are engaged in some traditional jobs, for instance, wealth management advisors, clerks or other front-line work, they will inevitably face the problem of job loss in the future. I wish that the Government can face this problem squarely before it is too late to avoid a wave of unemployment in the financial services industry. To cope with the situation, the Government should introduce measures as soon as possible, discover new posts and help traditional talents to integrate into Fintech to prevent them from becoming victims of technological development.

On the medical front, the Budget has made many new proposals. These include the setting aside of a dedicated provision of $200 billion for a 10-year hospital development plan to enable the Hospital Authority to expand and upgrade healthcare facilities in a more flexible and long-term manner to lessen the impact of population ageing on the Hong Kong society and medical services. The Financial Secretary says this $200 billion can provide 5 000 additional hospital beds, representing an increase of 18%, and operating theatres will also increase by 40% to 320. This is definitely a sound measure which is forward-looking. At the moment, the demand for accident and emergency (A&E) services at public hospitals is huge. With population ageing, the public's demand for A&E services will only increase. I believe this $200 billion can alleviate the pressure on public healthcare services. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7387

Yet, I also wish that the Government will not neglect the development of private healthcare services. The Government has all along observed the double-track development of public and private healthcare services. Nonetheless, it is evident that right now, there are only about 4 000 beds in private hospitals. The Government should strive to help private hospitals increase beds to divert those who are waiting for public healthcare services to private healthcare services so as to alleviate the pressure on public hospitals.

Moreover, I would like to talk about the voluntary health insurance scheme. Currently, the Government is still working on the details of the operation of the scheme and its technical aspect. I believe a consultation report will be released soon. I think the Government should raise the incentives for the public to join. For example, it should increase the tax deduction amount, study ways to encourage young and healthy people to join, in order to increase the appeal of the scheme. Meanwhile, I also earnestly hope that the Government can replace the enactment of legislation with market agreement to launch the scheme. In fact, the industry or the public looks forward to the early launching of the scheme, and market agreement is the best way to allow the public to benefit from the scheme as soon as possible. I wish that the Government can implement the relevant measures soon.

Finally, I would like to discuss the preparatory work for the Independent Insurance Authority (the Authority). At present, everything is ready for the Authority. Once the Legislative Council passes the Budget, the search for an office and recruitment can proceed. According to the Government's plan, 130 professionals will be recruited by the end of this year and the Authority will formally take over the statutory functions of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. After obtaining the funding approval by the Legislative Council, I wish that the Government will embark on recruitment soon. When the Legislative Council passed the Appropriation Bill 2015 last year, the Government made a lot of promises to the industry regarding the implementation details. I hope that after the Authority begins operation, the Government can honour its promises as soon as possible so that monitoring can start smoothly for the insurance industry to develop steadily under the new monitoring regime.

I so submit.

7388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, according to the findings announced by the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong, this year's instant survey gives Secretary John TSANG's budget a rating of 60.5 marks, which can be considered the one with the highest satisfaction rate among all his budgets delivered since he assumed office in 2008. This year's Budget will probably be approved by the general public as not much controversy is expected.

The measures of "handing out candies" proposed in this year's Budget amount to $38.8 billion. The middle-class people will enjoy more benefits from them than they did from those of the previous years. To a certain extent, this Budget has addressed part of the aspirations of the middle class. In the past, the practice of "giving out candies" gave us an impression that such "candies" would benefit the grassroots first and the aspirations of the middle class were ignored, with a view to winning more applause. Last year, the news about "a middle-class three-member family with a monthly income of $70,000 was struggling from pay cheque to pay cheque and only had $1,500 left after deducting all the monthly expenses" became the talk of the town. The news had the sympathy of many middle-class people. In fact, the middle class is shouldering a large part of the Government's income tax and has made a remarkable contribution to the income of the public coffers. Yet, they are not entitled to public housing and most social welfare benefits. Besides, they have to bear the rather hefty expenses on housing and supporting their parents and children. The stress they suffer from everyday life is by no means less than that of the grassroots. In this year's Budget, the allowances for married persons maintaining a dependent parent or grandparent were increased. The deduction ceiling for elderly residential care expenses for taxpayers whose parents or grandparents are admitted to residential care homes was raised. The rates reduction arrangement was streamlined. These measures give us the feeling that the Government shows concern for us by alleviating the financial pressure from our everyday life during times of economic downturns.

President, when viewed from a certain perspective, this year's Budget seems less generous in terms of the giveaways. But if we give it a serious thought, we will see that if the Government utilizes the resources properly and makes use of the recurrent expenses to help the grassroots who are in genuine need, it should have public support. In fact, the total expenses on education, social welfare and medical services over the past decade have increased by more than 80%. Among such expenses, those on education have increased by 70%, those on social welfare have doubled and those on medical and healthcare have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7389 increased by 80%. There is nothing wrong for the Government to introduce some one-off relief measures when we are financially sound. But we should understand that recurring welfare expenses can only be materialized with the support of recurrent income. I agree that the Government should maintain prudence in managing its finance. It should never put us into any kind of financial predicament which will place a heavier burden on our next generation simply for the sake of momentary applause.

President, the inbound tourism of Hong Kong is performing very poorly at present. The number of visitors has been declining since March last year. The decline has become more acute in the past six months and we cannot see any sign of recovery in the near future. Although tourism only accounts for 5% of our GDP and 270 000 people are employed in the trade, as shown in Government statistics, it is hard fact that tourism can give impetus to other industries such as retailing, catering, transportation, logistics and so on. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, Hong Kong's tourism generated a total of $494.3 billion direct and indirect revenues in 2014, which accounted for 22% of the local GDP. Tourism also gave directly and indirectly employment to 745 000 people, which accounted for 19.8% of the overall employment figure. According to Government statistics, retail sales contributed by tourists accounted for as high as 42% of local retail sales.

Exactly because tourism may help boost the local economy extensively, the ripple effect starts to surface following the decline in the number of visitors. Tourism-related businesses, such as retailing, catering, tourist attractions and hotels, have seen an obvious decline in their income. The income of people engaging in commission-based services has dwindled significantly and some people may even lose their jobs. Let us think about the following. As the income of many people and families has decreased, it will definitely affect local consumer confidence, thereby affecting all walks of life. Over the last two years, when uncivilized incidents aiming at visitors took place, I pointed out time and again that we should concern about the ripple effect caused by the decline in the number of visitors. However, those troublemakers just care about nothing but their own political interests and show no regard for the people's livelihood. Regrettably, my prediction has come true.

Against the severe situation faced by the local tourism industry, a highlight of the Budget is the allocation of $380 million extra resources in total for the tourism industry. They include $140 million on waiving the licence fees for 7390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 travel agents, restaurants, hotels and guesthouses for one year, and a total of $240 million to promote and re-package Hong Kong's tourism image. I wish to thank the Government for allocating extra funding for the tourism industry, and I consider it a pragmatic arrangement. Waving the licence fees for one year may not do much help to the business operators, but it shows the Government's care about the trade. The $10 million matching fund for travel agents to develop information technology system will do something concrete to help small and medium-sized travel agents. I welcome the measure.

President, with regards to revitalizing Hong Kong's tourism industry, I have some recommendations:

First, we need to make an attempt to restore Hong Kong's hospitable image. Hong Kong's tourism industry has been thriving for more than a decade since the introduction of the Individual Visit Scheme in 2003. Undeniably, we have reached the bottleneck at the present time. We have not planned adequately for tourism and therefore we lack new and fascinating tourist attractions. Other countries are opening up the tourist visa for Mainland tourists while the exchange rate of Hong Kong dollar is strengthening. Moreover, the introduction of duty concessions by various neighbouring countries to attract Mainland tourists has posed direct competition against Hong Kong. All these are the reasons for the slowdown in the number of arriving visitors. Nevertheless, why we see a decline in the number of visitors in just one year after enjoying a decade-long boom, or even a decline for several months in a row? We have to face the fact that some politicians have made an issue on the cultural difference between Mainland and Hong Kong by mounting a series of uncivilized attacks on Mainland visitors. This is the direct cause of the decline in the number of visitors. If we look back on the past three years, there was a flood of negative news about actions targeting Mainland visitors. There were twists and turns over that period, and many Members from the opposition camp even proposed the imposition of entry tax to curb the influx of Mainland visitors. At the time when the market had yet recovered, a riot broke out in Mong Kok on the night of the first day of this Chinese New Year. Many Mainlanders mistook the riot as an incident against them. Although the Chinese New Year period was supposed to be a high season for tourism, we saw a drastic decline by 26% in the number of Mainland visitors in February. We can see clearly that the response of the Mainlanders towards the negative atmosphere in Hong Kong has reached such a level that even a minor incident will get on their nerve.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7391

President, the recently announced 13th Five-Year Plan has mentioned China's pledge to support Hong Kong in consolidating and enhancing its status as a global financial, shipping and trading hub. However, unlike the practice of the previous years, no explicit support for Hong Kong's tourism industry has been mentioned. This signal is worth our reflection. In view of the occurrence of so many undesirable incidents in Hong Kong, the Central Government has to consider the sentiment of our compatriots in the Mainland. Hence it will definitely have hesitation in introducing supportive tourism policies which may benefit Hong Kong. The Financial Secretary pointed out in his Budget speech the heartfelt wishes of tourism practitioners: "a handful of people choosing to express their views and political demands using irrational and uncivilized tactics … these destructive acts … have also severely tarnished Hong Kong's reputation as a hospitality city internationally."

In fact, if we do not reverse this negative image, it will be difficult for the tourism industry to fully recover even if we pour in more resources. I beg politicians from the opposition camp not to make an issue of the Individual Visit Scheme and our Mainland compatriots anymore. Hong Kong's tourism industry cannot withstand more salt to be rubbed into the wound.

Second, the additional allocation should be put to good use. Last year, the Government spent $90 million to support the recovery of the tourism industry. Of this amount, $60 million were spent on overseas publicity and lottery campaigns during the summer holidays, but the effects were rather limited, as evidenced by the decrease of 6.4% in the number of visitors in the third quarter. On the contrary, another $20 million spent on promoting the "HAPPY@hongkong Super JETSO 2015" tourism campaign between May and June last year provided direct impetus for the hotel, retailing and catering industry. The market atmosphere was not bad. Between May and June, retail sales registered a 4% increase as compared with the same period in the previous year. It seems that more funding does not necessarily mean a better result. The key is whether the resources are put to their right use.

In this year's Budget, the allocation to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) has increased by more than $200 million. I hope the HKTB can put the additional allocation to good use by launching target-oriented promotions. Besides image publicity, incentives should be added on practical level, so that the actual benefit to visitors may fuel their desire to stay and spend in Hong Kong. For instance, it may explore the feasibility of providing free shuttle bus services for passengers transiting at the Hong Kong International Airport, so that they may 7392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 travel to Tung Chung or Disneyland and do some shopping. It may also provide regular shuttle bus and guided tour services at suitable tourist attractions such as Central, Wan Chai or the Peak, with a view to attracting tourist to stay longer for sight-seeing purposes. These measures do not cost too much, but they will win praises instantly, and they are more practical than image publicity. Last year, a $10 million matching fund was provided for partnership with other tourist attractions, and the measure achieved quite good results. Hopefully more partners from the airline industry, hotels and travel agencies will join the campaign this year for more collaboration with the trade to speed up the pace of recovery.

Third, medium and long-term tourism plans should be put in place. The current allocation for revitalization of the economy is just an interim measure to meet the pressing need. If we are to ensure the healthy and sustainable development of the tourism industry, we need to plan ahead and devise medium and long-term tourism plans. In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary proposes to launch short, medium and long-term measures. Strictly speaking, expanding the scale of major events, making new promotional videos and promoting our natural scenery and unique history and culture are specified by the Financial Secretary as medium-term measures. In fact these can only be considered as short-term measures. There are no specific projects as far as the medium-term measures are concerned. As to long-term measures, he mentioned projects such as a hotel in Ocean Park, Disneyland's new themed area based on Marvel's Iron Man franchise and a new hotel, and a project relating to the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. All these, however, are just expansion on the scale of existing projects, which cannot be considered as new projects.

Facing the difficult situation of the tourism industry, the Government has to take into consideration the medium and long-term development in its train of thought. It should take a look at the competition around us from a higher perspective and take stock of our tourism resources and competitive edge. Given that we do not have a dedicated Policy Bureau to manage tourism affairs, the Government may establish a cross-departmental body to formulate short, medium and long-term tourism plans. If the relevant policies can be implemented proactively in response to existing issues concerning tourism, we would be in a better position to compete with the competitors around us.

President, Hong Kong is an open economy with a simple tax regime. The source of income for public coffers has a rather narrow base. Hong Kong is susceptible to the impact of external factors. In times of economic downturns LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7393 and decline in tax revenues, fiscal deficits will emerge. In the wake of an ageing population, a decline in the number of taxpayers and a continuous increase in welfare expenses, structural deficits will pop up at any time. I support the Secretary's principle of financial prudence. In response to the ageing population, the Government announced last year the establishment of the Future Fund. It is mentioned in this year's Budget that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority will allocate $220 billion from the balance of the Land Fund, which is part of the fiscal reserves, as an initial endowment of the Future Fund, and it will inject one third of the fiscal surplus of this year into the Future Fund. This arrangement is really necessary.

As for the future, I hope the Government will give sufficient consideration to the possible risks that we will face and the ability of the entire society to tackle such risks when addressing the aspirations for increase in welfare expenses. We should never get Hong Kong inextricably bogged down in the mire of a welfare state.

With these remarks, President, I support the Budget.

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the Budget this year, I would like to discuss in particular several points related to people's livelihood.

In recent years, unscrupulous financial intermediaries (UFI) have continued to affect the rights and interests of the grassroots. I notice that relevant departments have expressed that they will deploy more resources to address the problem.

In the past year and a half, I have been following up cases in which people have inadvertently fallen into lending traps after being induced by the UFI. As of yesterday when I drafted this speech, there were 195 such cases but now, the number is close to 200 and the amount of money involved is as much as $360 million. Many victims of these cases eventually have to sell their properties to repay the debt as they have borne colossal intermediary fees for no reason.

Some people say that one has to pay back what is owed. I would like to tell Members that these UFI make the victims wrongly believe that they can offer help. As a result, the victims borrow from finance companies through them. 7394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

The victims may have only owed a very small sum in the first place, but as the intermediaries refer them to finance companies, they charge a handling fee, thus inflating the debt. I received a case yesterday in which the victim only owed $120,000 credit card spending to start with but ended up owing $2.1 million. The victim now has to sell the property to repay the debt. In another case, the victim was induced by the intermediary to borrow $1.5 million from a finance company but had to pay a handling fee of $1.5 million. In other words, the victim got not even a cent. This victim finally committed suicide. He used his own death as an accusation against the intermediary concerned.

There have been cases lately in which the victims are induced to change the joint tenancy of jointly owned property into Deed of Severance as loan collateral. When the victim cannot repay the debt, the finance company can recover half the ownership of the property through legal procedures. In recent months, as a result of large-scale law-enforcement operations by the Police, the UFI have changed their modus operandi. They no longer receive walk-in customers. Instead, they resort to telemarketing and the amount involved in each case exceeds seven digits, that is, over $1 million. We can thus see that the problem is becoming increasingly serious. Of course, I am grateful to the Police for their numerous large-scale arrests conducted over the past six months. Their actions have served as a deterrent.

This Monday, the Government announced a series of measures to crack down on these companies. I welcome the Government's acceptance of some policy proposals of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), especially the allocation of more resources to enhance public education and publicity, and co-operation with social services institutions to strengthen the existing hotline service. In addition, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau will also receive several million dollars in funding for publicity education. That said, Financial Secretary, these measures are still insufficient. I said just now that the cases I handled involved more than $300 million. In comparison, the resources made available by the Government are dwarfed. Therefore, we hope that the Government can continue to increase resources, raise the people's awareness so that these companies can no longer induce them.

On regulation, I think what the Government is proposing are all short- and medium-term measures which fail to strike at the root of the problem. These measures will not change the existing reality that the financial intermediaries are in a state of "anarchy". The Government proposes to tighten the licensing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7395 conditions for money lender's licences so that there will be a clearer relationship between money lenders and financial intermediaries. Yet, the criminals actually can easily find another way to dodge the new regulatory measures. As I have handled a lot of such cases, I can imagine what those financial intermediaries will do to evade their responsibility.

Financial Secretary, since the authorities intend to establish a register of financial intermediaries, why do they have to go for indirect regulation through money lenders instead of formally providing for the licensing of financial intermediaries? In fact, some legitimate financial intermediaries on the market have expressed their willingness to apply for a licence.

Furthermore, as the present licensing requirements are lenient, even though many illegal money lenders have their licences revoked because of collusion with the UFI, they can apply for their licences again very soon. The Government should be aware that it is very easy to apply for a money lender's licence. In 2011, there were only a few hundred money lenders over the territory but now, the number has doubled to over 1 000. The money lending business is like a piece of juicy pork, many people are interested in it. Thus, it is all the more necessary for the Government to regulate the licensing system for money lenders. We consider that the existing measures fall short of protecting the rights and interests of consumers.

We wish that the Financial Secretary can consider raising the licensing threshold for money lenders. For example, the Government can provide for a minimum registered capital. In the long run, the authorities should review the development of financial intermediaries. In addition, I also hope that the Government can allocate more resources to provide debt-management counselling service to the public to raise their awareness.

The Government intends to implement these proposed measures in six months. I wish that apart from testing these short- and medium-term measures, the Government will also consider launching a public consultation within these six months on how to regulate financial intermediaries in the future and a review of the Money Lenders Ordinance. Otherwise, these vampire-like intermediaries will continue to exist and there is no way we can combat them.

I now want to discuss market planning. In recent years, the Link Asset Management Limited (the Link) has been constantly carrying out renovation works for its markets. During renovation, all markets can only provide limited 7396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 service and residents are greatly affected. Take the Yat Tung Estate Market in Tung Chung as an example. The so-called renovation works will take place in May 2016 during which only a few stalls will remain open for business. This can hardly cope with the needs of more than 40 000 residents of Yat Tung Estate. Residents may then have to take a 15-minute bus ride to the nearby market to buy their food. Not only do they have to spend more time, but also more transport fees.

Let us cite another example. After the renovation works, the Tin Yiu Market in Tin Shui Wai will be "disappeared" and residents will have to walk to the Tin Shing Market in the future to buy their food. The kaifongs have reflected that this is highly inconvenient. After the renovation works, although the market will have a more appealing appearance and a cleaner floor, a rental increase will ensue. The rental cost will eventually be transferred to the kaifongs and some stalls may even be forced to go. The residents can but fork out more for their food.

Actually, the Food and Health Bureau has stopped the construction of public markets since 2009. This decision stemmed from the policy review the Bureau conducted in 2007 and the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) which was revised in April 2009. After halting the construction of public markets, the people have less choices. This in a way has fuelled the monopoly of the Link markets. Therefore, the Government can be said to be lending a helping hand by halting the construction of public markets as this enables the Link to do as it pleases.

Since no new public markets have been completed since 2009, almost all new towns developed after 2009, for example, Tung Chung, Ma On Shan and Tseung Kwan O, do not have public markets managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). All they have are the Link markets or private markets. Take Tin Shui Wai as an example. Government documents show that among the six markets in the district, five are under the Link. More importantly, every time the Link renews the tenancies, there will be a sharp rent increase of over 10% on average. Some stall owners even have their rentals increased by 70%. This is tantamount to asking them to move out. Small shop owners who cannot afford the exorbitant rent can only wind up their business, and shops operated by big groups replace them. As the rentals are high, commodity prices will also be higher. Under this vicious cycle, the burden of the ordinary people gets heavier.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7397

As the Link is a listed company, the Government can do nothing to it. However, the Government is accountable to the people. At present, apart from the market issue, the problem of insufficient parking lots is also becoming increasingly serious and is causing public discontent in every district. We have on different occasions proposed that the Government resume the construction of public markets or bazaars but the Government keeps saying that this is not possible. The Government always says that there are fresh provision shops in many places or close to the public markets. Yet, they are in fact only supermarkets operated by groups which sell goods at higher prices. They are beyond the reach of the grassroots.

So, we hope that the Government can do two things. The first is to review the HKPSG. In April 2009, the Government scrapped the standard of having 40 to 45 public market stalls for every 10 000 persons, prompting the Planning Department or the FEHD to halt the construction of public markets. We consider it necessary to review this standard. Moreover, under the existing HKPSG, public markets are included as retail facilities rather than community facilities. Public markets are actually a kind of community facility since they are not only places for the people to shop, but are also used for other community purposes.

Second, in the planning for some new development areas like Yuen Long South, Hung Shui Kiu or Tung Chung, we notice that no land has been set aside for the construction of public markets. As there is now a lack of matching policies, the Planning Department will not consider constructing public markets. I wish that the Financial Secretary can set things right. Land should be set aside in some new development areas for the construction of large-scale public markets. The Government should not be an accomplice of the Link to exploit the people.

Now, I will turn to talk about the more complicated problem of healthcare. A few weeks before the delivery of the Budget, sources said that the Government would cut medical expenditure this year. The people reacted strongly because it was then the peak of the winter influenza season. Waiting time at the accident and emergency departments of public hospitals was exceptionally long, the occupancy rate of medical beds was also very high and the situation at public hospitals was overwhelming. Many people are much discontented because while the Government is saying that infrastructure projects will be carried out, it is cutting medical expenditure. However, if we are to criticize the Government for emphasizing infrastructure construction and neglecting medical services, or if 7398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 we even want to attribute the overwhelming situation in public hospitals to a cut in medical expenditure by the Government, we should pay attention to whether this is true or not, and the causal relationship between the two.

In fact, the so-called cut in medical expenditure only refers to a revised estimate for the recurrent expenditure of the Hospital Authority (HA) which is lower than last year. The difference is around $12 million. Is this tantamount to a cut in medical expenditure by the Government? The answer is "No". If we look at the information of the HA, it has a surplus of $1.37 billion and assets of $13.8 billion. Right now, we have to address a manpower problem and not a funding problem. Therefore, it is wrong if we simply say that a cut in medical expenditure by the Government will make it difficult for the people to wait for consultation at the HA. This is only helping the HA to divert attention. We should know that the HA right now is only suffering a manpower shortage. Since it has a huge amount of funds, the HA should think of ways to retain talents to solve its manpower problem so that there will not be insufficient doctors. We hope that the Government would review the HA's operation to ensure that resources are put to appropriate uses. Moreover, I also urge the Government to respond seriously to the various livelihood issues.

I so submit. Thank you.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is announced in the Budget this year that the Reverse Mortgage Programme (the Programme), commonly known as "reverse mortgage", will be extended to subsidized housing. Besides, the Government will also issue for the first time a new type of bond for the elderly called Silver Bond, which is similar to iBond. Both meant for elderly people owning some assets, these two measures are rare examples of government initiatives targeting on middle-class elderly people in recent years. It is good that the Government now tries to provide different means to different categories of elderly retirees for increasing the values of their assets and assisting them in making better preparation for their old age.

According to the statistics of the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited (HKMC) and the Land Registry, the number of reverse mortgage applications approved by banks surged by 54% last year, reaching 248. In the first two months of this year, 52 applications were recorded, accounting for 21% of the total number of cases last year. This shows that the Programme has gradually won the acceptance of elderly people. Therefore, the Government has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7399 announced the extension of the Programme to subsidized housing units, including Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) units with premium not yet paid and the subsidized sale flats of the Hong Kong Housing Society. I believe this measure can attract more elderly people. After taking out a reverse mortgage plan, an elderly person can immediately receive payments to him as living expenses. Reverse mortgage seems to be more practical than the provision of retirement protection, which has yet to materialize.

The new Silver Bond is featured by a guaranteed return rate of 2%, which is even more attractive than the return rates of ordinary inflation-linked bonds. The only difference between Silver bond and iBond is the age limit. I believe the public will not find the proposal unfamiliar. However, having discussed with some elderly people at the district level, I know that they have some opinions about Silver Bond.

Firstly, an elderly person needs to open an investment account before he can buy these bonds. I think that many of those elderly people who are eligible will not have an investment account unless they are very experienced in investment or very rich. Secondly, based on the past experience of iBond subscription, successful applicants were mostly allocated just one to two units of bond. The annual interest payment will be minimal, so the bond is hardly attractive. Elderly people all say that buying shares to earn dividend is much better as there is no subscription limit and trading can be done at any time.

Therefore, the Government should introduce flexibility to the design of Silver Bond and make careful planning. All details, such as opening an investment bank account, the transfer of bonds in the secondary market and the subscription limit for each elderly person, must suit the habits and needs of elderly people lest this good policy and the Government's respect for the elderly may fail to achieve the desired result.

We also note that in the Budget, the Government proposes to invest huge resources in taking forward various elderly care policies. In addition to the allocation of $7.4 billion for the provision of subsidized residential care services this financial year, another $2.2 billion will be spent on developing community care services. We believe this will help shorten the waiting time for elderly residential care places or care services. I strongly support this kind of development. However, while seeking to develop all these services, the authorities seem to have overlooked the quality of service providers and also the possibility of oversight and loopholes in the regulatory mechanism. 7400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Even though the Social Welfare Department (SWD) claims that a well-established system for monitoring residential care homes is already in place, elderly abuse by staff of institutions is still heard from time to time. Last year, the exposure of the elderly abuse case in Cambridge Nursing Home in Tai Po aroused grave social concern about the regulation of elderly homes. Almost a year has since passed but the SWD has made no significant progress in the regulatory and inspection system for institutions. With our ageing population, we do worry that more and more elderly people at residential care homes may be subjected to inhuman treatment.

In addition to allocating resources for increasing residential care places, the authorities should also increase funding for staff expansion in the SWD or relevant departments, so that they can deal with complaints about residential care homes and carry out inspections in response to suspected irregularities much more quickly. In the short- and medium-run, the regulatory mechanism for residential care homes should be reviewed, and the studies should cover a penalty points system and licence revocation for residential care homes involved in repeated violations, with a view to enhancing the quality of services at residential care homes and enabling the elderly to enjoy a really happy old age.

President, the Financial Secretary put forward the Premium Loan Guarantee Scheme in the Budget last year. At that time, I agreed that the Financial Secretary was well-intentioned, but I also expressed the worry that the response might not be satisfactory. One year has since passed, and we can observe that people's responses are not enthusiastic. There has been no significant increase in the number of HOS flats released for rental. As an alternative to helping HOS flat owners pay their premium, I proposed last year that the Programme should be extended to elderly HOS flat owners, so that elderly persons could depend on their housing units as a means of livelihood or at least get some living expenses. Generally speaking, an elderly HOS flat owner cannot get any income under the Premium Loan Guarantee Scheme. It is true that they can get some money if they sell or let their housing units after premium payment, but in that case, they will have no place to live in. Therefore, the Programme is the only means through which elderly people can receive some income while still being able to live in their own units and familiar neighbourhoods.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7401

I am delighted that a year later, the Secretary has accepted the proposal of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. He proposes in paragraph 136 of the Budget to extend the Programme of the HKMC to subsidized sale flats with premium not yet paid. Here, I also hope that the Financial Secretary or the HKMC can extend the scope of the Programme still further to the buildings developed under the Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Society Scheme (CBS buildings). Such buildings are not subsidized sale flats, but like HOS flat owners, owners of CBS buildings are also bound by the payment of land premium before they can freely sell, rent or mortgage their flats. I hope the Financial Secretary can consider this.

As usual, the Budget does not contain many housing proposals. In the past, I already raised two points. This year, I will still raise them.

The first point is about identifying suitable land. Housing is the most important of all important policies. The root of the housing problem is housing supply and the bottleneck of housing supply is the availability of land instead of money. The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) may have a funding gap in the future, but the Secretary already injected more than $74 billion into the account of the Housing Reserve in the last two years. Assuming that the construction costs of a public rental housing flat is $1 million, the fund saved in the past two years is enough to build 74 000 units. However, I am afraid that the HA may not be able to provide these 74 000 units until three or four years later because it only has the money but not any land.

When the Transport and Housing Bureau announced the Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) at the end of 2014, it said that it had managed to secure land for building 250 000 public housing units out of the total of 290 000 units. In other words, the land for the remaining 40 000 units is still unavailable. When the Transport and Housing Bureau announced the Review on LTHS in January 2016, it adjusted the 10-year target of public housing construction downwards from 290 000 units to 280 000 units. But the actual available land remains just adequate to build 250 000 flats, similar to the estimate made at the end of 2014. The Government has been trying to identify land for a whole year, yet no progress is seen. Therefore, I urge the Financial Secretary, as Chairman of the Steering Committee on Land Supply, to do something more than just saving money for the HA. Finding land for the HA is the most important thing to do. Otherwise, having money but no available land would only constitute waste of reserves in the end.

7402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Secondly, I would like to talk about the public housing rent waiver once again. Upholding the long years of tradition, the Budget this years continues to put forward relief measures and hand out "sweeteners". Yet, this time, no rent waiver for grass-roots public housing tenants is proposed. I am very disappointed at this.

According to past data, paying one month's rent for public housing tenants only involved an expenditure of about $1 billion, which is far smaller than any financial relief measures proposed this year. It seems that $1 billion is not a small amount, but in fact it is only 9% of the surplus of $11 billion forecasted for the coming year, and just a drop in the bucket when compared with the huge fiscal reserves. Since the Budget proposes to "help citizens cope with the current financial pressure", how come the authorities should ignore the difficulties faced by over 700 000 public housing households?

I note that the Secretary also says that the annual rates concession also applies to public housing households. I find it hard to accept his remarks. First of all, rates represent only a small percentage of public housing rent, just about 5% of the monthly rental, or just half a month's rental. On average, the annual amount of rates concession received by each household is less than $900. Compared to owners of private housing, the refund on rates can be as high as $4,000. Is this too mean to the grass-roots public housing tenants?

Secondly, as we all know, the grassroots are most vulnerable to any economic downturn, and public housing tenants are typical grassroots. Since the Government also provides an extra allowance to social security recipients, why doesn't it also provide assistance to grass-roots public housing tenants in the form of rent waiver? If social resources are very tight and the Government must thus make a difficult choice between public housing tenants and the "N have-nots", that's another story. Well, the Government now has huge surpluses and fiscal reserves. Therefore, no one should be made to suffer any unnecessary hardship. So, I do not approve of the Government's indifference to the financial pressure felt by public housing households and its reluctance to relieve their financial difficulties in the face of growing downside risks of our economy.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7403

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, the result of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong indicates that the Budget for 2016-2017 is one of the most popular ones among the nine Budgets published by the Financial Secretary since he took office. It is a stark contrast to the Policy Address published by the Chief Executive in January, which attracted endless criticisms in society. I can still recall the criticisms made in my speech on the Motion of Thanks on the Policy Address against the Chief Executive's failure to find the cause of the conflicts and divisions in society. However, the Financial Secretary has spent considerable length in the Introduction and Concluding Remarks of the Budget to express his views and feelings on the prevailing conflicts and divisions in society. Such views and feelings are not anything earth-shattering, yet they have successfully aroused sympathy among the people. I believe these are the reasons behind the people's recognition of this year's Budget by the Financial Secretary, which actually tries to put old wine in new bottles.

I have no objection to the Financial Secretary's expression of his opinions on the state of affairs in Hong Kong. I even consider his analyses mostly fair and able to see the crux of the problem. However, the Budget is a budget after all, and the focus should rest on financial policies and measures instead of other areas. After delivering the Budget, the Financial Secretary admitted that it lacked novelty. I do not approve of the Financial Secretary's fiscal management all along, so I do not think this is a good Budget.

As to public finance, the Secretary emphasizes on the one hand the need to adhere to fiscal prudence and the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues. On the other hand, he sets aside the investment returns of $45 billion in 2015 as an injection into the Housing Reserve and injects one third, that is, around $10 billion, of the surplus this year into the Future Fund. The aggregate amount of these two funds is $55 billion, which is not a small figure. The Secretary explains in the Budget that we have to set aside reserves for the long-term needs of Hong Kong and invest into the future. On the surface, it is acceptable for him to do so.

At the end of last year, the Government consulted the public on future retirement arrangement. In fact, this is also investment in the future to prepare for Hong Kong's long-term needs. The consultation documents emphasized that retirement protection arrangement had to refrain from creating a heavy burden on 7404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 the next generation, and the so-called "Regardless of the Rich or the Poor" option would inevitably lead to tax increases or introduction of new taxes. From this, we can see the Government's view about the future. Its policy measures are premised on the belief that we should not impose additional burden to society in the future. Meanwhile, the Government considers that it should save an enormous amount of fiscal reserve for future social development. This is the so-called policy of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues, which has been stressed by the Secretary all along.

However, Hong Kong's achievement today is the result of the efforts made by people of previous generations. I consider that it is nothing wrong for society to have aspirations for the Government to deploy more resources from its abundant fiscal reserves to improve the livelihood of the grassroots. In doing so, tenants of sub-divided-units can be allocated public housing expeditiously, the elderly people can be covered by retirement protection and patients can receive timely treatment. However, if we sacrifice the rights of generations of people who have contributed so much to Hong Kong in order to set aside considerable resources for the future, is it fair to these people?

In the Budget speech, the Secretary highlighted the Government's continuous deployment of resources to improve people's livelihood. The estimated recurrent expenditures on education, healthcare services and social welfare have reached $198 billion, accounting for 60% of the Government's recurrent expenditure and representing an increase of over 80% from a decade ago. However, one cannot rely solely on the figure of net increase to determine whether the increase is enough or reasonable. Hong Kong's fiscal reserves amounted to only $300.8 billion 10 years ago, which was equivalent to 16 months of Government expenditure. At present, the amount stands at $860 billion, or 24 months of Government expenditure. Over the past 10 years, the recurrent expenditure on the three major areas of people's livelihood has increased by more than 80% in total, yet the Government's fiscal reserves have tripled. This shows whether the Secretary's policy on livelihood is generous or stingy. The figures speak all indeed.

It is alright to set aside more funds for fiscal reserves if our education, healthcare and welfare services have reached the level of our economic development, but this is not the case in Hong Kong. In fact, services in all these three areas have huge room for improvement. Let us take healthcare services as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7405 an example. The Secretary said that health expenditures have reached $57 billion in 2016-2017, which is an increase of over 90% from 10 years ago, but what is the real situation? In respect of accident and emergency (A&E) service, for example, around 25% of patients classified as Category 3 (Urgent) cases had to wait for more than 30 minutes to receive A&E service in 2006-2007. In 2014-2015, almost 30% of the patients in this category had to wait for the same length of time.

A comparison of the waiting time for specialist services between 2006-2007 and 2015-2016 shows that the New Territories East Cluster has recorded the biggest improvement in the waiting time for surgery. The longest waiting time for surgery routine cases reduced from 178 weeks, or more than three years, in 2006-2007 to 68 weeks, or more than one year, in 2015-2016. This is the most notable improvement in waiting time among all the clusters. However, it is far from ideal to require a patient to wait for more than one year before he can receive routine surgery treatment. Meanwhile, the waiting time for certain specialist services has even increased. For example, the longest waiting time in the Hong Kong West Cluster for Gynaecology routine cases was 56 weeks in 2006-2007, but the figure increased to 158 weeks in 2015-2016.

Secretary, when reading these figures, and in comparison with the Government's fiscal reserves and the variety of earmarked resources, should we still be satisfied with the 90% increase in recurrent health expenditure over the last 10 years? Or should we feel ashamed? Should we slow down the growth in fiscal reserves and spend more on health services instead? Should we give up the idea of setting up the Future Fund and start improving the prevailing situation in society first?

About education, I am glad that the Budget has proposed a series of measures, such as the enhancement in professional training. The Secretary said that the Government has all along been committed to training and nurturing professionals to meet our needs. In reality, however, there is a serious mismatch of talent training in Hong Kong, and the associate degree system suffers the most. The system has been established with an aim to improve the overall quality of the population, but it focuses too much on dovetailing with expensive university education while vocational training is left in the cold. As a result, the system churns out a large number of graduates who have fallen between two stools. They lack the qualification for posts of higher ranks but they are overqualified for 7406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 low-end jobs. Worse still, they are heavily burdened because they have to repay their tuition fees after graduation. Proposals in the Budget mostly benefit on-the-job training. For example, tuition fee subsidy will be granted to students admitted to designated professional part-time programmes offered by the Vocational Training Council and subsidy will be provided to practitioners in the retail industry, and so on. However, I believe that if we are to nurture professionals that truly meet our needs, we cannot avoid revising the associate degree system. We have to re-establish vocational training as a major path for the youth to acquire the skills required for their development in society.

Regarding the tourism industry, which is undergoing adjustments, the Secretary proposes three short-term measures to support travel agents, hotels, guesthouses, restaurants and hawkers. Yet he has omitted the transport operators serving the tourism industry who are also affected by the adjustments in tourism. I hope the Secretary can reconsider incorporating such operators into the scope of these short-term measures.

President, I do not intent to comment too much on the Financial Secretary's one-off exemptions to "hand out candies". These measures simply repackage old ones. In comparison to "handing out candies" year after year, systemic reform is much more effective in narrowing the wealth gap in society. However, the Secretary still tries to defend the so-called enhanced Supplementary Labour Scheme in his Budget speech, claiming that, regarding "the local economy … the outlook is far from promising. We need to take timely and appropriate measures to stimulate the economy, support local enterprises and safeguard employment." Nonetheless, the labour sector will adamantly oppose any proposal to expand labour importation, which runs counter to the protection of people's employment.

Finally, I strongly hope that the issuance of Silver Bond as proposed in the Budget will be successful, and that the SAR Government can take this as a first step to shoulder further responsibilities for retirement protection to employees in Hong Kong. President, I so submit.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of resuming the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill 2016.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7407

This is the ninth budget delivered by the Financial Secretary. These nine budgets cover a span of nearly 10 years, and we have experienced the ups and downs of the global economic cycle. In the interim, Hong Kong has faced many challenges and opportunities. For example, when the Financial Secretary assumed office in 2007, the Hong Kong economy was driven by a huge momentum, and consumption and the investment confidence of businesses remained high. But who could have imagined that Hong Kong was plunged into a global financial crisis in 2008 triggered by the subprime mortgage problem in the United States.

Fortunately enough, owing to the relatively speedy recovery of the Mainland economy and the implementation of quantitative easing in Europe and the United Stated, the economic impacts could be alleviated, and the Hong Kong economy could fully recover in less than two years. While the Hong Kong economy faces downside risks later on, it has benefited from the development momentum of China's economy, and such momentum has supported Hong Kong's economic growth. During this period, the Financial Secretary has gained much experience. But, as rightly pointed out by the Financial Secretary in the Budget, "[t]he local economy is laden with risks in the year ahead; the outlook is far from promising." Besides, some people from the business sector have projected that the economy this year will be worse than that in 2003. When this is coupled with all sorts of projections on the outlook for the Hong Kong economy in the year ahead, we can hardly stay optimistic, honestly.

At this juncture, let us put aside the question of whether their projections will come true. But if we look at some actual statistics and actions, we can see that the Hong Kong economy is honestly plagued by domestic and external problems at present. In the case of domestic problems, the value of retail sales, for example, shrank by over 20% in February, at its worst since 1999. And, speaking of external problems, a credit-rating agency lowered the outlook on Hong Kong's rating to negative. I have not even talked about the series of unfavourable news, including the decline of over 13% in the total visitor arrivals in the first two months of this year, and Hong Kong's dropping out of the top three as a global financial centre as recently announced. For these reasons, I hope the Financial Secretary can draw on his experience accumulated over all these years and make timely efforts, so as to avoid any severe blow to the Hong Kong economy and map out a suitable development direction for the economic way forward.

7408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Due to time constraint, I will only talk about two issues in the following part of my speech. The first issue is about measures for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Just like the budgets in the past years, the Budget this year continues to "hand out candies" as a means of boosting the economy, while also proposing appropriate defence measures for those local enterprises which have begun to feel the impact of economic chills and ordinary people. In the case of support measures for SMEs, for example, the Budget introduces a Pilot Technology Voucher Programme (the Pilot Programme) for the first time ever to encourage SMEs to upgrade their levels of applied technology for the purposes of increasing productivity, and also upgrading and transformation. Compared to the budget last year, which emphasized the use of technologies in the retail sector, the Budget this year is more comprehensive and detailed. It deserves our support.

When viewed against the over $10 billion fiscal expenditure, the $500 million under the Pilot Programme is apparently a small sum. But the successful implementation of this policy can link up the various segments, such as SMEs, innovative enterprises, consumers and the general public. Not only this, it can also inject new impetus into Hong Kong's economic growth. If we look around the world, we can see that places including Britain, Australia, Singapore and Shenzhen have gained some successful experience in implementing such technology vouchers. This shows that the technology voucher is undoubtedly the biggest present given by the Financial Secretary to SMEs.

Nevertheless, the technology voucher will be launched under the Innovation and Technology Fund. I think the Government should streamline the vetting and approval process, and seek to prevent any abuse of our public money. In the vetting and approval conditions, the Government may specify a hardware-to-software ratio for enterprises, and also the priority use of those services and proposals offered by local innovation and technology enterprises, so as to prevent a software-hardware imbalance in subsidized enterprises and foster the interests of local SMEs. In addition, the Government should set up a platform for gauging the views of the industry. And, the Policy Bureaux involved should likewise maintain communication with other Policy Bureaux and discuss ways to prevent enterprises from falling into the grey areas in law while assisting them in developing innovation and technology. Most importantly, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7409 application scope of the Pilot Programme should be expanded as much as possible. I sincerely hope that the Pilot Programme can enhance the competitiveness of SMEs.

This year, the Financial Secretary further extends the Special Concessionary Measures under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme (the Scheme). But at present, the Scheme is plagued by many hidden problems. The Government should be aware that those SMEs which apply for the Scheme all face liquidity difficulties. If they have adequate financial strength or are able to produce any proof of property or asset ownership, they can already obtain financing from banks or lending institutions without having to seek government guarantee. But The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited (HKMC) has rejected their loan applications due to their cash flow problems and shut the door on those SMEs in genuine need of government-guaranteed loans.

As far as my understanding goes, various banks adopt their own standards and stringent criteria in vetting and approving loan applications. Most banks require applicants to produce financial statements showing profits over the past three consecutive years. Some banks even require applicants to submit proof of property ownership as security. So, many applications are already rejected in the vetting process, and this has de facto tightened the approval of loans for SMEs. The HKMC adopts stringent criteria and requires a long time to process net default claims from banks or lending institutions. It very often makes things difficult for banks or lending institutions on the pretext that they have not submitted sufficient documentary proof. As a result, many banks refuse to grant any loans.

The reason why banks have tightened their approval of applications may be ascribed to their difficulties in obtaining compensation under the Scheme. According to the statistics provided by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, totally 493 net default claims from banks were received during the period from the launching of the Special Concessionary measures to late February this year. In the end, the HKMC merely approved 15.2% of the total, or 75 claims, and the compensation approved merely amounted to $140 million, or 12.7% of the total amount under those net default claims. This shows that banks stand a slim chance of obtaining any compensation in their net default claims. Worse still, the processing of such claims is time-consuming, 7410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 and almost one year is required on average. The Government, lending institutions and the HKMC must enhance communication and forge a consensus as soon as possible on relaxing the application and claim restrictions under the Scheme, so as to practically resolve the dire needs of SMEs.

The second issue is about financial technology (Fintech). President, I have always urged the Government to promote the development of Fintech and formulate an appropriate regulatory regime with regard to its development, so as to protect the rights and interests of users, and to create the conditions for the use of Fintech to bring forth innovative modes of commercial operation. The Budget this year has devoted much treatment to Fintech. In my view, the measures can address the problems and show that the Government is determined to move in the new direction of developing Hong Kong into a Fintech hub, and is also responsive to this demand.

As an international financial centre, Hong Kong honestly possesses many strengths and conditions for developing Fintech. Sadly, we lag far behind other places in areas such as Fintech innovation, application, regulation and legislation in recent years. At present, we are still at the beginning where the industry and the relevant regulatory bodies are jointly identifying a development direction. Most ironically, while the five categories of recommendations put forth in the Report of the Steering Group on Financial Technologies echo with the proposals in the Budget, the Secretary once said publicly that since a revamp of the legal frameworks for peer-to-peer (P2P) lending and equity crowdfunding would require a prolonged process, he was inclined to introduce minor repairs to the existing legislation only. He went on to say that he was not aware of any demand for P2P lending in the market, so legislative amendment for this purpose was unnecessary, adding that P2P lending and equity crowdfunding were only suitable for professional investors. By saying this, he actually wanted to shut the door on retail investors. His conclusive remarks seem to fall short of the rationale and broad direction of promoting innovation put forth in the report and the Budget.

The recent years have seen the rapid development of Fintech. And its development in many areas such as payment, financing, investment, financial management and also risk management has been noticeably fast. In 2014, the amount of global investment in Fintech soared up to over US$12 billion. A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7411 report has even projected that such investment will amount to over US$46 billion by 2020, and this will present huge opportunities for development. However, according to a study report on Fintech published by Ernst & Young, Hong Kong ranked last among seven major markets including New York, London, and Singapore. Besides, as indicated by the report "Fintech 100" published by KPMG in last December, seven and 15 companies from New York and London respectively were able to get on the list. But again, no Hong Kong company could get on the list. Hong Kong actually has huge potential to develop abreast of New York and London as a leading Fintech centre. But due to the failure of our legislation to catch up with the emerging innovative modes of commercial operation, our development of P2P lending and equity crowdfunding has lagged behind other cities all along, and the development of Fintech in Hong Kong has proceeded at a snail's pace.

Since the existing Fintech regime and the underlying rationale are founded on conventional financial activities to a certain extent, and also because many new participants are not those conventional financial institutions, the established market ecology will undergo revolutionary changes whenever the application of a new technology gains popularity. And such changes will inevitably affect and challenge the established system and people with vested interests, thus giving rise to conflicts. At the same time, the regulatory regime is unable to meet new needs.

According to a survey conducted by the Silicon Valley Bank in the United States late last year, most Fintech start-ups invariably regarded statutory regulation as the primary obstacle to their development. They were concerned about the possibility of greater legal risks in the course of business if regulatory bodies failed to keep pace with the innovative modes of commercial operation. The report "Hong Kong has potential to develop into a Fintech centre" issued by the Bank of China this January likewise asserted that improving laws and regulations was an urgent task in the development of Fintech in Hong Kong. Coincidentally, the Government Office for Science in Britain also published a report and emphasized that statutory regulation should be up to speed of technological development, so as to achieve a balance between protecting consumers' rights and interests and encouraging innovation. Various research findings have shown that if a financial system fails to progress abreast of the times, many constraints may result. And, this is precisely a reason why Hong Kong has lagged behind in Fintech.

7412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Actually, some advanced economies, such as the United States, the European Union, Singapore and Japan, have already introduced legislative amendments one after another based on the development of Fintech. For instance, the United States, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea have enacted legislation to relax the restrictions on general investors who want to invest in start-ups and only imposed an investment ceiling. In contrast, Hong Kong has only enacted one piece of Fintech-related legislation ― the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance ― and this ordinance merely came into force less than four months ago. Speaking of emerging funding approaches such as equity crowdfunding and P2P lending, the relevant lending platforms must be operated by licensed money lenders in Hong Kong. The Budget or the Policy Address has not dealt with the failure of our regulations to keep up with the development.

In my view, the previous scams (including Ezubao) in other regions have undoubtedly shattered the confidence of the Government and people in Fintech products and hindered the popular use of such products and services. With the rapid development of Fintech, the Government must not adopt the attitude of "trimming the toes to fit the shoes" if it really wants to develop Fintech in Hong Kong. The Government is duty-bound to remove the straightjackets in our legislation where appropriate, clarify statutory requirements, and reduce the uncertainties for law-abiding businesses. At the same time, the regulatory bodies should be open-minded and set appropriate restrictions on risk bearing for investors, in a bid to strike a reasonable balance between market stability, the protection of consumers' interests, and also the room for innovation. Afterwards, the authorities should enable the progressive and healthy development of Fintech on this very basis. In the case of equity crowdfunding, the Government may consider the introduction of regulatory measures and the setting up of a licensing regime as a platform for regulation. Otherwise, the development of Fintech will turn into empty talks, and the room for its development will be stifled. All this is pivotal to reinforcing the position of Hong Kong as an international financial centre.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7413

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, Financial Secretary, good morning. President, as the weather is not fine this morning, we have also become rather sentimental. That naturally reminds me of the inevitable ups and downs in the process of one's career development. The President and the Financial Secretary are no exceptions.

The Financial Secretary has been working for the Government for his whole life. During his office as the Financial Secretary in these nine years, his career has experienced drastic ups and downs. As far as I can remember, Mr Donald TSANG instructed the Financial Secretary in 2011 to hand out $6,000 to each permanent resident in Hong Kong in order to win favour from the residents of the territory. However, things did not turn out as they expected. At the same time when the Government was handing out money, it was being criticized. Of course, we only knew afterwards that the Financial Secretary was not performing the duty of his own accord when giving out money. Nevertheless, because of this scheme, the net approval rate of the Financial Secretary dropped to the lowest at negative 15 percentage points by then. Just like Mr Eddie NG at present, he was in low spirits at that time and always kept his head down. As I recall, many people who were not optimistic about the Financial Secretary's prospect said that his career had already come to a dead end, and that he should retire together with Donald TSANG and spend his time on fencing and Tai Chi instead. Surprisingly, LEUNG Chun-ying valued his talents. When LEUNG assumed office, he was retained in the important post of Financial Secretary so that could keep on serving Hong Kong. I thank the Financial Secretary for serving Hong Kong continuously.

President, this "LEUNG and TSANG" team works very well, and they have a head start. From this combination, we see a new scene, new breakthrough, new milestone and new development in the career of the Financial Secretary. Why do I say so? Facts speak louder than words, and the results are discernible. In these few years, the political development of the Financial Secretary has been running smoothly as he is getting more popular and well respected by the public. He is flushed with success. As indicated in the recent public opinion survey, the net approval rate of the Financial Secretary has reached a record high of positive 64 percentage points since he came into office. Of course, some people worry that the Financial Secretary's merits might overshadow the Chief Executive and he would feel insecure at the top. However, I believe that being someone grateful, the Financial Secretary will thank the Chief Executive for his recognition and support, which has helped the 7414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 former's career reach a new height. Having been assured of the second place, he may even reach the leading position. Besides, the Chief Executive always gives the Financial Secretary opportunities to demonstrate his ability. I believe that if the Financial Secretary were working for Donald TSANG, he would not have had such opportunities. According to my judgment, it is better for the Financial Secretary to work for LEUNG Chun-ying than to work under Donald TSANG.

President, this is the ninth Budget of the Financial Secretary. As pointed out by many colleagues, the Financial Secretary always overestimated expenditure and underestimated revenue, thereby making wrong estimations on the yearly surplus or deficit in the previous eight Budgets. In my assistant's calculation on my behalf, the difference between his estimations and the actual figures over the past years amounts to $450 billion. Judging from this figure, the Financial Secretary is really going too far. Therefore, the Budget is subject to dispute and criticism every year, and it can only be passed under the escort of the pro-establishment camp. Nonetheless, President, nothing will remain unchanged eternally. This year, various political parties, including the pan-democratic camp and the opposition camp, give positive response to the Budget of the Financial Secretary, which is under a red cover. Contrary to the usual practice and breaking away from conventions, they do not keep on hurling abuses at the Financial Secretary. I have heard that the Democratic Party will make an exception this time in supporting the Budget of the Financial Secretary. This should be congratulated indeed.

Yesterday, I heard Mrs Regina IP criticize the Financial Secretary. She said that his theory on the new economic order was neither fish nor fowl. She means that the fiscal knowledge of the Financial Secretary is insufficient. President, I am not an expert in finance. I do not want to be a smart-aleck and criticize the Financial Secretary and therefore I will not bother him in this aspect. To be honest, as a rational Member of the pro-establishment camp, I have read this Budget for five times. Strictly speaking, as far as the contents are concerned and from the perspective of handing out candies, this is a "three naughts" Budget: not innovative, not having any breakthrough and not surprising. It is just about average and mediocre and therefore it can only get a bare pass at the most but cannot be regarded as a good Budget.

Nevertheless, the Financial Secretary has a strength which cannot be found in other people. He knows how to take stock of the situation and seize the opportunities. Having noticed the public discontent towards this Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7415 and their distrust of the Chief Executive, the Financial Secretary has put a lot of his own political ideas and thoughts in this Budget. As a result, this Budget, which has been enriched with strong colours of an election manifesto of a Chief Executive, has touched the hearts of the general public throughout the territory, as well as those of the pan-democratic camp. As the saying goes, time makes the man.

President, in adopting this way and approach in delivering the Budget, it is very obvious that the Financial Secretary has intentions, motives and preparations. He aims to promote himself, show clearly his mind, his readiness to move and his hope to ascend higher. Financial Secretary, have I got a clear view of the picture? As expected, this approach was acceptable to the Democratic Party, which even practised "verbal manoeuvres" for him and supported him. It was not surprising that Mr TAM Yiu-chung, the big brother of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), reminded him publicly during a Panel meeting, "Financial Secretary, behind someone's commendation on you is his wish to create contradiction between you and the Chief Executive. He wants to sow dissension between you two." Financial Secretary, do you remember? You should have remembered. However, I think the Financial Secretary does not mind anyone sowing dissension. He may be glad to be taken in by a stratagem. With another stratagem comes to his mind, he will simply turn others' tricks to his own use.

Frankly speaking, under the present circumstances, commending the Financial Secretary is the same as criticizing the Chief Executive. Showing fondness of the Financial Secretary is the same as showing disgust to the Chief Executive. Saying that the Financial Secretary is great is actually the same as saying that the Chief Executive is bad. Hence, I hope that the Financial Secretary will not be carried away by these commendations and be complacent. On the contrary, he should keep a sober mind, size up the situation well and make clear the intentions of these people. It is the features and characteristics of the opposition camp to go against the Chief Executive, against the Government and against the Central Authorities by all means. The Financial Secretary may only be a token of theirs.

President, every year when the Financial Secretary delivers the Budget, he will also convey his messages through the lyrics of a song. This year, he has quoted the lyrics of a song "With love", which have touched the hearts of many Hong Kong people. What is the reason for that? It is because Hong Kong at 7416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 present indeed lacks true love and caring. Many people do not love the Government, while the Government cannot show its caring of the people. The Financial Secretary says that with love, he believes there is a way out. This wish is nice, but can this be realized? I think it really depends on whether the Financial Secretary can introduce any concrete and pragmatic policies and measures to develop the economy, improve people's livelihood, help the public and share the fruits with the public. A wish filled with empty talk and empty promises, which assumes that the measures will have been implemented after being announced without any specific actions taken, is tantamount to "showing love but giving no bread". I believe that in the end, not only will the public refrain from giving you their support, they will also hate you, no matter how well you sing.

President, some people asked the Financial Secretary recently whether he would run the Chief Executive election. He cleverly diverted the attention by saying, "It is nice to have a female Chief Executive as well." His words made it necessary for Ms Starry LEE, Chairman of the DAB, to respond immediately. She also listed out four major requirements for people who want to become the Chief Executive. First, they have to gain the support of the public. Second, they have to unite the pro-establishment camp and be able to communicate with various camps. Third, they should be capable of dealing with the deep-rooted conflicts in society. Fourth, they have to realize their election manifesto with the support of their team.

President, you are a veteran member of the DAB. Although Ms Starry LEE is the Chairman of the largest political party in Hong Kong, who enjoys a high position, I would strongly advise the Financial Secretary not to believe her. What is the reason for that? It is because the four major requirements listed out by Ms Starry LEE are all the existing shortcomings and weaknesses of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. They are all directed against LEUNG Chun-ying. If we agree with what Ms Starry LEE has said, it is tantamount to affirming indirectly that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying does not meet the requirements for the Chief Executive. Her idea is wrong.

Only 15 months are left for the current Government. It is facing tremendous difficulties in administration as there is serious dissension within society. In order to stop the dissension from continuing, our pro-establishment camp should think about the means to assist the Chief Executive in making improvement and remedies, despite his shortcomings and weaknesses. In my LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7417 opinion, we should not deliberately highlight and openly expose his shortcomings and weaknesses. After all, we have to listen to the instructions from the Central Authorities with the overall interests of the community in mind, support the Chief Executive in implementing the policies in accordance with the law. Even if we were unwilling to do so, we still had to persist and give our support in the capacity as the Hong Kong people who love the country and love Hong Kong.

President, since the Financial Secretary likes to talk about political ideas, I will share with him my idea about the qualities that a Chief Executive should possess. Firstly, he has to able to fully and faithfully follow the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Obviously, the incumbent and previous Chief Executives …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAM, you have already spoken for 10 minutes, but you seem to be digressing more and more from the subject of the debate. Please focus your speech on the Appropriation Bill 2016.

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, which Member in this Chamber do you think was not digressing from the subject? Please point them out so that I can follow their direction. Under the political atmosphere nowadays, even the public officers are giving irrelevant answers to the questions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As long as a Member has digressed from the subject, I will point that out to them. Dr LAM, I have already reminded you, so please do not digress from the subject.

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): I now return to the subject of the debate, all right?

Secondly, apart from being just and fair, he shall not abuse power or be capricious in exercising his authority, and he should be able to realize the spirit of accountability. Thirdly, back to the subject, he has to know how to make use of the abundant fiscal reserves and revenue for a promising, blissful, respectful and fear-free livelihood of the Hong Kong people. He has to know how to solve all 7418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 the existing problems in society, such as those of education, healthcare and housing. Fourthly and finally, he has to set a good example of himself, thereby winning people's support by virtue and reasoning.

President, as you want me to discuss the Budget, I will discuss it with you. Where is the largest amount of public expenditure spent? It is on education. However, the education system of Hong Kong is not well developed at all. We can even say that it has gone wrong and focused on wrong areas. This year, the recurrent expenditure on education is $14.7 billion, accounting for 21.5% of the public expenditure. The spending includes scholarship for students from the "Belt and Road" countries, turning the existing Senior Secondary Curriculum Support Grant and the Career and Life Planning Grant into funding for regular teaching posts. But it is indeed disappointing that there is no additional expenditure to improve the quality of higher education.

President, what is the final goal of education? It is to educate people. Not only should students acquire academic knowledge, virtue and morality, sense of propriety, justice, integrity and honour, and be well-educated and a model of propriety, the education system of Hong Kong should also enable them to distinguish right from wrong. The system has to cultivate students' interest in learning, develop their potential capacity, stimulate their curiosity, and help them establish a positive view on life and value so that they can have the right attitudes towards others. All these can be achieved through education.

However, the design of the entire education system and utilization of the expenditure are wrong. There is only one-way instillation of academic knowledge to students, while everything is examination-oriented. The grading and prospects of the students are determined by their examination results. Financial Secretary, within 10 years, the amount of education expenditure has increased by 70%. While the Government has spent a large amount of public money to educate the young people, it keeps on criticizing and denouncing them. Does the problem lie in the design and the implementation of the Hong Kong education system, or in the young people who do not compromise with this system? Why do so many young people oppose, criticize and attack the Government? There is also a small group of people who know that advocating "Hong Kong independence" is a dead end which has no way out and no future, and it is not legally allowed because it is also against the law and the Constitution. However, why are they still blindly advocating and disseminating the idea, irrespective of the consequences? What are the reasons? Does the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7419

Government know where the problem lies? My suggestion to the Financial Secretary is that he should allocate some funding to set up a special unit to study these issues and find the solutions.

Finally, facing the uncertain economic prospect, I welcome the supporting measures for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) put forward by the Financial Secretary, including extending the application period for the special concessionary measures under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, reducing profits tax, and subsidizing the use of technological services by SMEs to improve productivity. However, these are general and one-off measures. To the SMEs, the magnitude of such supports is far from being adequate. I hope that the Financial Secretary can give more support to SMEs.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, a free television channel has commissioned recently and it is said to be well received by the audience. The high viewership was indirectly boosted by a programme featuring the President travelling along with Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. I was to propose to this free television channel that the Financial Secretary and the Chief Executive be invited to go on a tour like that. But on second thought, even if the Financial Secretary and the Chief Executive made their presence in the show, it would only be a flat and boring programme because hardly any sparks would fly between them. Having listened to the speech given by Dr LAM Tai-fai earlier on, I however believe that if Dr LAM is willing to go on a tour with the Chief Executive, it will probably make a television programme that can attract a large audience and genuinely frighten the so-called prime television channel.

President, let me return to the Budget. As far as we can remember, when certain international credit rating agencies adjusted downward their outlook ratings for Hong Kong earlier on, the Financial Secretary called on Hong Kong people to stay composed because he was confident that Hong Kong could stand up to the challenge with its sound financial capability. I of course believe in Hong Kong's capability to stand up to the challenge, but this does not mean that we can disregard the facts. Last year's highly volatile stock market in which many investors had suffered losses has dampened consumption sentiment considerably. Impacts from the external environment and Hong Kong's domestic economic structure can be felt in the retail, service and catering industries in the forefront. Hence we can see that Hong Kong is now pervaded 7420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 by strong undercurrents both internally and externally. At this juncture, however, some people instigate conflicts in the community for the sake of their political interests at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong and the people. Those conflicts have marred the international image of our city and further dampened our economy. If the HKSAR government is criticized for being detached from reality, I would say that this group of trouble makers are absolutely unrealistic because they have no idea how bad the macro-environment is. If we, people of Hong Kong, fail to stay united, it will be difficult for us to tackle the various challenges ahead.

This is the last time for the Legislative Council of this term to scrutinize the Budget. As before, the Financial Secretary has followed the line of financial prudence consistently when drafting the Budget. But I have noticed that the people's expectations for the Budget are quite different now. Not only do they look forward to measures that can help continuous economic development of Hong Kong, they also call for the implementation of more measures that can actually benefit the people. I have spoken to various members of the public to solicit their views on the Budget. Here I would like to report to the Financial Secretary a few issues that the public are particularly concerned.

President, the first issue is the extension of the Guangdong Scheme. I raised an oral question on the Scheme in this Council earlier on. As Members are aware, the Guangdong Scheme is a pilot scheme under which eligible Hong Kong elderly people who have moved to reside in Guangdong Province may receive a monthly Old Age Allowance. The Scheme has been implemented on a pilot basis for a few years. As pointed out by Mr Matthew CHEUNG in his reply to the question, when deciding whether a destination for retirement can be covered by the Scheme, several conditions should be met. Firstly, it should be a province close to Hong Kong. Secondly, there should be close connection between Hong Kong and that province. Thirdly, major transport infrastructure connecting Hong Kong and that province should be available. I can think of some provinces that can fulfil these conditions, including Fujian province, my ancestral home. The population of Hokkiens in Hong Kong is around one million. According to government statistics, among the elderly people eligible to receive "fruit grant", probably 20 000 to 30 000 of them are Hong Kong residents residing in Fujian. In view of the smooth implementation of the Guangdong Scheme in these few years and no major problem has emerged so far, is it time to extend the Scheme to Fujian province or even other provinces? This concerns the portability of welfare benefits that we always emphasize. I do understand the Government's concern in this aspect. But if the welfare benefits LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7421 are portable, I think the Government can rest assured that the Scheme would not be massively abused even if it covered a range of provinces.

Why do so many elderly people of Hong Kong like to retire in the Mainland? This is not merely because of the relatively expensive cost of living in Hong Kong. They choose to retire in the Mainland for better quality of living, more spacious flats, more friends to chat with and more room for activities. Given that a sum of money has already been earmarked for the provision of Old Age Allowance to the eligible elderly, the Financial Secretary should not be stingy with the money. Instead, he should offer help to the elderly people who wish to retire in the Mainland.

The second issue is about retirement welfare. Many members of the public have expressed to us their views about this issue and it has been discussed by many of our colleagues in this Council. The public are now disgruntled with the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System for various reasons. My biggest concern is that unless one is diagnosed with terminal illness or ready to immigrate, one can only get the accrued retirement benefits upon retirement. This rule is in fact an obstacle to those who intend to retire early. Moreover, the definitions of "elderly" adopted under various elderly welfare systems are obviously inconsistent. People normally retire at the age of 60, but the eligibility for the two types of "fruit grant" is 65 and 70 years of age respectively. Only those aged 65 or above can enjoy the $2 transport fare concession for the elderly, and they will be provided healthcare voucher when they have reached the age of 70. As Legislative Council Members, we do feel puzzled with all these different age criteria. I believe the elderly people eligible for these welfare benefits would be confused too. If the Government has already earmarked a sum of money to provide these welfare benefits, is it possible for it to align the age criterion for these welfare benefits? By doing so, all those who have retired in principle and the elderly people who had contributed to Hong Kong before can immediately enjoy the "fruit grant", healthcare vouchers and $2 transport fare concession that I mentioned just now, as well as other welfare benefits provided by the Government.

The third issue is about exemption from payment of rates for owner-occupied properties. This is an idea that some elderly friends raise to me repeatedly. As I am often told, many people manage to improve their quality of living after decades of hard work, and they are preparing for their retirement. They may live in the property they own. Those with better financial strength may even own another property for rental income. Under the existing rating 7422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 system, owners of property are liable to rates. As I said just now, some retirees live in the only property they own. While they have no income, they still have to pay rates as demanded by the Government. But such demand for rates has imposed heavy burden on them in the light of the strong property market and high property prices. They were particularly shocked by the demand for rates in the last few seasons as they were not given any rates concession. It is justifiable for those owning more than one property for lease to pay rates, but not for the owner-occupants. Yet for retirees living in the only property they own, would the Government consider exempting them from payment of rates? The savings of these retired people may amount to $100,000 or $200,000 only. Hence they are very careful with every penny they spend. The payment of one thousand or a few thousand dollars as rates is indeed a big expenditure item for them. Though they are property owners, they should not be regarded as the middle class. They may even spend less than the grassroots as they have to live on that bit of savings for the rest of their life. If the Government can give consideration to this proposal, I believe that it will win the applause of many people.

Besides, people living in the New Territories are particularly concerned about MTR fares. As the major shareholder of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), the Government is paid several billion dollars of dividends annually. However, Hong Kong people have strong views on MTR services, including frequent occurrence of incidents and over-crowded compartments. The people are even more dissatisfied with the Fare Adjustment Mechanism, which has effectuated fare hike almost every year. In this connection, the DAB has proposed a number of initiatives. They include adding the profitability of MTRCL into the formula of the Fare Adjustment Mechanism, setting up a fund for fare rebates and improvement of facilities, and more importantly, using the dividends paid to the Government by the MTRCL to establish a fare stabilization fund to offset the pressure from fare increases. If the Government can implement these initiatives, they would be welcomed by many residents and wage earners.

Moreover, I would like to talk about the issue of housing. Obviously Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is working very hard to identify sites for housing development. One of the major development areas is situated in New Territories North, the geographical constituency that I serve, and the other one is located in Hung Shui Kiu. The development of these areas will certainly involve land resumption exercises and the resumption of properties of non-indigenous villagers. On the problem of land resumption, how to rehouse the affected non-indigenous villagers is a big headache for the Government. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7423

The villagers affected may have resided in the areas concerned for one or two decades, and in some cases, it may even be the home to one or two generations of people. Yet it is difficult for them to obtain compensation in the Government's land resumption exercises due to their identity as non-indigenous residents. The only thing the Government can do is to rehouse them to public rental housing, but any application for public rental housing has to go through the asset test and queue up in the long waiting list for the allocation of flat. Secretary Anthony CHEUNG would not nod to any request for discretionary arrangement as that would be unfair to the 300 000 applicants on the waiting list. Hence all applications have to go through the screening procedures and wait; there is no fast track. These indigenous villagers have many different views. "Now it is the Government who wants to take my land and house. If they give me another house or flat instead, I am willing to move out," they say. This is a long-existing conflict. Perhaps we can take a different perspective. Why are the redevelopment projects of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) often faced with less resistance? Given that the URA itself is the owner of the redeveloped flats, it is in a position to provide in-situ rehousing or even flat-for-flat arrangement to the affected residents. Well, does the Development Bureau have this type of flats on hand? No, it does not. What I want to say is: If the Development Bureau has some flats or properties of its own at hand, it can resolve the conflicts aroused from land resumption in certain development areas by using the flats under its ownership to rehouse the affected residents. They will not be caught by the requirements and rules currently stipulated by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Transport and Housing Bureau. The merit of doing so is that some problems arising from the relatively more severe confrontation in the community can be eased. We hope that the Government can allocate more resources to the Development Bureau when formulating future housing plans so that the Bureau can have its own properties for rehousing purposes.

President, I still have one-odd minute of speaking time. Upon completion of this debate on the Budget, it is expected that a filibuster will be staged after the response by the Financial Secretary and the Administration next week. The pan-democratic Members have come up with some 2 000 amendments, which I believe are more or less the same as those they raised in the previous few years. I urge the President, with his wisdom and decisiveness, to quickly sort out and consolidate their amendments, and terminate the filibuster as soon as possible. This is to ensure that the Appropriation Bill can be passed expeditiously so that the many bills on the queue behind the Appropriation Bill can be tabled for scrutiny at the soonest.

7424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

As the Legislative Council of this term is approaching its end, and whether Members or officials will meet again in this Council in the next term, I still hope that the SAR government can attend to the views and needs of the public, and those Members who want to start the filibuster can stop doing so before it is too late.

Lastly, I wish the Financial Secretary every success in his work and good health.

Thank you, President.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Budget this year benefits the middle class and its rating so far is apparently quite good. I notice that the Oriental Daily News today commented on the people who lauded the Financial Secretary's accomplishments and said that he would scale new heights next year. I believe the Financial Secretary is aware that some people are over solicitous of him. Even Dr LAM Tai-fai, a Mainland/Hong Kong patriot, offered the same advice to the Financial Secretary. In fact, I think the Financial Secretary is also aware that these bootlickers have not changed their nature. Just look at the filibustering amendments they proposed to the Budget, and you know that they do not mean what they say. No matter how high a rating the Budget gets, they will continue to filibuster against it.

I would not acclaim the Budget. On the day the Budget was delivered, I even went out to buy myself an ice lolly to cool myself down. Why do I not acclaim it? And why do I even feel a little angry? First, I will talk about the "0-1-1" envelope saving programme ("0-1-1" programme), and then I will talk about Chinese medicines and no rent exemption for public housing tenants.

What is the "0-1-1" programme? It is a government proposal to reduce recurrent expenditures. Although the recurrent expenditure on medical and health in this Budget already represents an increase of 90% as compared with a decade ago, the recurrent expenditure budgeted for the Hospital Authority (HA) this year will be cut by $250 billion under the 2014-implemented "0-1-1" programme. This arrangement has certainly aroused much social grievance. The HA will still manage to cover the $250 billion shortfall this year with its reserve funds, but how about the remaining 1% recurrent expenditure to be cut down next year? What is it going to do then? So, I hope the Government will give us a clear explanation on this. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7425

We all support financial prudence, but the ageing population now will exert increasing pressure on the healthcare system. It is simply unfeasible to cut public expenditures this way. In particular, it will be difficult for the public healthcare system to maintain sustainable services after the budget cut. Besides, healthcare expenses will progressively hike with an ageing population. I thus have reservation about a sweeping budget cut, and I hope the Financial Secretary can review the "0-1-1" programme.

I believe the "0-1-1" programme can be made better. For instance, if anything has to be implemented, the Government can consider re-launching the public-private interface pilot projects involving the technology sector, which have been discussed in the past. Technology is developed rapidly … the Secretary for Innovation and Technology is here … After new drugs have gone through research and development, they have to undergo clinical trial. The Government can greatly assist local pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug tests or large quantity drug procurement, so that these companies can earn their "first bucket of gold" and expand their business beyond Hong Kong and scale new heights internationally. However, the Government has put the money saved from the "0-1-1" programme back to the Treasury which has accumulated a huge balance … maybe the money will be injected into the Future Fund. But if the money saved from the spending cut under the "0-1-1" programme can be used on government departments for procuring innovative and technology products, the functions or operation efficiency of the departments can be effectively enhanced. But regrettably, the money saved has been put back in the Treasury. What is the purpose then? The departments have to work under tight budgets and the Government is criticized for doing so. Why does the Government have to do so? I think the Financial Secretary should optimize the "0-1-1" programme this year because I notice many different departments are having a headache over how to trim down their 1% expenditure this year. I thus hope that the Government will review the remaining 1% of expenditure to be reduced next year.

Besides, the Government's attitude on Chinese medicine is indeed very frustrating. Ever since 1997, we have heard the Government say that Hong Kong will be developed into an international Chinese medicine hub and a Chinese medicine port, so as to enhance public health and diversify our industries. However, 20 years have gone and the Chinese medicine industry now is still plagued with obstacles. For instance, the Government has not set up a dedicated body to take forward Chinese medicine nor a Chinese medicine development fund. Small and medium enterprises, to which the Government has not offered any assistance, are beset by problems such as escalating costs. The licensing of 7426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Chinese medicine is another problem they have to face, and to solve this problem, their proprietary Chinese medicines will have to undergo different tests, with which they do not know how to proceed. Moreover, the Government has injected very little resources on nurturing Chinese medicine professionals. After the enactment of the ordinance on Chinese medicine, what else has the Government done on Chinese medicine?

I notice from this Budget that $23 million has been set aside for setting up a temporary testing centre for Chinese medicines. Last year, the Government also injected money into the establishment of the Hong Kong Chinese Materia Medica Standards Office. But in fact, all these efforts are not directly related to the industry. At present, the development of Chinese medicine, especially Chinese materia medica, has been shrinking and going downhill. All stakeholders have been working very hard, but to no avail under the current government approach. If things remain unchanged, the ordinance will not facilitate the launch of new Chinese medicines in Hong Kong. We are willing to invest in the development of innovation and technology, but no one is willing to invest in the development of Chinese medicine. Then, how can we expand the market? Thus, I made a proposal to the Financial Secretary earlier, suggesting him to deploy $5 billion on the establishment of a Chinese medicine development fund. But he has made no mention of it in the Budget this year. I hope the Financial Secretary will do better in this regard next year.

Chinese medicine and Western medicine are on an equal footing in the Mainland market. Their values are the same in terms of gross domestic product. The Chinese medicine industry in the Mainland has been continuously developed, while ours has withered, with the number of Chinese medicines developed here dropped from 13 000-odd proprietary products to the remaining 7 000-odd proprietary products now. I believe the number of proprietary products will substantially dropped further in the future. The Government has said the need to develop the Chinese medicine industry, but it does not inject any resources to it. Should we not feel angry? Many friends of mine from the industry have expressed their aspiration of a bigger commitment from the Government. With such a huge fiscal surplus, why can we not establish a Chinese medicine development fund?

Next, I will talk about rent exemption for public housing tenants, which Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has also mentioned just now. In fact, the measure of exempting public housing rents has effectively alleviated the burden of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7427 people. This point was also mentioned by Mr LEUNG just now. We are angry that the Government has not included this measure in the Budget this year. I wish to add that in the past the Government would cite the reasons for exempting rents for public housing tenants, such as an unstable economy, the heavy burden of the grassroots, and that adopting this measure would help alleviate the burden of the grassroots, so on and so forth. May I ask the Financial Secretary a question: the external economy is the same unstable this year and the burden of the grassroots is the same heavy, and providing rent exemption for public housing tenants will be equally effective in alleviating their burden, but then why did the Financial Secretary withdraw this measure this year? The Government has not provided any justified reasons. It just pre-empted the measure without saying why. I think this is unjustified. Does the Financial Secretary think that the problems faced by public housing tenants then no longer exist now?

For instance, the Housing Society, one of the public housing providers, has consecutively increased its rents by almost 10% in each of the past three years. However, the Housing Society has never reduced its rents in the past such as during the SARS outbreak, the financial tsunami or whenever the economy became unstable. The one or two months of rent exemption have thus become a much anticipated measure in the Budget every year to the tenants. But this measure is not included in this Budget and the tenants are not given any justified explanation.

Besides, the rents for Group B rental estate units under the Housing Society are much more expensive than those for public rental housing units. The rent for each rental estate unit for low-income families amounts to some $6,000 to $7,000. The tenants will be very happy if they can have one or two months of rent exemption. Regrettably, the Government has not explained why this relief measure is withdrawn. I thus hope that the Government or the Financial Secretary can give us justifiable reasons when they withdraw welfare measures implemented for years.

Moreover, I also wish to express my view on the fares of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL). The MTRCL has set up its Fare Adjustment Mechanism (FAM), which allows fares to go upwards and downwards, for seven years and this year sees its seven consecutive years of an upward fare adjustment. This is totally unacceptable. The MTR fares will be increased by 2.7% this year. Even though the MTRCL is a private corporation without any subvention from the Government and it makes impressive profits with its own hard work, the 7428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 public will not easily accept its fare increases, to say nothing of the MTR being an unique public transport mode with a daily patronage of four to five million Hong Kong people. The Government tilts its transport policy completely to the railway. With this rail-led policy, other transport modes basically have to give way to the MTR as long as an area is reachable by MTR. Besides, the Government owns 70% of the MTRCL shares. Thus the public never considers the MTRCL a simple listed company. With almost or even over $10 billion of profits recorded this year, and also in the past years, the MTRCL cannot justify itself for a fare increase.

We often hear the MTRCL say that it has to be accountable to its minority shareholders. I believe this is only part of the truth and the other part of the truth is that it has to be accountable to its major shareholder, which is the Government. I thus hold that the Government can, if it is willing to do so, use part of the annual MTRCL dividends to set up a fare fund to offset the MTR fare increase rate, using a "dedicated-funds-for-dedicated-uses" principle. We recently made a calculation based on the Budgets in the past five financial years. We estimate that about $9 billion should have accumulated now, given the $3 billion to $4 billion of profits earned in each of the past five year. Actually an annual increase rate of 2.7% to 3% is very minimal to the MTRCL, which only generates some $400 million to $500 million of profits for the corporation. However, every MTR fare increase will increase the burden of the people. I thus hope that the Government will consider using the dividends coming from the people back on the people. The proposal of establishing a fare fund for offsetting the rate of public transport fare increases is justified and also beneficial to every Hong Kong citizen.

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

I think the Government should even consider using the MTRCL dividends on subsidizing the other public transport fares. Why? It is because under a rail-led transport policy, other public transport modes are not competing on a level playing field. A fare fund can thus offset the pressure of fare increases other public transport operators have been subject to.

On the other hand, we hold that the mechanism that allows fares to go upwards and downwards, which was laid down after the merging of the two LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7429 railway corporations, has its credits. In the past, the MTRCL had fare autonomy. It could directly decide any fare increase and the increase rate without the need of consulting other parties, except informing the Government of its fare adjustment decision. However, with the FAM in place, any upward adjustment has to be made in accordance with a formula. But now we notice that the formula has not linked the increase rate with the earnings. We have thus proposed the addition of an earnings index into the formula. The index which directly links to the earnings of the MTRCL can prevent the corporation from increasing its fares when it has huge profits. Adding the index will make the formula much more sensible. If we base the calculation on the rebate rate, the MTRCL should be able to lower its fare by 1.3%, rather than increasing its fare by 2.7% this year.

Hence, the MTRCL should consider the affordability of the people when it has huge surplus or profits. I believe the public finance philosophy of the Government seeks not only to fill up the Treasury with money. I hope that people can also be benefited when the Government has earned huge revenues, and that it can use the money on railway services, so that four to five million people can be benefited from this practice every day. This practice is definitely worth consideration. I thus hope that the Financial Secretary will consider, first, establishing a fare fund, and second, reviewing the FAM by linking it with the earnings of the MTRCL.

Moreover, I also wish to talk about the land resumption policy. Members from the rural camp may have much grievance and dissatisfaction with the government policies lately. Apart from the issue of small houses, the land resumption exercises carried out by the Government are another cause of grievance to these Members. Some of the sites resumed have been designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), meaning that farmers basically have to plough the land manually with their hands or a hoe without using any machinery. Besides, they will have to apply for permission from the Government before ploughing their own land. With such a huge reserve of public coffers, why can the Government not offer a more desirable compensation scheme for these farmers or indigenous residents? Given that these sites have been designated as SSSI, they cannot use their land but leave it idled. I believe the Government can win the applause of the rural residents if it is willing to show its goodwill toward them.

Deputy President, I so submit.

7430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as rightly pointed out by Mr CHAN Han-pan said just now, the land resumption policy has long been criticized severely by rural people including farmers. The main reason is that farm lands are resumed at the prices of agricultural land, but when such lands are rezoned to residential uses and sold, the profits from land sales all go to the pocket of the Government. This has resulted in an uneven distribution of benefits. Anti-government sentiments understandably keep escalating and this is only natural.

We have talked about lands with ecological conservation value just now. Well, in the comfort of their offices, government officials can just circle any place they like on the map and the place shall never be used for any types of development. We are no longer living in the times of DENG Xiaoping. He could just circle Hong Kong on the map and pronounce it as a special administrative region for economic development, and in this way, Hong Kong could thrive economically. But the case with the authorities is different. Once they circle any place on the map, the place shall never be used for any types of development and shall remain the same forever. A few years ago, the authorities designated a site in King Yin Lei as a monument. The owner naturally opposed by the planning, and in the end, an arrangement of land exchange must be made. But will the authorities exchange land with farmers? It is alright for the authorities to designate a piece of land as a site having ecological conservation value, but they should exchange land with farmers to enable them to continue farming. In this connection, I think the Government should really consider the various problems with its land policy, so as to reduce social conflicts. That way, there will be more benign and positive impact on the Government's work.

First of all, I would like to thank the SAR Government, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and the Financial Secretary for making some slight changes in their stance on the agriculture and fisheries industries over the years. Of course, some such changes are good and others bad, yet I must thank for their sincerity. The authorities launched the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund earlier. Its operation has not been quite so smooth, though. This year, the Government has decided to implement the a new agricultural policy and set up a $500 million Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund. It may also start exploring the feasibility of designating agricultural priority areas. Nevertheless, I hope that we can learn from past experience and make improvements in areas where we have not done quite so well.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7431

Since the announcement of the Budget, people from different sides, including those from the opposition camp, have been praising the Financial Secretary, "Good! Wonderful! The Budget is full of sincerity, meant totally for Hong Kong people!" I can understand this. However, the Financial Secretary must not be complacent because their words of thanks may not be quite so sincere and they may just want to deal a blow to his colleagues in the SAR Government. When they give him applause, they are actually trying to trample on other people. Therefore, the Financial Secretary must remain alert and distinguish honest people from liars. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has been serving Hong Kong very sincerely. It will always say yes when things are right and say no when things are wrong. If there are any shortcomings in the Budget and even the Policy Address, we will certainly voice our criticisms. There are shortcomings in the Budget this year, but will we vote against it because of some minor flaws? No, of course. However, we must make use of this debate to express our dissatisfaction with the Government, hoping that the authorities will make improvement and even implement certain measures in the future.

Mr CHAN Han-pan has pointed out that people are strongly dissatisfied with the fare adjustment mechanism of the MTR Corporation Limited and the authorities' land policy. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has talked about the public housing policy. I hope that the authorities can give serious thoughts to all these views. If these problems are not dealt with, all new policies rolled out by the Government will invariably get no more than the bare minimum number of votes necessary to secure their passage. In that case, conflicts will intensify incessantly. I hope the Government can really consider my advice seriously.

I remember that before the announcement of the Budget, there happened in the agriculture and fisheries sector quite a serious incident. In late December last year, massive fish kills began to occur in Yim Tin Tsai of New Territories East. Some said that this was caused by the climate, and others said that this was due to the sewage leak from the Shing Mun River. I will not talk about the cause here, but I must say that in the end, almost all fish in most of the mariculture rafts in the east of Hong Kong died. Under the established Emergency Relief Fund, the Government released $6,720 to each fish farmer. When compared with their losses of $50 million, $60 million or $70 million ― let us not talk about such huge amounts, but the loss was still over $10 million in any case ― the amount released was really very small. Nonetheless, in this 7432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Budget, the Government does not show any sincerity in addressing the immediate needs of any particular industry.

Two years ago, Hong Kong encountered quite a serious problem, the illegal occupation movement. I can remember the Financial Secretary's statement in the Budget last year that since the movement affected the catering and retail industries, their licence fees would be waived. Seeing this, I wrote to the Financial Secretary and asked whether he would also waive the licence fee for mariculture rafts of the sector for two years due to this devastating and catastrophic event. Did the Financial Secretary reply? Yes, he did. But he only said we might express our view to the Food and Health Bureau. That was all. However, I have yet to receive a reply. At that time, the Financial Secretary said the Secretary for Food and Health would give me a reply, but so far … The Budget debate will soon begin next week, and even if the time spent on filibustering is also counted, we expect that we will have to vote on the Budget just after one month at the latest. But I still cannot see any sincere intention of the Financial Secretary to waive the licence fees. The authorities even do not bother to tell me that they are not going to waive the licence fees. I must express my dissatisfaction with the authorities' lack of sincerity.

For the moment, I am not going to talk about my other views in the letter on policy formulation, the establishment of a natural disaster protection mechanism and improvement of the Emergency Relief Fund. But I still want to ask whether the authorities will assist fish farmers in resuming their business, applying for loans with reduced interest rates and even buying fish fry. If the Government is worried that fish farmers may simply disappear after receiving monetary assistance, it may just purchase fish fry for them, so that they can resume business. That is already fine enough. I agree that all these may involve the specific needs of the sector and may really fall within the portfolio of the Food and Health Bureau. But regarding the waiving of licence fees, I think the Financial Secretary really has the power and discretion to do so in response to such devastating natural disasters. I honestly do not want the public to ever think that licence fees will be waived only in the case of political problems that affect the whole territory, such as the illegal occupation movement. It is true that what we are discussing now is the mariculture industry and it is not a political issue, but then the matter also involves people's livelihood and the survival of a particular industry. Can the authorities show a bit of compassionate understanding and offer us some assistance? If they do not do so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7433 this year, I cannot do anything. I cannot vote against the Budget because of this. But next year, can they waive the licence fees for two years? Can they waive the licence fees for one year first and hold further discussion next year? I hope the Financial Secretary can consider my proposal.

I note that in the Budget, there is an increase of more than 10% in the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on nature conservation and country parks. This is higher than the inflation rate. Thinking that nature conservation is very good, many people may thus give applause, saying that this 10% increase can show the Government's greater concern about nature conservation work. However, the agriculture and fisheries sector is very concerned about this. Why? Earlier the Government launched a public consultation exercise on the "Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Hong Kong". In response, the agriculture and fisheries sector staged a protest to express its discontent. Why? They may not be entirely against biodiversity, but since this involves nature conservation, so they just want to take the opportunity to express their strong dissatisfaction with the impact sustained by the agriculture and fisheries sector due to the long-standing imbalance of the Government's nature conservation policy. Every year, the Government will announce its statistics of migratory birds with great delight, saying that the species of migratory birds flying to Hong Kong and Mai Po have increased in number. People may thus think that this is wonderful and Hong Kong has done a good job in nature conservation! But do they know how many fish fry will die as a result? Have they ever considered the financial losses of fish farmers when so many migratory birds are attracted to Hong Kong?

People from the agriculture and fisheries sector have been discussing with them. We see nothing wrong with nature conservation, and we will definitely support the cause. But we also insist that our property must also be protected in the process. A fish farmer once put 13 000 carp fry each weighing one catty into a fish pond, but two months later only 2 800 fish were left. Do you know how much the loss was? More than $100,000. May I ask the Government what should be done? Will it offer assistance?

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department says that it has been making efforts over the years. For instance, it has advised fish farmers to put up plastic balls painted like the eyes of raptors such as eagles. Fish farmers are also advised that instead of mounting any bird nets, they may string flagged wires across their fish ponds. The stringing of flagged wires can scare birds 7434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 away. But this can work for three days only or maybe three weeks at most. Then they must be replaced. Do you know how much manpower is required to do all this? A fish farmer may own as many as 50 fish ponds. Is he supposed to do the stringing work every day and give up feeding his fish? We are not capable of doing so.

We have been trying to scare birds away using lawful methods such as the mounting of horizontal bird nets. We even erect scarecrows and broadcast screeches of birds in danger, so as make other birds fly away. We have done all this. We even also play sounds of firecrackers, but this will cause nuisance to others and is not allowed. We erect scarecrows but they are soon removed. The scarecrow are removed not by government personnel but by conservationists. After a fish pond owner has mounted a bird net, people will complain to the Police every day and accuse him of using an illegal means to scare birds away. Then, policemen will come for investigation and check his Identity Card. But then, after all the investigation and checking today, another person will make a new complaint tomorrow and policemen will come along for investigation and identity checking once again. This goes on and on. The fish farmer is totally helpless and he eventually loses his patience. An old fish farmer is being picked on by so many people, so he has no alternative but to remove the bird net and let all the birds eat the fish out of his pond. How can the Government protect the industries? We are really helpless. Some 13 000 fish died and only less than 10% of the fish fry was left! This has happened not just in one fish pond but in all ponds. This explains why fish farmers near the Mai Po Nature Reserve have reacted so strongly to the conservation issue of biodiversity? The Government must make some adjustment to the allocation of funding.

Let us not talk about fish ponds any more and turn to the new infrastructure development on Lantau Island. Let us talk about marine fisheries now. We of course oppose any reclamation works over there and fishermen also have their own opinions. The Government has designated various marine parks in order to satisfy conservationists. But I have been criticizing the designation of marine parks for several years. There is nothing wrong with marine parks, and we also gave our support a decade or so ago. But the laws relating to marine parks are very problematic. I have asked them to tell me why the number of dolphins has declined, whether this is due to starving, and whether this is because the fishing nets of fishermen have strangled many of them. But I am told that fishermen have nothing to do with this. Rather, all is because of boat speed. Dolphins are frequently killed by the motor blades of boats. We therefore ask if we can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7435 tackle the problem by fitting the motor blades of fishing boats with some kinds of protective shields that can avoid the impact of dolphins. We think that if speed reduction can really help, we are always prepared to talk things over. We think that things will be fine once there is a new policy to restrict boat speed. But for the mere sake of convenience, the Government has simply circled that very area on the map and designated it as a special zone, a marine park.

Once the marine park is designated, the whole situation will turn very complicated because fishing boats in Hong Kong are passed on to sons only. Suppose I, Steven HO, have a fishing boat and am licensed to fish in marine parks, I will not be affected. But if I sell the boat to Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Chairman of the Panel on Environmental Affairs, who is sitting over there, he will not be permitted to do any fishing in the protected area of the marine park. This will in effect reduce our fishing area in the long run. This is so unreasonable.

The Government's original policy intent is conservation, but because of this policy, it has stifled the future prospects of some fishermen. This is totally unacceptable. By talking about these two cases of unfair treatment, I mean to tell the Government that it must always balance the needs of conservation, the industries concerned and social development when drawing policies, allocating funding and doing its daily tasks. I have never said that the Government is not permitted to dump even one cubic metre of mud into the sea for the purpose reclamation. Nor have I ever insisted on no removal and no demolition. But the point is that the Government has not sought to ensure the sustainable development of our sector. This is its greatest sin. And, this is also the very reason for the intensification of social conflicts. I hope that if the Government really wants to resolve this conflict, it can start with this triangle of relationship among conservation, the industries concerned and social development. It must seek an appropriate.

I also hope that the SAR Government will not make mere public relations efforts, saying that the present developments are good for the future. Well, I agree they are good for the future, but we also have to care for the interests of local residents and those in the industries including fishermen. Therefore, we must proceed with the development of Lantau Island very prudently. If the Government says that the development of Lantau development will only affect the livelihood of fishermen for a short time and thus uses this as an excuse for not giving them any room for survival and telling them the losses they will incur, I will certainly slap it on the face twice. Maybe, after negotiations, I will just give 7436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 it one slap. But that will still hurt. But sometimes, there is honestly not too much room for negotiation. As people who work for local communities, as Legislative Council Members, what are we going to say to the people? I hope that the Government can think about this very carefully.

I have only one minute left. Finally, I want to share with Members my feelings as a young person. Yesterday, I had a meeting with DAB members, and I said that the allocation of funding in the Budget left much to be desired. For example, many people are now disgruntled mainly for economic reasons. Let us leave aside any political reasons for the time being. By this, I mean that many people are now unable to take up the occupations that their programmes of studies have prepared them for. This shows that the manpower demands in certain industries are already saturated. But the Government has not sought to bring in any co-ordination or control through the education courses or university programmes it offers. It has not sought to direct education development towards other alternative industries. The development of education programmes is still focused on those industries with saturated manpower needs, and places are increased incessantly. This will actually intensify social conflicts in the future. The Government must note this point. Time is running out. President, I so submit. Thank you!

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Budget this year is a mediocre one. It follows the same routine measures to "hand out candies" year after year and repeats the trick of underestimating surpluses and overestimating expenses each time to lower the people's expectation for increases in recurrent expenditures. With such financial tactics and the Financial Secretary acting almost like a "miser", the Government's services and financial resources provided can never really cater for the genuine needs of the public.

Deputy President, many elderly people have passed away before they can get a place in residential care homes for the elderly while some patients have to wait for years to receive specialist out-patient treatment. Over the past 10 years, Hong Kong's population has grown by hundreds of thousands of persons, yet no new hospital has been constructed. Furthermore, rent allowance under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme can never catch up with the soaring rents, and cases of deplorable situation are abundant in society. In the face of these enormous demands, which can even be said as a warning signal in society, the Financial Secretary opts to ignore them. Has he fallen LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7437 asleep or he just pretends to be unaware of them? Or does he intent to casually sneak pass the problem as long as no one brings out the issues under an absence of public concern? Regardless of his financial management philosophy, the Secretary should deploy more funds through fiscal measures to resolve those problems that can be resolved financially. Yet he is not willing to do so. Moreover, time after time he resorts to procrastination. Worse still, he does not have the basic manners, nor the means, to address problems. How can we consider him a Financial Secretary who performs his duty satisfactorily?

Deputy President, is Hong Kong really so poor that we only have over $860 billion of fiscal reserves in the public coffers? The truth is that Hong Kong had a happy problem in its fiscal condition throughout the last 10 years or so. The massive income and surplus in our public coffers are in fact adequate for resolving most of the social problems. However, the one who manages our finance is unable or unwilling to realize the unfair allocation and uneven distribution in our society, as well as areas where resources are needed. He is reluctant to invest in projects on the people's long-term welfare and social development. All he knows is to hide the money in the "biscuit box". The people look happy in front of such a tremendous amount of reserves, yet they actually feel sad for not being able to receive their right shares.

The Financial Secretary always boasts about the significant sum of fiscal reserves as his achievement by which upcoming Financial Secretaries of future Governments will be able to make use of the money. This has even attracted compliments from pro-establishment Members. However, I hope the Financial Secretary will not forget that when the Government accumulates wealth, public discontent and social problems accumulate at the same time.

Deputy President, there is no upper limit to the sum of fiscal reserves. As at the end of March 2016, the balance of fiscal reserves has reached $860 billion, equivalent to almost 24 months of government expenditure. The sum does not include the Accumulated Surplus of over $600 billion retained in the Exchange Fund. Such a means of wealth accumulation adopted by the Financial Secretary can be regarded as disorderly and failing to properly exercise his power to manage Hong Kong's finance effectively.

Deputy President, I put aside the distribution of political power for the time being. However, the Budget has never produced the right effect in the allocation of social resources and economic benefits. The Financial Secretary neglects all 7438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 the proper functions of a budget, which include wealth distribution, meeting public aspirations, returning wealth to the people, supporting economic development, and so on. He sees himself as a "miser" more than a public servant who serves the public on the basis of their common interest.

In the face of instability on various fronts, our Government stubbornly maintains its emphasis on the business sector instead of the people by strictly adhering to a bunch of outdated principles of free economy retained from the colonial days. They include the so called principles of positive non-intervention and fiscal prudence, under which public expenditure is contained at a level below 20% of GDP arbitrarily. In fact, capping the expenditure at 20% has impeded the implementation of many proper and necessary tasks. The so-called philosophy of "big market, small government" still prevails. Perhaps someone has fancied LEUNG Chun-ying ― I do not know if I should call him Mr LEUNG, Chief Executive C Y LEUNG or Privileged C Y LEUNG, so I had better call him LEUNG Chun-ying ― who pretended to be open-minded during the election, dissenting with Donald TSANG by claiming that "it is not practical to" limit public expenditure to 20% of GDP. This is his remark. He then shamelessly claimed that the positive non-intervention policy was outdated. However, his actions betrayed his words as he stuck with the old ways in the end. The fiscal philosophy of the entire Government has not changed a little bit for four years after LEUNG Chun-ying took power. Hong Kong's fiscal policy is still tightly bound by ideas like fiscal prudence, positive non-intervention and "big market, small government". Of course, the people know well that dishonouring promises and telling lies have become something normal under the tenure of "689", who is an expert in these areas.

Deputy President, what I want to emphasize more is the problem of uneven distribution. The arrangements to "hand out candies" in previous Budgets were unfair as they lacked specific focus so that people with high income and property owners were entitled to more benefits. Measures of tax rebate and rates waiver would easily give them tens of thousands of dollars, while the grassroots practically got only a few thousand dollars. Even worse, those people who were neither wealthy nor impoverished could receive not a penny. They were the group who were required to pay rents, but their income did not reach the tax threshold. Such a means to "hand out candies" will actually intensify the disparity between the rich and the poor, creating unfairness in society.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7439

This year's Budget gives rise to more uneven distribution than that of last year. Before delivering the Budget, the Government kept saying that measures to "hand out candies" could not go on eternally, and that it would timely reduce "sweeteners". However, probably owing to severe social pressure, or because the Government likes to lower public expectation first, it turned out that the Government had slightly raised its offers when the Budget was presented officially to make people happy. Another possibility was that the Government changed its words upon a change in economic outlook, stating that measures to "hand out candies" could boost the economy. That said, the overall direction to recede from "handing out candies" remains unchanged. However, the Government chooses to "sacrifice" the grassroots this year. Extra allowances equal to only one month of the respective payments under CSSA, "fruit grant" and Old Age Living Allowance payment will be granted. Furthermore, it cancels the public housing rental waiver for the grassroots, without considering the financial and livelihood pressure endured by some 700 000 public housing households. An extra month's rental waiver means extra money for these people to meet their living needs. Are such a reduction in expenses and such a means of "alleviation" fair and reasonable? Such deteriorating practice of sacrificing low income families and individuals indeed targets the disadvantaged groups who are powerless and vulnerable. Is it because of their lack of bargaining power that the Government can do as it pleases? From this we can see the Government's unsympathetic mind which intrinsically maintains this uneven distribution, valuing the business sector and neglecting the people. Deputy President, financial resources have all along concentrated in the top strata in society, or even retained in the Government's purse, leaving only a small portion for the grassroots. And now he even wants to take away these tiny bits of welfare. What are his reasons? The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood opposes this unjust practice.

Deputy President, despite the numerous problems in this year's Budget, something weird and strange happens in society. The Budget had a score of 57.2 in the survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong in the evening when it was delivered. It obtained more positive feedback in the follow-up Survey taken between 25 and 26 February. The level of satisfaction rose to 60.5 and the satisfaction rate stood at 41% while the dissatisfaction rate was 17%, resulting in a significantly improved net satisfaction rate of positive 24 percentage points. This is the Budget with the highest mark since Financial Secretary John TSANG delivered his first Budget back in 2008. 7440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Of course, the survey has revealed the reason behind. Up to 73% respondents agreed with Financial Secretary John TSANG's comments in the Budget on the political scene. In contrast, the Policy Address delivered by LEUNG Chun-ying a month ago only got 37.5 marks, which was not only a policy address that scored the worse over "689's" term of office, but also the one which had the lowest mark since Hong Kong's return to China.

Deputy President, to sum up my remarks above, the amount of surplus retained by the Hong Kong Government has increased from tens of billions of dollars to over $800 billion at present since the return to China, and among this figure, more than $450 billion was accumulated during the tenure of Financial Secretary John TSANG. This demonstrates that over 60% of the surplus was generated solely because of him. However, with such a large surplus of more than $50 billion on average each year, has the Government made good use of the money? It just keeps the money in the public coffers and receives interest, or places it in the "biscuit box", while turning a blind eye to the social problems in Hong Kong. I wish to point out a few social problems which can be solved simply with money. Such problems include 15 years of free education, retirement protection for the elderly, residential care home services (I do not know if the Secretary knows that the elderly people have to wait four years while mentally-handicapped persons have to wait nine to 10 years to receive such services), healthcare services (persons with chronic illness now have to wait literally for years, not weeks) and the prospects for the youth.

Moreover, there is the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor. The Government currently categorizes Hong Kong people in 10 income groups. The income of the 1st and 2nd decile groups has risen in real terms but the income of the 9th and 10th decile groups has dropped. Hong Kong recorded a per capita GDP of US$40,000 last year, meaning that everybody had a monthly income of $25,000. Likewise, as families in Hong Kong comprise 3.1 persons on average, theoretically each family should earn $75,000. The current median family salaries, however, stand at $22,000 only. Deputy President, why is this the case? Why is there the wealth gap? Why does Hong Kong rank third from the bottom in the world regarding wealth disparity, comparable to some African countries? The Government keeps saying that it is fine to have disparity between the rich and the poor while such a wealth gap is regarded globally as a hotbed for chaos, or even revolution. Does the Government know this?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7441

Furthermore, has the Government effectively utilized our public money to establish new economic pillars? Six years ago, former Chief Executive Donald TSANG proposed six new pillars. How have these pillars developed over these six years? In fact, they accounted for less than 5% of Hong Kong's GDP last year. In other words, the Government has made no efforts on these platforms. They can simply go ahead and introduce other new pillars if they do not like the pillars proposed by Donald TSANG.

Deputy President, the survey by the University of Hong Kong mentioned by me just now exactly reflects the gullible nature of Hong Kong people who can be governed easily. The Financial Secretary mentioned food trucks in last year's Budget. To my surprise, everyone focused only on the development of food truck business instead of the expenditure of $400 billion. It is recently said that 16 food trucks will commence operation at tourist spots. How much help can these 16 food trucks offer to the catering industry and tourism? How much support can they provide in narrowing the wealth gap and creating employment? By quoting in the Budget a few lines of lyrics from a song of so-called local flavour, he then easily won the applause and appreciation from the people. This is probably due to the contrast with a deplorable Chief Executive.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

If Hong Kong people can be governed so easily, President, why does the Government still fails to govern the city and govern it well? Is it because either the Chief Executive or the Financial Secretary is problematic, or the entire government team is plagued with problems? In the end, one cannot deny that problems exist in the cabinet and among the top rank officials within the Government, namely the Chief Executive and the three Secretaries of Departments. They have failed Hong Kong people's trust in the Hong Kong Government, disappointing those Hong Kong people who easily believe and accept the Government merely because of several lines of lyrics.

President, I can tell loudly here that I oppose the Financial Secretary or the Government's adherence to the old fiscal philosophy of the colonial era and the Government's refusal to deploy its colossal surplus to resolve problems that can be resolved with money. Furthermore, I reject the Budget's proposal to cut down relief measures for the middle and lower classes while favouring the middle 7442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 and upper classes. President, thought the survey indicates popular support for the Budget among the people, and some pan-democratic Members have also expressed their support, I will go ahead insistently in defiance of everybody to reject it!

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, it is stated in the Introduction of the Financial Secretary's Budget speech that "Politics and economics are closely intertwined. Political volatility will unavoidably impact on our economy." We of course agree with him on this point but he fails to highlight another point, which I would like to add as follows: "Political stability cannot be maintained if our economic policy fails to ensure rational allocation of social resources and enable people across all sectors to enjoy the fruits of social prosperity."

This is the introduction I would like to use to talk about the prevailing situation faced by Hong Kong today. In other countries, financial deficit is recorded every year as their income fails to meet expenditure and efforts have to be made constantly to identify ways to solve the problem. Unlike those countries, Hong Kong has a fiscal reserve of $860 billion and an average annual surplus of up to tens of billions of dollars. Although we have recorded a lesser amount of fiscal surplus this year, the annual surplus recorded in the past years often amounted to $20 billon or $30 billion. Hong Kong is a highly prosperous international cosmopolitan city but we are faced with a number of problems: first, poverty; second, disparity between the rich and the poor; and third, stagnant social mobility. It is my opinion that the Government should face the problems squarely and shoulder the responsibility actively. The political instability at present is the result of the Government's failure to tackle such problems.

The poverty line in Hong Kong was first drawn in 2014. The population of the impoverished still stands at 960 000 and the total poverty gap is $15.8 billion. Although the Commission on Poverty has explained that the figure is doctrinal because the assets of the impoverished households have been excluded, the total poverty gap should after all be regarded as an indicator. The relief measure introduced this year on the reduction of salaries tax alone has already reduced government revenue by $17 billion. Together with the reduction of $11 billion in government revenue brought about by the waiving of rates, an additional expenditure of $28 billion in total is involved. The Government should therefore have no great difficulty pulling the poor households back to levels on or above the poverty line. However, there are indeed certain LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7443 inadequacies and even long-term inadequacies in the Government's poverty alleviation policy. We consider it necessary for the Government to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth review in this regard.

Secondly, the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor keeps deteriorating in the past 10 to 20 years. The Gini Coefficient of Hong Kong is 0.537 now, crowning us one of the places with an excessively high Gini Coefficient in the world. The Government has argued that the Gini Coefficient calculated after tax and social benefits transfers would be much lower, but even so, it is crystal clear that the figure still stands at a level of nearly 0.5. According to the Government's calculation, the figure should be 0.47 and it can thus be seen that the figure is still on the high side. It is our opinion that the Government should intensify its efforts in poverty alleviation and strengthen its policies on redistribution of wealth to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

I mentioned earlier that the reduction of salaries tax and the waiving of rates for the current year have led to a reduction in government revenue by $28 billion in total. Moreover, social security recipients will be provided with an extra allowance equal to one month of the standard rate Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payments, Old Age Allowance and Disability Allowance. This measure will involve an additional expenditure of $2.8 billion. However, regrettably, the measure to provide one-month rent waiver to public rental housing (PRH) tenants is not included in the Budget this year. Based on past experience, the provision of a rent waiver to PRH tenants would only involve an additional expenditure of $1 odd billion. How come it is not included in the Budget this year?

Judging from the financial situation of the Government today, it has both the ability and the responsibility to improve comprehensively the social welfare and social security system of Hong Kong. We have been urging the Government over the years to conduct comprehensive planning for its welfare policy and make long-term financial commitment. The Government proposes in the Budget this year to set aside dedicated provisions of $200 billion for healthcare and $50 billion for housing. As far as welfare policy is concerned, however, the Government not only owes the people of Hong Kong a comprehensive review but also fails to stipulate service indicators. Although we have been asking for their formulation for many years, the Government has failed to do so.

7444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Service indicators cover residential care services, for which a large number of needy people are queuing, and specialty services in the public healthcare system. The long waiting time for these services at present is really unacceptable and long-term efforts are actually required in a number of areas. With regard to healthcare services, shortage of doctors is a problem. According to the Government, best endeavours are being made to amend the law in this regard and it is hoped that non-local doctors can be recruited by the Hospital Authority (HA) on three-year contract terms. It is also proposed that additional degree places should be offered in medicine. There are a number of measures which can in fact be implemented immediately, such as the recruitment of local doctors to fill vacancies in the HA. It can simply be done by making significant improvements to the relevant conditions of service.

As to residential care services, the Government often uses land shortage as an excuse. As we all know, the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly implemented at present fails to provide the right remedy, nor can it cope with the demand of families in need. One of the short-term measures is to introduce allowance for carers, with a view to alleviating the financial burden of family members of elderly persons and encouraging them to take care of their family on a full time basis. It is absolutely possible for the Government to allocate financial resources for the implementation of this measure but regrettably, despite our repeated requests, no plans in this regard have been devised so far.

The CSSA system needs a comprehensive review as well. What is the meaning of "basic needs"? Given the present social environment, it would be necessary for the Government to review afresh the existing CSSA levels, especially those for elderly persons and children. I would like to highlight that for elderly CSSA applicants living with their families, their adult children are required to make a statement on non-provision of financial support. We have repeatedly pointed out that the system requiring for the signing of this "statement of undutiful child" should be abolished. Besides, a review should also be conducted by the Government as soon as possible on certain services provided under the Community Care Fund. Such services should then be incorporated into the regular assistance programme and included in the recurrent expenditure. All these are measures we have been repeatedly urging for.

It is our opinion that if the approaches put forward just now are adopted by the Government, the livelihood of the poor can be improved and the population living below the poverty line will decrease accordingly. Although the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7445

Government considers that poverty is a relative concept, I think it would be necessary for us to adopt measures which can achieve instant results as far as possible. Such measures aim at coping with the demand of the poor so that their basic needs can be met, special care can be given to families having met with misfortune and specialist treatment can be rendered to people who have unfortunately fallen ill. I consider this the least thing that an advanced and caring society should strive to do.

Moreover, in the longer term, child care services should be improved. As I mentioned earlier, the average waiting time for psychiatric service at present is over one year. This can be attributed to not only the shortage of psychiatrists, but also the shortage of community nurses, clinical psychologists and educational psychologists. University education is involved in this regard. I really cannot understand why, in such a stressful society like Hong Kong where children are under great pressure and nearly 20 students have committed suicide recently, educational psychologists have to be tired out in serving several schools at the same time. Although students in need have been waiting for a long time, they are still deprived of the treatment by clinical psychologists.

Under such circumstances, I consider it necessary for the University Grants Committee to conduct a review at once. To my knowledge, in average only about 20 places in clinical psychology are now offered in each university every year. Worse still, the programme is open for enrolment only in alternate year in some universities, such as the University of Hong Kong. I do not know if the information is accurate since it is provided by somebody else and I have not verified it yet. However, I think there is no reason not to strengthen the training of psychologists and therefore an immediate review should be conducted on the matter.

With regard to primary care, as we all know, apart from the serious inadequacy of tertiary care (that is, specialist services) which I have mentioned just now, it is also noted that the Government only allows a minimal increase in the expenditure for primary care every year, making it impossible for the money appropriated to catch up with inflation. I think the Government is really not doing enough in this regard. For example, the support granted for the provision of vaccination services and to grass-roots patient support groups is far from adequate. The Government has advocated during all these years that in order to relieve the burden of public hospitals, primary medical care of a high quality should be delivered. However, as I see it, investment made by the Government in this respect is very limited while additional resources have never been 7446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 engaged. A good example is the provision of vaccination services. We would usually co-ordinate with private doctors and arrange for the provision of such services to elderly people at offices of District Council members. Why can't the matter be handled by the Government? A review should indeed be conducted on all these issues.

Basic education is in the same situation. The Government should fully subsidize kindergarten education. I understand that technical difficulties are involved but the Government could at least increase its financial assistance to kindergarten education. Besides, the Government should also conduct a comprehensive review on the remuneration of primary school teachers and appoint contract teachers as regular teachers, lest teachers who have an experience of over 10 years are still employed on contract terms. Moreover, I would like to say a few words on the Government's proposal to invest $1 billion as scholarship for students from the "Belt and Road" countries. It would be better for the Government to use that sum of money to assist associate degree programme graduates who are heavily in debt and unable to repay their loans even after they have entered the workforce for many years. I think this is something which the Government should do.

With regard to the alleviation of the disparity between the rich and the poor, we consider it necessary to conduct a comprehensive review on our tax system. As for profits tax, although surpluses are still recorded in the Treasury at present, it should pose no major problem to increase the profits tax rate by 1 percentage point, 1.5 percentage points or even 2 percentage points in the long run. I do not think Hong Kong's long term competitiveness would be adversely affected by the measure in any way. It should not be a problem as long as the whole society can be driven by government policies to provide a wide range of good services.

In the long run, it would be necessary for the Government to consider introducing capital gains tax because the progressive element enshrined in the system is definitely worth considering. It would absolutely be a more desirable choice than value-added tax, except that on luxury goods. Although the Democratic Party has not yet come up with a concrete proposal in this regard, I think in the long term, there should be an overall view on the part of the next Chief Executive or Financial Secretary to improve our tax system with a view to narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7447

The last point I would like to talk about is social mobility. It is my opinion during all these years that we should promote diversified development of industries. It is also noted that the Financial Secretary has talked about the development of the innovation and technology industry, creative industry and cultural industry at great lengths in the Budget. We support most of the views contained in paragraphs 43 to 79 of the Budget speech but consider it necessary for the Government to take an overall view on ways to support the development of innovation and technology and creative industries, and to create additional job opportunities in Hong Kong at the same time. In this connection, I consider it important to form industrial chains in Hong Kong. The Government should give more thoughts to ways of enabling industries to take root in Hong Kong.

Efforts should also be made by the Government to curb hegemony, including developer hegemony and patent hegemony. In formulating policies, the Government should tackle the problem on a long-term basis and seek to ensure priority of employment for local workers. When tender documents are prepared for various projects in the future, best endeavours should be made to ensure that the work types involved will be carried out in Hong Kong, thereby creating more local job opportunities. I think more thoughts should be given by the Government in this regard. As for complaints concerning the Link Asset Management Limited, attempts should be made to solve the problem by constructing new public markets.

Generally speaking, we find some of the measures proposed in the Budget this year worth our recognition.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I took part in a forum on universal retirement protection hosted by the civic community last Sunday. It was also attended by Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. In fact, both of them lacked any fresh ideas. They just repeated like a tape recorder their remarks on the need to maintain fiscal prudence and deploy resources specifically to needy elderly people, and so on.

During the forum, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM pointed out time and again a relatively new perspective. She said that she had made reference to a report prepared by the Financial Secretary regarding Hong Kong's estimated long-term fiscal position. It was pointed out in the report that structural deficit would surface in 2029. Of course, the Financial Secretary has also mentioned that we 7448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 would experience structural deficit within seven years the soonest. However, during the nine years of his tenure, it seems that we only have structural surpluses amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year. Last year, he hid away $45 billion as Housing Reserve, and the fund still has a balance of $30 billion up to now. We recorded a surplus of around $80 billion last year, and more than $60 billion the year before. In fact, our surpluses come up to tens of billions of dollars every year. Under the leadership of this Financial Secretary, Hong Kong's economy keeps growing, accumulating more and more money with an increasing balance of reserves retained by the Government, accompanied by some rising GDP figures.

That said, when we keep on having more money and a better economy, how about the people's livelihood? What is our real purpose for maintaining economic growth? For the sake of economic growth? Is economic growth the end itself, or should it be something that benefits everyone and improves everyone's standard of living? If this is the case, then we cannot help asking: Provided that the Government is so fond of having an evidence base to prove the effectiveness of its policies, has poverty been alleviated at present? Regarding the most needy people in society, the vulnerable groups and the general public, are there any improvements in their standard of living?

The Government would feel ashamed by reading out its own report. The poverty rate of the elderly and persons with disabilities stays high at 45%. It is surprising to see that the poverty rate of disadvantaged groups in such an affluent city stands as high as 45%. After policy intervention, 30% of the underprivileged people are still trapped in poverty. What on earth has the Government achieved after nine years' work? Hong Kong has amassed increasing wealth in the 10 odd years after returning to China. Moreover, the government officials always claim that they have done nothing wrong, that they are elites accompanied by the functional constituencies and a fine civil service system. Under their governance, no problem exists in Hong Kong at all. If so, we just let them rule then!

Nevertheless, what is the livelihood of the disadvantaged groups in society under their governance? Someone says that this is the result of capitalism, but I consider that, regardless of political doctrine, the purpose of politics and economic growth is, after all, to improve the people's livelihood. However, what has the Government done in this respect? The officials say that there is a Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme to help those in need. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7449

President, our welfare system is quite a special one in the world in the sense that welfare benefits are calculated on a household basis. Even though an elderly person is so impoverished that he is entitled to allowance under CSSA, if he lives with his families, he can receive such benefits on condition that the income of the whole family is low enough to meet the eligibility criteria. No other place in the world has such a system. Under the retirement protection system elsewhere, as long as a person is over 65 years of age, they are entitled to basic living security. It is just so simple.

We have already presented all the justifications to the Government. They talk about sustainability, claiming that our economy cannot bear the burden. If so, shall we refer to the statistics then? In fact, the Government has already engaged Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a study covering five proposals from the community, as well as his own proposal on annuity. The one submitted by the Alliance for Universal Pensions estimated that we would have a surplus of around $100 billion up to 2041. If it was estimated that there could be a surplus at the time when population ageing hit the peak, it would mean that the scheme would be financially sustainable and viable. However, the Government opted not to disclose such figures. Instead, the report submitted by Prof Nelson CHOW in 2014 was put aside while the Government claimed that the issue should be proceeded gradually. It was not until 2016 that the Government decided to conduct further public engagement. After yet another half year, they notified us with apology that the consultation had completed and the issue would be carried over to the next Government for implementation. What they have done are genuine filibuster and procrastination indeed. They just want to delay offering basic social security to the underprivileged.

As regards Disability Allowance, there are presently more than 600 000 persons with disabilities in Hong Kong. According to the Special Topics Report published by the Government in 2013, they accounted for around 9% of Hong Kong's population. However, only some 130 000 or 140 000 people are recipients of Disability Allowance, constituting a very small proportion of the whole. As a matter of fact, Disability Allowance is only applicable to the most severely disabled. The definition of disability for the purpose of receiving Disability Allowance is plagued with problems and being deliberated for many years. The Ombudsman proposed a revision of the definition in 2009 but the Government has not taken any action up to 2016. What is the progress of the Government's basic policy to support the vulnerable groups?

7450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

In relation to elderly persons waiting for places in residential care homes and the service quality of private residential care homes, problems emerged almost every day in the past. I talked to a group of nurses and doctors last night about ways to improve the quality of these services. What are the officials' responses? They respond by enhancing the inspections conducted by the Social Welfare Department while adding a post of Assistant Director and a dedicated department to conduct inspection. However, no matter how many inspections are carried out, they are to no avail. A doctor told me that some private residential care homes are more horrible than graveyards at night, as only one staff member is assigned to take care of 60 residents who basically receive no attention during the night. For elderly persons suffering from dementia, as they just cannot distinguish day and night, they will scream and wander around at night while no one will change diapers for them or pay attention to them at all. They even have urinary catheter attached on them, and are put to wait till next day when community nurses are called to release urine for them. What kind of service quality is this?

We are now faced with a situation under which the Government has so much money that I do not know how to deal with it. Apart from the fiscal balance of over $800 billion it claims to have, we are actually in possession of foreign exchange reserves too. Mr James TIEN likes to say that with these reserves added up together, we will have more than $3,000 billion available, in which over $1,000 billion is disposable capital. The Government is so rich but we are so poor that we have nothing left except money. The Government has been accumulating wealth over the last nine years, yet projects relating to people's livelihood are always stalled in delay. Right, the Government will do something under our pressure. When we point out the poor service quality of residential care homes, it will deploy additional funds and enhance inspection. But this offers no help, as the Government simply deploys its resources in the wrong place. The fundamental problem is that our leaders are simply out of touch with people's livelihood. The Council's attempts to sound out the problems have gone futile as the Government takes no heed of our opinions at all. No one listens to us. We are merely talking to the air, and talking to the people. President, will the Government heed our words? If the Government boasts about its capability, then it can just go ahead and eliminate poverty. Has the Government not got the money? The first-term Commission on Poverty also pointed out that according to assessment, it only required some $10 billion annually to eliminate poverty. If this is the case, why does the Government not do anything?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7451

The Government says that it depends on economic growth, education, investment and the development of "Belt and Road Initiative". Frankly, the Government has to invest in education, but how has our education system developed at present? The Government allocates $1 billion to implement the Hong Kong Scholarship for "Belt and Road" students, giving access to students from other countries for studying in Hong Kong, while the youngsters in Hong Kong have to bear heavy burdens from debts after graduation. Some of them are not admitted to university due to the lack of subsidized places although they meet the qualification requirement. In the United States, no one expects the 75-year-old Bernie SANDERS, one of the Democratic presidential candidates, to have any chance to win the election, yet he advocates free university education for the youth in the United States. Why not?

President, young people in many countries in the world, such as Germany and Switzerland that we visited last summer, can go to university for free. On top of free university education, youngsters in Finland and Norway are even granted living allowance. Why can we not do so? Are we not able to do so? The overall annual expenditure of the University Grants Committee is some $18 billion, which covers scientific research, teaching and learning and funding for the eight institutions. It only costs another $18 billion to double the amount. If we did that, no youngster in Hong Kong would be barred from university education. Why can we not do so? However, the Government refuses to do so, leaving all these responsibilities aside and turning a blind eye to the harshness of the underprivileged. Even worse, the Government reduces the funding for healthcare. Under the "0-1-1" programme introduced by the Financial Secretary last year, government departments will be required to reduce operating expenditure by 1% in the coming year, followed by another 1% reduction next year.

President, have you ever seen a budget more perverse than this? The fortune amassed in public coffers in the sum of thousands of billion dollars is not really a big amount relative to the riches of the market or the consortiums. The huge conglomerates have reaped even more astonishing profits throughout the entire journey of our economic development. We have retained so much wealth in our hands. The community, however, is filled with unresolved problems which jeopardize the disadvantaged groups in fundamental areas like education, healthcare and housing. And then the Government just says that it has to maintain its emphasis on economic development, while our protest is regarded as disturbance.

7452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

It can easily be seen that the Government goes on chanting empty slogans about how it has taken care of the needy in society, or how it has adopted what is referred to as Ageing in Place in respect of elderly services, backed up by services offered by residential care homes. All these are lies and empty promises. When the Government gives empty talks, we can only raise our voices. When our voices in the Council fail, we voice out in the community with protests and demonstrations. Failing to achieve anything from demonstrations, the people then resorted to hurling bricks. Yet after the incident in which bricks were hurled, the Government condemned these people for causing chaos. President, our governance is a total failure at present. How can we maintain normal operation in society when the Government is unable to fulfil its basic duties?

President, it is genuinely impossible for me to have any expectation from this Budget, just like the cases of the previous one. However, what kind of choices we have if the situation goes on like this? We can do nothing other than keep analysing with this Government, gradually justifying our arguments and presenting the difficulties endured by various groups in society. Then, we wait for its sympathy and mercy. And the Government will respond that nothing can be done, and we will then have to try moving it with various sad stories. In the end, the Government agrees to make some small efforts. This is the deadlock faced by Hong Kong at this moment. Joining this Council with a hope to improve the people's livelihood, I now have no room to do anything. President, I truly do not know how to go on under such a system. Therefore, this Budget merely reflects the structural problems before us. We can go no further if the Government does not thoroughly reform and revamp the whole system. President, I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, Members of the pro-establishment camp criticized that Members of the pro-democracy camp intended to filibuster during the Budget debate by proposing large numbers of amendments so as to. I would first respond to this. President, recently there is a sophistry: whenever Members of the pro-democracy camp raise any questions or ask for any discussions, they will be accused of filibustering. But are we supposed to shut up then? Are they saying that we can be called responsible only when we agree to vote for the passage of the Budget as quickly as possible in this Council?

We, the Labour Party, at least proposed 46 amendments. Like our proposed amendments last year, these 46 amendments are directed against the Government on 46 funding applications which bypassed the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council and has been bundled with the Budget. In the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7453 absence of vetting and debate, the Government attempts to bundle these applications with the Budget for passage. President, when seeing this situation, the only way for us to perform our responsibility to monitor the Government is to propose amendments concerning the reduction of relevant expenditure by making use of the time allowed during the debate of the Budget. The Legislative Council provides an occasion where Members of various parties can raise questions and submit suggestions related to a specific funding applications, and we hope that officials can give answers on this occasion. Currently we need to go a long way to carry out our responsibility to monitor the Government. Of course, the best way is for the Government not using this kind of unorthodox ways to circumvent monitoring by the legislature in the future.

What exactly do these 46 amendments include? They include the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and the Marine Department purchasing patrol boats, the Hong Kong Police Force buying inshore and non-inshore patrol boats … President, this kind of stuff amounts probably to nearly 20 items. I believe that you would certainly combine them together. This is fine because almost one boat is regarded as one item. We will separate them into different categories when we speak. However, other items like the Youth Development Fund, the Art Development Matching Grants Pilot Scheme, the CreateSmart Initiative, the funding for the Hong Kong Design Centre, the Enhancing Self-Reliance Through District Partnership Programme, and even the establishment of the Independent Insurance Authority and the exit scheme for the Insurance Officers, and so on, do we have to monitor these? No matter whether it is at the panels or during the vetting stage of the bill relating to the establishment of the Independent Insurance Authority, these items are a matter of concern to Members. Even cross-party Members, not only Members of the pro-democracy camp, have raised questions. Now that the Government has bundled these items together, do we have to close our eyes and let them pass? Of course not.

Some of the items that I am going to mention are even more controversial, such as the pilot scheme on promoting interflow between sister schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland. The most controversial one is the three-runway system project: the employment of consultants to provide monitoring and verification services during the detailed design stage and the construction stage. In addition, Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong also posed many questions previously concerning the vetting and approval of the funding application of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) for the construction of its New Broadcasting House, the questions which were related to production 7454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 equipment for enhancement of RTHK's Digital Terrestrial Television services. Should we raise questions, then? When we propose amendments, it is a chance for us to raise questions. We hope that Members of the pro-establishment camp would also be eager to speak on these amendments and fulfil the duties of being Members of the Legislative Council. On such occasion, I would not criticize it as "filibuster".

Therefore, please understand that whatever needs to be discussed should be discussed and whatever needs to be questioned and debated should be questioned and debated. Officials have their stand. LEUNG Chun-ying and Carrie LAM surely think that we had better shut up and the Legislative Council meeting would better be finished in three hours just like before. But I believe that citizens do not want us to do so. Hence, I asked you all not to use the word "filibuster" indiscriminately, and furthermore not to dismiss reasonable questions and debates as "filibuster". These remarks absolutely mean that we are giving up our constitutional duty.

President, I am going back to discuss some funding items of the Budget. First of all, I would like to talk about a very small amount which is an item of involving only $20 million, but this $20 million reveals the predicament faced in the economic development of Hong Kong. A moment ago I have seen the Financial Secretary and Secretary Gregory SO outside the Chamber chatting with Members of the pro-establishment camp about the development of the film industry. In this year's Budget, the funding for the film industry is only $20 million. Actually, the Film Development Fund already received a funding of $200 million long ago. The additional funding of $20 million this year is to assist the distribution and publicity of local films conducted in Guangdong Province, the maximum amount of subsidy is increased from $250,000 to $500,000. This is a good thing.

As a matter of fact, Hong Kong has been promoting the creative industry for seven to eight years. Six new industries were proposed to be added ever since the era of Donald TSANG and the Film Development Fund was established, hoping that Hong Kong can be back on its own feet and regain its golden era of annual production of 200 films as currently there are only 50 each year. Hong Kong TV dramas had once been spiritual food for the Chinese people across the globe. By watching Hong Kong TV dramas, the Chinese people acquired an understanding of Hong Kong. Furthermore, these dramas unfolded a fervour of learning Cantonese by the people in the Mainland.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7455

President, two special and unprecedented things happened in Hong Kong's creative industry in 1 April this year, which is really worth a detailed discussion. One of them is that there is a film called Ten Years, which is a highly acclaimed blockbuster film with a low cost production. On the night of 1 April, nearly a dozen to 20 civil organizations jointly organized a free screening of the film in more than 20 public places (public space) in Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories. The audience could make a donation at their own will to support the event. Each place had an audience of various size, from more than 400 to more than 2 000. The production cost of the film was only $500,000. Its completion, of course, depended very much on friends doing favours or just charging discounted prices. However, even in its heyday, to one's surprise, there were only three commercial cinemas willing to arrange screenings of the film for about a month, but its box office receipts exceeded $6.5 million. Judging from a film with a production cost of $500,000, the box office receipts were a great success. However, the screening period had already ended. The reason of ending the screening period is not lack of or insufficient audience. So what is the reason of ending the screening period even though the film attracted full houses? No one knows. This totally goes against the logic of "business is business". No one explained the reason and no one asked. Just like very often the commentaries from Beijing that we all "know full well". Fortunately, Hong Kong people are just like what the dialogue of the film says that they "do not like to make a habit of it", and they refuse to make a habit of it. To the contrary, what commercial organizations could not do would be done by civil organizations. The film was screened in tertiary institutions with full houses. When it was screened in public places on the night of 1 April, the film attracted pack audience. Moreover, the film is also supported by practitioners of the film industry and was awarded this year's Best Film of the Hong Kong Film Awards.

Recently, the Hong Kong Arts Centre arranged three extra slots to screen the film and the tickets were completely sold out through URBTIX within a few hours. Nevertheless, the cinema is a very small one, which has only 180 seats. Other slots for screening have to be arranged now. Various quarters also hope that a video disc can be released as soon as possible, I am one of them. A few months ago I asked when the video disc would be released ― though I already watched the film, I would definitely like to purchase a few if it is released and send them to my relatives and friends overseas. In fact, serious speaking, this film should have box office receipts of more than $10 million. The Financial Secretary said that he likes watching French films. As he increased the amount 7456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 of subsidy this year to implement measures by injecting $20 million into the film industry, has he ever thought of why this highly acclaimed blockbuster film which did not have any Government subsidy or any investment from commercial organizations had to end its screening?

For one thing, the Government established the Film Development Fund and accepted our suggestion on subsidizing the shooting of some award-winning films ― just like the production fund of Ang LEE's first film came from winning a public contest in Taiwan, so that the shooting of The Wedding Banquet could be materialized and he had an opportunity to emerge as a very well-known international director. The Government accepted our suggestion, which is very good. The Financial Secretary revealed that first batch of film works had already been published, in which he also knew the true stories behind and personally showed great interest in these films. However, do we have a look at this phenomenon of Ten Years? Why did this happen? The answer in fact has already been mentioned in the commentaries in the newspapers in the Mainland, that is, this film spreads panic. I do not know what panic it spreads. But when I watched this film, I saw that many people were touched. The film can move people emotionally.

Obviously, the film Ten Years expresses the fear of Hong Kong people at the moment. However, why did the expression of the fear of Hong Kong people, the expression of this fact, become the fear of Grandpa? Why did the commentaries in the newspapers from the Mainland cause many well-known figures in Hong Kong to make off-the-cuff comments on the film, no matter whether they had already watched it or not? They include Dr Priscilla LEUNG, who is present in the Chamber. She expressed in a forum that the film is a sci-fi film and thought that students should wear roller skates to go to school after 10 years from now. She should go to watch the film as soon as possible before making any comments.

The factor of fear caused some successful films to be unable to earn reasonable rewards. On the night of the Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony, Derek YEE Tung-sing stated that no one dared to be the award presenter because the presenter needed to speak the two words "Ten Years". The fear reached to the extent of being self-restraint, self-censorship and self-exclusion, how can Hong Kong's creative industry continue? Nevertheless, a touching film indeed does not need the Government to invest too much money, and a good reputation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7457 spread by word of mouth already can naturally attract audience. Now that even though there is no mainstream cinema willing to arrange screenings of the film, its video disc will also be released. It would also be possible for it to be released commercially in Taiwan. This would take us back to the scenes in 70s and 80s when Hong Kong's Cantonese films could be released in South East Asia.

Promoting economic development can be achieved through subsidy or sponsorship. However, what is more important is the co-ordination of measures and policies so that the subsidy or sponsorship provided can give play to a leverage effect and a higher income can be obtained, which in turn can be transformed into the fundamentals of the economy and can create more job opportunities for the new generation. I hope that from the phenomenon of the film Ten Years the authorities can see that if we have sufficient freedom, space for creativity and are free from political kidnapping of artistic creation, Hong Kong people, as well as the young generation, have possessed enough strength to promote creativity.

The second unprecedented thing happened on the night of 1 April is that Asia Television Limited (ATV) discontinued its broadcasting services. Ever since the commencement of its broadcasting services in 1953 and until 1972, ATV had been operating on a monopolistic basis without any competition. Once competition was introduced, it lost the field. Nevertheless, when we talk about the era managed by Deacon CHIU, the ATV staff team united together and produced several creative programmes, which forced Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) to terminate its drama programmes twice. Due to the fact that ATV had produced several innovative programme formats, even TVB was compelled to copy ATV's style. The spirit of making unceasing efforts for self-enhancement and the united team spirit have gained the respect from Hong Kong people. However, since when did it truly "die"? It truly "died" when the investment from Taiwan and the Mainland were injected, the whole management struggled for power and gave up the Hong Kong people-oriented principle, and the whole direction of production went against the expectations of Hong Kong citizens. It was cast aside by the citizens and finally discontinued its broadcasting in 1 April.

The last line of the dialogue broadcasted by ATV is: "The most important thing for a person is to be independent, especially financially independent." The last line of the dialogue is indeed very similar to the current situation of Hong 7458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Kong. The Policy Address is all about the "Belt and Road", which is China-oriented. I hope that the Financial Secretary can draw a lesson from ATV and be committed to open up a local economy that can be developed independently, instead of completely, one-sidedly relying on the Mainland. Otherwise, Standard and Poor's would be right about its reason of downgrading the rating of Hong Kong, which is the fear that Hong Kong would go into trouble when the economic bubble of the Mainland bursts.

President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I said in last year's Budget debate that the Financial Secretary was a very lucky person because he had always managed to stay away from the front line when all others were in dire straits. Over the past nine years, he has been called "Cash Distributing Treasurer", "Erroneous Treasurer", "Scrooge" and "No Water Treasurer". The last nickname is invented by me to show that the Budget totally omits all measures on improving water quality despite the coverage of such measures by the Policy Address. I even told the Financial Secretary last year that I hope he could become a "Clairvoyant Treasurer".

Having gone through the Financial Secretary's Budget this year, I believe that he is not clairvoyant, but I also think that he can slowly become a far-sighted person. We must understand that Article 107 and Article 108 of the Basic Law provide that Hong Kong shall maintain a low tax rate by keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues and avoiding deficits. As such, if the Financial Secretary would like to be a "Clairvoyant Treasurer", he must be far-sighted. We should of course know how to spend money, but he should also know how to make money. This is especially true since it is anticipated that the population of Hong Kong will age rapidly in the future and will become a burden to society. So, how are we going to deal with the issue of retirement protection?

As such, can the Financial Secretary be clairvoyant? By being clairvoyant, it means that a person should be fair-sighted. As several colleagues have said earlier, the political arena of Hong Kong is actually a big theatre. I think that the Chief Executive and Financial Secretary are respectively playing the roles of "bad cop" and "good cop". It does not make much sense to compare people, of course. Some people have talked about how the Financial Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7459 and the Chief Executive are at odds with each other. But this might only reflect the drama which Members from various parties, including those in the pro-establishment camp, would like to see. As one may fall into the trap of others by making such associations, I think we had better get back to our discussion on the Budget.

For every year over the past several years, my affiliated groups, including the Kowloon West New Dynamic, and I have hoped the Government could launch a $30 billion project which is similar to a savings plan that would spend $10 billion on public healthcare, $10 billion on the improvement of water quality and $10 billion on education if it has a surplus Budget. Instead of randomly handling out the surpluses of each financial year, there should be a long-term plan. Why do I say that the Financial Secretary can be considered as "relatively far-sighted" this year? It is due to the actual breakthrough he has made in the area of public healthcare. He has responded to the Policy Address by injecting $10 billion each year for the coming 10 years and he will also implement a $200 billion public healthcare plan. I must commend him on this for this is a really a long-term plan.

There are still a lot of controversies in society regarding the implementation of universal retirement protection for it will involve long-term expenditure and issues like whether the tax system of Hong Kong will be affected. However, if we adopt a step-by-step approach and turn universal retirement protection into a 10-year plan, we can ingeniously and gradually move towards the direction of implementing a more comprehensive retirement protection scheme, with our first emphasis on public healthcare. The public may no longer enjoy medical coverage upon their retirement and middle-class people may become members of the proletariat and everyone will then have to rely on public healthcare. Therefore, I think that the implementation of a $200 billion 10-year plan is a good start and hope that it can attract more new doctors to the profession and everyone is aware of … problems like doctors working overtime and inadequate hospital beds. There will be a serious shortage of hospital beds this year as a result of the shortage of existing hospitals. Moreover, currently, members of the public have to wait until they are 80 years old before they can enjoy dental care benefits. Is it possible to increase the number of mobile dental care vehicles and offer point-to-point services to the public, regardless of age? This way, newly retired persons from 60 to 64 years of age will no longer complain that they do not enjoy any benefits. I think that a proper plan should 7460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 be drawn up for the $200 billion and I definitely support a move in this direction. Why do I say that he is also far-sighted, notwithstanding the "0-1-1" saving plan which may be implemented? That is due to the long-term plan on public healthcare.

Secondly, on the issue of how money should be spent and earned with regard to elderly retirement planning, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong has been proposing over the past several years that seniors should be allowed to re-join the market and earn money. The Financial Secretary has eventually responded in paragraph 65 of this year's Budget that "entrepreneurship is not exclusive to the young" and as "there is no age limit on business starters", retirees can also join the ranks of entrepreneurs if they have good suggestions and plans.

Here I would like to recommend a rather good movie, The Intern, which conveyed the message that "experience never gets old". The movie was about a retired senior CEO who was willing to join a company which was set up by young people as an intern to share his life and work experiences with them. It proved that both seniors and young people can venture into the start-ups market and be mutually complementary. The movie which was on intergenerational co-operation and understanding had brought great joy to people of different ages who had watched it.

On the issue of start-ups, I have recently visited a "shed" market in Sham Shui Po where there is also no age limit on starting up businesses. Traders of different age can be found and the majority of those who continued to operate at the shed fabric market are between 40 and 60 years old, with even some 80-year olds. The fabric which I am now holding is a gift from them and these people are the successful examples of our local economy. While we are exploring the feasibility of food trucks, there are actually existing examples, such as these fabrics at cheap prices which can be made into beautiful clothes with the help of good designers, in the local economy. I have saved this piece of fabric and am reluctant to use it because it is a great source of encouragement. I hope that the Government can consider carefully whether it should really crack down on these fabric markets or whether they could be allowed to develop better? I think the local economy of Hong Kong has great strength and can certainly do better if we offer more encouragements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7461

Regarding the issue of seniors re-entering the market, we must adopt corresponding measures. Apart from starting up businesses, they can also take up certain more relaxed self-employed jobs like offering consultation services on training young people and guidance on how to join the workforce and handle personal relationships. These are the greatest edges of new retirees between 60 and 64 years of age and we should offer them opportunities. These people also have the most complaints. For example, they are not yet eligible for the $2 concessionary transportation fees and medical vouchers. Can the Government start offering medical vouchers for people who are 65 years old as well? These people are also not eligible for "fruit grant". As such, I hope that the Government can take these seniors who have contributed greatly to Hong Kong into consideration when it considers its welfare policy. These seniors are still full of energy and their wisdom should be properly utilized in the market.

The second $10 billion savings plan which I have proposed is on education. We earnestly hope that the Government can allocate an additional $10 billion for education each year. The 15-year compulsory education proposed this year can be regarded as a breakthrough. But, the prerequisite should be on the quality of education and not on blindly idolizing spoon-feeding education and embracing examinations. Everyone knows that many parents are very disgusted with TSA and the issue has been discussed at this Council many times. We are of the opinion that Primary Three students should not be classified on the basis of TSA for many children may be late bloomers and should not be asked to take exams at such a young age. However, the authority has responded by saying that TSA is not an exam but only a means of classification.

I have read an article today by an author named CHAN Hei-tung ― I do not know whether the author is a male or female ― he has responded to my criticisms on the examination questions of Liberal Studies. I have never agreed that Liberal Studies should be listed as a compulsory subject and this is not an opinion which I have just voiced today or after the Occupy Central movement. Back in 2009, I had already thought that there were problems with this subject because its compulsory exam questions were usually on political issues. It was true that this stopped last year for one year and I had mentioned in this Council that I wondered whether the authority had taken our advice. It was true that we, many parents and teachers have reflected our views to the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). This CHAN Hei-tung person had used a cautionary tone and said something which seemed like: 7462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Councillor, since you are going to run for election in September, you should mind your words. He questioned why I, whom he thought am not a teacher of Liberal Studies, should have commented on the subject of Liberal Studies. As such, as the majority of Members are not from the education sector, does it mean that all of us should not comment on the examination paper of Liberal Studies or criticize TSA? Furthermore, it seems that he has almost warned Dr TONG Chong-sze, the Secretary General of the HKEAA Secretariat, by saying that I have mentioned that Dr TONG has listened to my opinion.

I would like to ask this CHAN Hei-tung person to take a clear look at the motion debate which I moved last year on the problems which should be reviewed in relation to the Liberal Studies subject. I said the purpose of Liberal Studies should be to allow students to enjoy the subject and not its examinations. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at his response for he asked where can we find students who will say that they enjoy the examination after taking it? Nobody is advocating for examinations. What I said was why did the Education Bureau and HKEAA ― since the HKEAA is responsible for setting the examination questions, there is nothing it can do ― embraced examinations? Why has this subject been scheduled as a compulsory subject for Primary Three to senior high school students and has to be taken, examined and counted for academic assessments? I am still very opposed to it. I am even more opposed to what this CHAN Hei-tung has tried to imply that we should be careful because of the election in September. We had proposed that the Liberal Studies subject should be reviewed as early as back in 2009. We have lived through many threats; otherwise we will not be able to become Members of the Legislative Council.

I hope that the Education Bureau would review the assessment methods for TSA and Liberal Studies. He mentioned one point: the purpose of public examinations is to allocate resources and it is not a game for handing out candies. This explains why there are so many tutorial schools on the streets. Does everyone know that the subject of Liberal Studies has been offered as an additional course at tutorial schools? He has also tried to offer me guidance on understanding the subject but I am sorry to say that I do not need his guidance for I do not have to take the exam on Liberal Studies. If I had to take this exam in the past, then I might not have been able to study the subject I like. He said he had to give us guidance on understanding the subject but I do not need it, though I know that the business of many tutorial schools has been flourishing and many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7463 people have queued up to take courses on the relationship between the democracy index and social competitiveness index. Does this CHAN Hei-tung person know that the competitiveness index is not only determined by the democracy index, but also by many other cultural, educational and social foundation factors? Is he aware that the competitiveness of Hong Kong is closely associated with its low tax policy? We have always been pursuing a free market policy but he has not mentioned that. I do mind that he has responded to my comments for there may be many people like him around the Education Bureau, and that is the reason why TSA has still been embraced and Primary Three students are still asked to take exams. Since he is so fond of exams, he must make sure that he would never come out to criticize TSA exams.

I went to the Park Avenue today and some parents asked me questions on why have teachers of Liberal Studies taken secondary students out on field studies? Secondary students should have sought the approval of parents before they can participate in any activities, and I was asked this morning whether I know what students have experienced on the field studies. Here is a true incident, Mr FAN, a resident of Park Avenue told me this morning that a teacher asked students to hand out leaflets for the purpose of experiencing the work of election candidates. I believe that many parents are very disgusted with this. I made a one minute short film on criticizing the examination paper of Liberal Studies and there have been more than 400 000 hits on the film and over 100 000 viewers; but only several hundreds of people, and this might include this CHAN Hei-tung or those who might have something to do with the Liberal Studies subject, have indicated that they do not like it. Here, I would like to make my point clear that we are not saying that there should not be a Liberal Studies subject and I enjoy the contents of the subject which are well taught but it should not be examined in this manner, and please listen carefully that I am not saying that students should enjoy exams.

Finally, I would like to say that three generations of my family were born and bred in Hong Kong and I would like to tell Ms Cyd HO that I had watched the film Ten Years but was misquoted. She should have listened carefully to what I said but everyone has avoided the issue. My greatest criticism was that the film has promoted the idea of the independence of Hong Kong, beautified self immolation and propagated the sentiment of hopelessness, and since the film was rated 2B, it should not be randomly shown in the community to innocent young people who should be accompanied by parents when watching it. I have 7464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 mentioned the film, The Intern, precisely because you people said earlier that young people should be allowed to watch Ten Years which has beautified the sentiment of hopelessness … I hope that everyone can support the local film industry by making films with sunny themes which convey messages on the sense of achievement and joy experienced by seniors and young people who work together to start-up businesses.

Hong Kong is not as bad as what some has described, and if it were a glass half full of water, should you knock it over? We hope that everyone could work together to improve the system and Ms Cyd HO should not digress from the topic. I have only mentioned the game of roller-skating to give everyone a laugh. Even if you are making political criticisms and talking about political fears, you, yourself have said that your fear is for the coming 10 years and not the past 30 years. There is no doubt that Taiwan will show this film for it still lives in the fear which it has harboured since the 50s and are you aware that they want to propagate the idea of independence in Hong Kong?

President, I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, let me advise Dr Priscilla LEUNG that she need not be so angry. Earlier today, I saw the video clip of an interview with a member of the Youngspiration. The host asked if he would seek help from the embassy in case he lost something in a foreign country. After a moment of silent thinking, he said he approach a policeman. Actually, even if he approaches the local police, they will at most record the case for investigation. In the end, he must still apply for a passport at the Chinese embassy there.

Actually, I want to respond to Ms Cyd HO's remarks. She avowed just now that instead of filibustering, she only wanted to propose amendments, and she also said we should not regard her as one of the filibusterers. It looks like she wants to detach herself totally from the filibusterers. I for one hope that she can refrain from filibustering as promised, and that she will just put forth amendments. In this way, we can either vote for vote against them. Regarding whether she will filibuster, there will be an answer very soon.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7465

In addition, I also want to respond to Mr Alvin YEUNG. He said that he was touched by Ms Starry LEE's remarks because her views were thought-provoking. Mr Alvin YEUNG is new to the Council after all. If he can listen carefully to the speeches of pro-establishment Members, he will find their views not only thought-provoking but also immensely useful. As for what he said in response to Mr CHAN Kam-lam's speech, I must say his words really shocked me. Why? When Mr CHAN spoke yesterday, he described Members of the opposition camp as opposing for the mere sake of opposing. He remarked that we were all in the same boat, and that if we kept asking the skipper to step down, the boat could not possibly sail forward. How did Mr YEUNG respond? He asked us what should be done if the boat was going to hit an iceberg. I believe if the Members here see that a ship is going to hit an iceberg, they will certainly … Even if it is not an iceberg and we see that a person is going to bump into just a pole or wall, we will still try to stop him and ask him to watch out for the danger ahead. To our surprise, Mr Alvin YEUNG said in his response that he would make a different decision. He said that he would immediately "throw him into the sea" (This was his exact wording). Why does Mr YEUNG want to do so? Is this honestly a kind of violence? Many people say that our society is now charged with violence. Is this legislature the origin of such violence? It is therefore small wonder that our society sometimes see the outbreak of violence or even the throwing of stones these days.

Today, I also want to say a few words on Ms Claudia MO's remarks. Ms MO said that Secretary TSANG was dishonest. Why did she criticize the Financial Secretary for being dishonest? A careful analysis of her remark in context will tell us the reason: it is pointed out in paragraph 27 of his Budget speech that one reason for the recent decline in visitor volume is the tactics used by a handful of people, such as hurling abuses at visitors and kicking their suitcases. I think what the Financial Secretary said is the truth. But Ms Claudia MO, dubbed the Queen of Suitcase-kickers, will definitely disagree. She asserted that the decline in visitor volume was not caused by suitcase-kickers. Rather, she said, all was because Mainland people had stopped going outside for shopping due to the present anti-corruption campaign and also because the weakening Renminbi had made overseas travel expensive. I think what she said is kind of silly. She often says that she is global in outlook and wants to embrace the world. But in order to be so, we must sometimes have some actual and personal experiences, right?

7466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

There were several days of holidays during the Easter Festival, and many Hong Kong people travelled to South East Asia, especially Japan and Korea. I myself also visited Korea and Osaka in the past few months. On arrival at the Osaka Airport, I found the scene amazing. It was full of people speaking Putonghua. Tourist spots or shopping areas were all full of Mainland compatriots. We can thus see that Mainland people have never stopped travelling abroad but have just stopped visiting Hong Kong. I therefore very much agree to what the Financial Secretary TSANG said about the acts of suitcase-kicking in paragraph 27 of his Budget speech.

Ms MO has also remarked recently that Hong Kong is only left with shops selling jewelry, cosmetics and drugs. She has actually been saying so repeatedly. But sometimes, I tell myself that I should be merciful like Heaven and just let her go. But then, she has kept saying so, and if this makes people think that this is really the case, the result will be terrible. Hence, I must tell her plainly that her words will definitely do very great harm to Hong Kong, especially when they are spoken in English. As matter of fact, there is a rich variety of shops in Hong Kong. In Kowloon West alone, not to mention other districts, there are a cloth street, a bird street, a women's street, the Temple Street, Fa Yuen Street and Shanghai Street, which sells a rich variety of things ranging from clay pots and cookers to incense and joss papers. I therefore hope that when we have the time, we can show Ms Claudia MO around Kowloon West ― sorry, I almost forget that Kowloon West is her constituency ― I hope that she can visit her constituency more often.

Talking about district visits, I must honestly say that the Financial Secretary rarely conduct any such visits. I hope that rather than just writing his blog at home, the Financial Secretary can visit the districts every week and walk through side streets and alleys to get to know more about people's daily life. In this way, he will have more inspirations and ideas, and this will certainly help him formulate the Budget next year. A Budget thus formulated can surely better reflect people's needs and administer the right remedies, thus winning greater applause.

Talking about applause, I am really amazed. Yesterday, to everybody's surprise, anti-establishment Members in the opposition camp all sang praises of the Financial Secretary. Their praises are given extensive media coverage today: "Pan-democrats sing brazen praises of Financial Secretary in suspected LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7467 collusion". You must read the press reports. You must read them. Have you done so already? I am really amazed by their praises and have thus been thinking about some questions. All these pan-democratic and anti-establishment Members in the opposition camp have been avowing that they want to serve the people and stand up for the underprivileged and grassroots, right? So, do they genuinely believe that the Budget this year can truly answer the aspirations and needs of the grassroots? Please be true to your own consciences.

Honestly, I can only use the word "mean" to describe the Budget because the Financial Secretary has not answered people's aspirations. One example is the reduction of the public housing rent waiver to just one month. President, to begin with, one must not forget that not all public rental housing tenants are eligible for the rent waiver ― well-off tenants are ineligible. Well-off tenants were also not eligible last year. Now, the Government is even unwilling to help the low-income grassroots who are in dire need of help. We also hope that the Government can lower the eligibility age for the Old Age Living Allowance and Elderly Health Care Vouchers to 65. But the Government simply does not answer all these requests. There are also problems with the markets under the management of the Link REIT, but I would put these problems aside for the moment because many Members have already discussed them. I instead want to talk about the MTR Corporation Limited. One reason for listing its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange years ago was its poor management, and it was hoped that the listing of its shares could help it avoid losses and make profits. Today, the MTR Corporation Limited with the Government as the major shareholder is no longer incurring any losses. It can even make profits amounting to $7 billion to $8 billion a year, or at least $6 billion to $7 billion. It is really a good idea to use the profits for the benefit of the travelling public, isn't it? But the Government refuses. So, what more can we say? The poor performance of the MTR Corporation Limited is really infuriating.

One more issue I want to talk about is the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System. As we all know, our objective of putting in place the MPF System is to enable employees in Hong Kong to have at least some savings that can meet their living expenses after retirement and up to the time of their passing away. We hope that even if the money is not sufficient to last till that day, it can still provide some sort of support. But the problem now is that if a company closes down or if its employees are dismissed, the employees' accrued MPF benefits will be offset. In that case, can there still be 7468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 anything left for employees? The offsetting arrangement was formulated by the Government and it should thus bear the responsibility. But the Government now wants to shift the responsibility to the business sector. This is totally unreasonable. It is unscrupulous of the Government to try to ignore the plight of employees! President, I hope everyone can think about how to solve this problem. The Financial Secretary should know only too well why this problem came up years ago. I hope that he could untie the knot for the MPF offsetting arrangement.

Overall, the Budget is just a budget marked by piecemeal measures and small favours. It is a budget that ignores the realities and a medicated patch administered by an old Chinese medicine practitioner, one which can only prolong one's life a little bit but cannot eradicate the cause of the disease. This is just a budget which aims to build up an image of the hero rather than the villain, a mere political embellishment. Anyway, Financial Secretary, please remember that the aim of any budget should be the closing of the wealth gap through secondary allocation. I hope that the Financial Secretary can seriously consider how he can do a better job next year. Financial Secretary, "you should know how to do so (in Putonghua)".

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, having listened to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's speech just now, I think we may as well wait and see if the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) will cast an opposition vote on the Budget later on. From her speech just now, we can tell that even though the DAB is a long-standing supporter of the Government, it also shares the view of many pan-democratic Members that the Budget has not done enough in the case of many livelihood policies. Nevertheless, when we comment on a budget, we should realize that it is actually not easy at all for any budget to satisfy the demands of everybody in one go.

The Democratic Party will support the Budget after consideration from two angles. First, we think that it has introduced a very important concept of fiscal management, the concept that the Government should earmark funding and provide financial support for certain initiatives needed by society in the long run, so as to ensure that they can actually be implemented. Such initiatives include the setting aside of $200 billion as an infrastructure fund for building hospitals, and the earmarking of over $70 billion in the provisions for these two years to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7469 construct housing and to meet the need for resources required to complete the 10-year housing construction plan. I think this is an important milestone. Only when the Government is willing to show long-term commitment can it rationalize and cope with growing social conflicts and problems.

The second reason why the Democratic Party finds the Budget worthy of its support is that the Financial Secretary has told the inner thoughts of Hong Kong people in the Budget. And, those words are uttered by a senior public officer. He points out that we cannot merely shirk the responsibility to others in the face of the social problems in Hong Kong, while also adding that if we fail to grasp the crux of our problems, the problems will only worsen and plunge Hong Kong into greater chaos in the future, and our next generation will grow up in an environment of animosity. I think his words have precisely revealed the greatest concern of people who live their lives under the rule of the SAR Government led by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying.

In the previous week, the Chief Executive's family was in the spotlight again due to the airport luggage incident. Outraged by the conduct of the Chief Executive's family, Hong Kong people in general have questioned why his family could enjoy privilege and exemption from those security checks which others must follow. But what is even more worrying is the latest development. In a bid to "protect their master", the Security Bureau, the Airport Authority (AA) and also the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) have issued statements one after another, in a strenuous attempt to convince us that they adhered to the established practice instead of giving any "special treatment" in handling the case involving the Chief Executive's family. This explains why the Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation will stage a sit-in at the airport this weekend to protest against the abuse of power by the Chief Executive's family and also the disastrous impacts on the airport resulting from the attempts of the Security Bureau, the AA and the CAD to "protect their master". They have tarnished the fine reputation of Hong Kong's aviation safety and our international airport in which we have taken pride all along, to speak less of causing security loopholes in aviation safety. Their concerns are understandable.

But up until today, one can see that the statements issued by the Security Bureau, the CAD and the AA one after another are all aimed to shirk their responsibility. They have even gone so far as to dismissing the whole thing, saying that it was all about the individual practice of the aviation company involved. This is absolutely undesirable. 7470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

LEUNG Chun-ying's mentality of self-supremacy and using all his power could be seen not only in the airport luggage incident. The Policy Address he delivered early this year is obviously aimed to show loyalty to Beijing and pave the way for his re-election, rather than focusing on people's well-being.

Compared to the Policy Address, the Budget is more focused on Hong Kong people. It gives me the feeling that the Financial Secretary shares the same breath with Hong Kong people, and the Budget sounds more agreeable to people, to say the very least. Financial Secretary John TSANG says in paragraph 175 in the conclusion, "As a member of the Hong Kong community, I am deeply troubled by the current situation. What we are facing today is the result of a raft of intricately-related factors. We need to look squarely at these factors in resolving the differences and, more importantly, we need to have the determination to resolve these conflicts. If we should allow the situation to get worse, what lies in store for Hong Kong will be even greater chaos, and our future generations will grow up in the midst of hatred and malice." This is the inner thoughts of many Hong Kong people, and also a reason for our concern.

Actually, whether speaking of personal conduct or work performance, Financial Secretary John TSANG and his budgets are more down-to-earth than his superior Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and his policy addresses, and are more focused on Hong Kong people. He even has an air of the head of the SAR.

But anyway, while I describe the Budget as down-to-earth, I do not mean that it has put forth any solution to the various prevailing social problems. Among those problems, I want to discuss the lack of opportunities for upward mobility among youngsters.

The issue we have discussed most often in recent years is the lack of opportunities for upward mobility among youngsters. Rising property prices and rents have made it difficult for families to acquire their homes. Apart from causing difficulties in home acquisition and housing, exorbitant property prices and high rents have even stifled youngsters' room for further development. The reason is that exorbitant rents or mortgage repayments have eroded the disposable incomes of young people and reduced their savings which can be used for personal career development. What is more, if young people join the ranks of property owners as "mortgage slaves", they will basically lose the opportunity to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7471 explore their personal interests or seek other development because they can do nothing but work very hard in order to get a stable income. An obvious result is that the possibility of social innovation and progress will be reduced.

An aggravation of this problem is the government policy on public housing. Since the introduction of the Quota and Points System for public housing in 2005, the allocation of public housing has seriously titled towards ordinary families, and the opportunity for single young people to receive public housing allocation has been reduced. The reason for implementing the system is the Government's assumption that educated youngsters should be able to obtain suitable housing in the private market as their incomes are relatively higher. But if we look at the median income, we can see why salary increase over the past 10 or 20 years in Hong Kong is a cause for our concern. The reason is that the living standard of many people has actually remained unchanged. If the housing problem can be resolved, the disposable incomes of people can increase, and general people who receive the relevant public resources can cherish more room for imagination.

We can see that under the refined points system for public housing introduced in 2014, a non-elderly one-person applicant must have reached the high threshold of 425 points before he is arranged to undergo detailed vetting. In other words, if a person submits an application at the age of 18, he must wait 30 years before he is given the opportunity to undergo detailed vetting because he can only get 12 points a year and an extra 60 points at the age of 45. Their wait for receiving public housing allocation will be even longer.

According to the Government, this system can help those applicants aged 45. But if a 45-year-old person submits an application for public housing today, he must still wait 10 years before reaching the stage of detailed vetting under the present threshold as he has merely accumulated 303 points (this already includes the extra 60 points allotted to him). This system is actually meant to shut the door on single young people and force them to leave the queue on their own initiative. This system is also plagued by another problem. The problem is that only 2 200 of the units in the housing supply of the Hong Kong Housing Authority will be allocated to non-elderly one-person applicants a year. In other words, they want to prolong young people's wait for public housing to over 30 years through the points system and controlling the supply. This explains why young people feel rejected by the Government.

7472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

If young people can only "board the train" with the financial aid of their parents or live in a cramped "sub-divided unit" without any prospect of accumulating capital, they will gradually develop a feeling of disappointment and resentment towards society. Therefore, I urge the Government to review the Quota and Points System for public housing, so as to increase the opportunity for young people to move into public housing.

Education is another issue pertinent to the development of young people. Knowledge is an asset. We have always cherished the hope that everybody can change their lives through education. While the existing education system has offered such an opportunity, many people have to face the problem of indebtedness under the system. When they pursue tertiary education, they must rely on the means-tested financial assistance scheme or the Non-means-tested Loan Scheme to cope with the tuition fees. But on the one hand, such loans are interest-bearing with a short repayment period; on the other, in the case of non-means-tested loans, interest will be calculated beginning from the granting of loans. For these reasons, many students are already seriously indebted soon after graduation. They must spend most of their incomes on making repayments in the first five or 10 years after graduation. When all this is coupled with the housing problems of high rents and exorbitant property prices, young people can accumulate even less capital.

Therefore, I suggest that the Government should consider the ideas of increasing students' room for imagination of the future and expanding their options. On the one hand, more public housing should be built to increase youngsters' opportunity of moving into public housing. On the other, I hope the Government can provide interest-free loans and extend the repayment period under its student loan policy as a means of alleviating their pressure of indebtedness. Besides, the Government should expand the scope of student loans to cover all overseas universities which fulfil the relevant criteria, so as to increase the articulation options and avenues for students, and to nurture more young people who truly possess an international vision for the metropolis of Hong Kong.

Besides, I also want to discuss the Government's philosophy of fiscal management. Sitting on a considerable fiscal surplus, the Government actually has much capacity to deal with those thorny issues, such as retirement protection. The thinking of the Government is that the line should be drawn at the age of 65, and if a proposal is financially unsustainable, the Government will reject it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7473 altogether. But, has the Government ever considered other options? Should a government or anyone in charge of public administration only offer two options ― "yes" or "no", or "accept" or "reject" ― when dealing with a problem? Democratic Members have always criticized the Government in this Chamber for refusing to spend any money as and when necessary and to increase the recurrent expenditure for various items while very often overestimating the benefits of infrastructure projects and implementing "white elephant" projects at a huge cost to the public coffer. Its conflicting attitudes are hardly acceptable to people. On the one hand, the Government has failed to convince people of the necessity to embark on so many infrastructure projects. On the other, the Government has not shown any commitment to meeting our long-term needs or offered a way-out.

Another example I want to discuss is the use of the dividends received by the Government from the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) to subsidize transport expenses. While urging the Government to review the Fare Adjustment Mechanism, the Democratic Party has also proposed to subsidize the transport expenses of people with the dividends received from the MTRCL under the approach of "dedicated fund for dedicated use", so as to realize the principle "what comes from transport should be spent on transport." But the Government still maintains that this will affect our fiscal soundness and robustness and defies the principles governing the use of our public money. But actually, the Government has done something similar for other initiatives. In the case of the $2 concessionary fare, for example, the Government actually introduced this measure in response to people's demands, believing that the relevant arrangement could improve people's livelihood  Now, I merely propose that the Government should use the dividends received from the MTRCL to subsidize the transport expenses of the general public, so as to alleviate the problem of high transport expenses faced by the common masses in their daily lives.

Certainly, I notice the total failure of the Budget to satisfactorily explain the philosophy of fiscal management. But at long last, I can see that the Government is willing to show commitment to meeting certain long-term needs of society. This includes the earmarking of $200 billion for building hospitals, and the provisions for the Housing Reserve. Therefore, while I am not entirely satisfied with the Budget, I cannot say it is completely lack of any merits. Precisely for this reason, I think the Budget delivered by the Financial Secretary should deserve our commendation, and the Democratic Party will therefore support the Budget this time around. Thank you, everybody.

7474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Financial Secretary has chosen red as the cover colour of the Budget this year, making it look like a red packet. This is a red packet of a really significant amount of $38.8 billion. A huge sum of money is spent on the implementation of relief measures this year. They are so generous that even those from the middle class, who have all along been blaming the Government for their plight, are offered a whole range of concessions. These measures include increasing allowances, waiving of fees and rates, reducing tax to a ceiling of $20,000, and so on. We may say that they are offering multifarious benefits to the best interests of their recipients.

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

Most regrettably, there is no increase but only reduction in the concessions provided to the grassroots and the disadvantaged. The provision of a one-month rent waiver to public rental housing (PRH) tenants, which has been implemented for eight years since 2008, is removed. As to the payment of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), the "triple pay" arrangement offered in the past is now adjusted to "double pay", meaning that the extra allowance provided will be reduced by an amount equal to one month of the subsidy payment. This has aroused grave discontent among the grassroots.

Different classes of people will of course have different views on how the Government should "hand out candies", but it is my opinion that the Government should not be too mean to 750 000 PRH households as an abundant fiscal surplus has been recorded this year. Why should the provision of a one-month rent waiver be removed? The measure only involves an additional expenditure of $1-odd billion, but its removal has given the public an impression that the Government is being very mean. It would also lead to the misconception that the Government seeks only to please the middle class and exploit the grassroots of their benefits. With the incessant intensification of social conflicts nowadays, extra care should be taken by the Government in distributing social benefits, lest class contradiction will become even more acute. Hence, the "God of Wealth" is hereby strongly urged to maintain the fine tradition and provide a one-month rent waiver to eligible PRH households to the satisfaction of all.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7475

Deputy President, during the Budget debate held in the past few years, I criticized the Government for giving only very limited support to local arts and cultural industry, thus failing to effectively assist local art workers and members of the cultural sector to go global and develop the Mainland market. We finally have a piece of good news this year when it is proposed in the Policy Address that a dedicated post will be created in the Beijing Office to promote cultural exchange and co-operation between the two places, and the expenses involved will only be $2.47 million. It is our hope that after the creation of this post, assistance will be rendered to local art workers and art groups to go north for development so that a new market will be open up for the art sector in Hong Kong to attract the Mainland audience. This will also be beneficial to the future operation of the West Kowloon Cultural District. I hope the same post will be created by the Government in other Mainland offices as soon as possible to assist art workers of Hong Kong to enter the markets of various Mainland provinces and cities.

It is common knowledge that the "God of Wealth" likes to drink coffee and watch French movies, but I do not know that he also likes to watch Cantonese films. It is announced in the Budget this year that an additional $20 million will be injected into the Film Development Fund to promote local Cantonese filmmaking and assist locally-produced films to enter the Mainland market. I of course support the idea.

I have pointed out that locally-produced films should not lose the local market but the Mainland market is the way out for the local film industry. I have been criticized by many people for making such a comment, which in their opinion has shown my disrespect for locally-produced films. I do not mean to show disrespect for locally-produced films but it is my opinion that the Government should be asked to assist locally-produced films to enter the Mainland market so as to extend the room for the survival of the film industry. As a matter of fact, local film industry would only be able to maintain its sustainability by opening up overseas markets, and this is also the only way for us to restore Hong Kong's reputation of the past as the Hollywood in the East.

When it comes to localism, it seems that many people who are talking about the issue now have pushed it to the extreme. What they are advocating is in fact not the real essence of localism, but nativism of an exclusive and confined nature. I would like to tell everybody that by advocating this kind of localism, these narrow-minded people are just subjecting themselves to narrow confines. 7476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

I have put up several banners in a few spots of the territory recently with the slogan "月是故鄉明，要本土，不要分離" (everyone loves the moon of their hometown; we want localism, not separation). What I am trying to say is that it would only be normal for us to love our hometown, love the place we live and claim that what we have are fine. Hence, every one of us loves Hong Kong and embraces localism.

There is nothing wrong to embrace localism but we need not separate ourselves from the others. Hong Kong culture itself represents exactly the co-existence of a diversity of cultures, and the so-called localism in Hong Kong actually stems from a unique fusion of Chinese and Western influences. We have assimilated different cultures, such as those of Lingnan, Guangdong and China in general, as well as Western culture. They are allowed to blend and create the right chemistry, so that each of them may give full play to their strengths and flourish. For example, we have developed the daily habit of going to the Chinese restaurant to have a steamed bun, which has its origin from the lifestyle of Guangzhou. We have also acquired the Guangdong culture of listening to Cantonese opera music and watching Cantonese opera. As to the Hong Kong style milk tea we drink, it has gradually developed into its form today by first finding its root in British afternoon tea, which was then blended with local characteristics. If Chinese culture is cut off from Western influences, what use will our local culture have? If local culture has not taken root in these Chinese and Western influences, it would have lost its soul and meaning and should have never been named the culture of Hong Kong.

The same also applies to locally-produced films. Will they still be able to survive if they totally abandon the Mainland market? Ms Cyd HO has just now boasted about the achievements of the film Ten Years but how about its box office revenues? The film industry should not solely be taken as an outlet for emotional purging or expression of political ideas. It is an industry which supports the living of many people in Hong Kong. Take for example the three films shown during Lunar New Year, namely The Mermaid, From Vegas to Macao III and The Monkey King 2. All of the three films have been permitted to screen in Mainland cinemas and each has generated high box office revenues of over $1 billion. In particular, The Mermaid has broken the record and has a total box office receipt of over $3 billion in Hong Kong and the Mainland. Figures explain everything and what course should the film industry of Hong Kong follow in its development? Should we settle for films produced merely for personal catharsis and generating box office revenues of several million LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7477 dollars? Should assistance be rendered by the Government to the film industry of Hong Kong for opening up the Mainland and overseas markets so that Hong Kong will become a new Hollywood in the East?

There are worries that in the course of opening up the Mainland market, local characteristics will disappear. In reality, this is not the case. In the past few years, films like Echoes of the Rainbow have been permitted to screen in Mainland cinemas and they have also generated high box office revenues. It can thus be seen that developing locally-produced films and opening up the Mainland market are not mutually exclusive. Hence, we hope that the Government would invest more resources to help the film sector open up the Mainland market and co-operate with Mainland companies, so that more co-productions would be commissioned with a view to broadening the development of the film industry.

With regard to the issue of "independence of Hong Kong", this is totally outrageous and unacceptable to the people of Hong Kong. According to those who advocate "independence of Hong Kong", they will set up a political party and fight for the right of national self-determination, but they do not even know for sure what national self-determination is. They have even indicated their wish to adopt a confrontational stand towards the Central Authority and if the people of Hong Kong really listen to them, we will all hit by poisoned arrows and fall to death. The idea of separating Hong Kong from our home country is fundamentally a violation of the law. It is a breach of the Constitution of China, the Basic Law and the laws of Hong Kong, causing harm to the principle of "one country, two systems" and showing no concern for local interests.

Why should the principle of "one country, two systems" be implemented at the outset? The principle of "one country, two systems" was advocated by DENG Xiaoping to safeguard the unique characteristics of the lifestyle and system of Hong Kong. Hence, when it comes to localism, is it tantamount to safeguarding "one country, two systems"? Or conversely, does the implementation of the principle of "one country, two systems" mean to safeguard local interests? As such, we should advise young people that the localism they are advocating now actually fails to reflect the importance of "one country, two systems". When they advocate localism on the one hand and try to overthrow "one country, two systems" on the other, have they ever given thought to the fact that what local interests are left for them to protect should "one country, two systems" no longer exist?

7478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Obviously, these problems among young people can be attributed to the inadequacy of our efforts to nurture the youth over the last 10-odd years. Young people will be the pillars of society in the future and their views should be respected. However, channels available have long been very limited for young people to participate in social affairs as well as the formulation of public policies. Therefore, a lot of young people can only let their voices be heard by joining political groups or social organizations, some of which are even radical groups but by doing so, they have caused harm to society. In view of this, it would be necessary for the Government to encourage free airing of views, provide more channels for young people to express their views and allow more young people to participate in the work of various consultative bodies so that they will be able to relay their views and express their opinions on government policies through effective channels.

Besides, have we ever tried to view things from the perspective of young people? Has any attempt been made by the Government to understand the opinion of young people born in the 1980s, 1990s and even the 2000s? Should more resources be allocated by the Government to conduct studies in this regard and provide more channels for young people to express their views? I therefore agree that more resources should be invested by the Government to help young people have better understanding of our society and our country.

The Government has pointed out in its replies to questions raised by Members earlier that 22 800 young people participated in youth exchange programmes to the Mainland sponsored by the Government in 2015-2016. The expenditure involved is $100 million. In 2016-2017, about 21 400 young people will participate in these programmes. In addition, the Guangdong-Hong Kong Youth Volunteer Service Programme has been launched, with 131 university students taking part in various voluntary services in the Mainland under the Programme last year. The target this year is to recruit 180 Hong Kong university students to take part in various voluntary services in the Mainland. However, will 180 places be enough to produce the desired results? What effects have been achieved with such initiatives? Has the Government conducted full assessment on the effectiveness of these programmes?

As far as the policy area of youth affairs is concerned, I consider that there are two problems at present: communication and understanding. What sort of estrangement exists between the Government and young people at present? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7479

How wide is the gap between our society and young people? Can political parties represent the interests of young people? All these are issues worth examining and exploring. As to our understanding of young people, do we have a good knowledge of the thoughts of the young people now? Should we keep on judging them from the perspective of those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s? Do we really know what they need? Would it be necessary for us to enhance our understanding of young people, view things from their perspective and understand their needs?

Deputy President, I hope that more resources will be allocated by the Government to strengthen our researches and efforts in these two aspects. I so submit.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Budget this year is the ninth Budget from Financial Secretary John TSANG. Social comments tend to accept this Budget, and even think that it is the one with higher favourability among his nine Budgets. Of course, when society tends to accept it, there is no reason why The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) does not. However, we still think that the favourable comments on the Budget this year are largely due to the personal charm of the Financial Secretary, in addition to the soft package of the Budget and the measures to "hand out candies". There is another very important factor, of course. Recently, it is very common to find social comments playing John TSANG up and playing LEUNG Chun-ying down. In other words, they praise the Budget while denouncing the Policy Address, so that the Budget this year can get favourable comments. As the saying goes, time makes the man. If we look at the Budget in detail, however, it actually does not differ a lot from the Budgets of the past few years. It is only about average, and is in line with the usual way of financial management of the Financial Secretary John TSANG. It is conservative and cautious enough but lacks policy drives for active advancement.

Deputy President, I have browsed through the Budgets of the recent few years. The comments of FTU to the Budgets are very consistent. For example, our comment on the Budget in 2011 was "measures not in place, people's hardship unalleviated, long-term undertaking not available". In 2012, our comment was "people's aspirations slightly responded, structural problem unresolved". Last year, 2015, our comment was "short-term measures welcomed, long-term retirement protection lacks undertaking". We can see that 7480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 for many years, a common point of the comments from FTU on the Budgets is that the Budgets only propose short-term relief measures but lack long-term undertaking. They do not have the determination to tackle structural problems.

Judging from the performance of Financial Secretary John TSANG over these nine years, I think he is a very competent gatekeeper, but not a brilliant explorer. Over the years, he has been keeping guard of the huge fiscal reserves of Hong Kong. However, he has not made use of this financial power to promote the long-term development of Hong Kong for its economy to leap onto a new horizon. Nor has he made use of the huge reserves to lay a solid foundation for coping with the ageing society which is coming soon so that the public can feel relieved and society can remain stable.

Deputy President, FTU has suggested many times that the Land Fund of more than $220 billion left over after reunification should be converted to a universal retirement protection fund. Nevertheless, Financial Secretary John TSANG insisted to transfer a sum of more than $200 billion into the Future Fund. Well, if the fund were established as a preparation for the future ageing society, what it was called did not matter much. The problem is that the Future Fund has been established for a few years, but we are yet to see any specific plans or corresponding measures from the Government to cope with the ageing society which is imminent. It is inevitable that society and the public doubt whether the so-called Future Fund is only an excuse for the Government to lock up this amount of more than $200 billion.

Deputy President, a year ago, the Commission on Poverty asked Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a study on retirement protection. It filled our society with expectations, and delighted the local groups like us which have been fighting for a long time for retirement protection. It is a pity that at the end, only two options are included in the consultation by the Government: the "regardless of the rich or the poor" option and "those with financial needs" option. The Government even indicates that it is strongly in favour of the "those with financial needs" option. However, in regard to the existing measures for those with financial needs, we already have in place the CSSA for the elderly and the Old Age Living Allowance. Why should the Government duplicate its efforts by introducing a retirement protection scheme for those with financial needs? Is such a big fanfare a "show" of accountability to the public, or a perfunctory action to deceive the grassroots?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7481

Deputy President, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) was originally meant to be a very important pillar for retirement protection. Nonetheless, as the Government is not willing to commit, the MPF has become neither fish nor fowl, and a scheme being severely criticized. It has been degraded into a profit bonanza of some financial enterprises and fund managers. Its function of retirement protection has been greatly weakened.

The major weaknesses of the MPF are, firstly, the high administrative fees. At present, the administrative fees are nibbling nearly $10 billion of the MPF each year. Last year, the amount of administrative fees was as high as $9.6 billion. Secondly, there is the offsetting mechanism under the MPF. Employers are allowed to use the accrued benefits in the employees' MPF accounts to offset severance or long-service payments for employees. At present, nearly $3 billion is being offset each year. Under the commonly practised contract employment system, when the employees of Hong Kong retire, their MPF accounts will not have much money left. FTU, the labour sector and the employees in general have been fighting for a long time to have this offsetting mechanism abolished. It is unfortunate that to date, not even a word on this matter has been mentioned, neither in the Policy Address nor in the Budget. The Government is completely indifferent.

Deputy President, the Budget should not focus only on the Government's income and expenditure for a financial year. The most important thing is to focus on social needs and put forward corresponding measures. As some people say, without money, one can do nothing. All the measures will need the resources allocated by the Financial Secretary for implementation. In the face of an ageing population, his imminent task is to plan well on comprehensive social retirement protection. The existing fiscal reserves in the public coffers are the achievements of efforts by a whole generation of Hong Kong people. Having the reserves spent on retirement protection of the elderly is what they deserve. At the moment when we have the money and ability to do so but we do not plan for retirement protection, it is unfair to the elderly of this generation. Not doing so will also pose an additional burden to the future Government in taking care of the elderly. I hope that Financial Secretary John TSANG can think about it seriously.

While I still have some speaking time, I would like to mention the absence of a rent waiver for public housing tenants under the relief measures this year. The original answer of the Financial Secretary was that since there was rates 7482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 concession for the four quarters this year and the amount of concession was higher than that of last year, this could be regarded as a public housing rent waiver for one month. Even if what he said were right, we should not forget that there will be a public housing rental review this year, and we will review the public housing rental level. Under the existing legislation, rental increase is inevitable. In view of the increase in income level in recent years, the rental increase may hit the cap of 10%, which will be more than one month's rental when added together in a year. If there is no rent waiver for a month, I believe that this will be a rather severe blow to public housing tenants. Hence, I hope that Financial Secretary John TSANG can reconsider the situation. Under the condition when we expect an economic downturn and a socio-economic recession, some occupations will be seriously affected and there may be more unemployment. More relief measures will thus be needed for the grassroots living in public housing. Financial Secretary, can you reconsider the rent waiver measure for public housing?

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before I speak on the Budget, let me talk about how I feel about this Government. As mentioned by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, whether in this Government or the next Government, the supporting team of a Chief Executive candidate was the most important. At least the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary will not be criticized by others as competing with each other, and the work of different Policy Bureaux can be well co-ordinated. This is the case for the two major areas of development and transportation, and the same in the division of work between the Home Affairs Bureau and the Education Bureau on the promotion of reading. If Policy Bureaux only do things in their own way and deal with the matters independently, efforts will be doubled and effects halved. This is what I feel and observe today. At present, individual Secretaries are fighting on their own. When a Secretary is busy giving an account of an incident, other Secretaries just do not show up. How many people in the whole team are sharing the same vision? I am not so sure really. Secretary Dr KO is smiling, but I am not sure whether this is an acknowledgment or for other reasons.

In fact, I always think that all previous Governments have the problem mentioned by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM. Before the kick-off, they shook hands with one another and introduced themselves. Then the match started. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7483

However, they had no idea about the tactics, such as being aggressive or defensive. Nevertheless, the team captain said that it was not possible to choose players beforehand, as he did not know whether the coach would let certain team members play the match. In my opinion, one as the team captain should aim at finding some team members who are good partners with good football skills and popular among football fans, the coach will have no reason not to let them play the match. Besides, since the coach has appointed you to be the team captain, this proves that you have some qualifications. Then you should have some bargaining power.

Back to the subject, I will first of all talk about the desperate situation being faced by Hong Kong's tourism, catering and retail industries, and what on earth has the Government done. Let us look at the policy on Individual Visit Scheme (IVS). After the implementation of the measure on "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements, from June last year to February this year, the number of visitors coming to Hong Kong through the arrangement of "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements dropped by 30%, while the number of visitors coming to Hong Kong from other 48 cities which have implemented the arrangement of "single-entry" endorsements also dropped by 10%. The 20% difference between these figures is obviously caused by a drastic drop of parallel goods traders. Hence, it is absolutely right to introduce the policy of "one trip per week" endorsements to regulate the arrangement of "multiple-entry" endorsements. Then what has the Government gone wrong? It has made a mistake by looking on without lifting a finger, and just resting on its laurels. Even though it has noticed the drop in the desire of regular tourists from 49 cities for travelling to Hong Kong, it is not proactive in exploring new sources of Mainland tourists.

It is a pity that the Financial Secretary is not present today. Otherwise I would have really asked him what he had done for Hong Kong in his capacity as the manager of economic development affairs. I have even considered the matter on his behalf. I wrote a letter to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress during the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, asking to open more IVS cities, but the total number of tourists should be capped. In 2014, the number of IVS tourists was over 30 million, but it has now dropped to more than 20 million. Assuming that the number of tourists that Hong Kong can receive is 30 million per year, with this as the cap, we can set a quota for monthly tourists. In all the cities concerned, people who want to travel to Hong Kong can submit 7484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 applications on the first day of each month. When the quota is reached, other people can only apply again on the first day of the following month. With this arrangement in place, I am sure that there will be more tourists from other cities coming to Hong Kong, and we will no longer have to rely on the support from those cities whose number of people coming to Hong Kong is now shrinking. What has he done in this regard? To date, he is still looking on without lifting a finger, while the retail, catering and tourism industries are being "dried up".

Unexpectedly, there was a 10% growth in the number of one kind of Mainland tourists last year. What tourists were they? They were non-IVS tourists. Their per capita consumption level was $900, which was actually quite close to the per capita consumption level of tourists with "single entry" endorsements at $1,200. What has the Government done in respect to this source of tourists? Has it staged any promotion campaign? No matter whether the authorities think that it is politically correct or not in opening IVS cities, they can still stage more promotion campaigns in respect of non-IVS tourists. Certainly this will bring advantages because tour groups can, on their own, arrange to come to Hong Kong in different months and visit different tourist attractions. For sure, they will not come to a certain place together, right?

So much for economic development now, and let me turn to education. The education reform has been implemented for 15 years. It was 2007 when the previous review on basic education was conducted. In regard to the educational goals of "enjoy learning, communicate effectively, has a sense of commitment and be creative", merely the first goal of enjoying learning has already changed so much that it is now beyond recognition. Students nowadays have more pain than fun in learning, and they spend more time with their homework than with their parents. When this Legislative Council meeting is adjourned today, I am sure that many students will still be doing their homework. If the Government does not invest more resources in basic education reform, it either thinks that there is no problem with the system, or does not know how to handle and thus can only look on without lifting a finger.

In a mere month, the Education Bureau changed drastically. Initially it confirmed that a majority of primary students should have "zero homework" after school, which was heard by parents. But when I followed up the issue shortly afterwards, he "defaulted" by saying that there was little chance of realizing "zero homework". This is outrageous indeed. The Secretary quoted part of the Chinese saying, "To learn with constant perseverance and application" but he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7485 dare not utter the original claim of the whole saying, "Is it not pleasant to learn with constant perseverance and application?" He did so because he dare not say that the students nowadays are happy. My request for "zero homework" is the aspiration of tens of thousands of parents and students. Are we really asking too much? Can the students really not have some time after school for taking rest, cultivating interests and connecting with their parents? How should the word "connect" be explained in Chinese? Should it be "溝 通", which means to communicate with someone, or "交 心 ", which means to talk sincerely to someone? Anyway, where has the original intention of implementing whole-day schooling gone?

A parent wrote online that one day, a teacher was on sick leave, and the so-called tutorial class which was originally meant for teaching purpose was turned into a genuine tutorial class. During this lesson, the students finished six to seven kinds of homework, thus realizing their wish of "zero homework" after school. They were so delighted. When students arrived home at around 4 pm after school, they could have time to do something of their interest or read the books that they like. What is wrong with that? Is there any problem allowing them to take a rest? At present, some people advocate diversification of homework, suggesting that one to two topics be added for interdisciplinary project learning. If they can finish their homework at school, I do not think there is any problem. Project learning is fun because there is neither pressure nor definite answer, which is most desirable to students. They are afraid of homework with definite answers the most because they will find themselves substandard and feel humiliated when they get those definite answers wrong. What is the meaning of doing so?

What I want to highlight is that this Budget of the Financial Secretary is very humanized. Can he share with Secretary Eddie NG on how to act as a more humanized Secretary so that students can really have their own space?

In regard to the campaign on reading promotion, which is an area between home affairs and education, I also want to express my views. Since 2008, round-the-clock self-service libraries have been set up in Shenzhen to provide one-stop service of borrowing books, returning books and paying fines. Initially there were 40 such libraries and now there are a few hundred. Among all the Shenzhen residents holding library cards, 60% of them have used these libraries and many of them are students. When society is changing and each person spends an average of four hours online per day, do people really have time to 7486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 borrow books? The number of people who really borrow books with a purpose is shrinking.

As in the retail industry of Hong Kong when most of the enterprises are boosting impulse shopping, the approach of Shenzhen is basically boosting "impulse reading". These few hundred automated libraries are set up at railway stations and crowded places. Each month, the authorities will select 400 books which are most relevant to the situation of society at that time. Even though people may not intend to borrow books when passing by, they will find them interesting and press the buttons to borrow books under an impulse, as the operation of these libraries is as simple as that of an automated teller machine. If they are not interested in the books after reading them, they can return the books after one or two days. What has Hong Kong done in this respect? I raised a related question to the Secretary for Home Affairs recently. He replied that three such libraries would be introduced under a pilot scheme after two years. This basically does not help in cultivating the reading habit, as the scheme is too inconvenient. The authorities are unable to make the whole thing market-oriented and facilitating.

The situation is the same with e-books, which are also related to the Budget. The authorities have spent $9 million to purchase e-books. However, our circulation rate of e-books was only 0.3%, while it was 24% in Singapore. What is the difference between the two places in this regard? Does it only involve the question of amounts? The types of e-books in Singapore include popular fiction and books for self-improvement. In Hong Kong, however, 99% of the e-books are academic books published in the Mainland. How big is the market for these books nowadays? They have thus wasted $9 million. Well, forget it.

It then comes to the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Development Bureau. While housing development is under the charge of Secretary Paul CHAN, transportation is under the charge of Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG. They should be closely related to each other with a lot of co-operation, but they are now only minding their own business. Sooner or later, both sides will suffer. After a lot of housing units in the New Territories West were built, they coaxed people into moving to that area. Nevertheless, the "main roads" do not lead to "Rome", with all means of transport going out to the urban areas crowded with passengers. If the authorities do not solve the transportation problem, I can only vote against any large-scale development project in the New Territories West. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7487

This is to prevent residents of New Territories West from suffering incessant hardship and the difficulty in boarding means of transport. The fifth cross-harbour rail link that I propose, which runs from Siu Lam in Tuen Mun, Sunny Bay, Kau Yi Chau to Western Hong Kong, is definitely the only way out to resolve the transportation problem in the New Territories West. However, Secretary Paul CHAN said that the fifth cross-harbour rail link could not be constructed without building an artificial island. I would thus ask him to submit the proposal on the building of an artificial island for discussion, and then ask Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG to plan for the construction of the rail link.

Concerning the area under the charge of Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, a slow remedy cannot meet an emergency. At the present moment, the most imminent problem that has to be resolved concerns the Light Rail, which is the major means of transport connecting with the West Rail at present. During the peak hours in the morning, calculated on the basis of accommodating six to seven passengers per square metre, the occupancy rate of 10 routes of the Light Rail are already as high as 80% to 90%. Nonetheless, the occupancy rate of heavy railroad per square metre is lower. The standards of these two should not be different. If we adopt the same standard, the occupancy rate of each route of the Light Rail has already exceeded the prescribed standard.

For several times, I tried to invite Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG to go to the Light Rail station for a site observation on how passengers could squeeze themselves into an already highly crowded carriage after waiting for a few trains on the small platform during peak hours, and to say how he felt about that. However, he has been unwilling to face it. I am not sure if he is worried about being pushed off the platform by passengers as there is only one carriage in each train of the seven routes during peak hours. It is unexpected that the MTR Corporation Limited, which is earning a profit of over $10 billion each year, will provide this kind of shameful service. Why does it not provide service with two-carriage trains during peak hours when passengers can only board the train after waiting for three or more trains on a crowded platform? What are the authorities doing?

Finally, I have to talk about the infrastructural matters under the charge of Secretary Paul CHAN. The problem with tenders is my main concern. There have been cost overruns in almost every public works project of the Government in recent years. What makes me curious is: Why cost overruns are so common? Eventually I find that under the tendering system, 60% of the score is on the 7488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 tender price while 40% is on the performance of bidders, which include the previous over-budget records of the bidders too. Hence, maybe only 10% to 20% of the score is on the previous over-budget records, while 60% is on the tender price. As such, even a fool will bid at a very low price. It is not surprising that they will have cost overruns in the projects after winning the contracts.

Since 2011, the Legislative Council has given approval to 42 public works projects. Among them, seven projects have been over-budget seriously. It was a coincidence that the contracts for these projects were won by Chinese works contractors. What are my views towards this issue? Many people in the industry tell me that many contracts of the works projects were won by Mainland contractors not because they were favoured by the authorities, but because their bidding prices were really very low. They thus won all the contracts. People in the industries know that their bidding prices were basically unreasonable. As a result, there were really insufficient funding and cost overruns in these seven projects. Afterwards, the Legislative Council could only spend more time in convening meetings and experiencing some filibustering before all the additional funding applications could be endorsed at the end. What actually is going on? After going round a circle, we are actually fooling ourselves as well as others.

Therefore, Deputy President, with the many disagreements in Hong Kong at present, all of us can feel the grievances of the public. There is absolutely some room for improvement in the entire Government structure and its approaches in handling the matters in certain aspects. After making some improvement, naturally there will not be so many people coming out to throw bricks and cause trouble.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Financial Secretary, Mr John TSANG, has delivered with love the Budget which has a human touch. The line "the road trodden by the people of Hong Kong has been thorny and winding" has provoked memories from many Hong Kong people.

The articles written by the Financial Secretary in recent years, such as "An unexpected encounter in Penang", "Support Hong Kong movies", "Support the Hong Kong team", "Light at the end of the tunnel" and so on, have evoked hefty LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7489 response from the Hong Kong people. As these articles speak the language of the people and to Hong Kong people of our times, they generate much resonance among us. They are distinctly different when compared with the Policy Address written by the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, as the latter mentions not the "thorny and winding" road but the "Belt and Road", "Belt and Road", "Belt and Road" and "Belt and Road". While it is fine to talk about the "Belt and Road Initiative", Hong Kong people know little about the project and therefore share no feelings with the speech. Written in officialese and lacking human touch, the Policy Address does not speak to Hong Kong people of our times. No wonder it generates only a sense of detachment or even a sense of comicality.

We need a political leader who is in tune with the Hong Kong people. But then, Deputy President, human touch and human-centric elements can be mere rhetoric. It is an axiom that we should always write honestly to reveal our sincere concern. The Budget can only be seen as walking the talk if the said humanity and sense of resonance are also found in public policies and their underlying financial philosophy.

On his website, Financial Secretary John TSANG said, "In response to the needs of the public, I shall dedicate our resources flexibly, where justified and needed, and invest in our society and economy in preparation for future changes."

However, I find that education as a form of social investment has not received proper emphasis. We only need to look at one indicator: public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP. The percentage in Hong Kong is 3.4%, the average percentage among OECD countries is 4.7% and, during recent years, even the percentage in Mainland China has exceeded 4%. The differences among these three figures are huge, and they are only average figures. The philosophies underlying public finance in these areas are different: some favour big governments and others favour small governments. However, with regard to education in these areas, they are all primarily supported by public expenditure. Therefore, when our Government continues to suppress education expenses, the investment made into education in our society is destined to be meagre relatively and it is therefore more difficult for us to resolve education problems in Hong Kong.

If the Financial Secretary has time, I would like to invite him to the education setting. He can then ask teachers, school principals, parents, students and so on to see if they can feel the existence of the principle of dedicating 7490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 resources where "justified and needed". Have the human touch and humanity demonstrated by the Financial Secretary elsewhere been applied to education settings?

Deputy President, have the Financial Secretary and the Education Bureau attached importance to problems such as those faced by young teachers now? Primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong have been facing the problem of excessive workload. Young teachers can hardly have the chance to join the profession and a succession gap has developed in the teaching ranks. This affects the quality of education directly. In the current year, there are 2 020 and 3 420 contract teachers in subsidized primary schools and secondary schools respectively, who make up 11.3% and 16.2% of all teachers in these categories. In other words, there are one to two young contract teachers in every 10 teachers, representing a rise in both the absolute number and the proportion when compared to those of last year. The authorities have long turned a blind eye to the difficulties experienced by contract teachers and young teachers in joining the profession, as the authorities merely emphasize that contract teachers can be absorbed through natural wastage and filling vacancies. Such a policy is deemed cold, distant and lacking humanity. Under short-term employment contracts, contract teachers cannot work in a school stably and continuously, and thus are unable to build up long-term and stable work relation and teacher-student relation with colleagues and students. Contract teachers are sojourners in constant migration who settle into the environment. Deprived of proper care and attention, they are made to tread a "thorny and winding" road and become cheap labourers in transient employment. How can they possibly render proper care and attention to their students then?

The key to resolving manpower shortage in primary and secondary schools is to improve class-teacher ratios. I have reiterated in this Council time and time again this age-old appeal from the education sector. It is only until this year that the authorities turn the "Senior Secondary Curriculum Support Grant" and the "Career and Life Planning Grant" into two permanent teaching posts. Unfortunately, as this transformation is to be done without putting in additional resources, existing contract teachers and teaching assistants hired under these grants face the immediate risk of losing their jobs. I have raised such a concern once the Policy Address was delivered, in the hope that the Government can rectify the suggestion. Regrettably, the Budget has not made any corrections in this respect.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7491

Deputy President, I emphasize that the expansion in teaching establishment should be pursued with utmost urgency. Before the Budget was presented, I put forth the idea of incorporating existing contract teachers into permanent establishment with an increase in recurrent expenditure roughly estimated at about $2.6 billion annually. The biggest need in education is stable recurrent expenditure, and especially the allocation in human resources, which cannot be met by short-term and unstable funding or grants. With large fiscal reserves at hand, the Government is now well-positioned to meet this expenditure and should certainly do so. Moreover, as I have said just now, our overall education expenditure lags behind the developed countries and we are now exploiting contract teachers in employment terms. These must be redressed expeditiously.

Another problem troubling secondary schools is the crisis of class reduction and surplus teachers, which is the result of a fall in the population of secondary school students. The Government has been using a less than effective way to tackle the problem, namely the "reduction in student allocation". It is definitely disappointing to see the Government refuse to turn the challenge into an opportunity for promoting small class teaching and improving class-teacher ratios in the face of a reduction in secondary school population. We are beginning to feel the repercussion of the ineffective "reduction in student allocation". The estimated expenditure in secondary education in the following academic year is only increased by 1.4% to $25.1 billion in the Budget. Meanwhile, the Policy Address is merely extending the retention period for surplus secondary school teachers to 2017, a few years before the full-fledged upturn of secondary school student population in 2020. Given the above, the Budget has obviously failed to address the relevant need of secondary schools. In fact, the majority of the problem can be resolved if the Government willingly takes one more step forward and extends the retention period of surplus teachers under the "three fold preservation" measure to the 2019-2020 academic year. On this issue, the response from the Government has again eluded the request of the education sector.

Various aspects are involved in education issues and some of these aspects have never had the Government's attention. The issue of special schools is one of them. Special schools are now suffering from a shortage of social workers. Some principals of special schools told me the importance of social workers in all types of special schools. The social workers not only handle student issues but also follow-up on and provide support with regard to the students' communication with their family members. However, the number of social workers in a special school is determined by the number of its students at a ratio of 0.5:35. 7492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Consequently there are only one to two social workers working in a special school in many instances. As the number of social workers varies according to changes in student population, the establishment is unstable. While the Policy Address talks about improving class-teacher ratios in recent years, the special role of social workers in special schools has been left out. Special schools are not in the mainstream of the education establishment but they do play a crucial role and have made important contributions. Similarly, building up a trusting relationship between social workers and students is very important and it is a long-term task. If the establishment is unstable, social workers will have to leave the school or be transferred anytime, rendering them unable to serve in the same school stably and continuously. As such, how can we expect them to perform well in counselling and providing support in special schools?

Fifteen-year free education is not highlighted in this year's Budget. But we all know that the Government is going to implement this policy in the 2017 academic year. However, the sector has reiterated a number of times that if the policy is to be implemented in full accordance with the suggestions made in the Report of the Committee on Free Kindergarten Education, we are bound to meet a lot of problems and "landmines" in terms of the level of subsidy, salary ranges and so on. If the problems are not resolved before implementation of the new policy, free kindergarten education in future may be worse than what we have now and will thus defeat the policy objective of providing quality kindergarten education.

I have deduced at least four points with regard to the problem that we now face:

(1) whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens suffer from inadequate resources;

(2) the years of service and qualifications of teachers are left unrecognized due to a lack of a mandatory pay scale;

(3) the "basic half-day unit subsidy" in the proposal is subpar and this will eventually affect education quality or even cause difficulties to the operation of kindergartens; and

(4) funding on a per student basis will most probably create operational difficulties in small-scale kindergartens as it is perfectly normal for kindergartens to operate in small scales. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7493

Deputy President, I have posed some questions to the Education Bureau regarding the Budget this year. One of them is about the level of unit subsidy, which is mentioned in point (3) above. The Government sets the level of "basic half-day unit subsidy" for kindergarten at $32,900, and that of long whole-day kindergarten at $52,640 for the 2017 academic year. However, the existing fee threshold for half-day kindergarten classes under the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS) has already exceeded these two figures, which are $33,770 and $67,540 respectively. As the maximum level of subsidy at present is greater than the unit subsidy budgeted for use after two years, how can those kindergartens whose fees are set at the highest permitted level under the PEVS continue to operate properly in future? How can they survive on incomes which fall short of expenditures? This is really ridiculous.

Therefore, I pose the question to the Education Bureau in the discussion on the Budget, hoping that the authorities can provide more data for us to make comparison, so that Members and the public can have a more concrete analysis. However, to my dismay, the Bureau refuses to provide the relevant data. What I have asked is basic information which the Bureau has at hand but it refuses to provide it to Members and the public. I must lodge a strong protest here. Owing to this kind of selective disclosure, the public can only see the information that is willingly provided by the Government while Members are hindered from fulfilling the function of monitoring the Government. I am going to follow-up on this point.

The aftermath of TSA has been much discussed, both within and outside the Council. Members of this Council have also said quite a lot on this just now. We all know very well that TSA has brought about a great deal of stress and other ramifications to teachers and students alike. The project itself is also rather expensive, costing more than $290 million over the last few years. Therefore, I will move an amendment on the issue and provide a detailed discussion when I speak on the amendment.

Regarding higher education, university education is the aspiration of many young people in Hong Kong and the expectation of parents for their children. Until now, however, the number of subsidized university places has not been increased. Why must young students in Hong Kong pay for costly self-financed programmes? Is this reasonable to the young people? Why must they get themselves deep in debt? In an environment with keen competition, they have to pursue further studies so as to avoid being eliminated but the consequence is 7494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 the piling up of "education debt". Has the Budget taken good care of them? Has it provided human centric care to self-financed institutions and young students enrolling in self-financed programmes? If this has yet to be done, young people will only become more agitated and more discontented.

Deputy President, I hope the Financial Secretary understands that love and learning should be developed in symbiosis in our education environment. Students should "learn to love", in addition to "love to learn". Things will be different if there is love and a deep sense of humanity on campus. The Financial Secretary, this is the fourth time in a row during my four-year tenure that I vote against the Budget. The education sector, parents and students are indeed disappointed with a great number of education policies and education expenditure items because the strong appeals made by the education sector have been rendered close to fruitless. Neither the new policies nor the new expenditure items have addressed the urgent needs of the sector. If the Financial Secretary ― regardless of his future whereabouts ― can in his fifth Budget increase recurrent expenditure on education, in an expression of love towards teachers and students, deliver a Budget which wins recognition from the education sector (The buzzer sounded) … and is full of human touch …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up. Please sit down and stop speaking.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): I sincerely hope that Members of the next term can vote for it from their hearts.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Deputy President, in a politically and socio-economically torn city of Hong Kong, the 2016-2017 Budget offers healing touches to the people suffering from such wounds after the Occupy movement. Many people have been able to take some comfort from the Financial Secretary's remarks in the introduction and the ending of his speech. In this sense, the Financial Secretary should be credited.

Apart from the positive political message, the rest of the contents are largely standard fare with sweeteners valued at $38.8 billion and an increase of 6.7% to $347.5 billion for main recurrent spending items proportionately LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7495 allocated for education, health, social welfare and infrastructure, respectively, commensurate with GDP growth.

No doubt, the Financial Secretary is a veteran and he has stuck to his philosophy and principles in managing public finances: the importance of commitment to society, sustainability and pragmatism. Because of this, our fiscal reserves have remained unscathed for the last nine years. Now that our fiscal reserves are estimated at $860 billion by the end of March 2016, equivalent to 24 months of government expenditure, hurling any acrid criticism against the Financial Secretary for the sake of opposing would seem cruel and unwarranted. But all government officials including the Financial Secretary should listen to the constructive criticisms of the legislature whose legitimate role is to hold the Government accountable under Article 73(3).

With Hong Kong's deep-seated problems in education, healthcare, elderly care, housing, widening wealth gap and lacklustre growth, it is increasingly doubtful that adhering to a conservative approach will help Hong Kong maintain its status as an international metropolis in the long term. Perhaps, what is haunting the Financial Secretary is the worrying projection that the Government's financial allocation for healthcare reform and retirement protection from 2016-2017 onwards will result in a budget deficit of $29 billion in 2018-2019 and $22.5 billion in 2019-2020, but would these be shenanigans of "creative accounting" like the Financial Secretary has pursued in trimming down the budget surplus to $30.5 billion this year by reallocating $45 billion budget surplus to Housing Reserve for funding subsidized housing? The answer is "no", these would not be. Come what may, what matters is not whether the Financial Secretary is crying wolf, what matters is about his philosophy and his conservatism in prudent financial management. When the going gets tough, the tough gets going. The Financial Secretary should adopt a more aggressive strategy in order to help Hong Kong fight an uphill battle.

To diversify the economy and promote new engines of growth, the Financial Secretary indicates in his Budget speech that he will bank on the Belt and Road and the innovation and technology sector, with the latter receiving the largest financial commitment, amounting to an estimated $18.3 billion.

In any case, any aggressive change needs to be supported by a solid foundation where knowledge and human resources are two of the cornerstones. Against this backdrop, the need for investment in education, thus, cannot be 7496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 stressed too much. Sadly, compared with the $1 billion generous subsidy to students from the Belt and Road countries, the 1.7% increment of recurrent spending in education is a shame and merely a drop in the ocean. Charity must start at the home front. The Financial Secretary should know that spending on education is not an expenditure per se, but an investment that can generate a stream of potential incomes. This is an important source of wealth creation not for helping young people purchase a house but for helping them be capable of exploring their future. In this light, existing bars to unleash young people's potential and to access education opportunities should be removed.

First, the admission system for publicly-funded local degree programmes should be reviewed immediately. The conservatism of the University Grants Committee should be condemned. Every year, around 10 000 eligible students have been deprived of the opportunity to receive publicly-funded university education as the number of first-year subsidized undergraduate places has remained at around 15 000 places per year since 1994 and the situation will be sustained at least until 2018-2019 academic year. It is not acceptable for the Administration to pass the buck, telling these students to opt for costly self-financing degree programmes or associate degree programmes, which will only prevent Hong Kong from transforming into a knowledge-based economy and hold back young people from climbing the ladder to prosperity.

Deputy President, the messy education policies at the helm of the Education Bureau need more care and support to students, parents and teachers. The Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), as earlier elaborated by my colleague, should be abolished in an absence of compelling evidence to justify its continuance. Public examinations are necessary evils, but pseudo-examinations such as the TSA are counterproductive. If the Administration aims to help schools and teachers enhance their learning and teaching and help the Government to provide focused support to schools, then it should adopt a more direct approach by lowering the student-to-teacher ratio, improving the Native-speaking English Teacher Scheme, enhancing school social work services, and so on. The Education Bureau is also strongly urged to develop Chinese as a second language curriculum for non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students since the "Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework" has been ineffective in helping NCS students to overcome the Chinese Language barrier. The NCS students should be entitled equal opportunity to education as our own children have.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7497

At long last, the long-overdue 15 years of free education will be implemented in the 2017-2018 academic year, but many inadequacies in our education system still need to be fixed to allow schools, teachers, children and parents to truly benefit.

Deputy President, when we talk about growth and wealth creation, the established core values and advantages of Hong Kong should always be treated with extra respect. Free market principles are a case in point. I welcome the Administration's plan to increase the supply of office buildings, which is market-oriented. However, it is unwise for the Administration to remain unyielding in its position on the 3Ds stamp duties intervening measures on the property market amid a downward trend in flat prices, the record-low number of transactions since the inception of the 3Ds, and the nightmare of negative equity which has reared its ugly head. The Government's job is not to tell people what prices should be reasonable nor at what prices they should buy and sell properties. The Government's job is to provide market efficiency with minimum intervention. Likewise, for efficiency's sake, the Administration should auction land sites instead of re-tendering in the event of unsuccessful tendering in the past few months.

A favourable business environment is another of Hong Kong's established advantages. Regrettably, Deputy President, it has been marred by political factors in recent years. Last week, the Z/Yen Group's survey revealed that Singapore has unfortunately overtaken Hong Kong as the world's number three financial centre. The ranking reflects key competitive areas including business environment. Moreover, Moody's and Standard & Poor's have recently revised their rating on Hong Kong's outlook to negative. Standard & Poor's particularly underlines that it may lower Hong Kong's rating if "political polarization worsens to a point where it compromises policymaking and the business environment to the detriment of Hong Kong's economic growth, healthy fiscal reserves, and strong external position." After all, the economic miracle of Hong Kong over the last 60 years has been founded upon a stable political climate, among other things.

Hopefully, there is a hint of breath of change in the Legislative Council-Executive Council relationship following the defeat of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, and the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has offered an olive branch to the pan-democrats, proposing to reshuffle the Legislative Council 7498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 and Finance Committee agendas: Bills and funding applications related to important people's livelihood and less controversial issues will be given top priority, while controversial issues may be withdrawn. There are over 20 outstanding Bills, and the Finance Committee has only approved a portion sum of the works projects with less than 10 out of the proposed 72 projects, including the block allocation under the Capital Works Reserve Fund as against the proposed amount of around $70 billion ― all these have to be completed before this Legislative Council Session officially ends on 16 July. At this juncture, both the pan-democrats and the Administration should act in the best interests of Hong Kong by forgoing excessive antagonism.

Deputy President, if spending on education is an investment for our future, then spending on improving people's livelihood and welfare is the amount of love and care the Administration has directed towards the citizens at present.

Deputy President, for housing, despite the Administration's claimed efforts, more than 290 000 applications are on the waiting list for public rental housing and the average waiting time for general public rental housing applications have reached a new height of 3.7 years. The injection of $45 billion budget surplus to the Housing Reserve is not the answer; it is just part of it. As the chairman of the Steering Committee on Housing Land Supply, the Financial Secretary is expected to enhance the co-ordination on the development and supply of land to increase the land supply for public housing development.

For healthcare, the reduction in recurrent funding for the Hospital Authority is unpalatable against the backdrop of excessive demand for public healthcare services, in particular the accident and emergency services and beds in wards in public hospitals. The $200 billion earmarked for development of hospitals for the next decade cannot address the acute shortage of medical practitioners, which is worsening with each passing day.

Deputy President, for elderly care, about 6 000 elderly applicants on the waiting list for subsidized residential care places died in 2015. It is a shame in our present economy of surplus. This is an all-time high record. In the past five years, over 5 000 died while waiting for your care. The number of subsidized residential care places increased just 7.6% in the last five years, while the number of elderly applicants on the Central Waiting List has grown by 23.3% over the same period. The 693 additional subsidized places for 2016-2017 are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7499 immaterial when compared to actual needs. This shameful situation is a manifest of the Administration's lack of respect to the elderly, who contributed their prime to building up what this city is all about.

Deputy President, by watering down the political tension of the society in the Budget speech, the Financial Secretary's political wisdom cannot be underestimated. However, acclaim is short-lived if it is built on empty words alone. Chanting famous lyrics or making sound bites can be eye-catching and momentary glory ― they cannot fill the empty soul if not complemented with substance. When our fiscal reserves have reached a colossal level of $860 billion with back-up of more than $2,800 billion in exchange reserve assets, it is not a tall order for the Financial Secretary to be more aggressive. Thank you.

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, at the special meeting of the Finance Committee held on the day following the delivery of this year's Budget, I personally told the Financial Secretary John TSANG that the Budget had no new ideas at all and because of this, a Member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) mistakenly uploaded last year's Budget and that triggered a joke. In fact, I cannot blame that Member as the Budgets in recent years are really very similar. The reply the Financial Secretary gave me was that the Budget was not in pursuit of new ideas. Last year's Budget got the highest score of 60.2 in five years, while the score for this year's Budget has dropped slightly by three points. I criticize the Budget for having no new ideas at all and the policies each year are almost the same. All the Government has to do is to manage the expectations well. Since the people do not have special expectations, they will not be greatly disappointed. Thus, the two Budgets score more or less the same.

As there are no new ideas in the Budget, I have expected nothing new in the debate on the Budget. I have criticized what I want to on previous occasions and do not intend to repeat my points. Yet, I have heard a brilliant speech from a Member today which I will quote as follows.

7500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

If Members have missed it earlier, you can guess which Member made this speech. The Member said: This Budget makes me think of a "miserly man's budget" which has not responded to the aspirations of the masses … This Budget only makes petty changes and offers small favours. It contains nothing drastic and fails to face the reality. It is a plaster of an old doctor which can only prolong life without curing the disease once and for all … The Budget looks to narrow the wealth gap through re-distribution. I wish the Financial Secretary can have a serious review.

Members may think that this is Mr Albert CHAN's speech. It would be nothing new if these words came from Mr Albert CHAN or me. What I just quoted was the speech of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of the DAB. Therefore, I say this is the highlight of this Budget debate and will also be the focus of today's media report. However, I would like to ask Dr CHIANG if she would vote against the Bill after making these criticisms. The Appropriation Bill 2016 will enter the Committee stage next week. For this "miserly man's budget" in her words, there should be many aspects for us to criticize.

In her speech, she also expressed her wish that the Financial Secretary could do better next time. This is a crucial sentence. This is the Financial Secretary's ninth Budget. Some people criticize him for remaining the same in nine years. I see it differently as there are merits and demerits in the nine Budgets. Some people say that this may be the Financial Secretary John TSANG's last Budget so, he may not have the opportunity to compile the 10th as Dr CHIANG said.

Why? Theoretically, there is still one more Budget in 2017. I am not cursing Financial Secretary John TSANG. I am not saying that he will step down. On the contrary, he may run for Chief Executive and move further up. Many Members have also said so today. The Chief Executive election will be held in March 2017. Looking back, the then Chief Secretary for Administration Henry TANG seemed to have resigned at the end of September 2011 in order to take part in the Chief Executive election in 2012. Therefore, if John TSANG really runs for Chief Executive, he cannot compile his 10th Budget.

We are not discussing the Chief Executive election today. Some Members have been told by the President that they have digressed but I heard many of them express their support for Financial Secretary John TSANG to run for Chief Executive. Actually, the President cannot say that they have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7501 digressed. I remember on the day the Budget was delivered, Mr Albert CHAN said clearly that the Budget was John TSANG's manifesto for his running for Chief Executive. Of course, different people have different interpretation. I will not support John TSANG. I will continue to criticize him.

I wish the Financial Secretary can understand that there are two ways to kill a person. The first is to kill with a club, which is "棒 殺" in Chinese. This means holding a club and keep beating and making criticisms. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has demonstrated to us earlier. The other way is to kill by showering a person with praises, which is "捧 殺" in Chinese. For killing with a club, the radical for the Chinese character "棒" is "木" (tree) but for killing by showering a person with praises, the radical for the Chinese character "捧" is "手" (hand). To kill a person by showering him with praises is to over-praise him and make him feel carried away. His rival will take action and make him end up in failure. This is politics. Let us take a look at today's newspaper heading: "Pan-democrats openly praise the Financial Secretary. They seem like colluding to line up with a hidden agenda". So, the President actually should not say Members have digressed when they talk about the Chief Executive election, or comment on whether John TSANG will run for Chief Executive judging from the Budget.

If he really runs for Chief Executive, this will be his last Budget. I wish members of the media can ask the Financial Secretary which is the one he is most satisfied with among the nine Budgets. If you ask me, I would say it is the 2011-2012 Budget but to John TSANG, that is his nightmare. Why? At that year, he proposed injecting $6,000 into the MPF accounts of all employees in Hong Kong but that prompted widespread indignation and discontent. Under the pressure of the pro-establishment camp and having been criticized by the public as failing to meet the urgent need of the moment and expressly benefiting the fund managers, all pro-establishment Members stood behind the Financial Secretary and said openly that there would be no injections into the MPF accounts. Instead, every person would be directly given $6,000.

What People Power has always fought for is for the Government to return wealth to the people by resorting to the simplest and fairest way of offering direct cash rebate when the public coffers are flooded with cash. At that year, the Government spent $37 billion to rebate $6,000 to each person. Although the Government has not heeded our proposal this time, it does not mean that it has 7502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 offered no cash rebate. The Budget has proposed measures amounting to $38.8 billion to ease economic pressure. This is a direct cash rebate to the people. The Government has used $38.8 billion to hand out sweeteners. If it had accepted our demand to rebate $10,000 to each person, it would only have involved about $60 billion.

We will compare the Budget with LEUNG Chun-ying's Policy Address. Of course, if it is a comparison with LEUNG Chun-ying, anyone can score A, anyone is good. In order to curry favour with the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Policy Address mentioned "Belt and Road" 40-odd times but the words only appeared four times in the Budget. I guess the Financial Secretary has actually got wind. We can see that Premier LI Keqiang did not quite mention those words.

Some people say that this is the Budget with the strongest smack of localism. It proposes to hold overseas fashion show for local designers, and draws on the performance of the Hong Kong team in the World Cup qualifying campaign in the Concluding Remarks to encourage Hong Kong people. In addition, it proposes in paragraph 73 to inject an additional $20 million into the Film Development Fund to help the development of locally-produced Cantonese films. This is neither a substantial sum nor a new measure. In the past, each film would get a subsidy of $250,000. With the injection of $20 million, the subsidy will increase to $500,000. Many people applaud this measure but I only see it as a lip service. I am not alone. Mrs Regina IP agrees. If we look at this policy carefully, we will realize that the Government is quick in making promises but slow in giving out. This is a lip service without substance.

Since the launching of the Film Production Grant Scheme, only three films have applied, they are The Way We Dance, Doomsday Party and Grey Met Shrek. I have heard of Doomsday Party but Grey Met Shrek does not ring a bell at all. The Government grants the film company a $250,000 subsidy to help in distribution and publicity but the amount in fact is not enough. The company has to pay the difference. How effective is the Scheme? In the case of The Way We Dance, the total expenses for distribution on the Mainland were $625,818, and box-office takings were RMB569,056 yuan. The film may have managed to break even. For Grey Met Shrek, expenses were $433,250 and box-office takings were $436,842. Is the Scheme really that effective? The Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development has written in a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7503 column that under this measure, for films screened in original Cantonese, the box-office takings are 30% more than it being screened in Putonghua. If I have the opportunity to meet him, I will definitely ask him how the figure is worked out. Some people in the film industry think that although the subsidy has been increased from $250,000 to $500,000, it is still not enough to serve any purpose. Nonetheless, they will apply if they see fit.

Regarding locally produced films, I would like to respond to some arguments presented by Dr Priscilla LEUNG earlier. The CPC suppressed Ten Years which was given this year's Best Picture award. As a result, no big cinemas are willing to screen it. This is precisely an indication of politics kidnapping film art and suppressing freedom of creation. If this is the case, no matter how much subsidy the Government provides, it can hardly encourage the development of local films. There will only be a lot of restrictions when they select the theme. The directors of Ten Years have explained over and again that the film depicts what they do not want to see in Hong Kong after a decade. Yet, it has been smeared by Dr Priscilla LEUNG as promoting Hong Kong independence and glorifying self-immolation.

Regarding this year's Budget, I and Mr Albert CHAN have respectively proposed 200 and 260 amendments on behalf of People Power, while Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has proposed over 1 000 amendments. Of the 2 000-odd amendments in total, we still do not know how many will be approved by the President Jasper TSANG but the debate will begin next week. Some people ask me if it serves any purpose to propose so many amendments. We are fighting on the assumption that we will lose. How do we know if we stand a chance to win if we do not try? Take the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 as an example. I said on the outset that it was impossible for us to counter the Government and the President but in the end we made it, right?

For this year's Budget, whether or not you call it filibustering, if Members (including Dr CHIANG Lai-wan) agree with a certain amendment, please be articulate. I will invite Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to speak.

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

7504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a promotional video was aired when the public consultation exercise on the Budget was conducted. The video talked about a family. The mother asked everyone in the family what they wanted to eat before she went out to shop for food. The son said he would love A5 Wagyu beef. The daughter, who was on diet, preferred salad. Then the father joined in and said he would like to have a portion of roasted pig belly. Yet the mother's response was not shown in the video. I am interested to know how the Financial Secretary would respond to the requests or expectations of the family if he were the mother. Would the needs of the family members be met at the end? If not, what is the point of asking what they need?

I feel like one of the family members in the promotional video. The Financial Secretary asks me what I need and so I tell him. However, he may or may not accede to my request, or he may entertain certain people only. And then he may tell me that A5 Wagyu beef is very expensive while we have to prepare for the bad times. He may further say that roasted pig belly is unhealthy. Eventually, the dishes are still prepared according to the menu designed by the Financial Secretary, no matter you like it or not. This is exactly how I feel about the budgets released by the Financial Secretary over the years. This is a paternalistic approach ― we have to take whatever is handed to us. Surely I will take it because I am hungry. But if you ask me whether I am happy, I will say, "Certainly not."

What do I and the Liberal Party think of the "dishes" put before us this year? As I said on the press conference held on the day when the Budget was released, we accede to this Budget. We think that this Budget is comparatively comprehensive among the previous nine Budgets announced by the incumbent Financial Secretary. It is mainly because it has addressed the incidents occurred recently in Hong Kong, the economic challenges right before us and the difficulties faced by the public in general.

At the beginning of the Budget speech, the Financial Secretary admitted, "Politics and economics are closely intertwined. Political volatility will unavoidably impact on our economy." I believe the majority of Hong Kong people would agree to this remark because Hong Kong's economy was obviously going downhill in the previous year or so when political disputes were heated up and social issues were politicized.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7505

Yesterday, colleagues once again called on the Government to buy back the shares of the LINK and the MTRCL, provide more social welfare benefits, expand the scope of free healthcare services, and so on. But I want to ask, "After the buy-back, then what?" Do we want to let everyone travel on the MTR for free? Should the Government subsidize the operation of the MTR? How is the Government supposed to get a considerable amount of fiscal revenue to pay the public expenditure on the provision of social welfare and healthcare services? "Where comes the money?" has been discussed time again in the Council. Members would naturally think of making use of the existing reserve ― the fiscal reserve and Land Fund amounting to over $3 trillion ― to make money. Another way is to maintain continuous economic development, which can increase the income of the people, and thus ensuring a stable source of income on various fronts. If the Government's fiscal revenue is inadequate to meet the needs, it may either use the reserve or cut the public expenditure on social welfare. As the Financial Secretary is reluctant to use the reserve, and no Member would like to see social welfare being cut, the best solution is therefore to maintain continuous economic development.

Following the plunge in the number of inbound tourists, the tourism, retail and catering industries in Hong Kong are having a tough time, and this is exactly the challenge to our economy and employment market. We support the measures, including tax concession, waiving the licence fees for business registration and hawkers, and so on, announced by the Financial Secretary in order to reinforce the economic development and financial stability of Hong Kong, help local enterprises, particularly the small and medium enterprises, to tide over the volatile economic environment and protect the employment of wage earners.

Moreover, we support the measures and input to revive the tourism sector, including the additional funds allocated to the Hong Kong Tourism Board. Some colleagues are of the view that we should not focus on the Mainland market only. However, Mainland tourists are still a clientele keenly sought after in global tourism markets. It is absolutely unwise and insensible for us to drive them away.

Once in a blue moon, the Budget proposes some measures relating to medium and long term planning. I am particularly impressed by the note on forward planning at the end of the Budget speech which reads, (I quote) "I have set up the Housing Reserve in support of public housing development, set aside $200 billion for the 10-year hospital development plan and established the Future 7506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Fund as part of our long-term investment strategy." (unquote) Do we have any adverse comments on the Budget? Yes, of course. I do have three major ones. First, the Budget fails to take care of all segments of Hong Kong. Second, it fails to address certain problems which are affecting the economy and business environment of Hong Kong. Third, it fails to make overall planning and pave the way for continuous economic development.

On relief measures, I would like to thank the Financial Secretary for taking the initiative to waive the license fee for hawkers for the first time. Over the years, hawkers could hardly enjoy any "candies". The "candies" are not for everyone. There are always some omissions like the one pointed out by the colleague representing the air traffic sector. But it is most weird to see the Government raise the rent while handing out "candies". Recently, some businesses operating in the wholesale food markets owned by the Government told me about their difficulties. The Government asks them to pay higher rent despite the worsening economic environment deteriorating business operations. When many retail properties in the market are lowering their rent in a bid to retain or attract tenants, the Government somehow asks for higher rent from the tenants of its properties. The logic behind is again the so-called "user pays" principle. While it waives the business registration fee for businesses, it asks them to pay more rent, which will get its way back to the public coffers. Financial Secretary, isn't this a crafty trick? I would like the Financial Secretary and the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau to give this a second thought and freeze the fees and rent.

The concession measure put forth in the Budget this time to support the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) fails to get to the crux of the problem ― no bank loan will be granted to an SME without guarantee from "properties". That is to say, even though the guarantee fee is waived, the SMEs will not be benefited if they cannot get the loan. Our colleague Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has raised our concern in this respect. I hope the Financial Secretary would continue to review whether unusual initiatives can be launched during this unusual period, when it is particularly difficult for companies, even if they have properties, to get loan from banks amid falling property prices.

Talking about the Budget's failure to address certain problems which are affecting the economy and business environment of Hong Kong, I am obliged to mention the following two measures, the "double curbs" on property transactions and the powdered formula restriction order.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7507

Recently, property prices have dropped more than 10% from the peak registered in September last year. Moreover, the problem of negative asset has returned and is expected to get worse. But seemingly, the Financial Secretary has not come up with any measure to tackle the problem. He just follows the tone set by the Chief Executive and emphasizes that the Government has no plan to make any adjustment or abolish the curbing measures at this stage.

I hope the Financial Secretary can take a clear look at the latest situation of housing supply in Hong Kong. Ever since the Chief Executive of this term took office, he has been snatching land strenuously and blindly for more supply of residential units. While the supply in this regard has begun to pick up in recent years, it happens that the economy of Hong Kong is experiencing a downturn, our tourism, retail and catering industries are about to have a difficult time, and unemployment rate is expected to rise. In the foreseeable future, all these factors unfavourable to the property market are expected to worsen instead of improving. This scenario reminds me of the policy of building "85 000 flats", which was also implemented at a time when Hong Kong's economy was experiencing a downturn and had eventually triggered a slump in the property market. In 2003, up to 108 000 cases of negative asset were recorded. Once an owner is out of work and fails to pay the instalment, the property concerned will be seized. Not only will the owner lose all his savings, it is also likely that the bank may file a petition for bankruptcy against him.

It is therefore possible for the issue of negative asset to become a critical social problem. Back then the issue of negative asset was the major factor that prompted 500 000 people taking to the streets. Today, small issues can easily trigger riots. If the issue of housing is not handled with care, it can possibly lead to severe consequences. The Liberal Party hopes the Financial Secretary is always on his guard, and would remove or adjust the curbing measures as appropriate once negative signals are observed in the property market. What is more, I hope the Financial Secretary will bear the pressure to avoid repeating the mistakes of the policy of building "85 000 flats" which triggered the ensuing vicious cycle between falling property prices and economic recession. Should that mistake be repeated, Hong Kong would come to a dead end.

In my view, it is utterly unnecessary to implement the powdered formula restriction order. Provided that measures are in place to ensure that the Hong Kong babies' need for milk powder is satisfied, we can also meet the demand for 7508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 milk powder from the Mainland. The sales figures of formula powder in Macao show that thanks to the powdered formula restriction order enforced by the HKSAR Government, the milk powder retail business in Macao has thrived.

Recently, the Mainland media looked into the impact of the "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements on the retail sector of Hong Kong after implementation of the measure for a year. During an interview they arranged with me, I elaborated the impact by doing a simple calculation. A visitor was previously allowed to visit Hong Kong 365 times a year under the "one trip per day" permit, now a visitor is only allowed to visit Hong Kong for 52 times under the new "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements. Assuming that a visitor spends $100 on every visit, the new measure will lead to a shortfall of some $30,000 in per capita spending. Would you say that we have not been affected?

Another question was whether the number of parallel traders has reduced proportionally following the abolishment of the "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements. The answer is of course not. In fact the Government itself has pointed out that up to 70% to 80% of parallel traders are Hong Kong residents. In other words, the Government has once again prescribed the wrong "drug" to the "ailment". Given that these measures have seriously dampened our economy, I therefore urge the Financial Secretary to further review the situation and consider if these measures should be removed, despite that it may be a bit difficult for him to do so.

Lastly, the Budget fails to make overall planning and pave the way for continuous economic development. Originally, it is good to see this year's Budget come up with something on forward planning. For instance, a Housing Reserve will be set up and $200 billion will be set aside for the 10-year hospital development plan. However, it is a pity that the Financial Secretary touches upon these plans briefly only and does not go into details. For example, on the provision of 5 000 additional hospital beds, how many additional doctors and healthcare professionals will be needed, and how will they be trained? Moreover, on the supply of more public housing, will any ceiling be set?

I understand that this Budget, as the last full Budget drafted by the Financial Secretary, is subject to certain limitations. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, the Government needs to maintain continuous economic development should it want to have adequate and stable sources of income for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7509 keeping its high quality services. The inability of our tourism, commercial and other facilities to dovetail with the increase in individual travellers from the Mainland highlights the lack of forward planning by the Government previously. As a result, we have to keep half of the gate shut as the conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland intensify. As an ancient saying goes, we should learn from past mistakes. I eagerly hope that the Budget of Hong Kong should not only follow the direction of administration laid down by the Chief Executive or respond to the most imminent needs of the community to relieve crises, but also be able to outline the blue print for the continuous economic development of Hong Kong.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today we hold the Second Reading debate on the ninth Budge prepared by Financial Secretary John TSANG, and it is the seventh time that I speak on a Budget. I am always touched by a tinge of sadness at seeing that poverty has remained such a perennial problem in Hong Kong, a society with such high earning capability. The 7 million people or so who live here find that their very home records the widest wealth gap among all advanced places, the second highest costs of living in the whole world, the most unaffordable property prices on earth and the highest population density in East Asia. Most Hong Kong people can only struggle for survival, rather than seeking any progress and development. In this capitalistic society, the dignity of living has been completely obliterated!

These days, Financial Secretary John TSANG has kept talking about Hong Kong people, pronouncing great concern about the local film industry and soccer development. His image building gimmicks are even more successful than the campaigns of "Hong Kong Our Home" and "Bless Hong Kong" launched by Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM. But I cannot help asking John TSANG one question. What about the old people waiting anxiously for elderly home places, recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Allowance (CSSA) who live in "sub-divided units", poor households not in receipt of CSSA and students under immense learning pressure? Does he consider them also Hong Kong people? Over all these years, has the Special Administrative Region Government (SAR Government), which is sitting on huge fiscal reserves, ever shown any real concern for all such disadvantaged groups in society?

7510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

John TSANG has recently said in his blog that the identity of Hong Kong people is both fluid and multifaceted as a concept, so no particular language and dietary habit should be used to define Hong Kong people. He says that any forcible attempt to give a dogmatic definition will only cause endless conflicts and disputes, instead of leading to any practical conclusions. Such specious and ambiguous arguments obviously ignore the very fundamental fact that the blatant attempts of the Chinese Communists to interfere with Hong Kong people's autonomy and undermine their freedom over the past 20 years have given them a rude awakening about their own identity.

This morning, I heard Mr CHAN Hak-kan piggyback on a television programme named Travel With Rivals. He suggested one such travel for John TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying but then he changed his mind on second thoughts and said this was not a good idea. There are many believers in socialism or experts in Marxism here. But in fact, apart from SHIU Sin-por, very few of them are really … The President is not present in the Chamber. Actually, contradictions are about the unity of the opposites. Mr CHAN Hak-kan, do you know this? By contradictions, it is meant that the unity of the opposites is found in each and every matter of society. This means that after a series of struggles, the opposites will come under a unity, and with such a unity, social progress is promoted in the end. Such is the concept of dialectical materialism. But he has so childishly remarked that since the two of them actually do not see eye to eye with each other despite their apparent agreement, they may make a good pair for Travel With Rivals. Everyone is trying to piggyback. Our concern is all the conflicts among different ethnic groups in Hong Kong now, especially some people's insistence on "localism" these days. The point is that when even Mr Christopher CHUNG talks about "localism", the advocacy of "Hong Kong independence" will not surprise us at all, right?

The image of John TSANG among Hong Kong people has always been a downright miser who seeks to hoard for the treasury endlessly. His high popularity as a government official is just the result of transference, a psychological phenomenon: people hate "689" very much, so they have just picked a government official and projected their liking onto him. Hence, he must not be too happy about it. Anyway, his Budget this time is just the same as the old ones, completely devoid of any new ideas. I must point out that though the Government's consolidated surplus for the year 2015-2016 is just $30.5 billion, which is lower than the $36.8 billion estimated last year, its actual surplus will amount to as high as $75 billion if the $44.5 billion allocated for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7511

Housing Reserve is also counted. But then, the Budget proposes to stop the public housing rent waiver, and the "triple pay" for the various allowances is reduced to "double pay", though the amount involved is merely $2.8 billion. John TSANG keeps talking about Hong Kong people, but he is so mean to them, especially those living in great plight, even when small favours are involved.

At the same time, John TSANG upholds his policy of "returning wealth to the rich", offering concessions in rates, salaries tax and profits tax. The concessions amount to almost $30 billion, benefiting the middle class and sending gifts to the rich, thus deepening the social division and conflicts resulting from the disparity in wealth. Under the same sky, the bourgeoisie despises the proletariat and the proletariat resents the bourgeoisie as the public fiscal policy of the SAR Government continues to intensify social conflicts.

The Legislative Council has long since lost his function of scrutinizing Budgets. The pro-establishment camp will understandably render its unconditional support, and the pan-democrats will also "offer very big help but just mild chiding". The Budget this time has even managed to win the acclaim of the democratic camp, instead of any "mild chiding". All this will only reduce the public financial management of Hong Kong into a means of robbing the poor for the benefit of the rich. Both the power that be and elected representatives of the people are accomplices under this exploitation system. Having seen through the very nature of this system, young people all think that the legislature can no longer function properly and they are determined to utterly destroy the old order, which is marked by exploitation and deceit. They want to revolt against the Hong Kong communist regime and the pan-democratic camp. It is only at this point, when the intensification of ethnic division and social split has led to the irresistible surge of localism, that John TSANG comes to a rude awakening and begins to worry that Hong Kong will inevitably turn more chaotic and the young generation will grow up amidst animosities. But who sowed the seed of such animosities in the very first place?

John TSANG puts forward a lot of "visionary planning" in the Budget this year, but his plans are dismissed as financial tricks meant to underestimate the surpluses. The Government does not credit the investment return of $40.5 billion and instead proposes to put it into the Housing Reserve to provide the Housing Authority with more funds for housing construction in the future. According to John TSANG, the Treasury has not received this amount of money, so it should not be counted as revenue. But the Exchange Fund also belongs to the SAR Government, doesn't it? 7512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Furthermore, John TSANG makes a provision of $200 billion for a 10-year hospital development plan and also a provision of $50 billion for retirement protection. There seems to be a huge injection of resources into housing, healthcare and social welfare. But the fact is that the housing target laid down by the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee will not be achievable; even now, the North Lantau Hospital can only provide limited services; and the completion date for the redevelopment of the Kwong Wah Hospital will also be delayed for three years to 2025. Last Sunday when Carrie LAM attended a public consultation session on retirement protection, she reiterated that the Government had never made any concrete commitment to the implementation of universal retirement protection. In that case, John TSANG's astronomical provisions, which lead to an underestimation of Treasury revenue and a reduction of "sweeteners", will probably fail to achieve the desired results once again. In that sense, the "visionary" significance of his provisions is actually not very great. Based on his past records, one can predict that all will be empty talks once again in the end, right?

Last year, as the volume of visitors to Hong Kong dropped sharply, large numbers of vacant shops emerged and property prices began to fall from their peaks. The stock market also opened high and closed low. John TSANG points out in his Budget that the global economy has continued to be unstable, with developed economies experiencing slow and uneven growth. He even adjusts the projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for this year downwards to around 1% to 2%. The taxation revenue and surpluses of the Government in the coming few years will certainly decrease, but will John TSANG re-allocate the various provisions he makes this year in the coming year, so as to "hand out sweeteners" to the grassroots and meet their pressing needs? Definitely not. The reason is that even when the Treasury has ample funds, he will not do so. Hence, since he has already fore-warned us that there will be such a problem with our economy, he will surely not help the grassroots to cope with their pressing needs.

My greatest worry is that the grassroots will be dealt a double blow. Article 107 of the Basic Law provides, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget and strive to achieve a fiscal balance and avoid deficits …". If the taxation revenue of the SAR Government decreases in the coming few years, it may once again introduce austerity policies at any time to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7513 cut down expenditure and avoid deficit. Following the financial turmoil, the SAR Government sought to downsize its public services and even privatized or outsourced them in order to alleviate the pressure of the. These included the privatization of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation, the implementation of the lump-sum grant scheme for the social welfare sector in 2000, the reduction of public housing construction in 2002, the reduction of CSSA rates by 11.1% in 2003; the sale of PRH estate malls and car parks in 2004; and the introduction of the Standard Drug Formulary by the Hospital Authority (HA) in 2005. All these are draconian policies, the draconian policies of a capitalist society. Without the support of government medical, social welfare, housing and education services, the grassroots would not much money left after spending their incomes on housing, food, clothing and transportation. This has led to the persistence of the poverty problem and even inter-generational poverty today.

Though the SAR Government has continued to record huge surpluses in recent years, it still insists on implementing a Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, Elderly Health Care Vouchers, Community Care Service Vouchers for the Elderly, self-financing tertiary education and the Direct Subsidy Scheme for primary and secondary schools, seeking quietly to shift its responsibility for healthcare, social welfare and education to the private sector and wash its hands off. The recurrent funding for the HA is cut by $12 million in this Budget, the first time ever over the past 10 years. Secretary KO Wing-man is now present. At the same time, $10 billion is allocated for the purpose of setting up a fund and the investment returns will be used for taking forward public-private healthcare partnership. I dare say that all these measures will not be able to achieve any practical effect. The history of the 20th century tells us that neo-liberalism policies are invariably implemented in times of deteriorating government finances. In the coming few years, since the taxation revenue of the SAR Government will decrease, it will have more excuses for implementing draconian policies such as public-private healthcare partnership and self-financing education. The Housing Reserve and the 10-year hospital development plan, with all their doubtful effectiveness, will surely be unable to make up for the harmful effects of such neo-liberalism.

The fiscal philosophy of the SAR Government is based on neo-liberalism, upholding the "trickle-down theory of economics" as the standard. The "trickle-down theory of economics" requires the government to levy low taxes on rich people and allow them to get rich first, so that the economy as a whole can 7514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 become a bigger "pie" and poor people are benefited in the end. This is also known as the "trickle-down effect". At this juncture, I recall that there was a couplet in Da Tong Restaurant in Hong Kong many years ago. The first column of the couplet reads, "Big buns are hard to sell, so big profits are hard to earn/Business is like paring iron with the needle tip, being able to yield very little in return". The second column reads, "Many fathers come to tea with their sons, but very few sons take their fathers here for tea/All is like water dripping down from the eaves ― the flow can never be in the reverse direction". This couplet is very enlightening, telling us that it is hard to make profits in business, and lamenting that parents' love and care for their children is rarely reciprocated. But the expression "the flow can never be in the reverse direction" can also be used to describe our case. The taxation revenue of the SAR Government is from the people, and it possesses huge fiscal reserves and a big Exchange Fund, but the people themselves are unable to get any return, aptly showing that the flow can never be in the reverse direction.

French economist Thomas PIKETTY points out in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the bestseller of the world in 2013, that the wealth inequality is caused by capitalism. He says that there is a global trend towards the gradual return of "patrimonial capitalism" that endangers the democratic order and can be reversed only through state intervention. Capital in the Twenty-First Century seriously argues that as long as the rate of capital return is greater than that of economic growth, wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few and the income and property of rich people will grow at a much faster rate than that of people whose incomes are from conventional labour. The SAR Government's persistent adherence to the "trickle-down theory of economics" is chiefly responsible for plunging Hong Kong into chaos.

The development trend in advanced places in recent years is also worth noting. Early this year, the French Government planned to introduce reforms to the labour market, including capping the severance pay for workers, permitting certain categories of employees to work in excess of the statutory limit of 35 hours per week, and relaxing the restrictions on employers in respect of reducing working hours and wage deduction. This eventually triggered nation-wide demonstrations, in which 115 schools were besieged and the railway stations in some cities were occupied by more than a thousand students. And, as usual in such cases, there was the throwing of debris and stones at the police. In the United States, Senator SANDERS of Vermont, a senior senator aged over 70, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7515 won seven consecutive primary elections of the Democratic Party on the basis of his election platform which called for changing the serious uneven distribution of wealth and increasing the tax rate for rich people. From this, we can see that young people all over the world are strongly against far-right economic theories and earnestly hope that wealth in society can be evenly distributed. It is undeniable that Hong Kong is no exception. The SAR Government must adjust its economic policy to the left, otherwise street protest actions like throwing stones and setting fires will only escalate incessantly.

I still remember that the Government's decision to give a cash handout of $6,000 to each Hong Kong resident in 2011 was followed by a rare atmosphere of joy in society (This was a good policy of the Financial Secretary even though he was actually very reluctant to hand out $6,000 to every Hong Kong resident). The same amount of several tens of billions was spent on tax rebate, but it led to lots of complaints. In contrast, "cash handouts" brought great joy. The main reason for the difference was the even or reasonable distribution of wealth. Therefore, (The buzzer sounded) … if he really loves Hong Kong …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … he should introduce a progressive tax rate in order to allow appropriate market intervention by the Government …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … take the initiative to redistribute wealth in society …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … I so submit.

7516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have had the chance to listen to the speeches made by quite a number of colleagues just now and I find Dr LAM Tai-fai's speech rather interesting. Dr LAM Tai-fai says that the popularity of the Financial Secretary fell to the lowest level when he handed out $6,000 in the past, whereas today he wins support from the Hong Kong people after presenting this less than impressive Budget. Indeed, Dr LAM Tai-fai further points out that the Budget touches the hearts of the Hong Kong people and this is a very important piece of comment. If a less than impressive Budget can touch the hearts of Hong Kong people … Deputy President, I am said to be a "super District Council member" and have won hundreds of thousands of votes in 2012 to become a Member of the Legislative Council. Then, should I listen to the views of the majority of the people? Should I try to see if the majority of the people actually have their hearts touched by the Budget? If people think that this less than impressive Budget is in fact not bad and is worth our support, then, must I vote against it in order to avoid creating a split between the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary? I think the logic here is very interesting.

Dr LAM Tai-fai has asked the Financial Secretary not to get carried away, for it is typical of the opposition to exploit all extreme measures in order to put up opposition against the Chief Executive and the Central Authorities, and to carefully avoid becoming a pawn of the opposition. I find this comment weird. If the Hong Kong people, under a rather gloomy environment, hear some rather positive and humane remarks ― does Dr LAM Tai-fai wish that the Financial Secretary followed the example of the Chief Executive, who would only curry favour with the Central Authorities and talk about the "Belt and Road Initiative", and ultimately went to hell with the Chief Executive? Must the Financial Secretary do all these before Dr LAM Tai-fai can be rest assured that he is not going to be a pawn of the opposition?

Deputy President, following the conclusion of the NPC and CPPCC Annual Sessions, some of us have seemingly adopted a new approach, emphasizing more on harmony and winning the hearts of young people. But what if, before these Annual Sessions, the Financial Secretary spoke to the people according to his own convictions and people found his speech full of humanity ― does this constitute an offence? Deputy President, I would say that I cannot sing rounds of praise for this Budget. But at least people do share the views of the speech which calls for harmony and elimination of political disputes, encourages Hong Kong people to make good use of our wisdom to find our own way out and to strive for progress. These are what the Hong Kong people would like to do indeed. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7517

Just now, reporters asked outside the Chamber if I and a couple of other Members from the Democratic Party would like to see John TSANG making further progress in his career. This is simple. The Democratic Party has made it clear that we hope to see the implementation of authentic "one country, two systems", the Government taking better care of people's livelihood and avoiding the provocation of disputes. We have been making similar comments for more than a decade. It just happens that the Chief Executive we have in recent years enjoys stirring up struggles as well as creating divisions and dissension. If you ask me whether he gets political advantages from these, well, I do not have a clue. But then, Deputy President, this Budget, which is written by another senior government official, is precisely expressing through its underlying philosophy messages that the Democratic Party has been trying to convey in the last 10 years or so. Then, do you think it makes good sense if we walk out in protest when he was delivering his speech? This is exactly what the Democratic Party has been reiterating in the last 10 years or so. We would like to see the faithful, the restored implementation of "one country, two systems" as originally formulated by DENG Xiaoping and let Hong Kong people truly enjoy "a high degree of autonomy". It is just that simple.

It is said that the opposition intends to exploit all extreme measures to put up opposition against the Central Authorities. That is to say, we vote for the Budget this time with the alleged motive of staging opposition against the Central Authorities. This is really absurd. Deputy President, the Budget has surely proposed some measures with long-term vision and planning, especially in areas like the Land Fund and hospital development. Of course, if another person is made the Chief Executive, the new Chief Executive can certainly make revisions and these measures may have to undergo a revamp. I can only say that political parties in Hong Kong, including the Democratic Party and many others, will at least have a few of their members elected as Legislative Council Members. We will continue to tread along this path, following our beliefs in the sustained crusade for democracy, liberty, the rule of law, improvement of people's livelihood and closing the wealth gap. If one day, Hong Kong people genuinely enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" and are governed by a Chief Executive they elected, I believe that the then Chief Executive will definitely be different from the present one.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

7518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

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

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is now faced with dilemmas on various fronts. As the global economic condition is unstable and some people in Hong Kong have been "driving off customers", industries like import and export, tourism, retail and catering have all been put on "saline drip" and small and medium enterprises are also crying for help. People have a lot to complain about housing, commodity price, healthcare services, services for the elderly, education and transport. Young people lack a sense of belonging to the country, have no confidence in the Government and do not see any prospect and hope. The Legislative Council is running like an idling engine since Members of the pan-democratic camp engage in endless filibustering so that there can neither be any deliberation nor resolution. The development progress of Hong Kong is getting ever slower as we stumble at every step, thus causing great hardship to engineering, construction and industrial and commercial sectors. Political parties set up by radical groups advocate the idea of resorting to violent and extreme means to fight for the "independence of Hong Kong", which only seeks to divide society, challenge the principle of "one country, two systems" and jeopardize public peace. As the international ratings of Hong Kong keep falling, international investors start to step back. Problems associated with the abuse of the mechanism for non-refoulement claims have started to emerge, worsening the situation further with the disruption of law and order in Hong Kong and the exertion of extra financial burden on the Government.

The issue of new economic order is discussed at great lengths in the Budget this year and measures are proposed to promote the innovation and technology development more vigorously, which should help enhance Hong Kong's long term competitiveness. As far as relief measures are concerned, different classes of people, including the middle class, will be benefited and this is worth our recognition. However, in the face of many existing problems in Hong Kong, we can find no new thinking and breakthrough in the Budget to tackle the issues. Owing to time constraint, I will focus my speech on several livelihood issues, namely commodity price, transport, healthcare services, services for the elderly and law and order, and put forward some suggestions for serious consideration by the Financial Secretary.

President, people work very hard for food but food prices now are very high. Measures have been taken by the SAR Government at times of financial deficit in the past to privatize the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7519

2000, and divest the retail and carparking facilities of the Housing Authority (HA) to The Link Management Limited (now renamed as the "Link Asset Management Limited") (the Link) in 2005. Hong Kong went through really tough times back in those years. Not only was the SAR Government faced with persistent financial deficit, the HA was also caught in a particularly serious financial deficit. If the commercial facilities of the HA were not divested, it would not be possible for the HA to carry out public rental housing development projects and maintain its services to the public.

After the divestment of the HA's facilities to the Link in 2005, renovation works have been carried out in some commercial facilities and the divested properties have been put under better management. However, the Link has used these as excuses to keep introducing rent increases and drive small shop tenants away. After the renaming of the company, it went further to outsource the management of markets and divest its carparking facilities, which have aroused cries of discontent among residents in many housing estates. Have measures been undertaken by the SAR Government in response to these problems?

The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has all along been urging the Government to introduce appropriate competition and relieve residents' burden by providing commercial facilities which affect people's livelihood, such as markets, carparks and shopping arcades, under its management in districts where similar facilities are only availabe under the Link's management. However, the Government has not acceded to our request. I would like to tell the "God of Wealth" that for the grassroots, markets are the most important facilities. If people are required to do grocery shopping across district every day, pay increasingly more for their meals, work hard but do not get enough to eat, how can they not hold grievances against the Government? Judging from the present conditions, I think the Government should buy back markets under the management of the Link. Actions in this regard should particularly be taken as soon as possible in districts not provided with public markets, such as Tseung Kwan O, Ma On Shan, Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai.

Transport costs are also very high. In particular, fares increase is introduced by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) every year, thus aggravating the burden of the commuting public. This is a problem which has to be dealt with by the Government. When the MTRCL merged with the Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation in 2007, it established with the Government a fare 7520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 adjustment mechanism which allowed both upward and downward adjustments. However, the Composite Consumer Price Index and the Wage Index are taken as the basis for calculation in the calculation formula of the MTRCL's fare adjustment mechanism. Although huge surpluses have been recorded by the MTRCL in recent years, the company is still allowed to increase MTR fares in accordance with the mechanism. Hence, in the opinion of the general public, the mechanism which allegedly allows both upward and downward fare adjustments is actually a mechanism which provides for only upward but no downward adjustments of fares.

The Government is now asking for an early review of the fare adjustment mechanism jointly with the MTRCL, and I think the review should commence as early as possible. The DAB proposes to include the profitability index into the fare adjustment mechanism so that the rate of fares increase will be adjusted downward in accordance with the profitability of the MTRCL. We hope that with the establishment of a fund on fare rebates and facilities improvement works as well as a fund on MTR fares set up by the Government, the problem that the MTRCL introduces fares increases despite its huge surpluses can be rectified.

Apart from the MTR, the Government should also strive to meet other public aspirations because not everyone takes the MTR only and many people are earning their living by driving. Therefore, the Government should make efforts to increase the numbers of carparking spaces in various districts and promote the use of bicycles as the mode of transport for short haul trips in the New Territories. This includes the introduction of a self-service bicycle hiring system which we have been advocating for a number of years.

President, with the increase in population in the New Territories, the existing transportation systems in the New Territories have already become overloaded. Commuters who go to work or go to school by MTR have experienced difficulties in getting on the train, while those who travel by bus are often caught in a traffic jam at the cross-harbour tunnels. As we see it, no resources have been allocated by the Government in the Budget this year for exploring ways to provide an additional tunnel connecting the New Territories and Kowloon. The lack of it makes residents in the New Territories worry even more about the future traffic conditions. We hope the Government will face the problem squarely.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7521

Furthermore, President, the provision of healthcare services is an issue of grave public concern. Problems such as the difficulty in seeking medical treatment, long waiting time, inadequate hospital beds and the shortage of healthcare personnel, have all become increasingly acute. The annual occupancy rate of general beds in New Territories East and New Territories West is as high as 103%. During the Lunar New Year period this year, emergency and non-emergency patients waiting for accident and emergency department services in the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin had to wait for 10 hours or even 20 hours before they received medical treatment. After that, they had to wait for a number of hours more for admission to hospital wards because all medical beds were occupied. During the influenza peak season last month, the overall occupancy rate of general medicine ward throughout the territory was as high as 118%, and it was only normal for patients to be given hospital beds in the corridor.

As a matter of fact, over the past 10 odd years, the number of hospital beds in Hong Kong remains at the level of 31 000 but the elderly population has doubled already. Elderly patients generally need to stay at hospital for a longer period and in the next 14 years, the elderly population in Hong Kong will again double but our healthcare infrastructure fails to cope with the demand. It is most welcome that a dedicated fund of $200 billion will be set aside by the Government for expanding and renewing healthcare facilities, but we hope that the 10-year plan to be launched by the Government to implement various hospital projects and increase 2 800 hospital beds could be completed earlier since we can wait no more. It is also hoped that the Government would keep abreast of the latest development and ensure that our healthcare infrastructure and personnel can cope with the demand.

Moreover, in the face of a rapidly ageing population, the Government should make financial allocation for the provision of elderly services. We suggest that the Government should set up an elderly services fund of at least $10 billion. Accordingly, a five-year and a 10-year plan for elderly services should be devised with a view to making medium- and long-term planning for the provision of additional residential care homes for the elderly and the expansion of community care services, thereby shortening effectively the waiting time for various services.

Besides, apart from the $2 public transport fare concession, no other benefit has been offered to elderly people aged 65. The DAB urges the Government to expeditiously lower the eligibility age for Elderly Health Care 7522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Vouchers to 65 and abolish the asset and income test for Normal Old Age Allowance applicants so that all elderly people aged 65 will be eligible for the allowance. In addition, the Government should also consider relaxing the asset limit for applicants under the Old Age Living Allowance Scheme and increasing the allowance amount to $3,200 so that more elderly people with financial needs will be benefited. The Government should also extend the coverage of the Guangdong Scheme for the "fruit grant" to Fujian Province so that more elderly people can settle in their hometowns without worry.

President, I am gravely concerned about the law and order of Hong Kong. Organizations advocating "independence of Hong Kong" have already made it clear that the objective of their establishment is to overthrow the principle of "one country, two systems" and the Government. The means they resort to is also very clear. They will create disturbances in an attempt to challenge the Government, including the Police Force, thereby compelling the Government and the Police to take actions of suppression, which will then arouse public resentment and resistance against the Government. It can be seen from the Occupy Central Movement to the Mong Kok Riot, which occurred on Lunar New Year's Day, that they are pressing forward steadily with a view to bringing about conflicts and bloodshed. In the face of violence and their strategies that have no bottom line, it would be necessary for the Government to increase manpower resources and equipment, as well as more training, for disciplined service officers at the front line. Disciplined forces should also be provided with adequate support on all fronts.

An in-depth study should be conducted by the Government on ways to communicate with the young generation, understand their dissatisfaction and needs, help them realize that "independence of Hong Kong" is not a way out and violence can solve no problem. In the face of conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong, between the rich and the poor and between generations, the Government should try to find a way out together with young people and members of the public. A proposal should also be put forward to thoroughly solve the problem about the abuse of non-refoulement claims.

I would like to tell the Financial Secretary that it is of course inappropriate to spend every penny we have, but it is public expectation for the Government to save up what ought to be saved and spend on what should be spent, and to make good use of the resources available in the public coffers to solve our problems. Though such problems may remain unresolved today, the public will at least LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7523 expect the Government to have the plans and solutions at hand so that these problems can hopefully be solved in the future. Otherwise, public funds saved up in the Treasury will only arouse greater public indignation.

President, I agree with the Financial Secretary that with love, Hong Kong will be able to overcome any challenge ahead of us. It is still my hope that with our love for Hong Kong, the people of Hong Kong will be able to set aside hatred and prejudice, and tide over the difficulties we are now facing with new thinking, new perspectives and new solutions.

With these remarks, President, I support the Appropriation Bill 2016.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I was also touched by Dr Elizabeth QUAT's talks about love. Honestly, whom should we love? No love is without reason, and no hatred is without cause.

The Secretary says that the current political chaos will inevitably affect the economy. This is of course true because the two actually affect each other. There is one problem, though. He does not realize that the effects of all economic problems will eventually be felt politically. In fact, Legislative Council Members in the Chamber today are working under an extremely poor political system.

President, since no one can be worse than LEUNG Chun-ying, anyone other than him is likely to win the liking of the public. He is the man of all the worst misdeeds ever imaginable, and his wrongdoings cover everything, one recent example being the luggage incident. Anyone who behaves differently from LEUNG Chun-ying, or anyone who criticizes him just a very little bit, will immediately arouse some sort of imagination among the powers that be and make others think that he or she is a promising hopeful that can replace LEUNG Chun-ying. Simply by making a few casual remarks about Hong Kong soccer games and films following the announcement of the Budget, the Financial Secretary can already win a salvo of applause.

7524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

When it comes to love, has the Financial Secretary ever done anything which shows that he loves the elderly? I think the answer is no. This small prop here can already tell the whole story very clearly. This "white elephant" is so small or just medium in size, but it already makes elderly people suffer so terribly. Such people really do not have any sense of priority. I do not know if the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) loves the elderly people of Hong Kong, neither do I have any idea whether they love the workers of Hong Kong. If they love the elderly people of Hong Kong, they must agree to the introduction of universal retirement protection, right? I do not know if the Financial Secretary has had any exchanges with LEUNG Chun-ying, nor do I know if LEUNG Chun-ying has actually stopped him from implementing universal retirement protection. Mrs Carrie Lam says there is no money for that. But she is the Chief Secretary for Administration, who is the equivalent of the chief executive officer of a giant corporation, so shoud have the power to ask the accountants and cashiers to provide available funds.

The universal retirement protection scheme that we ask for cannot be described as costly when it is compared with the provision of $200 billion for long-term healthcare reform announced by the Financial Secretary. Of course, I must add that the provision will turn out to be an empty undertaking. How is he going to use the $200 billion? No one knows. We have no knowledge of the relevant timetable and roadmap. Is he going to set aside a certain portion of the $200 billion as the principal and then use the interests only? We do not know the answer either. In fact, we know nothing at all. In other words, he is just making a big promise without any intention of making the necessary spending. After the Financial Secretary has set aside the $200 billion, Legislative Council Members will not have any power to decide how and when the $200 billion is to be used, nor can they decide the speed and scope of usage. We will have no power to decide anything. So, all is just empty talks, right?

It is also the case with the so-called Future Fund established by the Secretary, which I have been criticizing. He says that since the population of Hong Kong is ageing, there will be problems with the workforce, and taxation revenue will decrease. Hence, he says, it is necessary to make provisions for the construction of infrastructure facilities in the future. But then, as the voices of opposition get stronger and stronger after the passage of time, he has started to say something different, claiming that the money can actually be spent on other issues. But if that is really the case, is it still necessary to make a provision of $200 billion for undertaking long-term healthcare reform? The Future Fund can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7525 be used for this purpose, right? Alternatively … I still do not know if the $200 billion is actually part of the Future Fund. I do not know the answer, but I guess this should not be the case.

In fact, I often say that we should aim at instant result. If we really want to tackle this perennial dispute among Hong Kong people … We talk about the need for harmony all the time … I frankly cannot follow the reasoning of the Democratic Party. We have been arguing so very hard, but when the Financial Secretary suddenly makes a provision of $200 billion for long-term healthcare reform, the Democratic Party simply says yes. Perhaps, it thinks that this is after all better than nothing, and it even wants to support the Budget. I cannot see its logic, however. We have been arguing so hard, but at this critical moment, Carrie LAM suddenly says in public that there will be no money for the introduction of universal retirement protection. Carrie LAM says in public that her boss, the Chief Executive (Please call him the Chief Executive instead of LEUNG Chun-ying), has never promised to implement universal retirement protection, and that he has only put forward the idea of saving up a retirement fund for Hong Kong. Where is the fund? There is none.

John TSANG has proposed two funds, a fund for long-term healthcare reform and the Future Fund. The two should add up to a total of some $400 billion to $500 billion. This Chief Executive talks about the need for saving up a retirement fund. But where is it kept? Has Mr KWOK Wai-keung ever asked him? No. There is no such fund on the account. This is just a scam. LEUNG Chun-ying may really be a very clever swindler. He may have succeeded in fooling others into applauding him. And, he has cleverly kept silent for three to four years and claimed all the credit. But now, people have come to a rude awakening that there will be no universal retirement protection and no standard working hours, for that matter. As a result, I must now ask him, "Where have you put the money?" The money has been taken away by the Financial Secretary and he is just making empty promises. For this issue ― this issue alone ― I must continue to filibuster in the Council because at this moment of truth, we must not back down.

President, we can still remember how you stopped my filibuster two years ago. A bit sad at that time, I asked Members to keep trying, telling them that this would yield results. Today, however, I see that at the moment truth, this Council will instead prefer a temporary retreat. Perhaps, Members think that they should first handle another job and accept another medicated patch first, 7526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 right? The other side has issued a promissory note, and they think that it should be accepted first. In contrast, regarding the pressing need for universal retirement protection, the consultation is drawing to a close and the Government's stance is much more specific. But they instead choose to give up.

The Financial Secretary is in charge of money. Let me read out the expenditure on capital works. The Financial Secretary assumed office in 2007-2008. The expenditure on capital works in 2009-2010 increased by 91.5% or almost doubled when compared with the same expenditure in 2008-2009, from $24.5 billion to $47.1 billion. Then it increased to $48.9 billion in 2010-2011, to $58.4 billion in 2011-2012 and to $62.4 billion in 2012-2013. And, in 2013-2014, it even increased to $83 billion for reasons of the Future Fund. Subsequently, the expenditure dropped to $68 billion in 2014-2015. President, the expenditure on "white elephants" has been increasing steadily in past years, from $24.5 billion in 2008-2009 to $83 billion in 2013-2014. These figures are astronomical indeed.

President, I do not think it is acceptable for this Council to claim that it has no money for launching reform and giving the elderly a comfortable old age. Elderly people contributed to the prosperity of Hong Kong with all their toils and sweats in their life. John TSANG is in politics, and although I do not know whether he can become the next Chief Executive, I still want to tell him how to become a good politician. He received western education, so let me tell him the way in our traditional Chinese culture, "The feeling of commiseration belongs to all men; so does that of shame and dislike; and that of reverence and respect; and that of right and wrong. The feeling of commiseration implies the principle of benevolence; that of shame and dislike, the principle of righteousness; that of reverence and respect, the principle of propriety; and that of right and wrong, the principle of knowledge. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge are not infused into us from without. These four virtues are born with us. Only that we never reflect on it". In brief, these virtues are all inherent in human nature beyond any argument. Of course, Mencius was a bit untruthful in his words. How can all these be inherent human nature? Actually, these virtues are passed down to us by our history and culture, and they are called cores values or ultimate concerns in modern parlance, OK?

Do they have any "feeling of commiseration"? No. Depriving the elderly of a happy old age is as cruel as allowing an infant to fall into a well without offering him any rescue. Does LEUNG Chun-ying have any "feeling of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7527 shame"? He has been dismissed as a liar. But he simply keeps issuing promissory notes and talking about saving up money. But he cannot tell us how the money is to be used, and it turns out in the end that there is no such savings. So, he has no "feeling of shame". "Propriety" is the same as "deference". What does that mean? Mencius interpreted it in two ways: first is deference and second is propriety. This means that we have to pay due respect to good deeds and there is no room for laymen. The "feeling of right and wrong" implies wisdom. Does he have any "feeling of right and wrong"?

Some people say that Long Hair likes to talk about "right and wrong". President, no other governments in the world have the fiscal surplus and reserves we have in our control. Even if we do nothing in the coming 24 months and I filibuster for 24 months, we will still have money to spend. Under these circumstances, it would be a waste of time for the Government to try to convince others that it has no money for all these tasks. The Government asks us what we are going to do if we find it impossible to carry on after making a start. Let me tell it that since Hong Kong is so affluent, we can always levy taxes, right? The Government also puts forward this proposal, threatening us that this will require a tax increase of 4.2%, and asking us if we will agree to this. I for one will give my total support. But will the authorities do so?

President, the effects of all economic problems will eventually be felt politically. LEUNG Chun-ying once said in this Chamber and at the height of the Umbrella Movement that universal suffrage must not be implemented. What was his rationale? He said that if there was no screening of candidates, and universal suffrage was implemented on the basis of "one person, one vote", those earning less than the median wage of $14,000 a month in Hong Kong will all have a vote and this would certainly tilt the balance of interests to their side. This point really merits our attention. In other words, they are actually afraid that if I may also be qualified to run in the Chief Executive Election and all can have a vote one day, my advocacy of universal retirement protection and standard working hours may enable me to win the election and no one can stop me. President, can't you see that this is actually the very root of the whole problem? The absence of universal retirement protection or standard working hours today does not mean that these two things are unreasonable, does not mean that these two things are bad to millions of employees, housewives and the disadvantaged. They are only bad to the 1 200 members of the Election Committee (EC), and the person to be elected by the 1 200-member EC.

7528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

President, I have my reason for filibustering because I definitely do not believe that continuous actions cannot arouse public concern. You can laugh at me for losing another round. But I must tell you that only persistence can stand a chance of victory. Here, I also advise the Financial Secretary sincerely that if he does not openly tell us whether universal retirement protection and standard working hours would be implemented within the current term, the "war of filibustering" would continue. In that case, he had better follow the example of Mr WONG Kwok-hing and give Jasper TSANG a pair of "golden scissors" with which to cut the filibuster. Otherwise, I would surely win over you with my arguments.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to speak on one thing at the beginning of my speech. I believe everyone's impression of the first Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa (or "Uncle TUNG"), is basically quite good. We all know that he is a nice businessman, a person with good intentions, and he wants to improve the governance of Hong Kong. However, since the global economic situation in those years was really very poor, our society had to face a lot of difficulties and challenges. It ended up in everybody putting the blame of all social issues on the Chief Executive. Unfortunately, the "85 000" housing policy proposed by this nice guy, Uncle TUNG, was considered bad governance instead of good.

Why should I make such remarks? Since everybody understands that in this world, there is no such thing as love without a reason, nor such thing as hatred without a cause, we should analyse the matter from a rational perspective and see if we are dissatisfied with society or a particular person. This is a point that should be made clear. In reality, not everyone can establish a direct contact with another person. If one party feels that the interaction between them during a direct contact is not so congenial, it is just a personal view on the other party. However, I am worried that if we view the matter purely from a sensual standpoint, we will easily put the blame on a particular person for the failure of finding the immediate solution for some social issues. In that case, I consider that unfair.

Anyway, I will speak on manpower issues first. Actually, in my capacity as the representative of "wage-earners", I have to show my strong dissatisfaction to the following remarks made by the Financial Secretary in the Budget. He said, "We shall rely on the enhanced Supplementary Labour Scheme to alleviate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7529 the delays and cost overruns caused by labour shortage." This saying is tantamount to letting the labour sector to take the blame. It is widely known that such delays are often the results of a delay in funding due to filibustering by lawmakers. Yet the MTR Corporation Limited comes up with far-fetched excuses for such problems. Besides, the shutdown of certain worksites due to industrial accidents resulted from poor safety management also contributes to the delays and cost overruns. Such examples are numerous.

Moreover, the so-called "enhanced" scheme is simply allowing imported workers to work across various works projects. In fact, the Development Bureau has made the proposal unilaterally without seeking the consent from the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). On the one hand, it has not shown due respect to the regulatory function of the LAB; on the other hand, if we hastily allow imported workers to work across various works projects, the business sector will definitely take the easy way out. It will surely affect the employment opportunities and livelihood of local construction workers. It will also have serious impact on the morale of the trade and hinder the training and long-term development of the trade.

Moreover, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has also recommended that the Government should allocate additional resources to promote family-friendly employment practices. In recent years, the Government has often mentioned the importance of such practices. However, has the Government introduced adequate policies to dovetail with these practices? The answer is "Surely not." Nevertheless, I have to emphasize that the Government often adopts soft tactics to encourage employers to implement family-friendly employment practices. In fact it has been almost eight years since the introduction of the promotional measure in 2009. What effects has it come to? How many employers have participated? There are just a handful of them.

We consider that encouragement alone will definitely fail to achieve the desired result. To this end, both soft and hard tactics are required. We should consider legislating for its implementation in order to make it an effective measure. One should know that there are many good employers and there are also many unscrupulous ones. If the Government merely encourages employers repeatedly on the basis of its own wishful thinking, or to encourage employers repeatedly, it will only give people the impression that the Government has no standpoint and commitment when it deals with labour relations. If the Government thinks that employers will take the advice and spend money to 7530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 enhance labour rights and interests after it has said a few words to encourage them and mustered public opinions to condemn them, may I ask why it has become the unique management culture of Hong Kong in which wage-earners have to work long working hours without overtime compensation?

President, the Government itself is a big employer. Let us take paternal leave an example. If the Government could take the lead and implement a five-day paternal leave, legislate for it and then request employers to follow, it would become a successful case. However, after browsing through the policy addresses and budget speeches in recent years, I find that the Government has not allocated additional resources to this end. Except for publicity purpose, it has not been "supportive" in implementing family-friendly employment practices. That being the case, may I ask how wage-earners can believe that the Government is determined to implement such practices?

President, in this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary has announced that he will increase the dependent parent allowances in order to alleviate part of the burdens of taxpayers. But what about the child allowances? What about FTU's proposal on allowance for education? What about maternity leave with full pay? How can the Government convince the public that it is encouraging working women to bear children? What about the Government's pledge to review paternal leave after one year of its implementation? I am the Chairman of the Panel on Manpower of the Legislative Council. I have repeatedly urged and requested the Administration to set down the time frame for a discussion, but the Government has been procrastinating. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare even stated it explicitly at the special meeting of the Finance Committee that amending the legislation would be a matter for the Legislative Council of the next term to consider. I hereby strongly urge the Secretary not to shirk his responsibilities when he is dealing with labour issues. He should expeditiously complete the review on the policies that will benefit the wage-earners (in fact only a few dozens of thousands of them can enjoy the leave every year) and to have them implemented as soon as practicable.

Moreover, the legislation on standard working hours and standardization of two types of holidays are among the most important and most effective measures to promote work-family life balance and family-friendly employment practices. But can we see the slightest sign of anything happening now?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7531

The Government of the current term has served more than half of its term. It will complete its term and a general election will take place soon. In the recent Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE), a question about the relationship between democratization and competitiveness was asked. In gist, students were asked whether the competitive edge of Hong Kong would be improved if the representation of the Election Committee (EC) for selecting the Chief Executive and the composition of the Legislative Council were broadened. What I want to say is that the two are definitely related. I know secondary school students should know how to answer. Wouldn't it be effective to improve labour rights and interests if the representation of the EC's composition is broadened or the implementation of the election of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" as soon as possible, so that candidates running for the Chief Executive office will have to face some 3 million wage-earners directly? Unfortunately, as a result of the "bundling of votes" by the pan-democratic camp, the "one person, one vote" universal suffrage package was negatived.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong always boasts itself as a developed municipality and an international metropolis, but it is unfortunate that up to now, Hong Kong is still an underdeveloped region as far as labour rights and interests and labour welfares are concerned. Will the Secretary and the Government feel extremely embarrassed and ashamed?

Now I am going to speak on vocational education. In my previous speeches in the Legislative Council, I have repeatedly expressed my regard and concern in this respect. At the same time, I have all along been urging the Government to allocate additional resources in order to introduce some target-oriented, systematic and responding measures to improve vocational education. They include enhancement of youth training and strengthening the existing vocational education and training so as to allow the young generation to plan for and follow their career path as early as possible. In addition, the Government should also prepare the statistics and assessment of the manpower need of all sectors.

In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary proposed certain enhancement measures such as the allocation of $200 million for providing tuition fee subsidy for students admitted to specified professional part-time programmes offered by the Vocational Training Council. Meanwhile, the Airport Authority Hong Kong plans to establish a civil aviation academy to nurture aviation management talents. FTU welcomes these measures. We also 7532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 recognize that these measures can help Hong Kong to upgrade the skills of local and overseas aviation practitioners as well as the safety level of aviation transport to a certain extent. Nevertheless, we attach importance to the details. In particular, we would like to know which Policy Bureau of the Government will take charge of the work of the future civil aviation academy after its establishment. How will the Government deal with its expenses and manpower? I hope the Government will brief this Council as soon as possible.

If we are to promote vocational education, I think it is necessary for us to change the social value of "valuing academic studies and belittling technical training". To this end, besides subsidizing the organization of programmes and increasing training allowances, the Government should allocate additional resources to publicize the importance of vocational education and training so as to reverse the misconception of parents, young people and employers that vocational education is something inferior.

President, two days ago, the media reported the news about the commencement of a training course named "Modern-day PAO Ding, the Expert Butcher" (that is, pork cutters and butchers). There are not many places for this course, just 40, but more than 130 people have applied for it. The response is quite good. It differs significantly from the vocational education courses or training courses of the past that everyone talks about. We consider it necessary to give more regard to repackaging the image and remunerations of certain trades which are in need of new blood badly.

Up to this point, I cannot help mentioning the Earn and Learn Pilot Scheme (Pilot Scheme) for the Retail Industry. Previously, the Financial Secretary allocated $130 million to assist and support the development of the retailing industry. However, according to a survey conducted by us the day before yesterday, there were insufficient places, insufficient enrolments and insufficient number of graduates under the Pilot Scheme. To a certain extent, this was related to the degree of employer participation. We found that some employers failed to actively take part in the Pilot Scheme after securing the government subsidy. At the end of the first three-month period, in which a monthly salary of $11,000 monthly was guaranteed, graduates were left on their own to meet the sales quota. May I ask how young people can rest assured that they can go on pursuing a career in the industry? Since the Financial Secretary has allocated the resources, I hope he can urge the relevant Policy Bureau to enhance the management and communication with the employers with a view to improving the curriculums. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7533

I am going to speak on tourism. In fact, tourism covers a lot of trades and contributes to various economic domains, including hotels, transport, catering, and so on. It provides a large number of middle and elementary-level job opportunities. Tourism is the pillar of Hong Kong's economy but we concentrated more on quantity than quality in the past. Another problem is the excessively homogeneous services for the source market as a whole. In addition, the resilience of the tourism industry against adversities was undermined due to serious problems in the regulatory mechanism.

We recommend the development of experiential tourism and the promotion of local in-depth travel, culture tour and ecological tour. We welcome that the Budget has adopted FTU's recommendations and proposed the "need to review the development strategy of our tourism industry". We also approve of the Budget's proposal to "continue to promote Hong Kong's natural scenery as well as our unique history and culture, including enriching the contents of the Dr Sun Yat-sen Historical Trail with the theme of 'Art across Time'".

However, we are concerned that such proposals will become hollow words without enough support from specific complementary measures. The Dr Sun Yat-sen Historical Trail initiative proposed by the Government this time around can illustrate the problems of mismanagement and inadequate supporting facilities. For example, Gage Street is one of the spots along the Trail where YEUNG Ku-wan (YANG Quyun) was assassinated. However, after views from the local community were received, the relevant authorities relocated the memorial plaque to the back alley. Obviously, YEUNG Ku-wan was assassinated on the main street, but the authorities just relocated the memorial plaque to the back alley. I have to emphasize that history should be respected and not to be compromised. As the assassination took place on Gage Street, the memorial plaque should therefore be erected on Gage Street and should not be relocated hastily.

Moreover, the adjoining Pak Tsz Lane Park was home to Furen Literary Society (Furen Wenshe). However, it is now either surrounded by commercial activities or daubed with graffiti. It is surrounded by piles of garbage and recycling cages for waste paper, and there is no clear signage to indicate that it is a historical site. May I ask what quality has the park possessed for it to develop into a tourist attraction?

7534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

At the same time, the Government has to increase guided tours because it always says that it has to make Hong Kong "a hospitality city". Besides a smiling face, the public have to answer questions asked by tourists. When tourists ask for direction, members of the public should know how to answer and show them the way, as well as to tell them the history of Hong Kong. Therefore, besides providing guided tours for tourists, the Government should strengthen public participation so that the general public can become tour guides or provide tour information. Only by doing so can our tourism industry further flourish.

President, I so submit.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, Long Hair said just now that he did not understand the rationale behind the Democratic Party's support of the Appropriation Bill 2016. I also heard him ask whether the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) loved senior citizens. I fail to see why people who love senior citizens must support the $200 billion retirement protection fund proposed by Long Hair. If his logic is true, then should we call upon people who love Hong Kong to love Long Hair if he asks Hong Kong people to love Hong Kong? This is absolutely impossible.

President, I have recently seen Forgotten Planet, a documentary film which describes the latest circumstances in several cities. The common feature of these cites is that they were once very prosperous but are now deserted and have become forgotten planets. Today, I would like to share with Members and the public the history of one of these cities, Detroit in the United States. Detroit used to be a flourishing city of automobile manufacturing in the world and it was once called the Motor City of the World. In its heyday, the city was inhabited by a population of 1.8 million, but its population has now plummeted by 60% to roughly 700 000. In a short span of just 16 years, large numbers of car manufacturers either closed down or moved out of the city, and over 140 000 jobs disappeared. Detroit thus plunged from prosperity to decline. The city government failed to make ends meet and ran into a debt of US$18 billion. In 2013, it had to apply for bankruptcy. The city was of course quickly discharged from bankruptcy in less than two years. But Detroit is now rated as one of the 10 most dangerous cities in the United States, with around one third of the population living below the poverty line.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7535

What happened to Detroit may also happen to any other big cities, depending on whether a city knows how to cure its disease in the early stage. Today, I would like to assess whether Hong Kong may become another Detroit by looking at the two causes of Detroit's decline. The first one is the unitary economy and the second is ethnic tension.

First of all, I would like to compare the two places in terms of the unitary economy. The glory days of Detroit began when Ford Motor Company set up its factory in the city in 1903. The city used to offer close to 300 000 job opportunities at its peak. However, its automobile industry shrunk tremendously as a result of the fierce competition from other countries, mainly Japan. Today, there are only fewer than 27 000 jobs available in Detroit. It can be said that its rise and fall were both caused by the manufacturing industry.

Actually, Hong Kong has also undergone economic restructuring. In the 1950s, Hong Kong's plastic industry once held 80% of the global trading market of plastic flowers, and it was the largest production base of plastic products in the world. The manufacturing industry, which burgeoned in the 1960s, generated as high as 30% of the GDP in the 1970s, with manufacturing workers accounting for 50% of the employed population.

Nowadays, I believe that the Hong Kong new generation may not know that assembling plastic flowers was once an important means of making a living for many families. At present, the plastic industry only accounts for less than 10% of Hong Kong exports. As factories have moved northward, manufacturing workers have become a thing of the past. We can only learn about the once thriving industry through the films of Ms Connie CHAN Po-chu screened in the Hong Kong Film Archive, in which factory girls are exalted.

Fortunately, Hong Kong has once again transformed its economy successfully and developed four pillar industries. However, one of the mainstays, tourism sector, is experiencing a cold winter again. The tourism industry contributes to 5% of the local GDP and employs some 270 000 workers. Following the onslaught of SARS in Hong Kong in 2003, the Mainland swiftly launched the Individual Visit Scheme, bringing the number of visitor arrivals in Hong Kong to 60 million a year.

7536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

However, the hardware facilities of Hong Kong have been unable to cope with the surge of Mainland visitors, with the result that railway stations are packed with visitors and local people's daily life was affected. Some people have successfully exaggerated the situation and talked about China-Hong Kong conflicts. Through media cameras, we have witnessed the rudeness of the so-called localists, who hurled all sorts of insults at inbound visitors, including the elderly. Some of them were so uncivilized that they even kicked tourists' suitcases, openly challenging the bottom line of a city governed by the rule of law. Moreover, some people, including those Members present here, took part in the "wheeled suitcase" protests in a bid to vilify and insult tourists from around the world. I would like to quote a saying: "Gangsters are not dangerous; only 'civilized' gangsters we should fear". That means even though some people are bad, they can only hurt the people around them, so they are not very dangerous. What is most horrible is that some hypocrites have been doing secret damage to the most innocent general public.

Some young "passionate" people have resorted to violence as a means of removing people and things they dislike in the name of protecting local interests. I must seriously and solemnly point out that their acts cannot in any way represent the views of the 7 million Hong Kong people. We strongly believe that most Hong Kong people are rational and civilized. The radical and violent acts of those youngsters whose minds are severely poisoned not only harm Hong Kong's economic development but also lower the overall quality of Hong Kong people. In the past, we used to take pride in Hong Kong as a metropolis blending the East and the West. Why has the situation degenerated into such a sad state now?

The incidents damaging the tourism industry have not only hurt Hong Kong's economy but have also severely tarnished Hong Kong's international reputation. In the Budget this year, the Government introduces various short- and medium-term measures which cost close to $400 million to support tourism. But while the Government may introduce many measures to turn the tide, the most important remains that all Hong Kong people must have this consensus: all people, white or black, are guests of Hong Kong as long as they are not locals. We should restore the warm hospitality of Hong Kong people.

The second point I would like to talk about is ethnic tension. Ethnic tension was very serious in Detroit. Race riots broke out there in 1943 and 1967, and they made a great number of middle-class people leave the city. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7537 residential areas were uninhabited, and the outflow of population resulted in a drastic drop in taxpayers. Finally the city was unable to make ends meet and burdened with massive debts.

In Hong Kong, Chinese people account for over 90% of the population. With regard to the China-Hong Kong conflicts over-hyped in recent years, I can only say that Mainland people are also Chinese. Some Members in this Chamber may hold foreign passports, but I must say that they are also Chinese regardless of their political views, unless they deny such an identity.

Although there is no ethnic tension in Hong Kong, a riot broke out in Mong Kok on the second day of Lunar New Year. In recent years, many Hong Kong people have told me that they are worried about the increasingly violent protests and the worsening social order. They are concerned about whether the Police Force can maintain law and order and are sufficiently equipped to deal with violent clashes. Also, they do not understand why those people who have thrown bricks, beaten police officers and committed arson are not prosecuted just because they have covered up their faces, and why fake refugees wander around the streets but none of them are arrested. Recently, citizens have suddenly expressed their concern about whether the Government is able to maintain law and order and the Police Force have adequate funds to upgrade its equipment. Is such a sudden concern good or bad?

In last year's Budget debate, I said that the 79-day Occupy movement had raised Hong Kong people's awareness of the importance of maintaining social and public order. Therefore, it is necessary to put more trust in and have higher expectation of the Police Force. More support should be given to it in respect of equipment, including water cannon vehicles, tear gas and police batons, so that close contact between police officers and protestors can be avoided. We saw that during the Mong Kok riot, protesters stirred up conflicts on all street corners, dug out bricks on the pavements and committed arson. Police officers were beaten and attacked by irrational mobs. All these are of grave concern to us.

President, the public are worried about the law and order situation in Hong Kong. Apart from the increase of violent protests, they are also worried about the influx of fake refugees. Fake refugees work illegally and commit crimes in Hong Kong because it is very easy for them to get "walking permits". Unable to do anything else, the Government can only keep conducting inspections to arrest them. But since it cannot repatriate them, such actions have no deterrent effect.

7538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

In the previous financial year, the expenditure on handling torture claims was up to $700 million. This year, the expenditure on legal assistance to torture claimants has increased by 60%, which is certainly due to the dramatic increase in the number of claims. I really hope the Government could understand that allocating additional resources incessantly to a system with loopholes is not the way to address the core problem. The only solution to the fake refugee problem is to get to the root of it. The Government should consider setting up detention camps as soon as possible, so as to prevent fake refugees from working illegally to make quick money in Hong Kong. It is only when the economic incentives of coming to Hong Kong are removed that the fake refugee problem can be resolved.

It is not surprising that many pan-democrats have openly opposed the Government's actions and measures against fake refugees. They even argue that there are no fake refugees, claiming that those 10 000-odd fake refugees who are causing troubles to Hong Kong are genuine refugees. Whether they are genuine refugees, I believe that the general public have a clear picture about it and have their own conclusions. Major newspapers in Hong Kong, especially the Oriental Daily News, have published comprehensive reports on the issue, revealing the existing loopholes and blind spots in security. Despite all the public worries about the problem, the pan-democrats have still turned a blind eye to it and refused to face the reality. A new Member with legal background has even ignorantly criticized the Government for breaching the 1951 Refugee Convention. President, the Convention is not applicable to Hong Kong in fact. This is an objective fact. Do the pan-democrats really not know about it or are they just trying to conceal the fact deliberately in order to mislead Hong Kong people? I believe that Hong Kong people will make their own judgment.

President, I hope Hong Kong will never become a forgotten city. As I have said in the beginning, any city in the world may follow the track of Detroit and become a forgotten city. However, I have a strong belief that Hong Kong is clear about its direction. What I have shared with Members today is meant to call upon those who still regard Hong Kong as their home and homeland to reflect on themselves and strive to protect Hong Kong's reputation of the "Pearl of Orient", making it as bright as ever.

With these remarks, President, I support the Appropriation Bill 2016. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7539

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, this is a relatively more acceptable Budget. It has more compliments than criticisms and should not provoke much controversy. President, the public generally finds the Budget agreeable because it does not contain any fallacious arguments about certain issues or shift the blame to others. But rather, people feel that the Financial Secretary is willing to listen and is able to feel the pulse of society, and that when he sees the causes to the tension and turbulence in Hong Kong, he is even willing to do a re-think, showing an understanding that "the one who ties a bell on a tiger should be the one to untie it". Citing his words in the introduction and concluding remarks of the Budget, he thinks that the problems of Hong Kong can only be solved by ourselves and we should chart our own course. These remarks are to the liking of Hong Kong people. Likewise, his view that politics and economics are closely intertwined, as mentioned by Mr Vincent FANG just now, and some such ideas and remarks are also to the liking of Hong Kong people.

In fact, Hong Kong people are not very demanding. As long as the Government is not too ridiculous or unreasonable, and as long as it is receptive and communicative and is willing to timely and appropriately adapt to public aspirations and formulate corresponding measures, Hong Kong people will say yes. Using the Financial Secretary's words, "our problems are man-made, therefore they can be solved by man". As compared, another policy or approach responds to everything with blind obedience and repeats "One Belt One Road" parrot-fashion. This other approach has been criticized as using powerful connections to intimidate people and profit-seeking, and has recently been dubbed as using privileged power for privileged affairs. Such an approach is disagreeable to Hong Kong people and is very "unworldly" as well. The Financial Secretary has mentioned some sayings and songs. Incidentally, I wish to say a few words on a song very familiar to the Financial Secretary. The song is David BOWIE's Space Oddity, in which the lyrics on "Ground Control to Major Tom" is actually a call requesting landing on planet earth, which is very "worldly" indeed.

President, why do I think that some measures in the Budget are agreeable to Hong Kong people? For instance, the cost prices of infrastructural projects have inflated in recent years like the baking powder in cake making. This is not only a waste of taxpayer money, but also an encouragement for embezzlement. These are matters of public concern. Hence, the Financial Secretary has proposed in paragraph 146 of the Budget the setting up of a multi-disciplinary office. This measure is well-received and has responded to the concern of many Hong Kong people. 7540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Certainly, regarding some relatively forward-looking issues, such as iBond and Silver Bond, with due respect to the Financial Secretary, I am afraid they cannot develop beyond the boundary of Lei Yue Mun. These are very localistic approaches which are difficult to develop internationally. As a recently deceased equity commentator says, "Count on time not wits". Sometimes, we need to have everything ready before launching certain measures. In this regard, I proposed the idea of One Bond to the Government. The Government should not focus only on "One Belt One Road", which has been mentioned over 40 times in the Policy Address. Instead, it should pursue measures that can capitalize on the time. The name of One Bond is taken from the word "One" in "One Belt One Road". Mr Alan LEONG criticized that relying everything on the Mainland is precarious for Hong Kong. There is indeed such a feeling, but given the geopolitical advantage Hong Kong enjoys, it would be unwise if we do not fully capitalize on this policy which has attracted world attention.

President, why do I put forth the idea of One Bond? It is because the Chinese Yuan is going global and the development of large-scale infrastructures under "One Belt One Road" will generate a huge capital demand. Coincidentally, Hong Kong people have renminbi (RMB) savings, which contribute to a huge capital pool amounting to almost thousands of billions dollars. The Mainland and Hong Kong provide the demand and supply which, by mixing and matching, fits perfectly into this direction. Hence, when we talk about "One Belt One Road", we should not remain at a theoretical level; instead, we should practically put the idea of RMB bond market and "One Belt One Road" together, so that we can find a way forward for Hong Kong to go beyond the boundary of Lei Yue Mun to an international level.

President, we cannot count on political slogans at times. We should look for market signs instead. How money is invested into the market, specifically whether people make a gain or suffer a loss in the market and whether the market outlook is optimistic will give us clear signs. The China Communications Construction Company Limited (1800), a stock which has doubled its price in the past three months, gives us a clear signal that investors have used their money to give a vote of trust to this company which focuses on "One Belt One Road"-related infrastructural investments. I thus hold that it is a policy the Financial Secretary should really take forward.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7541

President, there are ongoing measures which, I think, should be continued rather than discontinued. But I think the Government has not worked hard enough. For example, the tourism sector spends $70 billion every year on tourism promotion, but such efforts place too much emphasis on publicity and neglect the need of improving infrastructural facilities.

On 9 April, that is a few days ago, a kaito ferry service linking Kwun Tong Ferry Pier and Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (KTCT) commenced operation, though only on weekends at the moment, and it is first of its kind. I know that the Financial Secretary is involved in pressing ahead this project. I actually took the ferry on 9 April. The KTCT was deserted like a mortuary. The impression was not good. I have repeatedly said that the Government should make full use of the KTCT. It should strive to make use of the space and the rooftop park there even on non-ship call days. The location there has the best 360 degree panoramic view in Hong Kong and is distant from residential housing. Events such as a ladies' night bar, which has been a heated subject lately, can be held there.

In fact, it is better to transform the KTCT into a Lan Kwai Fong in East Kowloon than to let it remain deserted like a mortuary. This is a good option. If not, we can consider other options like holding an open-air concert to instantly draw people to the place. I have also repeatedly proposed the construction of a temporary floating bridge to facilitate people going from Kwun Tong to the KTCT in five minutes. The whole place can then be revitalized. Sites which have been idled and left baking under the sun for too long should be revitalized. We should not let the KTCT remain a desolate place like a mortuary.

President, I wish to cite an example from the fashion industry. Of course, we should thank the Financial Secretary for the policy, as stated in paragraph 69 of the Budget, to allocate $500 million to further develop the fashion industry. This includes establishing an incubation programme and a resource centre, and promoting Hong Kong fashion designers and fashion brands in the international market such as the fashion week in Paris and New York. This is an upstream high-end approach, which is certainly advisable to do so. But alternatively, the authorities can assist the fashion industry by preserving the places or facilities useful to local designers, which is a much less costly approach. President, I am talking about the cloth bazaar commonly known as "Pang-tsai" which has existed for some 37 to 38 years. It is a place of many merits. It has stood the test of time like a purple clay teapot enriched with many times of tea infusion. I often 7542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 say that historic sites are more attractive than large-scale tourism facilities or infrastructures. The cloth bazaar is also a place where 100-odd families have made a living in the past few decades and where many famous Hong Kong designers are nurtured. These famous designers when they were still fashion students often visited the cloth bazaar for cloths. If we are willing to invest minimally on this place, it can produce significant results. Not only will this investment serve to enrich the tourism facilities in Hong Kong, but also help the local fashion industry to develop. President, I hope the Financial Secretary can relay this message to the relevant authorities and discuss whether this can bring significant results with minimal cost.

President, let me cite another example. Quite contrary to the Chief Executive's remark that sports contribute minimally to the economy, the Financial Secretary's remark in paragraph 75 of the Budget that the development of sports has great market potential is a slap on the face of the Chief Executive. As a matter of fact, a fund established in recent years by the Financial Secretary has nurtured quite a few internationally-recognized Hong Kong athletes, such as the boxer Rex TSO, the cyclist LEE Wai-sze nicknamed "the Goddess from Lower Ngau Tau Kok estate", the snooker player NG On-yee and the badminton player NG Ka-long who has beaten LIN Dan. These athletes are familiar to Hong Kong people and have many fans and supporters. I hold that we should continue to support the development of sports.

In fact, as I just said, One Bond can also make some local characteristics of Hong Kong global.

President, after the compliments, I will express my solemn criticism against the Financial Secretary. I hold that he can do better in certain aspects. First, it is certainly about the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). President, the Financial Secretary said that he had set up a Facebook account to access messages that could not be accessed through mainstream media. In this regard, I hope that he can accept my challenge to set up a column to exclusively receive public views on MPF, regarding whether they think that the MPF scheme should be preserved or abolished and how it can be improved.

It is indisputable that MPF fund investment companies charge high fees but yield low returns. Should we stop loss before a better option is available? President, we pay as much as $10 billion of so-called administration fees every year for our MPF contributions. A calculation made by Mr LAM Pun-lee for us LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7543 estimates that we have paid $70 billion of administration fees in total in 13 years. Mr Tobias BROWN, a financial commentator, says that 30% of our 20 years of MPF contributions will end up becoming the assets of MPF fund investment companies. I asked Secretary K C CHAN whether the authorities knew the sum of fees we had paid for the funds under our MPF accounts. To my surprise, he said the authorities did not have such information. Then, President, how are we going to assess whether the MPF fund investment companies in Hong Kong are charging excessive fees?

Thus, all in all, I think the authorities should consider stopping loss first. This may also be able to fully dismiss the present controversy in society over the MPF offsetting arrangement because there will not be such a need if the MPF scheme is abolished.

Besides, President, people may wish to partially encash their MPF accounts for investment amid the present economy downturn. For instance, they may wish to capitalize on the falling property price and purchase a property, or they may wish to use the money for education or travel. These can also be a way to speed up economic recovery. A feasible option is to follow the practice in other countries and places to provide an opt-out regime for employees. For instance, more voluntary fund combinations can be provided for MPF contributors, such as those provided in Taiwan, Australia and Singapore, where their MPF contributors are vested with greater power in deciding their investment items and contribution percentage and also with greater flexibility in making encashment for investment or usage. All these are directions the authorities should consider.

President, on the whole the Budget shows that the Financial Secretary manages to see the deep-rooted conflicts and problems in Hong Kong and the need to adjust the policy and direction for Hong Kong. I totally agree with him and support his idea. However, as the Financial Secretary is here, I wish to remind him that policy is not the only thing needs to be changed in Hong Kong. The Chief Executive can also be changed. The President gave us a riddle to solve, asking us what the meaning of "Time lies. See why" is. I know the President has not told us the answer yet. But I also wish to pose another riddle for Members to solve: Hong Kong needs to be changed and the Chief Executive needs to be changed, but how? To change the policy or the person administering the policy? I hope the people in Hong Kong can discuss more on this subject because it is a matter of great concern to us all.

7544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Incidentally, as the Financial Secretary is fond of discussing football games, my colleague has designed this picture and I do not want to waste his effort. In the picture I am kicking two balls to the Financial Secretary. One is the ball of MPF and the other is the ball of One Bond. I hope the Financial Secretary can catch the balls and give them some thought. He can also savour the hidden meaning of "Hong Kong needs to change and the Chief Executive needs to change" which I just said.

Thank you, President,

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to move the motion.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2016 be adjourned to the meeting of 20 April 2016.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2016 be adjourned to the meeting of 20 April 2016.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7545

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will continue with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2016 at the meeting of 20 April 2016 during which public officers will respond. If the Bill receives Second Reading, its remaining stages will also be proceeded with at that meeting.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will resume discussion on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): When the Committee continued the first debate on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 at the meeting of 2 March 2016, I permitted Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to move a motion under Rule 40(4) of the Rules of Procedure that "further proceedings of the committee of the whole Council be now adjourned".

The Committee now continues the debate on the adjournment motion. Does any Member wish to speak?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not have anything in particular that I want to discuss originally but Mr MA Fung-kwok just said he wanted to speak. So, I will speak as well!

7546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Why is it that his speech will prompt me to speak as well? This is because he said he would explain to the trade that he represented why this thing was done but not the others during the whole filibustering process in the discussion of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (Bill). I also want to take this opportunity to explain why the Bill can die naturally or unnaturally through filibustering. We can choose either way but I think the Bill die naturally.

The Secretary said many times that they had in fact carried out thorough work and held discussions and all the stakeholders were satisfied. I think, the point that is most unpleasing to ears is ― though I did not participate in the "meal box meeting" of the pan-democrats, I also do not know what their stance is ― that he said it was due to the sudden "switching of stance" of the pan-democrats, in particular the Civic Party that the whole incident became unsettled now. This is incorrect.

Firstly, I have never heard the Secretary said that there was anyone who agreed with him nor did I hear any inconsistency or anything new in the speeches of the Members from the Civic Party or the pan-democrat. He is so indiscreet … I recall the Secretary once called upon the public to remember us. I recall he said on that day, "Remember … them, they are the culprits …". His saying is rather unfair. Among the 70 Members, I am lazy and stupid and read no books at all. However, I can understand one point even without great wisdom basically. We need no great wisdom to discuss the reasonable excuses provided currently to restrict contract override under the Bill ― this is the way I said it.

Chairman, a Council needs to listen carefully to the real messages of different stakeholders if it is to hear the cry-outs of the public. Chairman, what do I mean by "real messages"? That is "when things become imminent", the meaning is, as representatives in the Council, after taking into account the pubic sentiments, we will act in accordance with our independent judgment and basic belief. What is the crux then? Mr MA Fung-kwok made consideration in the light of the interests of the trade sector he represented, and it is all natural as Members returned by functional constituency election ought to be so.

However, as compared with most of the directly-elected Members, they have to be considerate of the pubic sentiments. They need not necessarily follow the public opinion, instead, they have to analyse whether the public opinion is right or not. With my modest understanding, the public opinion is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7547 certainly not incorrect because the public have concern. The Chairman may say, "Is having concern 'prevailed above all'?" This is definitely so. Hence, we need to exercise our rights to take care of the concern caused by the copyright owners and the use of the services of the intermediary companies so as to let the public know whether they will be held legally liable.

I wish to further talk about the six reasonable excuses provided to restrict contract override under the Bill. If a contract is "excessively lengthy" and its font is so tiny liked flies, I cannot read it through. If that is so, what is the reason for saying that my choice is well-thought-out and fair? In particular, the copyright companies and intermediary companies are monopolized by a handful of people. Frankly speaking, I do not know how others think but I will surely stand on the side of the public as they are helpless.

Rather than discussing matters in such a way, if the representatives in the Council follow others' saying blindly … If someone says that, "Please believe them! It is out of their good intention. The contract is "excessively lengthy" and its fonts are so tiny liked flies, it is in fact for your own good, it can save your time. Even if you sign the contract, nothing will go wrong, it does not matter." If the netizen also thinks that his saying is reasonable and so he signs the contract, then can the netizen use this as a reasonable excuse? Can he enjoy the so called "exceptions"? There are only six reasonable excuses currently. I have mentioned that logically, this is incorrect. We should have seven, eight, nine or even 10 reasonable excuses. In terms of legislation enactment, we should not just have six reasonable excuses. If not, it should be totally banned.

In this regard, the Secretary told the public that with these six exceptions proposed by the Bill, the public will not be doomed. When the public is being charged and brought to court, they can tell the judge that there are these six exceptions, so they will not be doomed and found guilty. However, the so called "contract override" is to sign an "excessively lengthy" contract with flies-liked fonts and becomes bound by that contract while the reasonable excuses conferred upon us by the legal provisions which protect our constitutional rights will also be forfeited. Our colleagues, do you understand? I do not refer to you. We all will browse the Internet. I mean the colleagues helping us to conduct the meeting. I also have consideration for them. Do we browse the Internet? Of course we will. Hence, if there are any arguments in this issue, it will become unsettled.

7548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

There is still one issue. The Government stated that they wanted to bring about discussions among the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th parties. To me, what is most annoying about the Government? The Government seems to think that it is guilty to ride upon the interests of the Hong Kong people, on the contrary, to protect the interests of the intermediary companies and copyright owners based on international standard should be right. However, I do not think it is right. How should the Council examine the Bill? For me, it should be liked a coroner examining the provisions in the Bill and only endorse it when the Bill is considered to have nothing wrong in all respects.

Nevertheless, the attitude of the Government is quite strange. The Government thinks that if the Bill is not endorsed at the present moment, Hong Kong will be doomed. If the discussions go on, Hong Kong will also be doomed. If the discussions go on so that the Bill cannot be implemented, they will lose their business. All these are nonsense. Chairman, they are destroying themselves as they decide not to continue with the Bill. I want to ask the Secretary, has Hong Kong died now? How significant is the situation in Hong Kong?

When things become imminent, we will know that effective opposition in the Council can reveal the true self of the exaggerating and arrogant Government. It means the result is not as what the Government said that Hong Kong would be doomed right away, and also not as what they said that no more time could be allowed for discussions among different parties. They are really sending coals to Newcastle.

The opposition party in the Council ― they call us the opposition party, I just accept it for the moment since at least for the Bill, we are really a crystal-clear opposition camp ― that can really do actual things, that can remove the anxiety of the Hong Kong people and the netizens ― they worry that the Bill will bring about unnecessary legal liability. Allow me to say a few words of encouragement to our Members in the opposition party. You have to win in the Legislative Council election for the next term because the Bill will return in the next term of the Legislative Council. It will be beyond remedy if Members in the "anti-opposition party" take up more seats in the Council. The Hong Kong people should remember a few points. Raising objections to everything is of course incorrect but it was because basing on our conscience and cognition, we thought that the Bill should not be endorsed and so we decided not to let the Bill being passed. Secondly, our objection is supported by public opinions. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7549

Thirdly, when the people of Hong Kong have doubts about the Bill, the Members have the responsibility to stop the Bill from being passed. In this respect, Mr James TIEN had made a very good demonstration. Mr James TIEN, do you remember? During the time when the legislation in respect of Article 23 of the Basic Law was being enacted in 2003, you said, "since there are doubts, I opt out.".

The Chairman may say Mr TIEN can just directly pull other Members away. However, I cannot do so ― because of the corruptive nature of the composition of seats in the Council ― 40% of the seats are occupied by the functional constituencies. I also want to explain why you all see an endless struggle? This is because a structural inequity existed in the whole Council so that it is impossible to fully reflect the public opinions. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary ― Secretary, you look at me! ― could call for a discussion as soon as possible among the 4th, 5th 6th or 7th parties to handle this issue satisfactorily. In the next term, I may not be a Member. He should act wisely!

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

I now pass the microphone to Mr MA Fung-kwok and let us hear what he will say. Actually, what is still worth saying?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the "Internet Article 23" was finally, finally dropped. It is most gratifying! That is all.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the lead actress CHEN Jiayi says in the movie You are the Apple of My Eye that "there are many things in life that have always been in vain". Unfortunately, the amendments to "Copyright Bill" is one of them.

In 1996, the international world endorsed the "WIPO Copyright Treaty". It is an agreement to enhance protection of intellectual property on the Internet. In 2006, the SAR Government started a public consultation on copyright enhancement in the digital environment. In 2008 it put forward a preliminary legislative proposal and started another public consultation. And in 2011, a Bill 7550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 was introduced into the Legislative Council. But in 2012 as a result of social controversy and filibuster, the Bill was withdrawn. In 2014, the new Government started all over again, taking in public views and started drafting the Bill again.

Unfortunately, barring unforeseen circumstances, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's motion that further proceedings of the Committee of the whole Council be now adjourned will be endorsed later today, and the Government will then drop the Bill as it has said. That will be the end of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014. I and the industries of course will be very sad and disappointed at the result.

Let look back at the deliberation process of the Bill: On 18 June 2014, the Bill was read for the first time; on 17 July the Bills Committee was set up, until 2 November 2015 it was ended. During that time, a total of 24 meetings were held. During the meetings, though we had different opinions, the discussions were rational. Finally, there was an agreement among the members to introduce the Bill into the Legislative Council for the matter to be voted on.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

When we resume the Second Reading debate, the pan-democrats change their minds and try everything possible to filibuster. Facing the impasse of filibustering, the Bar Association also issued a statement pointing out that the Bill in fact could better protect the rights of the public, and the request for further exemptions, the move of "hijacking" the widely recognized urgent part of the Bill on reform of communication right is unreasonable. Earlier, The Law Society of Hong Kong has also expressed support for passing the Bill, and considers that the Bill not only affords greater clarity to protect the interests of all parties compared to the existing Copyright Ordinance, but also can immediately resolve the problem of our legislation lagging behind other countries for many years

Unfortunately, our colleagues remain the same and continue filibustering, ignoring the needs of the sector, ignoring the threat to the survival of local creative industries, disregarding the professional legal advice, continue filibustering, dragging on and on and as a result I can't see when the Bill can be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7551

The Bill underwent three months of discussion. Of 96 hours spent on meetings, 38 hours was used for quorum calls. In the remaining 58 hours, the filibustering members made use of the Rules of Procedure to ask for committing the Bill to a select committee and moved motions to adjourn the debate. The actual time spent on deliberating the Bill was only 29 hours. The progress was slow. Up to this moment, we are still at the stage of deliberation by the committee of the whole Council, debating on the first batch of amendments.

Chairman, the purposes of having Rules of Procedure are to allow the meetings to be conducted smoothly, allow different views to be fully expressed and allow us to carry out our business and make decisions on issues with social impact in accordance with the democratic procedure, and which can make sure that we can work efficiently. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Rules of Procedure has gradually become a weapon, something to be abused, to hinder decision making in the Council. When they cannot make use of the democratic procedure to achieve their means, they make use of all sorts of loopholes in the Rules of Procedure to stall the business of the Legislative Council. These actions lead to wastage of social resources, have been tarnishing our image, obstructing our administration, and also affecting the normal functioning of society as a whole. There will be far-reaching effects and harm to be done. I can't tolerate it and I have to condemn it.

For the three amendments proposed by the pan-democrats and also the restrictive fair use provision proposed later, I don't think the sector is rigid, and we are open-minded. But the key is that the pan-democrats are trying to move amendments without a firm basis of public consensus, which is not in line with justice in legislation, and some amendments involve changes in the original arrangement, some are implemented in some countries only and not across the globe. And unlike other countries, we have not the appropriate legislation or support measures to strike a balance if we're to introduce the amendments. Therefore it is better for us to endorse the Bill first, and then there will be another round of public consultation, so that we can come up with something which better suit the needs of Hong Kong, and better facilitate the local creative industries.

Well in the course of amending the Ordinance, the sector has been rational in expressing views in light of local circumstances and international trends, and has made concessions again and again. Originally, Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 did not provide for any exceptions, then the Government launched again a 7552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 public consultation on parody and has accepted the suggestion of providing four categories of exemptions for parodies, satiric, comical and imitational works. And when the Government officially submitted the Bill, two more categories of exemptions for quotations and comments on current affairs have also been included. To be frank, the six categories of exemptions already cover most of the acts on the Internet, so when compared to fair uses approach in other jurisdictions, it is far more wide-ranging. For the final revisions, the sector in fact has some reservations, fearing there will be loopholes, but in order to avoid further delays, it would rather to accept them with reluctance and "tears in eyes".

As for the other provisions of the Bill, not only are they unable to address the Internet piracy activities using set-top boxes, smart phones and tablets brought in the market to watch pirate content on the Internet through Apps or links, but they may even give a chance for exemption from liabilities for such unlawful activities. Some people in the copyright sector especially the pay television operators are very worried about this. But, in order to facilitate passage of the Bill timely and smoothly, to make sure that we can update our regime for protecting intellectual property, and considering the overall interest of all parties, the sector has finally reached a consensus and accepted the Government's promise of having another review later on.

Before the Bill reached the Council, the sector has already made many concessions, if we're to give further concessions, we will fall into a very undesirable situation say an abyss as we have retreated to the cliff edge. The compromises and concessions made by the sector have been dumped aside by the colleagues opposing to the Bill, is it fair to the sector? During the last debate, Ms Emily LAU was complaining, saying that the Government should have sought a consensus, instead of making the Legislative Council being caught between the two sides. In fact, I think it's the sector being caught, being involved in political disputes unfortunately, and its appeals are always not being satisfied for so many years. One more thing is that if lawmakers really think that they are representing their voters and consider that the Government is unable to strike a balance among the stakeholders, and is unable to reach a consensus on the Bill, how come they have chosen to withdraw from the Bills Committee at an early stage. If they got comments to make, why didn't they say so during the deliberation in the Bills Committee. Why did they stay until this stage to speak out and block the passage of the Bill by filibustering.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7553

We have had discussion of the "Copyright Bill" for ten years, for the right to communicate included in the Bill, we have got international consensus and it has been introduced in many places, except in Hong Kong, we still lack it, we're still dallying and arguing over it. In fact, over the years, the local creative industries have been suffering from violations of copyright, and the revenue has been dropping. And more important is that for the unlawful streaming commonly seen on the Internet, the current law cannot address the problem. Without the passage of the Bill, we cannot establish the communication right, in other words, unlawful streaming will continue to proliferate, harming the interests of local creative industries persistently.

Also, as one of the 95 members who signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty, Hong Kong is the only one which still lacks an updated copyright regime. I don't think it is an act expected for a responsible member. As an international city, have we honourably discharge our obligations and responsibilities? While other countries are making laws to provide greater protection for the copyright owners of the creative industries both in and outside their countries, we are still marking time, then how can we attract more people to invest in our creative industries.

Some pan-democrats criticize the sector for "resting on the laurels", they say that we should change with time. Yes, we cannot deny that time has changed. With advancement in technology over the past 10 or more years, computers and smart phones become very popular, and the Internet is growing so rapidly, there are different forms of network platforms coming into being facilitating information flow, there are also new ways of entertainment. The creative industries have had a lot of hopes on the new media, thinking the new platforms can give them more space. Unfortunately, it is not what we get in the reality.

In the past decade, the creative industries have been exploring the new media, but we are still not able to catch up with the past achievements in the golden times, and also we are not able to offset the harm done by violations of copyright. Like the music industry, in the glory days of 1997, global revenue reached US$27 billion. But in 2014, it is just US$14 billion, for digital music and the traditional gramophone record sales, each shared half of the market that was only about US$7 billion. Relying on the revenue from digital music alone, there is still a long way to bring the industry back to the level in the previous golden times.

7554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

Therefore we must have a sound legal environment so that both the creative industries and the Internet platform can have balanced development and grow healthily side by side. The platform operators and the content industry should join hands to create synergies and share the profits, so that they can grow together.

Chairman, the Bill is about to be dropped and become a case of stillbirth. Therefore, the Government should now evaluate the possible consequences and impact on local creative industries if the Bill cannot be endorsed, take appropriate and timely remedial measures, put more effort to help the development of local creative industries and protect copyright in a better way in this digital environment, like strengthening education and publicity work, so as to increase public awareness of the importance of respecting and protecting copyright, and its importance for the survival of creative industries.

At the same time, the Government should also consider taking measures to make stronger fight against violations of copyright. In the United Kingdom, the police, the copyright industries and the electronic media industry have jointly implemented the scheme to name and shame copyright violators, to encourage the advertising industry to avoid placing advertisements on websites which have violated copyright, so that they can deny the violators the space to survive. It is said that the United Kingdom police has done a very successful job, I think the Government should take the initiative to introduce this kind of voluntary practices in co-operation with the sector, and then we can eliminate violations of copyright in another way.

Chairman, the original Copyright Bill is supposed to facilitate flourishing of local creative industries, to enhance protection of netizens. Now it has come to nothing due to the irrational arguments in the Council. We haven't got the communication right, we haven't got the safe haven, and we haven't got the six categories of exemptions, while there are still provisions binding on Internet users. No one is going to gain anything out of it. The result of the Bill being dropped is: "all lose" situation that the netizens will lose out, the industries will lose out, the society of Hong Kong will lose out.

Chairman, so it's back to square one, and that means we are back to where we were like in 2006 as a starting point to restart consultation with various LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7555 stakeholders on "Copyright Bill" should the Government do so in the future. In the light of international trends, in the light of the prevailing circumstances in HK, we shall get a new Bill suitable to HK and to be introduced to the Legislative Council. The sector also hopes that when amendments are to be started again, there will be a more comprehensive set of proposals, to better meet the expectations and needs of the sector, for better discharging our obligations and our responsibilities to protect intellectual property which is the consensus of the international community, and to strike a balance among the users, communication platforms and copyright owners in a more reasonable way.

Chairman, all in all, the Bill has been debated for more than three months, but we have not made any progress, and we do not know when we can finish. And yet we have a lot of important and urgent bills waiting for our approved. The Government must clear the backlog, so it has no alternative but to drop the Bill. Personally speaking, I can fully understand the Government's stance, but from the standpoint of the sector, it is also a very urgent matter, so I find it difficult to support the decision to drop the Bill. As for such acts of ignoring public interests, this filibustering is not to be supported. Therefore I will still vote against this adjournment motion.

I so submit, thank you, Chairman.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, with regard to this Bill, I do not think it appropriate for us to waste so much time today debating the arguments. They have been discussed in this Council a few months ago. We have heard many times the arguments brought up by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr MA Fung-kwok earlier. Chairman, I just want to repeat one more time for the record that after all, the Liberal Party finds the amendments on fair use as proposed by the pan-democratic Members acceptable. We support them. I would like to have this put on the record. Moreover, I am disappointed with the Government's final decision of rejecting the amendments concerned. It would rather overturn everything and start the whole process all over again with no achievements.

Thank you, Chairman.

7556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, do you want to speak?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not intend to speak.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you want to reply?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, on the night of the meeting held on 3 March (Thursday), I moved that the Committee stage of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) be adjourned in accordance with Rule 40(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Secretary Gregory SO spoke in response that night and on the following day. Members have in the past moved adjournment motions and the Secretary would appeal to them to vote against the motions. Looking back at the Secretary's speeches made two days in a row which lasted more than 50 minutes, he did not ask Members to support or oppose my motion for adjournment. Today, I wish Members can support the adjournment motion I propose for the Government to formally withdraw the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That further proceedings of the Committee of the whole Council be now adjourned. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 April 2016 7557

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

(Some Members tapped on the bench)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

Council then resumed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have been informed that the Council will be adjourned right after handling the above motion.

I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 20 April 2016.

Adjourned accordingly at 4.42 pm.