LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6235

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 13 April 2017

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6237

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 ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

6238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6239

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY

PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

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

THE HONOURABLE ERIC MA SIU-CHEUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. 6240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will now continue with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2017. Members who wish to speak will please press the "Request to speak" button.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2017

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 February 2017

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, when the Financial Secretary spoke on the Budget, he spoke at great length explaining public finance objectives and directions as stated in paragraphs 22 to 54 of the Budget. Mrs Carrie LAM, the newly elected Chief Executive also talked about the new financial management philosophy. However, the philosophy of financial management or public finance management mentioned by the former Financial Secretaries including Sir Charles Philip HADDON-CAVE during the British Hong Kong era, and his successors Mr Donald TSANG, Mr Antony LEUNG, Mr Henry TANG and Mr John TSANG include two aspects.

First, the role of the Government in the market. While some Financial Secretaries considered that the Government should intervene more, others considered that a free economy should be pursued. The Government should only provide an efficient platform for stakeholders to compete fairly in the market. The second aspect of public finance is about the amount to be spent by the Government. This involves whether the Government should promote some policies that benefit the public and the economy in certain areas. In general, this is related to whether the market should be tilted to the left or the right, and the amount to be spent.

President, allow me to deviate slightly from the subject. When we are selling Hong Kong to foreign enterprises, we always flaunt how well Hong Kong is doing according to international economic indicators. For example, in 2016, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6241

Hong Kong ranked first among 61 countries or regions according to the world competitiveness index published by the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland. Another economic indicator often cited by Hong Kong is the Index of Economic Freedom published by the America's Heritage Foundation and Hong Kong has ranked first for many years.

Nevertheless, President, another indicator that I am more concerned about is the Global Competitiveness Index published by the World Economic Forum. In 2016-2017, Hong Kong ranked ninth among 138 countries or regions. We should be satisfied with this ranking but if we look carefully at the analysis made by the World Economic Forum on the performance of Hong Kong in relation to various factors included in this indicator, we would be worried. For example, in respect of public health and primary education, Hong Kong ranked 26th among 138 countries or regions. Many Honourable colleagues have already talked about primary education, TSA, etc., in Hong Kong and I am not going to elaborate on that. In regard to innovation, we unexpectedly ranked 27th.

Regarding this Budget, I would like to set an updated or a more ambitious goal to transcend this financial management framework. Our emphasis is not the positioning of Hong Kong in the market or the amount that should be spent; we should instead lay emphasis on the long-term goal of Hong Kong. President, I would like to propose a new industrial chain integrating three key industries, namely the financial industry, the innovation and technology industry and the green or environmental industry and introducing new initiatives.

What is the relationship among the three key industries? In fact, it is the general trend of the world to integrate the innovation and technology industry, financial industry and green or environmental industry. As Hong Kong is a small and densely populated city, large-scale industrial development certainly cannot be carried out. When it comes to re-industrialization, I am not sure what industries are involved. We have talent but we do not have land; thus, we can only engage in the development of high-end technologies. But how will high-end technologies benefit human beings? Of course, high-end technologies can provide convenience to human beings and facilitate sustainable environmental development, which is also the general trend of the world. This sounds great, but how should this be implemented?

6242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

President, has the Budget stated how integration of the financial industry, innovation industry and green industry that I mentioned will be implemented? Undeniably, the financial industry is a very important industry, accounting for 18% of the Gross Domestic Product and employing up to 250 000 people. A number of financial initiatives have been proposed in this year's Budget, such as the initiatives to expand the local bond market. Since the introduction of government bonds in 2009, the Government has been systematically issuing government bonds.

President, we must note that when compared to other countries or regions such as Singapore, Japan and the Mainland, the amount of money involved in our bond market is less than 10% of those in the stock market. Since the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited announced a few days ago that it would launch a lifelong annuity scheme and it was recently announced that the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme would offer a default investment strategy, how come the Hong Kong dollar bond market almost seems non-existent in Hong Kong? Although the Government has launched a number of retail bonds, statutory bodies and some enterprises should issue more Hong Kong dollar bonds. If there are more local bonds, international financial investors will have more investment options and the public will also be able to invest their pension in the annuity scheme and the default investment strategy, as well as some investment tools with a steady rate of return. Of course, a mature international financial market will not only develop the stock market or derivatives; in fact, the bond or foreign exchange market is an indispensable part of Hong Kong being an international financial city.

In addition, the Government has talked about green finance, which is not a new concept. Since COP21 was held a few years ago, we all opine that green finance should be developed to cope with climate change. Some organizations or groups can issue bonds and use green bonds or green financing to implement green projects. This argument has been raised for a long time, but have we set an objective benchmark for green finance? What are green bonds? What is green financing? Of course, Hong Kong will adopt the indicators of the Mainland and London in many aspects. If Hong Kong is to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at the end of this year, it is very likely that it will become a very important green financing centre. But if we still do not have these standards, how can we play such a role?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6243

The Budget mentions measures to combat money laundering and regulate financial institutions, in particular money lending malpractices of financial intermediaries. The Budget also mentions financial technologies ("Fintech"). To be honest, the term Fintech has become very popular these two to three years, but we may not know its meaning. Under the existing regulatory system, are there any regulatory loopholes when Fintech products are introduced? When I spoke last month on the Money Lenders Ordinance, I pointed out that when financial and technological development became mature, general borrowers basically did not need to obtain loans through intermediaries and suffered losses. They could borrow money online and money would be deposited into their bank accounts while they stayed at home; it would only take a few minutes to complete the entire lending process without the assistance of intermediaries.

On the long-term development of Fintech, the Government should formulate a set of guidelines. What impacts does the development of Fintech have on the long-term manpower demand of the traditional financial industry, banking industry and insurance industry, etc.; on the demand for office premises; on the training for students, graduates, frontline staff or staff working in middle office and back office, etc., as well as on the traditional mode of work? It seems that the Government has so far failed to make an assessment or provide guidelines on the positive or negative impacts.

In the area of tax reform, the Government amended the Inland Revenue Ordinance the year before last, allowing private equity funds to enjoy profits tax exemption available to offshore funds. However, why do offshore companies enjoy profits tax exemption while funds investing in new and high-tech industries, innovation and technology industries, green industries and venture capital industries cannot enjoy exemption? I raised this point two years ago at a meeting of the Bills Committee but the Government seemed to be indifferent. Regarding innovation and technology, the Government unexpectedly does not have any supporting tax measures, which made me very disappointed.

Next, I would also like to talk about the reform of the regulatory regime for listed entity auditors. The Financial Secretary has also mentioned this reform. The reform has been carried out for four to five years, why has the Government still not introduced a new regulatory system for listed entity auditors? Moreover, the industry and the Government have yet to reach a consensus on two major issues. Will the Financial Reporting Council ("FRC") concurrently play the roles of the investigator, prosecutor and the court? I hope that the regulatory 6244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 system will be fair and transparent. What is the annual expenditure ceiling of FRC? What is the share of the regulatory body's financial burden that stakeholders including stock market investors and different auditors have to bear? After discussing for four to five years, these two problems have yet to be resolved. I hope the Government will review the actual situation with eyes open before introducing the Bill.

On the green industry, I would like to spend the last two minutes discussing a measure opposed by all members of the public, that is, the First Registration Tax for electric private cars will not be fully waived. The Government announced that the First Registration Tax for electric private cars will not be fully waived and it will be capped at $97,500, which is a perverse act. Under the new measure, only electric vehicles costing less than $200,000 will have its First Registration Tax fully waived. As electric vehicle technologies are not fully mature, electric vehicles generally cost around $400,000 to $500,000. According to some government officials, the Government mainly encourages electric public transport rather than electric private cars. Yet, President, you should know that the technologies of electric public transport are still immature, lagging behind those of electric private cars. Have you ever seen an electric double-decked bus running on the streets of Hong Kong? Not yet. It is actually inconceivable for an electric double-decked bus with air conditioning temperature inside the bus set at 20°C to run on the streets of Hong Kong. I think waiving the First Registration Tax for electric vehicles (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Budget this year is the first Budget prepared by Mr Paul CHAN since he assumed the position of the Financial Secretary. It is characterized by a detailed explanation of the Government's philosophy of public finance management and a clear description of its objectives and directions. In dovetailing with the measures contained in the Policy Address, the Budget has allocated corresponding resources in education, social welfare, health care and infrastructure. It has also provided additional resources for industries with operational difficulties and for the disadvantaged groups. Thus, it can be said that the Budget is rather comprehensive.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6245

The accumulated fiscal reserves of Hong Kong reached its historical high of $936 billion in March 2017, which is equivalent to the amount of government expenditures for 24 months. Among the 35 places listed by the International Monetary Fund ("IMF") as developed economies, Hong Kong is the only place which has recorded fiscal surplus for the past 10 consecutive years. This certainly reflects a booming economy and a substantial amount of government revenue, but IMF has expressed concern about the economic implications of the "conservative forecasts", "over-achievement of revenues" and "under-achievement of expenditures" of the SAR Government in its most recent report. Since currently the Government has an abundant supply of fiscal resources, I think it should suitably increase the funding for promoting economic development and improving people's livelihood. It is actually not desirable to accumulate as large an amount of fiscal reserves as possible; the Government should carefully consider how to make the best use of our fiscal resources under the principle of prudent financial management.

President, the tourism industry in general suffered a downturn last year. In terms of inbound tourism, there was a continued decline in visitor arrivals. Overall visitor arrivals fell by 4.5% last year and in particular, arrivals of Mainland visitors dropped by almost 7%. The decline in visitor arrivals to Hong Kong has affected the related consumer industries. The room occupancy rate and revenue of hotels dropped, and the value of total retail sales continued to fall for 24 consecutive months. In terms of outbound tourism, online sale and direct sale by product suppliers have dealt a direct blow to the conventional tourism industry and caused business to shrink. In response to the hardship faced by the relevant trades, the Government has accepted their suggestion to waive licence fees for travel agents, hotels, guesthouses, restaurants and hawkers for one year. Although the money involved is not great, it shows that the Government cares about the hardship of these businesses and I therefore welcome the relevant measure.

The Budget mentions that the tourism industry makes up 5% of our GDP and employs about 270 000 people. I want to stress that these figures are derived from the most conservative estimates of the industry's direct contributions. The value chain of the tourism industry is very long. It promotes tourist attractions and trades such as hotels, transport and entertainment, as well as affects trades such as retail, catering, logistics and transport, advertising and publishing and infrastructures. According to the World Travel 6246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 and Tourism Council, Hong Kong's tourism industry indirectly accounted for as high as 16.8% of our GDP and employed 559 000 people, representing 14.7% of the total workforce. From a global perspective, one tenth of all jobs are created by the tourism industry. Since the impact is extensive, when the unemployment rate of Hong Kong rises, economists will regard the downturn of the tourism industry a major factor affecting the employment rate. This runs contrary to the remarks made by some Members that it will be inconsequential to sacrifice the tourism industry as it makes up only 5% of our GDP. I hope that the Government will continue to show its concern for the tourism industry and continue to implement the supportive measures.

President, over the past year, political tension in Hong Kong has eased; there has been less negative news about incidents directed against Mainland visitors and the situation of coerced shopping and ripping visitors off has alleviated. Recently, an employee of a pharmacy who deceived a Mainland visitor by changing the pricing unit from catty to mace was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the heaviest sentence in cases of the type. According to the court, in order to protect the public, visitors and Hong Kong's reputation as a shoppers' paradise, it was necessary to impose a deterrent sentence. Imposing severe punishment on acts of deceiving visitors and restoring Hong Kong's hospitable image are conducive to building a good reputation for the tourism industry of Hong Kong. With the concerted efforts of various sectors, the number of overall visitor arrivals has increased by 1.4% in the first two months of this year. In particular, non-Mainland visitors have risen by 2.8%, while Mainland visitors have increased by 1%; and the overall visitor arrivals in the first half of March has even increased up to 5.5%. If this upward trend continues and not affected by negative news and unforeseen incidents, the tourism industry may expect a rebound. I believe the additional allocation of $243 million mentioned in this Budget to support the development of the tourism industry will be welcomed by the industry and the public because it will help to speed up the recovery of the industry.

Although there is hope of a cyclical recovery for the tourism industry, some long-term and fundamental problems still exist. The Government should take the opportunity and utilize the resources to foster the sustainable and healthy development of the tourism industry. In this funding application, an additional $17 million is being sought for promoting the diversification of tourism products, including the Pilot scheme to promote tourism projects with local characteristics LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6247 and the Pilot scheme to promote green tourism. Although the funding involved is not huge, the Government has at least responded to the demands of the public, the tourism industry and Members. In Hong Kong, there are many scenic country parks and hiking trails and there is also a unique world geopark. To promote green tourism, the Government cannot rely solely on increasing funding to strengthen publicity. More importantly, it should make better use of our precious tourism resources and encourage more visitors to experience the value of these places.

There are many natural scenic areas in Hong Kong which are worth visiting, but the conditions of areas suitable for visitors vary. I suggest the authorities to first identify routes with better conditions as pilot points and start enhancing facilities such as toilets, waste collection center, resting places for visitors and visitor information centres along the routes to facilitate members of the public and foreign visitors. In areas with stable electricity supply and telecommunication coverage, the Government can provide free Wi-Fi and QR codes along the routes to facilitate visitors reading the relevant information with their mobile phones. The information can be presented as pictures or texts or in the form of multi-lingual audio guides to increase the involvement of visitors to achieve educational and promotional effects. Regarding the geopark and some potential visitor attractions which are not easily accessible, the Government can consider collaborating with the tourism industry and the transportation sector and providing suitable subsidies to encourage them to provide transport services along the relevant routes, so as to provide the greatest convenience to members of the public and visitors. The effectiveness of the measures introduced at the pilot points should be regularly reviewed. After these measures have been implemented to a maturity stage, the facilities can be operated by the relevant trades on a self-financing basis. By implementing the measures from one place to the whole area and from one area to another, our capacity to receive visitors at green tourism attractions will be gradually increased.

In terms of attracting high-spending visitors, the Budget has earmarked $12 million for implementing a promotional scheme targeting transit passengers in Hong Kong. Introducing schemes with promotional offers to transit passengers is nothing new. Singapore started to provide free tourism services to transit passengers long ago. Transit passengers who have to stay in Singapore for more than five hours can join free tours to see the city. In 2016, the annual visitor arrivals at the Hong Kong International Airport ("HKIA") exceeded 70 million, and transit passengers accounted for one third of the number. If 6248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 sufficient incentives are given to these passengers to go outside HKIA, it will certainly be good; and it will be even better if they become overnight visitors. As HKIA offers more frequent flights than other airports in the surrounding area, many passengers choose to transit through Hong Kong to overseas countries or the Mainland for holidays or visiting relatives. If the Government takes the initiative to work with airlines, bus companies, hotels, tourist attractions and shopping malls to provide concessions based on their respective edges to transit passengers, transit passengers will have the incentive to extend their visiting time or stay in Hong Kong or even stay overnight. This will surely benefit our economy.

The commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge in the future will bring greater convenience to transit passengers travelling between HKIA and the Pearl River Delta Region. The Airport Authority has suggested providing two-way land-to-air shuttle bus service to take these passengers and their luggage direct to the Restricted Area of HKIA for outbound flights. Similarly, passengers can also be taken direct to the boundary crossing points at Zhuhai and Macao via HKIA. These proposed measures will further reinforce the leading status of HKIA. I hope the government departments concerned will step up their efforts to discuss the details with the relevant authorities of Guangzhou and Macao.

Although the aviation industry of Hong Kong has a bright future, there are hidden risks too. At present, HKIA is already operating to capacity and this has restricted the development of Hong Kong's aviation industry. According to figures provided by the Civil Aviation Department, in the past three years, the number of rejected applications of airlines to operate scheduled or chartered flights has greatly increased from an average of 100 flights per day in 2014 to 150 flights per day in 2016, representing an increase of 50%. This shows that it has become increasingly difficult for airlines to develop their flights. I hope that the Government can properly process applications of airlines for increasing the number of flights and, before the completion of the three-runway system, try to avoid airlines using other airports as HKIA is operating to capacity.

President, the Budget has earmarked $5 million to support the training of practitioners of the tourism industry (including employees of tourist agencies, tour escorts and tour guides) through the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong to enhance service quality of the industry. This initiative is worthy of encouragement. In fact, the country parks of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Geopark, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6249 our historic buildings and our culture and customs are special. If resources can be injected to improve the planning of itineraries, contents of guided tours and skills of tour guides; enhance training; raise the quality of guided tours; provide personalized tour services to cater for different needs of customers, visitors will find the visit worthwhile and have a unique and impressive travel experience. At present, there is only one type of recognized tour guide licence in Hong Kong which can hardly satisfy the diversified needs of inbound visitors. Apart from providing funding and training support, the authorities should consider enhancing the licensing mechanism of tour guides. Besides issuing the ordinary tour guide license, the authorities can establish a system for recognizing professional expertise, so as to encourage tour guides to pursue self-improvement and enhance the support for strengthening the expertise and competitiveness of the tourism industry of Hong Kong.

President, the report on the work of the Central People's Government this year has, for the first time, mentioned the planning proposal of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. It is stated in the report that the proposal will specifically bring the unique advantages of Hong Kong and Macao into full play. A plan for deepening the cooperation of the cluster of cities in the Pearl River Delta Region should be considered to boost their status and functions in the country's economic development and opening-up to the outside world. Capitalizing on the opportunities provided by the future commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and hence the closer proximity of Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macao, the authorities should plan ahead and utilize the Belt and Road Initiative and the national development plan of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area to create more opportunities for the tourism industry of Hong Kong.

With these remarks, I support the Appropriation Bill 2017.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary devoted 31 paragraphs to expound on the Government's philosophy of public finance management. Despite the significant number of words involved, a detailed explanation has not been given during the course of examination as to what the financial management philosophy is and how such philosophy can be translated into concrete actions.

6250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Generally speaking, these 31 paragraphs have outlined the three major objectives of the Government's financial management philosophy. Firstly, government actions must be appropriately proactive. In order for its actions to be appropriately proactive but not become empty slogans, what justifications has the Government based on when deciding on making more or less intervention? We fail to see any exposition in this respect.

The Government said it has to invest in the future, but what kind of investment is involved? Previous experiences showed that the Government had invested boldly for infrastructure projects and pressed them ahead in full steam, whereas for investment in future software, it was less proactive both in terms of speed and effort. In that case, what are the criteria for the value-for-money audit when investing for the future?

Another objective is that the Government must share the fruits of economic success in a fair and just manner. What is a reasonable distribution of wealth? How come this year's Budget has not introduced any relief measure to help the "N have-nots" so as to achieve this objective? This precisely reflects that the financial management philosophy as outlined in those 31 paragraphs of the Budget is merely "a stock-taking exercise" to list out the previous problems but without giving any concrete solution. Of course, I am not blaming Financial Secretary Paul CHAN as he may only take up this post for a few months. So, I may have to leave this question to his successor of the next-term Government for further explanation.

Actually, in the course of translating the financial management philosophy into concrete actions, the Government must deal with three issues. Firstly, Article 107 of the Basic Law provides that the Government has to follow the principle of keeping expenditure within limits of revenue in drawing up its budget, which refers to the specific strategy to be employed to deal with government revenue and financial expenditure. We may also regard this as the extent of government intervention, or just as colleagues have said earlier on, whether our public finance management philosophy has tilted to the left or to the right.

Secondly, as Hong Kong is an externally oriented economy, we always have to face the problem of being unable to predict the annual fiscal surplus because many unpredictable economic activities may bring about financial gains that are beyond our imagination and projection, and such gain can be regarded as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6251 windfall money. The way how the windfall money is used shows whether the Government's financial management philosophy is well prepared to handle the money which frequently arises in the economy. Should the Government give out all the windfall money to members of the public or should it invest in infrastructure projects instead? Should the Government develop any strategy to consider the matter? As a matter of fact, a considerable amount of windfall money has been accumulated over the past 10 years. While our fiscal reserves stood at $200 billion after the reunification, it is more than $900 billion now. Nonetheless, has the Government made good use of this sum of money?

Thirdly, the Government will certainly consider how the available resources can be properly utilized. Here, I will first talk about windfall money because in the past few years, whenever there was windfall money, different political parties and affiliations would call on the Government to "give out candies", so that people from all walks of life could share the fruits of economic activities. However, after "giving out candies" for an extensive period of time, the Government has yet to figure out a better way to share the economic fruits in a fair and just manner. What actually is the right thing for the Government to do?

Nonetheless, we do notice that in some cases, the Government has deployed certain financial management techniques to set aside windfall money as reserved provisions. We also agree that windfall money, if available, should be used to provide funding for various policy initiatives in the form of seed money for dedicated purposes or reserved provisions, with a view to laying a good foundation for the future. For this reason, the Democratic Party has all along suggested the Government to establish a seed fund for primary health care, such that the interest accumulated will provide sufficient resources for primary health care services. At present, the annual expenditure on primary health care accounts for about one tenth of Hong Kong's public health care expenditures. Hence, we can surely afford an even bigger sum of money to provide sufficient resources to cater for the need of primary health care programmes in the long run.

The Government has been working towards this direction over the past few years. For example, a Housing Reserve was established in 2014 and a dedicated provision of $200 billion was earmarked in 2016 for the Hospital Authority ("HA") to implement the 10-year hospital development plan. On the other hand, this year's Budget has also set aside $61 billion to promote various policies on elderly care, sports support services as well as the development of innovation and 6252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 technology. However, in the course of earmarking provisions, there have been a lot of inconsistencies on the part of the Government, giving rise to the following problems which I consider pretty important.

Firstly, should the Government allow the interest of various funds to accumulate and yield higher returns after their establishment? Take the Housing Reserve as an example. The Government has placed it with the Exchange Fund for investment, with the annual rate of return at 3.3% and 2.8% respectively over the past two years, thereby increasing the Reserve from $72 billion to $77 billion. However, similar approach was not adopted for the health care fund.

As stated in the Budget, the Government has included an expenditure of $90 billion in the Medium Range Forecast, whereas the remaining $110 billion would be met by the fiscal reserves. Why didn't the Government place the $200 billion with the Exchange Fund for accumulating interest to pay for the replacement and upgrading of medical equipment? In so doing, there will be additional resources for HA to provide the necessary equipment or hardware for health care services.

Secondly, although provisions have been earmarked for certain policies, the Government has delayed in introducing such policies. For example, the 2008-2009 Budget earmarked $50 billion for implementing health care reform, with the focus of promoting the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme ("the Scheme"). However, nearly 10 years have passed and according to the original plan, the reserved provision should have been completely eroded by inflation and the reform could no longer be carried out. There is moreover a more serious problem, and that is, the Scheme now introduced has changed beyond recognition. In other words, the Scheme that was intended to be implemented with the reserved $50 billion has now become "neither fish nor fowl" in the absence of supervision during the period.

The Government always stresses the importance of effective use of resources, but policies cannot be implemented without resources, and this explains why many proposals put forward by political parties and the community were unable to be put in place. How come some tasks have failed to achieve the intended effect even though provisions have been earmarked for that purpose? When the tasks have failed to achieve the intended effect, can the Government simply get away by saying that the provisions have been used in "about-the-same" area? What will happen if our Government becomes an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6253

"About-the-Same Government"? Are the reserved provisions set out in the Budget really so flexible that they can still be used to support the "twisted" policy which has deviated from the original policy intent?

Last of all, I want to highlight one point. By establishing funds or setting aside provisions, the Government has made it difficult for the general public to assess its financial condition, and even underestimate the fiscal reserves. This will only give the public an impression that the Government is using some financial management techniques to avoid sharing the economic fruits with them.

Take the Housing Reserve as an example. Since it is retained within the Exchange Fund, it is kept outside the Government's accounts and does not form part of the fiscal reserves. When it is said that the Government has a reserve of more than $900 billion, how many more small coffers similar to the Housing Reserve are currently retained within the Exchange Fund? How many policies have already secured provisions yet no action has been taken by the Government so far? The Government would certainly respond that people can learn more about its actual financial position from different financial statements or the Medium Range Forecast, but given the existence of various funds, reserved provisions and even reserves under different names, it is difficult for ordinary people or most Honourable colleagues to objectively grasp the financial position of the Government.

As a matter of fact, Members may notice from this year's Budget that for the year 2017-2018, the estimated expenditure for social welfare is $73.3 billion. But how is the $30 billion reserved provision different from other recurrent expenditures? On another occasion, we asked the Government whether that $30 billion provision reserved for social welfare expenditure included the recurrent funding for the software required under the relevant programmes. The truth is, even the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is not sure if the future recurrent funding has been included or if it can be dealt with separately. Therefore, if the $30 billion reserved provision is not used for hardware development, the amount of resources allocated to address the practical issue of insufficient hardware in the community is indeed very limited.

Furthermore, I find it strange that when the Government set aside the $30 billion provision, it has not formulated some kind of a 10-year plan for the provision of residential care places for the elderly and people with disabilities to address the shortfall problem and used this sum of money to implement the plan. 6254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

If it has done so, we might discuss the proposal in the same way as the plans for hospital or housing development and then secure sufficient resources from the Government to meet the expenditure arising from the relevant policy. Why has the Government not done so? Should the Government expeditiously formulate a 10-year plan for the provision of residential care places to show the community its determination to address the issue?

After talking at length the financial management philosophy, I have actually noticed an even bigger problem, and that is, the existence of many "white elephant" projects over the past 10 to 20 years given the Government's robust financial position. Government expenditure on infrastructure is not at all insignificant as it has increased from about 10% of total expenditure in 1997-1998 to 18% in 2016-2017. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of many infrastructure projects has been called into question. We must therefore be very careful when carrying out the value-for-money audit and should not "build infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure".

Even if I leave behind the question of whether those large-scale infrastructure projects are "white elephant" projects, it appears that the small to medium projects were carried out by different government departments "for the sake of spending money" and have failed to achieve the desirable effect. Examples include broken cycling tracks and annual upgrading of venue facilities by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. Some facilities are replaced after having been used for only a few years for the sound reason of enhancing the safety of facilities, but that is actually a waste of resources.

Had the Hong Kong Government not maintained such huge fiscal reserves, would it be more prudent when considering the relevant issues? Or, regardless of whether the fiscal reserves are large or small, should the Government properly carry out the relevant audit exercise for infrastructure projects in a prudent manner?

President, the academic circle used to say that there is a cost for the Government to sit on excessive fiscal reserves. Excessive fiscal reserves may prompt the Government to be a spendthrift and "spend money for the sake of spending money". Therefore, we eagerly hope that the next-term Government will review the current financial management philosophy and make it more justifiable, and then manage the expenditure of various government departments by strictly adhering to the financial discipline. Otherwise, "spending money for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6255 the sake of spending money" will become a norm in government departments, and our valuable social resources will be wasted in the form of administrative expenses arising from the bureaucratic structure, which is absolutely not (The buzzer sounded) … our way forward …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up, please stop speaking.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): … Thank you, President.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, first of all how should we view this Budget? As stated by some colleagues and many other people, since this is the first Budget prepared by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN and the last Budget of the current-term Government, we should not expect too much. I think this saying is completely politically incorrect.

From the stance of our country, this is the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong's sovereignty. At this particular moment, if I use a somewhat more positive term to evaluate this Budget, I would say it is insipid, so much so that one cannot find anything to criticize. However, from the perspective of the past 20 years, what does the Budget reflect? From 1997 till today, the public spending of Hong Kong has increased over 110% and the spending on health care, education and other livelihood-related areas has also increased 100%. Of course, in respect of these percentages, if inflation and other factors are excluded, may I ask how much money has really been spent on meeting the people's daily needs? The answer is known to all, which is, none, or there is even a regression. The situation is so ridiculous, it is just like when we go home by MTR and an accident happens, and eventually we have to walk home. Some even advocates cycling home. These problems have reached such an absurd level that if one has to make comments, it can be said that the situation has returned to the pre-modern era of Hong Kong society.

Other than the slightly more than 110% increase in public spending, in the 20 years from 1997, the money spent on infrastructure projects has increased by 290%, close to 300%. In terms of percentage, from 1997 till today, 10% to 18% of public spending is used for the construction of some unnecessary 6256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 infrastructures, some junk facilities. If this Budget is seen from the perspective of 20 years, I consider myself very polite in describing it "insipid". This is of course seen from our country's perspective. To be politically correct, I should not give it such an evaluation, but I do not care too much about what I should do from this perspective, because that is your problem and does not have much to do with me.

To evaluate this Budget from the perspective of Hong Kong people, a more direct description is "mediocre". In saying that the Budget is mediocre, I do not mean that the Financial Secretary has done nothing; yet what he has done serves no great purpose. He is only fooling himself as well as others. Let me cite a simple example. The Government established the so-called Community Care Fund a few years ago to address the needs of the "N have-nots" and the "N have-nots" households because the Government does not want to hold the hot potato. Obviously, the Government wants to resolve Hong Kong's long-term problems by providing welfare or by "handing out candies". We will still be plagued by this problem in the future and it is related to the Government's population policy. Owing to its inability to estimate the increase in the number of new immigrants, the Government fails to make a rational estimation about the demand for health care, education and welfare services and consequently, there are so many "N have-nots" and "N have-nots" households.

The Government has been using the Community Care Fund to temporarily resolve these problems in the past few years. Today, it has concocted another benefit known as the Low-income Working Family Allowance but the problems remain unsolved. The root of all problems in society is related to the population. Take for example the specialist outpatient clinics, the waiting time for ophthalmology is three years. Do not think that the situation on Hong Kong Island is better. People living in Hong Kong West would know that for those living in the Western District on Hong Kong Island, the waiting time for gynaecology specialist service is at least one and a half years. What is the cause of this situation? The root of the problem is not only the lack of doctors or resources but also the inability of the Government to estimate the needs of the population.

In the face of various problems, how should members of the public see this Budget? If one must find something to criticize, there are certainly areas of inadequacy, such as the inadequacy of the policy on the tourism industry, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6257 absence of universal retirement protection, the lack of long-term consideration, so on and so forth. Frankly speaking, I have been rather fair in my comments and I do not like window dressing. I just bring up some issues for discussion. We are given 15 minutes to speak, but I can finish all I need to say in three minutes. What can be criticized in the Budget? It is simply hollow in content.

There are certainly matters to be criticized. From a higher-level point of view, we can discuss issues such as the economy, power redistribution, as well as how to attain a higher level of justice in society, but it is a waste of time and energy to discuss those issues with the Government. Why do I say from the perspective of Hong Kong people, the Budget is mediocre? When the Financial Secretary talked about keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues, he was totally off the point. What he said was completely irrelevant to society. First, he might not understand. Second, speaking of $1,000-odd billion, President, you and I cannot clearly count how many zeros there are. Who can imagine how to make good use of the reserves amounting to $1,000-odd billion? Does he have the imagination to do so? Does he have the capability to distribute the money wisely? Does he have the capability to imagine what kind of visions $1,000-odd billion can bring? The incumbent Government does not have this capability; I am sure the future Government will not have the capability as well. Why? That is because this Government does not need elites. This society obliterates elites and then makes Hong Kong people become more and more mediocre by other means. That is the trend of how our Government acts.

Then why do I use "mediocre" to describe this Budget? According to other Members, this is the first time Paul CHAN prepares a Budget, which is also the last Budget of the current-term Government. During this transitional period, mediocrity is expected. But if he was content with being mediocre, he should not have played with political tactics. Those tactics are really ugly or very "cheap", to put it in another way. How "cheap" are they? In the past 10-odd years, the Hong Kong Government has been constantly talking about reducing emissions and promoting the use of electric vehicles. It has also implemented a series of green policies. This year, the Financial Secretary suddenly abolishes the concessions for the First Registration Tax of electric vehicles without giving any reason. One can easily tell who his target is, and we all know that he is unhappy with John TSANG―that does not mean I support John TSANG.

6258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

The Financial Secretary has prepared such an insipid Budget―I am not saying that he is insipid, but this may actually be related to his insipidity. If he is more competent, he would not get involved with the business of subdivided units in Hong Kong. Originally, such an insipid Budget should not be worthy of criticism, but the Financial Secretary's dirty trick has raised an uproar in the relevant industry. Besides, this measure has nothing to do with people's livelihood. How is Tesla electric vehicle got to do with the general public? The measure simply allows a small group of bigwigs to buy electric vehicles at a lower price. Yet he abolishes the concession for no reason and without giving any explanation. From the perspective of mediocrity and even insipidity, this Budget finally reveals one thing, that is, how the Government spends money. The Government shoots at random and the only outcome is that the market cannot get the message. Does anyone know what kind of policies the Government will launch? Electric vehicles have been put on sale in the market for 10 years. At a time when we thought that the Government has all along advocated environmental protection and promoted green tourism or green industries, the Financial Secretary suddenly abolishes the concession for no reason. This is not a change in the fiscal management philosophy, nor a change in the management philosophy; he makes the change simply because he dislikes someone. Of course, it may involve the conflict of interests among certain political parties or groupings or even some countries but that is beyond the scope of discussion of ordinary people like us.

President, I have spent too much time on this Budget. Ten minutes is far too much. I should not waste more than 10 minutes of the time of Hong Kong people and this Council.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, at this moment, many people in Hong Kong are showing concern to the mother of a girl named Michelle. Michelle's mother needs a life-saving liver transplant, yet no suitable organ can be found. And Michelle cannot be a liver donor for her mother because she is still under the minimum legal age of organ donors. The entire city is concerned about the incident, and a number of Members of the Legislative Council (from both the pro-establishment and non-establishment camps) are seeking to hold discussions with the Government and the Department of Justice, in the hope of finding a solution to the deadlock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6259

President, as I have said many times before in this Council, so long as the Government or the legislature is willing, anything can be done except turning a man into a woman. It is still uncertain whether the matter can be resolved satisfactorily, but all parties concerned are doing the best they can. I do not know if they have also enlisted your help, President.

Why do I mention this piece of current news? It is because if we are willing, matters can be resolved in a matter of days. The same is true for this Budget. If we are stuck in a deadlock like the case of Michelle's mother, that is, a sick person who could have been healed might eventually die due to some legal or obsolete requirements or because some people are not sympathetic enough, leading to Michelle's mother failing to get treatment. Actually, we can always find a way to resolve the matter in a couple of days. I believe this incident will also be resolved eventually. Why do I say so?

Pro-establishment Members sitting on the other side of the Chamber have been asking me―some out of good intention and some for provoking quarrels―whether I will filibuster this year. What I want to say is that, why on earth should I filibuster? If Members can forge a consensus on the Budget after discussions in this Council insisting that certain policies or measures must be implemented, the Government can do nothing but throw in the towel. As we all know, the Basic Law has already stipulated that if the budget (which is an important bill) is not passed by the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive will be in some big trouble. He must ask the Financial Secretary to present another budget, and if it is still not passed by the Legislative Council, he would have to dissolve the Legislative Council. If the new Legislative Council elected after the dissolution still refuses to pass the budget, the Chief Executive must resign, which is a very heavy punishment. We have never exercised this power. Each year, the budget is passed by the Council as a matter of formality because all Members have their own clear stances. Pro-establishment Members will always vote for the budget, while non-establishment Members may or may not support it depending on circumstances. But nonetheless, the budget is always passed by the Council.

Not counting the 10 months of the Provisional Legislative Council, the Legislative Council has passed the budget for 20 consecutive years. What is the result? The result is that the rich is becoming richer because Hong Kong is the place with the greatest wealth gap in the world as measured by the Gini Coefficient. Hong Kong's housing market is also the most expensive in the 6260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 world. The disparity between the rich and the poor has become almost unbearable, and problems in respect of residential care services for the elderly, education―that is why Carrie LAM has pledged to increase the recurrent expenditure on education by $5 billion―high transport costs as a result of the monopoly in the public transport market, and so on, are all created by this Council. I do not only mean the budgets passed by the Council, but also the proposals endorsed by the committees of the Council day in day out. I can therefore give my reply to Members of the pro-establishment camp. They ask me not to filibuster. That is fine with me, so long as they can tell me when the demands they have been fighting for with the Government over the past 10 to 20 years will materialize.

In 2014―at that time the President was still the Deputy President and he sat in Members' seats down here―I said my mission might fail. Notwithstanding my filibustering from 2012 to 2014, the demand for implementing universal retirement protection might still be in vain. I said, if I failed, would other people please keep on fighting; if my proposal was not good enough, would other people please come up with better plans. But look where are we now. When the incumbent Chief Executive or the former Chief Secretary, that is, Carrie LAM, was asked to implement universal retirement protection or draw up a plan to give Hong Kong people retirement protection, it ended up in a mess because her proposal was completely against the people's expectation. According to opinion polls, 90% of the people consider that a universal non-means-tested retirement protection scheme should be established, so that all eligible applicants can at least receive $3,500 per month. This is the people's consensus. And this is a demand often raised by many political parties even during the elections. But when they join the Council, nobody has strived for its implementation over these years.

President, after making this speech, I am not sure if I would still have the opportunity to vote on the Budget or the Committee stage amendments when the Council resumes after the Easter holiday break because there is an ongoing judicial review case about my Legislative Council membership. That is why I must speak my heart out today.

As you all know, I have previously announced my intention to run for the Chief Executive. I am obliged to make myself clear here―I could not make such statements in the Chamber then, I can speak freely now. What I am going to say is all related to the Budget because it is "Our Vision". This is a campaign LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6261 leaflet co-written by Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Nathan LAW, Dr LAU Siu-lai and I when I announced my intention to run for the Chief Executive election.

Let me read out "Our Vision". First, increase public spending, reduce the scale of land sale substantially, stop the construction of "white elephant" infrastructure, introduce tax reform, re-establish a democratic budget and return wealth to the people. All these points are totally relevant to this year's Budget. Second, implement a universal non-means-tested pension scheme, so that elderly persons aged 65 or above can receive $3,500 per month. Third, legislate for standard working hours, abolish the offsetting arrangement for the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") and reinstate the power of collective bargaining. We have been fighting for these three major policy initiatives for years, and their implementation would require funding support on the Government's part.

Fourth, break the "Government-business-rural-triad" collusion, ensure democratic land use planning, establish an open land database, increase public housing production, explore housing production through cooperative schemes and introduce rent control. Once again, these points are top priorities.

Fifth, implement democratic rural administration and work towards rural-urban symbiosis; introduce legislative amendments to eradicate soil fills and ban illegal recycling sites as well as the import of foreign waste; reduce waste at source and achieve zero waste; and conserve greenfield sites and revive the agricultural industry. Regarding the last point, the Government has already suggested that fallow agricultural land should be rehabilitated, and funding provisions have been made accordingly.

Sixth, buy back public utilities including the MTR Corporation Limited, Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), tunnels, and so on; open public space in housing estates, establish a market policy and reissue hawker licences. Again, such demands are agreed by all people.

Seventh, abolish the Territory-wide System Assessment/Basic Competency Assessment, increase the number of permanent primary and secondary teaching posts, as well as subsidized undergraduate places and allocate additional resources to reduce the level of student loan debts. Similarly this point has been raised by many Members time and again. I do not remember whether it was Mr CHAN Han-pan or Mr KWOK Wai-keung who once said that we must stop students having to bear loans for 40 years after four years of study.

6262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Eighth, enact the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance and strive for equal rights for homosexuals. No money is involved in its implementation. It can be done so long as the Government is willing to do so. Sorry I have slightly deviated from the subject.

Ninth, enact an archives law, safeguard the free flow of information and protect human rights on the Internet.

Tenth, promote pet adoption and work towards the goal of zero animal trading; adopt a "no-kill, no-removal" policy for community animals; enact laws to prohibit any trading or commercial undertakings involving animal cruelty.

Altogether there are 10 items under "Our Vision". Apart from our vision, we have also formulated an election platform. Any person who is interested can visit the web pages of the League of Social Democrats ("LSD"), Dr LIU Siu-lai, Mr Nathan LAW, Mr CHU Hoi-dick or Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.

Why do I read out "Our Vision"? President, the subject of our discussion today is the Budget. Many people say that "Long Hair" knows nothing about economics, and that he just pretends to be an expert in the debates. President, I beg to differ. As I have explained here time and again, my economics is not the same as their economics.

In ancient Greece, there were two distinct theories, namely, economics and chrematistics. No discussion about economics would be complete without mentioning Aristotle. As I have said many times before, Aristotle was one of the greatest philosophers ever, and his teacher was a student of Socrates. For Aristotle, economics is about society making changes for the people―because ancient Greece is a model as well as the origin of democracy―so that resources can be better utilized to meet their basic needs of clothing, food, housing and transportation. As a result, everyone can live a happier life or become more knowledgeable or gain a better understanding about who we are and what the world is about; in other words, people are enjoying life and moving forward together in a prosperous and civilized society.

Then what is chrematistics? As the name suggests, chrematistics (from the Greek word meaning the art of getting rich) is about the accumulation of money by individuals. They do so by making profits through buying low and selling high. As a result, the labour of other people has become their own wealth. That is what chrematistics is about. And according to Aristotle, such LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6263 acts are illicit. Aristotle's theories went on to become the origin of Western economics. Later on, there is the so-called theory of national economics which differs from the doctrines of individual economics. This is the difference between economics and chrematistics.

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

Adam SMITH also dealt with problems through the perspectives of national economics. But he was not concerned about problems such as who was getting rich or who should get rich. Instead, he was concerned about how resources should be better allocated in society as a whole, given that such resources and wealth were generated by the concerted efforts of people in society. To put it simply, the President has just left the Chair, and the Deputy President is now chairing the meeting. But we cannot hold a meeting without the work of the Clerk in attendance or the staff who fill our drinking glasses or bring us the tabletop lectern. We cannot hold a meeting without the work of electrical workers who connect the electricity because we need to have lights in the Chamber. We cannot hold a meeting without the work of air-conditioning technicians because no Member will attend the meeting if it becomes too hot in the Chamber without air-conditioning. Most Members are now playing with their mobile phones, but no information will be available without the people who work to provide mobile phone services. Hence, for the five of us (including LSD), our economics is different from your chrematistics. We hold that the government or the legislature should provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, rather than fueling the greed of the least number of people. That is the crux of our belief.

Deputy President, for the interests of Hong Kong people, we have been fighting to implement universal retirement protection and abolish the MPF offsetting mechanism, and we have been demanding that the Government should stop the construction of so many "white elephant" projects. Let us think about it. Every year, John TSANG, that is, "Mr Pringles", would tell us that the Government has spent this sum or that sum of money to boost the economy. But what is the actual meaning behind these claims? It means that the Government has been spending huge sums of public expenditure to construct dubious or unproductive "white elephant" projects, just for the sake of jacking up Hong Kong's GDP.

6264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

As the Government has made the most efforts to turn land into the most precious resources, housing (including premises for accommodation and shops) has become the most precious commodity. The Government has not only sought to commercialize the commodity but also securitize it. It is what Carrie LAM would set out to do next. In other words, Hong Kong would be turned into a place not for people's living, and the facilities to be constructed are intended not for use by the people, but to serve as chrematistic tools. Otherwise, we can think of no reason why Link REIT should come into being, or why the Government always proposes to privatize certain items of public services, and so on, or why the Government has taken the lead to outsource its services, such that the wages of workers who have no bargaining power have been further suppressed?

Deputy President, I do not know if I still have the opportunity to vote again in the Council. But let me proudly proclaim here today: if I have not been disqualified, I would come back and continue to filibuster because I become a Member not for the sake of partying or having fun; I become a Member because I must speak on behalf of those people who have been deprived of their right to vote for the Chief Executive and those who have been suppressed, and I must fight for them in the Council according to our own principles. I have no concern about success or failure, but I must tell you all: a small voice, no matter how faint it is, can become a thundering roar if we can persevere. I will continue to fight and filibuster until the Government promises to implement universal retirement protection. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today my comment on the Budget will start with the drinking water issue. At present, while rainwater collected locally accounts for about 20% to 30% of the supply of drinking water for Hong Kong, the Dongjiang water imported from Guangdong Province accounts for the remaining 70% to 80%.

As Dongjiang water is the main source of drinking water for Hong Kong, its quality is of course a matter of great concern. In my letter to the then Chairman of the Panel on Development dated 11 December 2015, I expressed our concern over the quality of Dongjiang water and our hope for a duty visit to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6265

Guangdong. Subsequently, after rescheduling twice in the wake of the General Election of the Legislative Council, I am happy to tell all of you that a delegation of 19 Members in total will set off at 7:00 am tomorrow for a field study of Dongjiang water. The objectives of this visit include: obtain first-hand information on the measures taken by the Guangdong provincial authorities to safeguard the quality of Dongjiang water supplied to Hong Kong, inspect the quality of Dongjiang water from various locations of the water supply system, as well as exchange views with the Guangdong provincial authorities on matters of mutual concern relating to the supply of Dongjiang water to Hong Kong.

During our duty visit, in addition to focusing on the water quality of Dongjiang water and pollution control works, we are of course also concerned about the Dongjiang Water Supply Agreement ("the Agreement"). Under the Agreement, water price has been calculated according to the "package deal lump sum" approach, which has been adopted since 2006. While Hong Kong may import Dongjiang water according to our needs, the price is calculated based on a predetermined aggregate quantity under the package deal. The Guangdong Government has to provide us with a supply of 820 million cu m of drinking water every year. Regardless of our consumption, we have to pay for the predetermined water supply quantity under the package deal. Hence, even if our water consumption is below 820 million cu m in a certain year thanks to sufficient rainwater, Hong Kong will still have to pay for the predetermined water supply quantity.

In this connection, the Government has pointed out in response that it is necessary to fix the water supply quantity, otherwise, in the event of a once-in-a-century draught, it will be impossible to ensure round-the-clock water supply to Hong Kong. By then, restriction on water consumption will be necessary. To ensure the reliability of water supply by excluding the 1% possibility of the occurrence of a once-in-a-century draught which will make it impossible for the Guangdong Province to supply sufficient drinking water to Hong Kong, the Agreement has predetermined this water supply quantity. Irrespective of the conditions of the Dongjiang River, we shall be supplied with this quantity of drinking water.

This arrangement will certainly safeguard the supply of drinking water and relieve us of the worries about water restriction. However, according to the Agreement signed between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and the Guangdong Provincial Government from 2015 to 2017, the 6266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 total sum Hong Kong has to pay annually for Dongjiang water was some $4,220 million for 2015; but the sum has risen to $4,490 million for 2016, and has further risen to $4,778.29 million for 2017. Although the water supply quantity has been predetermined, the water price has been constantly rising. A scholar has conducted a research on the reasonableness of the Agreement. The Democratic Party has also been criticizing the Agreement for its lack of proper review in the past 10 years since its formulation in 2006. In our view, the Government and the Development Bureau have never, from the perspective of Hong Kong people's interests, made an all-out effort to negotiate with the Guangdong Provincial Government for a more reasonable deal which can better protect our interests.

Firstly, the first problem stems from the package deal. Even if Hong Kong has abundant rainwater, we still have to pay more than $4 billion for the 820 million cu m of Dongjiang water under the package deal. We should discuss with the Guangdong Provincial Government to seek a more reasonable arrangement. For example, if the rainwater of Hong Kong is abundant in a certain year, the water charge should be determined by our consumption. I consider this arrangement more reasonable.

Dongjiang water is not only supplied to Hong Kong people. Other places in Guangdong Province such as Dongguan and Shenzhen have also purchased Dongjiang water in addition to setting up local reservoirs. Unlike Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Dongguan are charged for Dongjiang water on a quantity basis. Could it be that the "one country, two systems" principle has even applied to the purchase of Dongjiang water by Hong Kong and the two cities, which are separated only by the Shenzhen River? The package deal arrangement is indeed unnecessary. We should similarly be charged based on quantity.

I hope that the Government will negotiate the Agreement with the Guangdong Government again later this year. The Government should earnestly seek an agreement of water supply based on a quantity-based charging scheme, which will be more favourable to Hong Kong. As I have also mentioned just now, notwithstanding the "package deal lump sum" approach, water charges have been rising in the past three years because of the calculation method used. Under the package deal, water charges are determined by a formula denominated in RMB. In other words, when we purchase Dongjiang water, we settle the payments in RMB. As RMB has been appreciating for a period of time in the past, the Dongjiang water we have been purchasing has become more and more expensive.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6267

Drinking water is the most basic necessity in people's lives. When Hong Kong people purchase Dongjiang water for consumption, however, they have to bear the consequences of RMB appreciation. Under the package deal Agreement, RMB is the settlement currency, resulting in excessive emphasis on exchange rates. With the constant appreciation of RMB, the value of RMB has risen 12% against Hong Kong Dollar since 2006, and the price of Dongjiang water purchased by Hong Kong has even risen by 92%. For this reason, in future negotiation with the Guangdong Provincial Government, the Development Bureau should conduct a review on setting up a more reasonable mechanism under the Agreement which provides for both upward and downward adjustments of prices in order to prevent water prices from increasing in tandem with RMB continuously.

We have indeed spent an enormous amount on buying Dongjiang water under the package deal. We have paid 15% extra on buying Dongjiang water. Had a quantity-based charging scheme been adopted for the past 10 years, Hong Kong could have saved about a total of HK$5.4 billion on Dongjiang water. In the past 10 years, have Hong Kong government officials slacked off and failed to make an all-out effort to seek a more reasonable mechanism for Hong Kong under the Agreement by replacing the package deal with quantity-based charging?

To increase Hong Kong's bargaining power, the Development Bureau should make an all-out effort to take the lead in exploring local water resources in Hong Kong, such as studying the feasibility of constructing additional reservoirs and desalination plants and promoting the recycling of water resources, which will be conducive to increasing water resources in Hong Kong and reducing our reliance on Dongjiang water. In the meantime, we can also reserve the precious water resources to the residents of Guangdong.

In addition, I would like to talk about the health care issue. The Government has announced in this year's Policy Address its plan to allocate an additional $2 billion in recurrent expenditure to the Hospital Authority ("HA"). The Financial Secretary has also indicated in his Budget that the total recurrent expenditure on health care will be $61.9 billion, representing an increase of $3.2 billion year-on-year based on revised estimates and accounting for 17% of government recurrent expenditure. Among the major new measures, more health care personnel will be recruited, and the eligibility age for the Elderly Health Care Vouchers will be lowered from 70 to 65. The Democratic Party supports lowering the eligibility age.

6268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

However, will the existing services improve simply by increasing expenditure? The answer is easily visible. Many types of public health care services are widely available; and each and every one of them has much room for improvement. For example, in respect of the waiting time for specialist services, the service support for mental and dementia patients, as well as primary health care services, Hong Kong's health care services are apparently in dire need for improvement. We hope that the Government will allocate more resources to these weakest links in order to shorten the waiting time for specialist services.

In view of population ageing in Hong Kong, as we continue to increase resources, it is also necessary to recruit more health care personnel and shorten the waiting time. However, in the course of increasing health care personnel, we are concerned about the brain drain problem. The Government has spent a considerable sum of money on training medical students, who may be employed by the hospitals under HA upon graduation. However, after having accumulated sufficient work experience, quite a few middle-aged, experienced doctors have left public hospitals one after another for the private market where they can earn more. While the Government is training doctors on the one hand, it is losing doctors on the other. Experienced doctors have all taken up jobs in the private market. So far I still cannot see any effective measures taken by the Government to retain health care personnel of public hospitals. There is a trend that not only doctors, but also nurses, physiotherapists and related veteran staff are leaving the public sector. The actual partnership between public and private hospitals only exists in the form of talent leaving public hospitals to join the private health care sector. The Government has continuously deployed resources to train talent, only to lose them constantly later. As such, I hope that HA will expeditiously formulate effective measures to retain talent.

As regards services for dementia patients, we hope that the Government will allocate more sources to enhance the confirmation of diagnosis and treatment of dementia patients in order to defer their deterioration. We also hope that the Social Welfare Department can provide sufficient community support.

Lastly, I would like to take a little time to comment on the Financial Secretary's idea of investing for the future as stated in the Budget. Surprisingly, his so-called financial provisions for the future have completely excluded child care services, which is very infuriating and disappointing. Children are the future of Hong Kong. We have repeatedly raised questions about the extreme lack of aided standalone child care centres in Hong Kong at present, noting that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6269 almost no remaining places are available. Despite its huge surplus, the Government has refused to increase even one more place. The Budget has disregarded the grass-roots women who can no longer join the workforce after giving birth. Given the population ageing in Hong Kong, it is necessary to unleash the labour force of women and offer women more choices in their life. With regard to the provisions for investing for the future in the Budget, the Government has neglected the women's right to work nowadays and the demand for child care services. For this reason, I will not support this Budget.

I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Honourable colleagues, good morning. This is my first time to participate in the debate on the Second Reading of the Budget today. I am still a very inexperienced Member, and there are a lot of things that I need to learn from other Members. Being one of the mere 35 directly elected Members in a city with a population of 7.3 million people, I naturally believe that the opportunity to participate in the debate on Hong Kong's public finance is highly precious, but in reality, I am very much saddened, for while I earnestly want to implement social and democratic reforms that the public authorize me to take forward, I have observed that the various restraints left over from the colonial era have made it difficult for the Legislative Council to make headway.

Concerning the contents of the Budget, a lot can be said, but if we want to bring about genuine changes, we simply do not know where to start. Our constitution is one that has no public opinion basis and has many inherent defects, and we, a group of Members who are concerned about Hong Kong's public finance, cannot even discharge the Legislative Council's function of "approving public expenditure" under the constitution.

As regards the budgets over the past years and in the coming years, the key element has been and will be invariably infrastructure expenditure. Large amount of infrastructure spending serves to dovetail with Beijing's geopolitical layout, and ensure that developers, banks and large consortia can continue to make money together while having no regard to public needs. Owing to the long-standing hefty amount of infrastructure spending, livelihood spending cannot be increased, the implementation of universal retirement suffrage has been delayed time and again, public health care establishment has suffered from severe 6270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 manpower shortage, social welfare policy has made two steps forward followed by three steps backward, and elderly persons died before getting residential care places. I believe that today many people are well aware of all these problems. Infrastructure projects are not only costly, but also determines the mode of urban development and land allocation in the coming 50 or even 100 years, as well as the fate of many Hong Kong people.

In short, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is of the view that the annual project costs for the construction industry must reach $200 billion. I think this direction is wrong and will get Hong Kong into great trouble. That said, we are unable to discuss the problem of infrastructure today. How should discussion on infrastructures be conducted? First, we must have the power and mechanism to seriously consider the use of revenues from land sales.

According to the note to the Resolution on Capital Works Reserve Fund ("the Fund") (Cap. 2A), premium income received from land transactions will be credited to the Fund. In other words, how can the Government continuously spend large sums of money on infrastructure? With the aforesaid resolution, as long as the Government continues to sell land, the Fund will have sufficient resources to implement infrastructure projects. Can revenues from land sales be used for any other purposes? Certainly.

That said, paragraph (d) of the same resolution states that: "the Financial Secretary may―(i) transfer from the Fund to the general revenue any balance in the Fund which is not required for the purposes of the Fund". In other words, the revenues can be used for other purposes. However, has the Financial Secretary ever made such an arrangement over the years? Certainly not. He even considered that the Fund has insufficient money, and thus transferred money from the General Revenue Account to the Fund. In my view, to discuss the Budget, we should and must discuss the relevant arrangement, for the power that can be exercised by the Financial Secretary in this regard is an important premise of the Budget.

The second issue which I think should be examined is also related to the Budget. On 23 February this year, Eric MA, the Secretary for Development, unveiled the 2017-2018 Land Sale Programme ("the Programme"), under which 28 residential sites will be put up for sale in the coming year. The background for announcing the Programme is naturally associated with the Budget, meaning that the Programme can roughly be treated as part of the Budget. Yet, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6271

Legislative Council does not have a chance to formally scrutinize the Programme. Secretary Eric MA is usually all smiles, but the Programme proposed by him needs not be approved by the Legislative Council. The Government has merely prepared a pamphlet to introduce the Programme as a formality.

In fact, it is exactly the Programme that determines whether there will be sufficient financial support for infrastructure development. If the Legislative Council does not discuss the Programme, we will be unable to discharge our function under Article 73 of the Basic Law: to approve public expenditure. If we do not discuss the Programme, many people may not realize that while the Government often talks about land shortage and blindly scrambles for land, many precious land resources are sold to developers at exorbitant prices for developing flats that are hardly affordable to Hong Kong people even if they work as slaves for two generations, and the purpose of selling land is to finance infrastructure projects.

After today, even if the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill 2017 is passed, I still hope to seriously discuss the aforesaid two matters with Members. I will also keep exploring how to actualize such an idea in the Legislative Council or the Finance Committee. If Members have any idea on how to break the stalemate concerning our inability to discuss the two matters, they may talk to me, for infrastructure is a lock affecting Hong Kong's public finance.

The examples the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, the East Lantau Metropolis that costs some $400 billion based on a conservative estimate today, Route 11 that costs several ten billion dollars, and the North East New Territories development that costs some $120 billion and facilitates cashing out by developers, we actually understand why the Financial Secretary kept reiterating "keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues" in the past. The reason is that huge sums of expenditure are involved. At present, the infrastructure projects are half-completed, and the outstanding amount has reached some $300 billion. In the coming years, no matter how much money will be derived from land sales, the Fund will inevitably face deficit. Prime sites and pricey sites will all be sold to developers. No progress will be made to the housing policy, and Hong Kong people will continue to be mortgage slaves, while social welfare and health care continue to be "on a saline drip". Environmental costs keep increasing, and local agricultural and rural communities are shrinking; in the event of any crisis of global climate change, we will certainly be rendered helpless due to our loss of immunity.

6272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

As long as the infrastructure lock remains unlocked, the Budget will be unable to provide any room for livelihood improvement. What is the key? Actually we all know that a democratic political system is the key for Hong Kong.

On commenting the Budget, we need to return to my opening remarks. Our discussion is not merely on the Budget, but rather on the kind of Legislative Council that Hong Kong needs. Many pro-democracy Members have already expressed their views on the Budget. Pro-establishment Members, as always, "do great favours for the Government by just making a few criticisms" on the one hand, and blame us for filibustering on the other. But what roles does the Legislative Council actually play? Today, having regard to the restraints and inadequacies arising from the Legislative Council's scrutiny of the Budget, I hope to join hands with Members to seek a meaningful answer to the question as regards what kind of a Legislative Council does Hong Kong need.

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, JI Pengfei, once said that "the executive authorities and the legislature should regulate each other as well as coordinate their activities. To maintain Hong Kong's stability and administrative efficiency, the Chief Executive must have real power which, at the same time, should be subject to some restrictions." As this is the Sixth Legislative Council, I believe that Hong Kong people who are familiar with the system and well understand the operation of the Legislative Council, including my Honourable colleagues, would fully understand that nowadays the relationship between the executive authorities and the legislature is never one that involves the regulation of each other and coordination of activities. Instead, it is one that involves coordination most of the time and no regulation whatsoever. What is the reason for that? Functional constituencies certainly constitute part of the problem, but the Basic Law has placed restraints on Hong Kong's legislature and given rise to executive dominance. One of the restraints we often ignore is the system and procedure pertaining to Hong Kong's public finance, including the Budget, of which the Second Reading is going on today.

It is now 2017, pro-establishment Members often boast about the advancement of Hong Kong and the strength of China, but what about the procedure for scrutinizing the Budget in the Legislative Council? This procedure has been put in place for around 180 years since the colonial era. Nowadays in this deformed Legislative Council which nevertheless seems to enjoy a little power, what can we actually do? In fact, there is only one situation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6273 in which the Legislative Council can exercise its real power, that is, to veto the Appropriation Bill, which is nonetheless a "suicide bomb" to the legislature. The reason is that if we veto the Appropriation Bill, the Chief Executive can dissolve the Legislative Council, bringing about political turbulence and a high degree of unpredictability. For this reason, I believe that in most cases the Legislative Council will not easily exercise this power.

Apart from vetoing the Appropriation Bill, what other roles does the Legislative Council play? Regrettably, we must comply with the system put in place in the British colonial era, and there is hardly anything we can do. As such, what is the point of scrutinizing the Budget? I have reviewed past debates in the United Kingdom, for Hong Kong's system originated from those of the United Kingdom. In the 19th century, constitutional theorist Erskine MAY indicated that appropriation scrutinized by the legislature was actually "a system of attributing sums advanced to particular services of the Government for the purpose of establishing whether the estimates presented to Parliament were reflected in the eventual pattern of expenditure." What does this mean? It means that the standard for the Legislative Council to scrutinize the Budget is so low that it only considers whether the estimates of expenditure formulated by the Government clash with its policy objectives, or whether extra money is expended. For this reason, in their amendments, Legislative Council Members can neither propose any increase in the expenditure under any heads or subheads nor delete the entire heads. Rather, they can only propose to cut the expenditure under certain subheads. What if Members do not agree to the fundamental policy objectives of the Government? I am sorry, this is not in line with the Basic Law and no debate should be allowed in this regard. No debate should be held on revenues from land sales, nor can any debate be held on the Fund and infrastructure.

I would like to highlight one point, while many Members may regard that such kind of executive dominance which lacks transparency and accountability to the Legislative Council in respect of public expenditure has been functioning well, if the Government insists on adopting this practice, the system will eventually collapse, as evident from a series of financial scandals uncovered in the Finance Committee of the current-term Legislative Council. The broad economy of China is fraught with uncertainties, and as our integration with China is getting closer and more intricate, the relationship between the executive authorities and the legislature will certainly be aggravated, resulting in our political conditions being increasingly unstable.

6274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

At this juncture, may I ask pro-establishment Members our objective in joining the Legislative Council through various elections as representatives of public opinions. What roles does the Legislative Council play in our eyes? I believe all Members are persons of dignity; some Members have just attended the National People's Congress ("NPC") meetings held in Beijing, I presume that none of us would like to see the Legislative Council of Hong Kong being degenerated to a rubber stamp like NPC, the deputies to which merely clap hands to pass the motions presented. We do not join the Legislative Council for being brought under the Government's thumb and having no power at all.

All legislatures in the world, other than authoritarian ones, have to perform two roles: first, enact legislation, and second, examine how public funds are used by the executive authorities. If we turn a blind eye to the current situation in which the legislature is being dwarfed and disgraced, and willingly dovetail with the Government, I am afraid that the legislature of Hong Kong can hardly play the aforesaid roles and perform the functions of a normal legislature. I hope that Members, particularly pro-establishment Members, will consider the existing situation and refrain from arbitrarily accusing other Members of filibustering; they should instead explore how we as a whole can strengthen the Legislative Council's function of scrutinizing the Budget and guarding public money.

With these remarks, I oppose this year's Budget. Thank you.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe that Members of the pro-establishment, the pan-democratic or the opposition camps have their own ideals, and I do not believe that Members, when examining the Budget or carrying out the work of the Legislative Council, would regard it their responsibility to paralyse the Government by means of filibustering. This will not be conducive to the operation of society, and society has to pay a high price. Up till today, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council has only approved small amounts of funding, but has created many social problems. I hope that the pan-democratic or opposition Members will realize what has gone wrong. It is not that the Legislative Council has no power; only that some Members have abused their status as representatives of public opinions to make irresponsible comments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6275

This is the last Budget of the current Government. First, I would like to speak on health care and transport. I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Secretary Dr KO and his team for their great devotion and service to the public in the past four years. I believe members of the public will not forget their efforts.

After my thanks to the Secretary, I will now speak on the main topic today. The public expenditure on health care in the past four years has been on the increase. The expenditure on health care in 2007 was $35 billion, and in 2017 the expenditure has been raised to $57.3 billion, coupled with a provision of $200 billion for hospital redevelopment. However, has the quality of health care services been enhanced with the increase in expenditure? Today, I would like to talk about a concept concerning "preventive treatment of diseases".

In the past, the philosophy of the health care system was to give speedy treatment to patients with serious conditions, while patients with less serious conditions would have to wait for a few years before getting treatment. This approach really has big problems. Some may think that the concept of "preventive treatment of diseases" is unique to Chinese medicine, but it is so. The entire health care system should adopt this concept. Let me cite an example. Two days ago, we discussed rare diseases at the meeting of the Panel on Health Services of the Legislative Council. What is the origin of rare diseases? The origin is our genes. For years, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has proposed that the Government should apply the latest DNA detection technology in the antenatal examination of all pregnant women, or even during the pre-marital examination of young people to see if they carry any genetic disorders so that they can take early precautions.

This is my fifth year as a Legislative Council Member, and to my regret, the Government has only accepted a small part of our proposals on antenatal examination and is gradually implementing them in hospitals. However, some old practices are still adopted. For example, in examining the baby's risk for Down syndrome, the method of ultra-sound, nuchal translucency screening, or the invasive procedure of amniocentesis are used, which would increase the risk of pregnant women.

At the public hearing held a few days ago, many women spoke of their plights. A woman said she did not want to pass the disease of Tuberous Sclerosis Complex onto her two daughters, but regrettably, she and her two 6276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 daughters are suffering from this disease. She feels very guilty and blames herself for that. Now she can only watch her beloved ones approaching death. What is the cause of this misfortune? It is attributed to the public's lack of knowledge of rare diseases and genetic disorders. Owing of their lack of knowledge, they search in vain for doctors who can treat them after they have fallen ill, only to find that they are suffering from rare diseases. However, our neighbouring places have already set up databases for rare diseases, together with detailed information on treatment and prevention. Why are we still lagging behind?

In respect of rare diseases, we hope that the Government will offer preventive treatment. It should expeditiously look for ways to prevent and treat rare diseases. It should also legislate for the drugs and make comprehensive planning on various aspects such as recognition, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and social services, so as to ensure that no one will have to pay a high price because of the lack of health care measures. That is the spirit of "preventive treatment of diseases".

The second is mental diseases. It is a well-known fact that at present, all hospital beds are fully occupied, the situation in psychiatric wards is especially serious. Last month, I visited some psychiatric patients in Tai Po Hospital. There were over 50 patients in a ward, with only a few nurses to look after them. The ward was very packed. During the night shift, over 50 patients were looked after by one nurse and one assistant. Both manpower and space were strained. I asked the hospital staff what they would do when there were not enough beds. They told me that some patients would be discharged early to vacate their beds for new patients. That was the only solution. But, just think, the discharged patients may have to be admitted again a few days later. That is really a vicious cycle.

To address the problem at root, we can start from drug treatment. All doctors, as well as government officials, should be aware that most mental patients do not like taking drugs. They all think that they are alright, and refuse to take drugs, and then they will relapse. After relapsing for a few times, the patient will lose their self-care power and becomes mentally ill permanently. Given the advancement in technologies, injection of medicine is now available for the treatment of mental diseases. Patients only need to go to the hospital for injection once every three months. Even if patients refuse to return to hospital for follow-up consultation, the effect of the injection will last for over a year, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6277 keeping patients from relapses. Although these medicines are more costly, taking into account the cost of hospital treatment, the high costs of inpatient services can be saved. This treatment can make many people happy and also has good efficacy. It is a shame that the Government has not adopted this treatment.

Many drugs currently prescribed by hospitals have serious side effects. For example, after taking these drugs, patients may involuntarily roll their eyes, stick their tongue out of their mouth and become unresponsive. As a result, patients are unable to lead a normal life. When these patients are discharged back to the community, their cases are followed up by case managers. At present, the ratio between case manager and patients is 1:50. Under normal circumstances, it is already very difficult for one case manager to follow up 20 patients, let alone 50. They may not even be able to tell who is who. To resolve the social problems thus caused, it is necessary to allocate more resources to health care institutions, meaning that the costs will increase. Why can't we take better preventive measures before the onset of diseases?

The third is Chinese medicine. Although the Government has earmarked a site for building a Chinese medicine hospital, it has not made any commitment and has even excluded Chinese medicine from the public health care system. The Chinese medicine clinics in 18 districts are all run by non-governmental organizations. Some of these clinics have been set up for over a decade but the Government has never increased their subvention. How can these clinics have any development? With the Chinese medical centre being excluded from the public health care system, how can graduates of Chinese medicine find any appropriate or decent jobs after graduation, and how should the professional development of Chinese medicine practitioners be determined? It needs money to construct a Chinese medicine hospital and it also needs money to develop Chinese medicine. How much funding has the Government allocated to Chinese medicine since the commencement of the Chinese Medicine Ordinance? I can tell you all, the Government has all along only regulated the Chinese medicine industry without providing any assistance. The so-called development of Hong Kong as a Chinese medicine port, and so on is only paying lip service. It has been three years since DAB first requested the Government to set up a $5 billion Chinese medicine development fund, but the Budget is still silent about it. I hope that the Government will adopt the concept of "preventive treatment of disease" in the public health care system, so that a vicious cycle will not be formed for people receiving medical treatments. We should break the vicious 6278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 cycle so that all members of the public can receive medical treatment in a dignified manner. Otherwise, even if the Government builds more hospitals or allocates more resources by increasing the expenditure from $35 billion to $57.3 billion, or even to $100 billion, will the problem be solved? By then, people will have to pay their own expenses, or we may have to resort to public or private health care financing, but still the problems remain unresolved. We must adopt a better approach when there is one available. Hence, I hope that the Government of the next term will re-examine the positioning of our health care system.

Owing to time constraint, I wish to talk about the issue about traffic now. A few days ago, a serious incident happened in the MTR Kwun Tong Line which affected over 600 000 Kowloon East residents. The occurrence of such kind of incident during the evening peak hours was indeed a big disaster, and has set off an alarm. Hong Kong is extremely densely populated and most people rely on railway transport services. Hong Kong's transport policy relies on the railway system as its backbone, which means that the Government depends heavily on the dominating means of railway transport to address all traffic problems. Today no other means of transport can replace MTR as it has the biggest transport network. But as the occupancy rate of the railway system almost exceeds 100% during peak hours, has the Government considered the future development? In recent years, opposition Members regard all infrastructure projects as "white elephants", but may I ask without these infrastructures, what can people get around? I hope that the Government will finalize the construction plan of the East Kowloon Line as soon as possible to provide service for local residents. Although some may say that the residents living along the Line are public housing tenants and they should not be treated like this or that, we should not look at the issue this way. There is an article posted on the Internet today accusing CHAN Han-pan of fishing in troubled waters by proposing the construction of the East Kowloon Line after the incident in Kwun Tong Line. Nevertheless, please do consider, without an additional railway line to divert the passengers, should an accident happen resulting in traffic congestion, the problem will be serious.

New Territories West also has the same problem. I believe the Secretary is also aware that the Government vetoed the construction of the Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan Link in the Railway Development Strategy 2014. I would like to tell the Secretary that without the planning for the entire New Territories West, the situation will be disastrous. The occupancy rate of the West Line already reaches 104% during peak hours. Even if the number of train compartments is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6279 increased to eight, the occupancy rate can only be raised by 10%, which means the present railway is already 90% full. The authorities suggest adjusting the signalling system and increasing the train frequencies, but according to the reply of MTR to my inquiry, the effect was limited as there were too many restrictions. As such, in future the total population in Hung Shui Kiu, Ku Tung North, Yuen Long South and Kam Tim South in New Territories West, together with the population along the route of Tuen Mun Link, the Northern Link to be connected to the West Rail, will reach 700 000. It is like having one more Tuen Mun in New Territories West. All railway stations will be packed in that region. The construction of the Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan Link will provide some residents in Tuen Mun with another route to reach the urban area quickly, but the proposal was vetoed by the Government.

Today I would like to put forth another proposal to the Secretary: the New Territories Railway, which goes from Tuen Mun, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Tsing to Sha Tin, providing an east-to-west link between railway lines in New Territories East and New Territories West to enhance the flexibility of the entire railway system. Once a problem arises in a certain district, passengers can readily change to another line by means of this link. It can also address the transportation demand of the future population growth. Some other Members have requested for a third cross-harbour railway, but as land reclamation is required in the central part, the railway line may not be built even after 30 years. The railway systems in Hong Kong are faced with very serious problems and we prudently put forward this request for consideration by the Government.

At the same time, I also hope that the Government will improve the pedestrian-friendly policy. Whether the facilities can "make it smart, make it connected and make it safe", investment is needed. I hope the Government will provide funding to set up a $5 billion "Uphill elevator and escalator fund". In the past few years, the Government has provided many elevators and escalators, which is a good initiative; but if people have to wait in a long queue, they would regard the projects as "white elephants". As such, I am afraid that nothing can be done; no elevators or escalators can be installed to facilitate the elderly people who have mobility problems. Hence, I hope that the Government will set up an "uphill elevator and escalator fund".

Deputy President, I so submit.

6280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is the first Budget prepared by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN in just one-odd month after taking office in haste in January this year. Although a huge surplus of $92.8 billion is recorded due to the Government's wrong estimate once again, causing the Treasury to be overflowing with money, the Financial Secretary has not "handed out candies" generously to please the public as anticipated by the community; instead, he spends only when necessary without deviating from the principle of prudent financial management, which is commendable. In my opinion, as the Financial Secretary of a caretaker government, it is reasonable for him to act in accordance with the principles of managing public finance prudently, spending only when necessary as well as remaining vigilant, so as to leave more "ammunitions" for the next-term Government to create a new era.

I am especially impressed by the Financial Secretary's willingness to face the hardship of the middle-class in this Budget. Instead of simply giving a tax rebate again, the tax band is adjusted from $40,000 to $45,000, the first adjustment in nine years. Although the adjustment rate is not significant, at least it brings a certain extent of relief. It would be even more desirable if the tax burden of the middle class can be further alleviated by, say, lowering the marginal tax rate of 17% or the standard rate of 15% for personal tax. More talent may be attracted from around the world to come to Hong Kong as well.

Moreover, I greatly support the Financial Secretary in reserving $30 billion for improving the livelihood of the elderly. As the elderly have contributed to Hong Kong most of their lives, they deserve to spend their twilight years in a dignified manner. Since the specific details are yet to be proposed by the Elderly Commission, I hope the relevant work can be carried out expeditiously, so that the elderly can enjoy such a benefit at an earlier date.

I am also glad that the Fujian Scheme, for which I have been striving for many years, is finally accepted by the Government, thus elderly persons who retire permanently in Fujian are also eligible for "fruit grants" as those who retire permanently in Guangdong. I expect this benevolent measure to be further extended in the future.

Deputy President, in my view, in order to make continuous improvement to people's livelihood, we must make all-out effort for economic development. However, with regard to the four existing economic pillars of Hong Kong, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6281 tourism industry has encountered great pressure in development due to the decreased number of tourists and reduced visitor spending; on trading and logistics, our position has been seriously challenged by the neighbouring regions; as for professional services and producer services, it is a well-known fact that there is limited room for development. The only advantage of Hong Kong is that the financial industry may still ride on the surging economic development of the Mainland. Although the Financial Secretary does not come from the financial sector, he has demonstrated in the Budget his good grasp of the development of the financial market. He indicates that while the Government has to keep our listing platform competitive, it has also attached importance to maintaining market quality, such as showing concern about high price volatility of Growth Enterprise Market stocks, and giving support to the monitoring and law enforcement efforts of the Securities and Futures Commission in combating market wrongdoings.

I consider this principle very important and also tallies with the concept I always emphasize. If we adopt a laissez-faire attitude and allow small investors in the stock market to be wilfully exploited with no regard to market order, it is tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The market will thus fail to function, not to mention contributing to the financial development of the Mainland and tallying with the series of development plans of our Motherland.

A good monitoring system and market development are mutually complementary and both are indispensable. However, the Financial Secretary fails to elaborate in this regard. I expect the Financial Secretary to, in the remainder of his term―or if he can transit to the new governing team―make every effort to step up promoting market development and establish a high-quality and orderly financial market with great attraction, so that more large overseas enterprises will be attracted to Hong Kong for financing activities or even listing.

Although the Central Government has stated expressly that the Mainland-Hong Kong Bond Market Connect can commence this year to add another strength to mutual access in the financial market, we still have to pursue more mutual access items in the future, including the launching of the Primary Equity Connect for initial public offering, and striving for the establishment of the Shanghai Shenzhen CSI 300 Index. With the mutual access of various commodity futures, the financial markets of Hong Kong can keep growing and innovating. Moreover, we should proactively tie in with our country's policies 6282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 pertaining to the Belt and Road Initiative and even operate positively in coordination with the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area, so as to create more business opportunities and chances for development.

If the Finance Committee approves the funding allocation for Hong Kong to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank ("AIIB") later, Hong Kong can formally become a member of AIIB, thereby strengthening its development of relationship with the Belt and Road countries through participating in various development projects to actively attract multinational enterprises for financing and listing in Hong Kong.

Moreover, in light of rapid development of the new economy and the Internet industry, there is a pressing need to expedite the development of a third listing board market. Likewise, the Government needs to think of some new ideas to proactively facilitate the opening up of a new horizon.

Speaking of the development of the Bay Area, we cannot even miss the opportunity as it is right on our doorstep. The Premier mentioned this development project in this year's Report on the Work of the Government to remind us of how we should tie in with the advantages of our peripheral regions to make a bigger economic "pie", so as to explore new economic breakthrough. The Gross Domestic Product of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area reached $11,200 billion in 2015, two thirds of that of the Tokyo Bay Area, close to that of the New York Bay Area, and two times of that of the San Francisco Bay Area. That is to say, if the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area is launched successfully, it may become one of the world's top three bay economies. Furthermore, Hong Kong and Shenzhen, with their developmental potential combined, can become Asia's global financial centre.

Hence, when the Financial Secretary joins the delegation to visit the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area led by the Chief Executive next Wednesday, I expect that he will study in detail what business opportunities are available for Hong Kong's financial industry in the Bay Area, how to develop our leading financial role in the Area, as well as how to further make use of Hong Kong's CEPA to help the local financial sector develop business in the Mainland. When the Financial Secretary responds in the Budget debate later, he may be able to tell us the results of their visit to the Bay Area, as well as the projects that the financial, commercial and industrial sectors of Hong Kong may join in the development of the Bay Area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6283

Deputy President, Hong Kong now encounters a bottleneck in its development. The level of our economic development has remained at a low level of 2% for a long time. On the contrary, the development of Shenzhen in our neighbourhood is tremendously rapid with a vibrant innovative industry. If Renminbi had not been depreciated, Shenzhen would have already outperformed Hong Kong in terms of economic aggregate. Therefore, we must do our best to catch up, focusing on economic development and the opportunities brought about by the development of the huge market of our Motherland. As the common saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves". I trust you have heard about the tale of "borrowing arrows with thatched boats". Our Motherland is now getting ready to set sail at full mast, and seats are reserved on board for us. If we still do not get on board, it will be too late to regret once the chance is missed.

Therefore, I agree that the next Government should adopt new financial management concept to make good use of our surplus of some $900 billion, and the genuine fiscal reserve of a total of some $3,000 billion if funds of all scales are included, to step up software and hardware construction of our society for propelling continuous economic development. In particular, employment and development opportunities have to be provided to the new generation, so that young people having dreams and creativity can give full play to their strengths, thereby achieving upward mobility and sharing the fruit of the development of new economy together.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Budget.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think the Budget this year is rather vague and general. As a caretaker government with only a few months left, this is justifiable as there is no reason to hijack the next government to implement certain policies. Of course, in respect of political actions, the current Government is by no means a caretaker government as it is very proactive, though it acts contrarily in regard to economic and social policies.

From the end of last year to the beginning of this year, I have put forward a number of proposals to the two former Secretaries of Departments and the incumbent Financial Secretary, with a view to promoting investment and technology exchanges, as well as nurturing talent to facilitate the transformation 6284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 of various trades and industries, as well as creating opportunities to enhance our competitive edges and resolve the problem of talent shortage. However, as evident from the contents of this Budget, nothing is mentioned about investment, new concepts or new ideas and the only focus is on infrastructure.

The only new content is related to the information technology ("IT") sector to which I belong or technological development. A sum of $10 billion is reserved for supporting innovation and technology ("I&T") development in Hong Kong, but details are not provided. According to the officials concerned, it takes a long time to formulate policies, and with an amount of money reserved, the process will be expedited in the future once a decision is made on how the amount will be used. It is certainly better to have some money reserved than not, yet it is quite disappointing as we do not know how the money will be spent and what the future direction will be.

Setting up a committee on I&T development and re-industrialization is merely having one more committee. Although money is reserved in this Budget, a funding application may have to be submitted to the Finance Committee for the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. Even if the Loop was a magic wand with excellent development, the results would only be seen 8 to 10 years later. The problem is that distant water cannot put out a nearby fire, what can be done now? I will discuss the pros and cons of the development of the Loop when I have an opportunity in the future. I think this Budget has three major deficiencies.

First, insufficient training of technology talent. To be honest, not only technology talent, but the training of all kinds of talent in Hong Kong is insufficient in terms of new measures and support. As far as technology is concerned, many large banks have recently taken the lead to lay off their staff and I am worried that frontline contract staff will be affected in the next round. There are no signs that the outsourcing trend initiated by the Government will stop. This Budget has not proposed any measures to help working people pursue continuing education for self-enhancement of technological skills. In the face of such a market, will young people blindly believe in the advantages of technology education and STEM education as constantly promoted by the Government? They will also consider the market situation and assess whether the Government will put its words into practical action. In fact, the Government will not do so.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6285

Second, there is a lack of measures to attract companies to settle in Hong Kong and enable technology enterprises in Hong Kong to go global. For the Government, it seems that "go global" inevitably means "go northward". In fact, many companies which have gone northward have indicated that there are many problems. Even if we have the magic wand of the Loop, the results could only be seen in 8 to 10 years. The problems are: first, Shenzhen is not the whole world though there is a tourist attraction called "Window of the World", it is not the whole world; second, we really cannot wait 8 to 10 years.

Third, the Budget has not mentioned any updated legislation or legislative support. In the Policy Address announced earlier or this Budget, has more resources been allocated to conduct studies in areas such as sharing economy, financial technologies, regulations on unmanned aircraft systems, autopilot techniques, open data development and the internal reform of the Government? In fact, nothing has been mentioned. As I have highlighted to the Secretaries of Departments, in recent years, foreign governments have vigorously promoted the digital transformation of government, using digital technology in the transformation of government or government digitization as some have directly called it. They have not done anything in this regard despite my lengthy explanations.

The Financial Secretary announced the Budget in February and in Singapore, the Budget was also announced in the same week. The Singapore Government improves employment and skills in many ways, invests a lot of resources in relevant training and industry restructuring; provides development blueprints for each industry; nurtures talent and assists them in obtaining overseas experience; sets up bases in overseas places, including Silicon Valley, to help enterprises expand their business. As for the SAR offices outside Hong Kong, in respect of the application of technologies to help companies go global, nothing has been done in other countries apart from the Mainland. Yet, Singapore helps small and medium enterprises in digitization and introduces regulatory sandbox. Many other areas are involved besides banks. I think Singapore's approach is more practical and forward looking.

Each year, Singapore and Hong Kong announce its budget within the same two weeks. Why do I also study Singapore's budget in the past few years? It is because the media in Singapore would ask me to compare the budgets of the two places. On the one hand, I think there are many initiatives in Singapore's budget that we can draw reference from; and on the other hand, I cannot help but wonder 6286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 why Hong Kong people, the legislature and the media in Hong Kong do not make reference to the approaches of other countries. In the face of challenges, it seems that our focus is merely on the Bay Area. I share the view of many people in the industry to which I belong that this direction of development is just "big lies and empty talks" and even fraught with risks. I think the whole community should reflect on that.

Deputy President, the Innovation and Technology Bureau held a number of major events these few days, and some forums were held at the Convention and Exhibition Centre over the past three days. I asked a question at a Finance Committee meeting about the expenditure of more than $7 million on these events. A number of forums or events relating to information technology will be held next week. I gave a talk this morning and I will give a number of talks next week on smart city. Regarding smart city, although the officials from the Innovation and Technology Bureau are not present now, some officials concerned are present. The idea of a smart city was first mentioned in the Policy Address 2015 and it was stated that Kowloon East would be developed into a Smart City district. The first task is to commission a consultancy study and some ideas have been formulated this year. The authorities have printed a very colourful brochure covering a number of pilot projects.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The Innovation and Technology Bureau was set up at the end of 2015 and the Bureau carried out a wide range of consultancy studies in 2016. A number of government departments in Hong Kong have been involved in formulating blueprints which may be introduced in the middle of this year. But we still have not seen any new development. President, considering the money set aside in the Budget, I have to say that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau completed the "Digital 21" consultancy study and the public consultation on "Smarter Hong Kong Smarter living" was completed in 2014. In fact, I bet with Honourable colleagues that the contents of the consultancy study at the time are more or less the same as the contents of the present consultancy study.

When will the blueprint be implemented? Three consultancy studies have been completed in four years, and I do not even bother to ask the amount spent on the three consultancy studies. Money is secondary, the time factor is more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6287 important. We have been waiting and I do not know if the Government will, after the completion of this blueprint next year, carry out another consultancy study on how the blueprint should be implemented. Now that the officials concerned are present, let me give some more examples. Initiatives which have been discussed for years include the electronic road pricing which has been discussed for 30 years, the issue of whether various trades and industries in Hong Kong including taxis should use GPS satellite navigation, credit card payments, etc. Some foreign cities have already adopted these measures 20 years or even 30 years ago.

The Transport Department has recently installed a number of parking meters for testing. In addition to using Octopus, users can pay with credit cards. In fact, foreign countries have been using these technologies for almost 20 years but we consider this as an innovative act. In the past one to two years, I visited other cities, including New York, London, Los Angeles and met with the officials of other cities. When I met with the officials of the Australian Consulate-General yesterday, I asked about the practice of Australia, and they told me that mobile apps are used to make payments.

I am now inside the Legislative Council Complex and there is a car park, but if my vehicle is parked outside the Complex and I can pay the parking fees using my mobile phone, I will not have to run downstairs quickly to make payment and run back afterwards. According to the officials in Hong Kong, this mode of payment is not possible because power connection to parking meters is needed. Is power supply in Hong Kong so unsatisfactory that there is no power supply on the street?

That is the mindset of officials in Hong Kong. In respect of many public services, Hong Kong is like a museum. My colleagues have taken a lot of photos for me, showing huge signboards with words "cash only" at places like sports ground under the management of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. The Government likes investing a lot of money to carry out studies, build science parks, as well as encourage the public to start a business and set up companies. Even though there is a need for conducting studies and building science parks can serve specific purposes, has the Government provided help to innovation and technology companies? While the governments of other countries and cities will try out the products of the companies concerned, the Hong Kong Government will never do so.

6288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

President, when it comes to a smart city, data is certainly the most important. When I discussed with many government officials earlier about big data and open data, etc., I found that they had a lot of misunderstandings. I will not repeat here but I would like to highlight one point. When I visited Singapore last September, local officials told me that the local government could not make any policy decisions if government policies were not supported by data or if analysis were not conduced based on data.

We often say that there is a lack of training for personnel to engage in data analysis in Hong Kong, and I have made a similar proposal with regard to the Budget. I ask the Government to increase resources for the training of data scientists in Hong Kong. While Hong Kong has failed to do so, the Singapore Government announced two weeks ago that it would cooperate with the National University of Singapore to provide training to 2 000 civil servants each year. The training would at least be provided in five consecutive years and a total of 10 000 civil servants would be trained in Singapore. Why won't Hong Kong adopt similar practice? This is also good for schools. At present, there is a lack of such talent around the world and Singapore knows how to conduct such training.

What matters most is that we must know our weaknesses and admit the weaknesses before we can do something good for the future. I find it most annoying that government officials often measures have been effectively applied. In Singapore, for example, even the Prime Minister often admits his shortcomings, but officials in Hong Kong will definitely not do so. The Prime Minister of Singapore, LEE Hsien Loong, posted on the Internet yesterday that, when he visited the Facebook headquarters last year, he saw their motto: "Move fast and break things", meaning that fast actions should be taken and one should not be afraid of breaking things; they should even act swiftly to break things that should be broken.

I hope that after the next Chief Executive has taken office, she will not just focus on "breaking" her political opponents. But if the Government cannot connect internally, I am worried that no matter what the Government says (The buzzer sounded) … it will not do a good job.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6289

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, this Budget is the first Budget prepared by Mr Paul CHAN, the new Financial Secretary, and I hope it is not his last budget. According to the findings of a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, the rating for this year's Budget is 55.7 and Paul CHAN has attained a higher popularity rating than that when he was the Secretary for Development, meaning that the public's response to this Budget is positive.

I also thank and appreciate the Financial Secretary for preparing a content-rich Budget. However, there is always room for further improvement. We must make continuous effort to move forward and work hard to keep abreast of the times. The Budget basically follows the direction of the Policy Address. President, although the "candies" handed out in this year's Budget has been reduced, from last year's $38.8 billion to $35.1 billion, we have to realize upon careful consideration that the Government needs not "hand out candies" all the time. Work should be done in order of importance and urgency. I think the Government has done a rather good job, but there are a few points I would like to share with the Secretary and perhaps he can pay more attention to them.

A good budget should focus on how resources are distributed in society to take care of various social strata, including the elderly and the youth, the grass roots certainly, and the sandwich class should not be neglected as well. When laying the path for future development of enterprises, the Government should formulate policies to provide assistance and guidelines which is very important. Since Hong Kong's economy relies heavily on finance and trading, it is inevitable that the Government tends to favour the big enterprises. However, small and medium enterprises should not be neglected as they play a very important role in Hong Kong's financial and trading industries. Therefore, as regards the contents of this year's Budget, I wish to share four points with the Financial Secretary. First, respect the elderly and be grateful; second, revitalize the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme; third, support the youth but the youth should also shoulder responsibilities; and fourth, alleviate social dissension and mend the wounds with love and tolerance.

First of all, I support the implementation of a universal retirement protection scheme in principle. The concept is good but how should the scheme be implemented? In respect of the multi-pillar retirement protection model proposed by the Government, which consists of a multi-level social security system, MPF, voluntary savings, as well as other areas of public services, the 6290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 scope and direction are right but refinement is needed. This year, the Government has raised the amount of allowance for the elderly, and provided elderly people aged 65 or above who have financial needs and have passed the means test a monthly cash allowance of $2,565 to subsidize their living expenses. Such initiatives are commendable.

At present, the Old Age Living Allowance benefits over 440 000 people, representing almost 40% of the entire elderly population, but 60% have not been benefited. In this year's Policy Address, it is proposed that a higher tier of assistance will be provided by increasing the above mentioned cash allowance from $2,565 to $3,435. The increase in cash allowance may lead to an increase in public spending, but since the Government has gone so far, it might as well take one more step forward. What I mean is we should respect the elderly and be thankful to them.

Hong Kong's present achievements are attributed to the contributions made by people of the older generations. Since the Government has made the financial commitment, it might as well waive the means test for all people aged 70 or over and provide all of them with $3,435, regardless of their financial situation. It can thus reduce the division in society. In order to receive $3,435, elderly people cannot possess any assets worth more than $144,000. Hence, some elderly people may suffer a big loss trying to get this small gain, as they may hide their assets and contravene the law inadvertently, or worse still, they may give their assets to their children well in advance in order to pass the means test, and their young children may use the money recklessly to buy stocks, eventually losing all the money. Some elderly people, in trying to pass the means test to get $3,435, have lost their savings. A good measure turns out to be a bad one. If so, why can't the Government be generous and provides all elderly people aged 70 or above, be they rich or poor, with an allowance of $3,435. This can help reduce the grievances in the community. People will realize that the Government will respond positively to good advice and it is not a spendthrift.

If we can give the elderly better protection of their livelihood, and at least make advancement step by step, then they need not worry about their future, and young people also need not worry about their future living. If so, who will benefit in the end? There is a saying that by 2035, almost every young person will be responsible for taking care of two elderly persons, which is a great pressure and a heavy burden. We should not be so short-sighted. When our LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6291 parents are called back by God, they cannot bring their money with them to heaven but leave it all to their children. Hence, we have nothing to worry about.

Second, I would like to talk about revitalizing MPF.

Financial Secretary, we all have to make contributions to MPF. I do not care how much money I have in my MPF account, while many others do not have the time to manage their accounts. Our contributions to MPF are managed by a third party, the fund manager. He may use it to speculate on stocks or buy funds and in the end he may tell me, "Sorry, all your money is lost." In 2015, the MPF scheme recorded a negative return rate, the worst since the financial tsunami. If my money is managed by a fund manager and he does not do a good job, the loss will be borne by me. Hence, why not revitalize MPF? For example, after contributing to the MPF account for years, I can draw some money from the account when I reach 40 to take out medical insurance. As the money has already been paid, I can use it to take out insurance with higher amount of sum insured, the annual premium may range from a few thousand dollars to $10,000, and the sum insured may amount to $10 million. In this way, I can have the protection and at the same time the pressure on the public health care system can be reduced. This can kill two birds with one stone and is beneficial to everyone.

Also, if I have a few hundred thousand dollars in my MPF account, can I use it to pay the down payment of a flat? Although the amount is not enough, at least it gives me a hope, and to me, this is a practical benefit. I do not want to use my MPF contributions to invest in some funds with a return rate of only 1%, 2% or 3%. The money is mine and since the Government makes it mandatory for me to save up for my future life, if I can come up with two good reasons, such as invest for the protection of my health to take out medical insurance, or buy a flat for myself or my next generation, the Government should let me decide how I use my MPF contributions as long as the reasons are good and valid.

Third, support young people. Education is very important because young people are the pillars of society in future. One day, they will take up the responsibility of administering society. The current funding on education constitutes 21% of the Government's recurrent expenditure. Some people criticize that this ratio is too small. But no matter how much is spent on education, it will never be enough. Even if the Government allocates all resources to education, it will still be insufficient. The money should be wisely and appropriately spent. We must be generous but not be wasteful. Hong Kong already provides 15 years of free education and provides subsidy to cover 6292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 the tuition fees of three years of kindergarten. Nowadays, the tuition fee of kindergartens is $4,000 a month, amounting to several ten thousand dollars a year. The Hong Kong Government has generously provided subsidy. Free education cover six years of primary school, and six years of junior and senior secondary schools. Children in Hong Kong can enjoy 15 years of free education, which is a meritorious policy.

Now I would like to talk about the University Grants Committee ("UGC"). For 20 years, UGC has borne 80% of the tuition fees of all university students. What has gone wrong? The Government has already provided students with huge subsidies for their first 15 years of education, should students pay more for their four years of university education? On average, the tuition fee of a university arts student is about $220,000 a year, and 80% of it, around $170,000 to $180,000, is subsidized by UGC using taxpayers' money. A university student only needs to pay the remaining $40,000, about the same as the kindergarten school fee.

However, university students now complain that they have great financial difficulties. They have to apply for student loans and once they graduate, they have to repay the loan which is a great burden to them. According to them, the Government should give them a flat and a good job right after they graduate, but if the workplace is on the other side of the Shenzhen River, then give the job to someone else. It would be best if the office is right next to where they live. Do we want this kind of students? What I want to say is that students must shoulder responsibilities. UGC has not stopped providing subsidies for 20 years, and I think university students should at least have to bear 25% of their tuition fees. Hence they would understand that acclimatization is needed before they enter into society. They are no longer children. When they were small, their parents, fearing that they could not chew properly, cut up the food into small pieces and spoon fed them. This kind of love has actually caused harm. In the end, we still have to provide for our children when they are 70. We require our young people to shoulder responsibilities.

Fourth, love and tolerance. We love but we do not spoil. We tolerate but not indulgent. What do I mean? In this year's Policy Address, it is stated in paragraph 134 that "[t]he Government will gradually replace most of the electricity generated from coal-fired plants with cleaner energy by 2030", and in paragraph 135, it is stated that the Government has completed energy audits of over 200 government buildings, and will encourage private building owners to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6293 make use of various tax concessions or loan schemes to procure energy saving installations. I think it is necessary to do so. In particular, since at present the rooftop structures of most small houses in the New Territories are illegally built, if this policy works well, the indigenous people or occupiers of those houses will have the incentive to procure solar power generation facilities and they can enjoy some extra space, the result will be desirable. That is the true meaning of love and tolerance.

Moreover, if we do not love our country, society and our fellow people, who else do we love? I read a piece of news yesterday about a passenger of the United Airlines being dragged out of the plane by force. Was it the American spirit or the world spirit? I think the world needs more tolerance. According to the Chinese standard, tolerance is a virtue, and one should "respect the elderly in their family and extend the same respect to those in other families; take care of their children and extend the same care to those of others". I hope that we can do better in this respect.

Thank you, President.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN took office on 16 January this year and delivered the first Budget in his term of office about one month later, which is also the last Budget of the current Government. I notice that the Financial Secretary said in his speech on that day that "my endeavour is to make use of the wealth we have accumulated together through hard work to take care of the needy in the society, ease the heavy burden of middle-class families, and make appropriate investments essential for building a better Hong Kong".

I think this Budget has "made progress while maintaining stability". In particular, the middle class, which has always been neglected in previous budgets, is finally mentioned in this Budget. It can be said that the Government is finally accountable to the middle class. I will speak on the education measures mentioned in the Budget and then express my views on some issues of concern to the community recently.

President, while the investment in the stock market reflects our confidence in the future economy, the investment in the education system reflects the Government's determination to make human resources plans for the future. In 6294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 this Budget, the Government has introduced some measures to optimize the education system in Hong Kong, which include increasing subsidies for kindergarten education and vocational education, and injecting $1.5 billion into the Continuing Education Fund. These measures will definitely help resolve some long-standing education problems.

However, as I said earlier in the policy debate, education problems are intricate and complicated, involving different interactive areas which cannot be resolved by stopgap measures. It is a pity that, just like the latest Policy Address, this year's Budget has prescribed gentle and conservative medicines for treating the problems of our education system. The medication is simply not strong enough. There is a television advertisement promoting constantly that "if we stay healthy, medicine boxes can be turned into jewellery boxes". However, we do not want the Government to turn "jewellery boxes into medicine boxes".

For example, in respect of kindergarten education, the Budget proposes implementing the free quality kindergarten education policy to replace the previous Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme. The Government's annual expenditure will increase by $2.7 billion. Yet, we should be aware that the so-called free kindergarten education is not entirely free because parents of students in whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens still have to pay high tuition fees. The Education Bureau has refused to include whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens in the free kindergarten scheme. This decision is not due to the amount of money involved, but the rigid bureaucratic principle upheld by officials of the Education Bureau, who think that half-day early childhood education can already achieve the goal of early childhood education. They have neglected that policies should be considered from a humanistic perspective. In fact, many parents from grass-roots families arrange their children to attend whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens so that they can go out to work to support the family. Therefore, free early childhood education is financially very important to these families. Hence, I hope the Government will really be people-oriented and seriously consider the full implementation of 15-year free education to provide more whole-day and long whole-day kindergarten places, so that all students can really be benefited.

President, apart from free school places, it is also very important to have adequate school premises. We have recently learnt from the press that a kindergarten has decided to close down as it cannot afford the hefty rental increase. Many anxious parents thus have to go around finding another LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6295 kindergarten for their children, suffering from great physical and mental stress. I hope the Government can attach importance to sites for education purposes and ensure that sufficient land is allocated for use as kindergarten premises. For example, it can increase government-owned kindergarten premises in public housing estates and reserve land in the course of new town planning and explore the possibility of making similar arrangements in private estates.

In addition to early childhood education, we have all along shown great concern about the educational needs of children with special educational needs ("SEN") and ethnic minority children. For many years, DAB has made a number of proposals such as setting up an inter-bureaux and inter-departmental platform to coordinate the policies on medical and educational services required by SEN students at different stages. Unfortunately, the new Budget only provides about $600 million to support SEN children and their parents, and not much is mentioned about providing assistance to ethnic minority children and their parents, which is rather disappointing. We hope the Government will accept our proposals and provide additional support to these needy students.

The Government's commitment in tertiary education is also insufficient. We hope that the Government will continuously increase its investment in university education, such as further increasing the number of university subsidized places and subsidized bridging places, and broadening the global vision of the younger generation by providing opportunities for exchanges and internships in the Mainland and overseas, so as to enhance their competitiveness.

President, having discussed education, I would also like to talk about the fiscal surplus. Each year, the prime concern about the budget is the amount of fiscal surplus and how the Government is going to use the surplus or whether it will remain a miser. This year's fiscal surplus is an amazing sum of $92.8 billion and the fiscal reserve has accumulated to $935.7 billion. Since the Government's coffers are overflowing, it should more vigorously help the disadvantaged. The Financial Secretary stated in paragraph 184 of the Budget that "the Budget is not just a collection of cold and hard figures. It also indicates the priorities set by the Government in resource allocation, reflecting the values we hold." Unfortunately, although the Government's fiscal surplus this year hit a new high, the fruit of economic development shared with the public is $3.7 billion less than last year. For example, rent waiver to public rental housing tenants and electricity charges subsidies are not provided. Allowances benefiting most people including personal allowance, allowances for dependent 6296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 parents, grandparents and children have not been adjusted. Is the practice of being more miserly with more money the fiscal management value of the Government? Although this Budget has introduced measures for assisting the middle class such as expanding the tax band, which is worthy of support, it has evidently made inadequate efforts in promoting the redistribution of wealth.

President, a well-known scrooge in history was YANG Jian, Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty. According to historical records, he was very miserly though some people said he was frugal; he wore worn-out clothes with holes in it mended. Under his rule for decades, the Sui Dynasty had full coffers and overflowing granaries. But in the later years of YANG Jian, when the country suffered from natural disasters, crop failures and famine, he was so misery that he still refused to provide grains to the people from the granaries; he would rather have the food rotten than giving them to the public. Finally, the Sui Dynasty was overthrown. This historical incident taught us that prudent governance of a country and fiscal management are essential and miserly behaviours are unacceptable. At present, despite having a fiscal reserve of over $900 billion in our coffers, the number of poor people is increasing. Nevertheless, the Government has implemented fewer poverty alleviation measures and no benefits have been given to the "N have-nots" households. I hope the Government can reflect on this and avoid making officials rich but people poor.

President, I would also like to talk about the public annuity scheme which has just been introduced. The Financial Secretary has followed up in the Budget on the public annuity scheme proposed by the Chief Executive in his Policy Address. A few days ago, the Board of Directors of the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited agreed in principle to launch a lifelong annuity scheme to provide the elderly with another financial management option, allowing retirees to invest a lump sum in exchange for a stable monthly income until their death.

President, I would like to declare again that I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited and have participated in the discussions of this scheme and the decision making process. As a member of the Board, I will certainly abide strictly by the confidentiality principle and will not disclose any specific contents or details. But as a Legislative Council Member, I sincerely hope that the SAR Government will be able to launch in the middle of next year this attractive and financially sustainable lifelong annuity scheme so that middle-class elderly people can enjoy their twilight years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6297

President, lastly, I would like to discuss the housing issue. Though the Financial Secretary previously served as the Secretary for Development, it seems that he cannot do anything in the Budget to increase housing supply and solve housing problems. The Government can only repeatedly implement demand management measures such as "curb measures" to discourage home buying by the public. In order to give some distant hope to the people, the Government has set out the number of flats to be constructed in the next 5 to 10 years, attempting to cool down the public's home buying desire with a post-dated cheque. Unfortunately, though the current Government has tried its best, the housing problem not only remained unresolved in the past five years, it has conversely aggravated as reflected in the longer waiting time for public housing allocation and the ever-increasing prices of private buildings.

While the current Government has continuously proposed the construction of additional housing and introduced "curb measures", the property market is still exuberant. With the participation of Mainland people in land tendering, land price has become more and more expensive; even the "flour" price exceeds $20,000 per square foot, which is really astonishing. I sincerely hope that the current Government and the next Government will be able to suit the remedy to the case and introduce really effective measures to bring our property market back to a healthy track.

President, I so submit.

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): President, the vision for society as referred to by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now is actually also my vision for society. As such, I will not speak further on the Budget, for what vision can we have for this Budget?

For the past several years, LEUNG Chun-ying grumbled that since John TSANG was at odds with him, financial resources were withheld in most cases, such that he was unable to give full play to his abilities, and our fiscal reserves could not be put to proper uses. Now that a lackey of his has become the Financial Secretary, what about the Budget presented to us by him? It is actually the same. For this reason, can we still have any expectations on governance and the Budget presented by the current-term Government or even the next-term Government?

6298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

My decision to participate in politics is driven by the conditions of many disadvantaged groups in society: elderly people are living in poverty; the grass roots have to pay exorbitant rents for living in subdivided units with miserable conditions and they are in dire straits; and school children have a difficult life facing the tremendous examination pressure.

In fact, to rectify the aforesaid problems, only a small amount of funding will suffice. If the Government makes certain changes in its policies, such as seriously implementing universal retirement protection, facilitating ageing in the community, improving our education system, continuing to provide support to the grass roots, and increasing the subsidies provided to the "N have-nots", the amount required will not be substantial, but the livelihood of the grass roots will be improved within a short period of time. It will be more desirable if we can implement a bazaar policy, the funding required is likewise not significant, but the grass roots can lead a happier life.

The current-term Legislative Council has operated for about six months, and I have, after having read the Budget, realized that the Government is actually run by a bunch of "able persons" with "superb" capabilities. Why do I say so? These people can turn a blind eye to all the miseries and human tragedies in society. They can forget the teachings of the sages and men of virtues they have learnt since childhood and implement measures what will widen the wealth gap, exploit the poor to subsidize the rich and create human tragedies.

Hong Kong is an affluent society, and every year the Government has a huge fiscal surplus and abundant revenues, enabling it to "hand out candies". The "candies" they handed out can be rates concession amounting to over $10 billion, thus making the rich richer. The "candies" can be reduction of salaries tax and profits tax, thus enabling the wealthy to lead a better life. That said, subsidies for the grass roots and the "N have-nots" have been slashed to some $260 million, which they still consider substantial and must be reduced. Yet, the "candies" offered to the wealthy can easily amount to few ten billion dollars.

These "able persons" are really superb in the sense that they can bury their conscience, confound right and wrong, and create human tragedies. We ask them why subsidies for the "N have-nots" are slashed; their reply is that the subsidies are not needed. We ask them why housing subsidies for the grass roots are not increased given that the existing amounts of subsidies can hardly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6299 meet their needs; the reply is that an increase in the subsidy will only benefit the landlords. It is true that they do not want the landlords to benefit, but in the process, the grass roots will also benefit. If they want to benefit landlords, they would rather directly offer rates concession to benefit the landlords, particularly big landlords. Such are the values they uphold.

Witnessing the suffering of elderly people and the poor conditions of community residential care homes for the elderly, these "able persons" claim that urgent improvement is not required and improvement works can be carried out progressively according to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"). According to HKPSG, however, only 14 out of every 1 000 elderly people can enjoy community care services in the long run. In the face of these problems, they remain calm and insist on their ways. They expend a large sum of public money on "white elephant" projects. According to the marking criteria of the tendering exercise, the life of workers surprisingly only takes up 3 points out of 100 in total! In other words, they expend an astronomical amount of public money at the expense of the life of the grass roots. That is what they have been doing. What expectations can we still have on the Budget?

As such, I have a better understanding as to why senior officials ask for a significant pay rise, for without a high salary, it will be indeed difficult to find some "able persons" who―though I believe the number of them is small―abuse power for personal benefits, exploit the poor to subsidize the rich, and confound right and wrong, are willing to take up such posts, so as to continuously aggravate the extreme miseries of the grass roots in society, and enable the wealthy to earn even more when they are already leading a very comfortable life. If they are not "able persons", they can hardly bury their conscience to such an extent, and probably for this reason, senior officials deserve a significant pay rise.

In the last paragraph of the Budget, Paul CHAN indicated that he strongly believes that Hong Kong people have the courage, wisdom and ability to overcome all difficulties, and together, we can rise to challenges ahead and scale new heights, while sustaining the legend of Hong Kong. To whom does this legend belong? It belongs to this group of "able persons" and plutocrats. This legend is created at the expense of the hard work and life of the grass roots and workers as well as the continuous extreme miseries of elderly people and the grass roots. Such a legend is not what we need! Such a legend does not belong to Hong Kong people!

6300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

In an ideal society that belongs to Hong Kong people, everyone should live happily, the wealth gap should be narrowed, and the grass roots and elderly people can live a decent life. However, this is not a vision of these "able persons". The so-called sustained legend created by them enables them to continue to get the upper hand and earn much more money that is basically dispensable or is merely the icing on the cake.

For this reason, what expectations can we still have on the Budget? What expectations can we still have on the current-term Government or even the next-term Government? We can actually say nothing in reply.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has announced his first Budget. A total of 31 paragraphs in the Budget serve as an endorsement of the current Government's financial philosophy, and no new policy ideas have been introduced. According to Paul CHAN, he was born poor and he would traffic opium for 10 cents when he was a child; he would do everything to move upward. This was what he said when he was interviewed by the media. It is true that living in poverty is indeed very painful but his sufferings yesterday should not be used as an excuse for his being so unscrupulous today. He has given up the interests of Hong Kong people for the sake of his personal well-being and power. This is our Financial Secretary Paul CHAN.

When he was a Member, he had criticized the Budget for tilting too much towards the middle class and lacking the long-term vision and planning for social development. He believed that there should be strategic support for social development, such as poverty alleviation, increasing the work incomes of the elderly or employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, and he opposed "handing out candies" year after year. But after Paul CHAN has taken up the office of the Financial Secretary, he has changed completely, and his prime concern is to give large property developers and Mainland contractors advantages. This is a classic example of "the butt commanding the head". As he only needs to serve the interests groups represented by several hundred members of the Election Committee who had followed the command of "Grandpa" and voted for LEUNG Chun-ying and Carrie LAM, he will naturally allow the Budget to tilt seriously towards them. Deep-seated contradictions such as wealth gap and high property prices have not been proactively resolved; the Budget is conservative and sticks in old ways.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6301

It is stated in paragraph 43 of the Budget that "expenditure growth of the current-term Government is considerable"; actually, there are considerable expenditure growth on infrastructure projects but expenditure on people's livelihood has contracted. The infrastructure expenditure this year has increased by more than $30 billion, and reaches up to $107.2 billion but the welfare expenditure has only increased by $9.5 billion, of which $6.5 billion is spent on the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"). For 20 years since the handover of sovereignty, infrastructure expenditure has substantially increased by 291% and it has become the largest expenditure item of the Government. But the cumulative increase in education expenditure is only about 73% in the past 20 years, much lower than the rate of increase in our neighbouring economies; the respective rate of increase is 115% in Taiwan, 228% in South Korea and 183% in Singapore. Infrastructure has become a black hole for public money and human lives; 10 workers lost their lives at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Many Hong Kong people have asked me if this is worthy to develop infrastructure. Why has the Government constructed "white elephant" projects that cannot benefit the grass roots but not invested the money in improving people's livelihood? I cannot answer this question. I am saddened by how this city develops.

The Government often says that Hong Kong relies heavily on revenues from land sales, but can the sale of land at high prices really help the public? At present, the revenues from land sales can only be allocated to the Capital Works Reserve Fund, which can only be used for constructing large-scale infrastructures. After the completion of the infrastructures, property prices and commodities prices will be pushed up; and on the other hand, serious cost overruns have sapped government reserves, and the Government has to identify more land or put up more land for sale to pay the overruns. As a result, residents are forced to relocate, the ecological environment is damaged and property prices and commodity prices are pushed up further. That is the operation of the "infrastructure revolving door", which also exposes the sad tragedy of this city: the transfer of interests among bigwigs. While the bigwigs get filthy rich, Hong Kong people have to pay a high price in terms of money and land. It seems that we are living in a place with a low tax rate; but do we know that we are actually paying very heavy taxes? We are paying an indirect tax known as land tax, which has drained the hard earned money of Hong Kong people.

Paul CHAN has also stressed that it is important for a responsible government to ensure that the relevant expenditure is financially sustainable. However, the increase in infrastructure expenditure is precisely running contrary 6302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 to this concept. The amount of infrastructure overruns in recent years has been difficult to anticipate and supplementary provisions create very unstable factors affecting public finances. In case of another financial crisis, it will be difficult for the Government to immediately reduce infrastructure expenditure. In the end, it will only adopt the practice in 2002 and reduce public housing construction, reduce Comprehensive Social Security Assistance allowances and sell shopping malls of public housing estates, etc. Ordinary people will not be benefited when the economy is good but they will bear the brunt when there is a financial crisis. This can be clearly seen from the Government's continuous infrastructure development.

In the past 10 years, the Government gave out "candies" worth of $320 billion, of which 67% were given to taxpayers and business organizations. If the Government used $100 billion to set up a seed fund for universal retirement protection, it would greatly improve the protection for the elderly in Hong Kong. The Government claims that it does not have money, but this is only a lie that the Government has been telling to evade its responsibilities for the disadvantaged.

On the one hand, in the name of "big market, small government", the Government has been stingy in respect of implementing universal retirement protection, regularizing allowances for the "N have-nots", providing affordable housing, and replacing lump sum grant for education and welfare with regular provisions; on the other hand, it gives the green light to infrastructure projects including building railways and bridges, conducting activities to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to our Motherland, providing allowances to promote Basic Law education and Chinese history teaching, as well as organizing various Mainland exchange programmes for students. Various interests will be transferred so long as things are done according to the will of the plutocrats and the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). According to the Government's reply to a Member's question on the Budget, the Government will spend a total of $640 million to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to our Motherland. I cannot help but ask what are we going to celebrate for spending $640 million? Do we celebrate that a compatriot in Hong Kong has returned to the Mainland on a "shampoo boat"? Is there democracy in Hong Kong? Are Hong Kong people living and working in contentment? "While meat is left rotten in rich men's homes, thousands of people are freezing to death in the streets"; the Government is only good at whitewashing, there has been serious social retrogression in the 20 years since the handover of sovereignty. We need reviews but not celebrations at this time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6303

To put it bluntly, it is most pathetic that the Government has arbitrarily moved the goalpost. For policies that are favourable to property developers and CPC, the Government fully exploits its powers to pressurize people. Yet, for policies which affect those with vested interests but bring benefits to people's livelihood, the Government refuses to implement on the pretext of prudent financial management.

I have asked some students what they would like to do after graduation. I find that their answers given in the first year is very different from those given in the final year. These young people do have dreams and they do want to pursue further studies, start up business and work, but they have gradually found that there are a lot of constraints and the Government has not provided resources and policies to improve the environment.

Our industries are still very homogeneous and there is a very strict social hierarchy. Hence many occupations are not well-respected and valued by the community and the Government. For those who want to pursue artistic and musical development, the Government has been very slow in formulating industrial building policies, and the West Kowloon Cultural District has even become a replica of the Forbidden City. For those young people who want to set up small businesses to sell snacks and hand-made products, how will they have enough capital to spend over $1 million to operate food trucks? The formulation of a bazaar policy has been stalled by the Government and the proposal of having one-stop application process has not been duly followed up by the Government. For those who want to become athletes and bring honour to Hong Kong, venues such as the Kitchee Centre for football training and the Wan Chai Sports Ground will soon be resumed by the Government. Given high rents and the Government's vigorous promotion of urban renewal, diversified industries can hardly be promoted. Creative and innovative young people are hit hard by reality before they make the first step forward. The Government has simply not seriously examined the conditions required to nurture an outstanding younger generation and the supporting resources required to improve the conditions.

In this Budget, the Government claims that it will actively advocate a culture of multi-faceted excellence and will inject $200 million into the Multi-faceted Excellence Scholarship to support local students who excel in areas other than academic performance, for example, sports, arts or community services in pursuing undergraduate studies. It will also allocate an additional 6304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

$100 million to expand the International Youth Exchange Programme to encourage young people to increase their global exposure and broaden their international horizons.

It is of course highly desirable that the Government is willing to subsidize students with different talents to pursue undergraduate studies but the Government often practices favouritism in the allocation of resources. As pointed out by Dr LAU Siu-lai, the Funding Scheme for Youth Exchange in the Mainland and the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland under the Home Affairs Bureau will be allocated $41 million and $71 million respectively in the coming year. However, the recurrent provision for the International Youth Exchange Programme is only $6 million and there is a seven-fold difference between the two.

As provisions for Mainland exchanges far exceed that for international exchanges, coupled with the fact that Mainland exchange activities are mostly organized by groups with communist background such as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, the public will wonder whether the Government is transferring interests or instilling patriotism through soft approaches. Similar approaches are also found in the Government's Mainland University Study Subsidy Scheme, which still has an $86 million approved funding commitment, and there is a further $150 million approved funding commitment for the Pilot Scheme on Promoting Interflows between Sister Schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland. The Government is providing considerable subsidies to encourage young people to study in the Mainland but it has been miserly in respect of local education, and it is undoubtedly driving people to go elsewhere. It seems the Government is telling young people in Hong Kong that if they want to stay in Hong Kong and enrol in self-financing courses, they will waste a few years' time and incur debts of more than $100,000. International vision which was emphasized in the past seems to be not important now as the Government would rather spend money to send young people back to the Mainland. How ridiculous this policy is!

In addition to education and employment, another blind spot in the youth policy of the Government is ignoring the participation of young people in social movement. From the anti-national education movement in 2012, the students' boycott of classes and the Umbrella Movement in 2014, as well as the Legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6305

Council Election in 2016, we have witnessed young people's increasing concern about democratic elections and people's livelihood; they were no longer politically apathetic and they were no longer "economic animals". Nevertheless, government policies and resources have failed to meet the political demands of young people or encourage them to participate in social affairs. The composition of the Commission on Youth is a case in point. Only 4 of the 31 members are aged between 20 and 30. It can be said that the Commission is not even a political vase.

If government officials continue to treat young people disdainfully; if government structure and system continue to exclude young people's participation, and if the Government continues to turn a blind eye to issues such as young people's strive for democracy, academic pressures and their failure to find a way out, then we cannot blame young people for going to the streets and participating in protests; some have even desperately ended their lives. Things have changed and young people have unique ideas; we should take on board their views, understand and accept their ideas, and should no longer adopt a traditional perspective to perceive the ever-changing things.

Recently, a movie on emotional illness titled Mad World has been widely discussed at the Hong Kong Film Awards and the community as the movie can aptly reflect the current situation in Hong Kong. Someone in the movie asked a mental patient, "Can you be more normal?" This is rather ironic. Our society is often asking people to be more normal: study normally and find a job normally; and some even say if one works normally, he can save enough money to buy a flat; and if he works hard normally for some time, he can see the bright future.

Nonetheless, have we ever considered that our society has been distorted and deformed? To ask people who are under severe pressure to be normal and ask them to conform to the community's stereotype of young people will undoubtedly cause harm to them. In fact, abnormal behaviour may be a way to protect ourselves in an abnormal society. For example, a child asked another question in the movie: Why do flowers wither no matter how we plant them? If we want flowers not to wither, finding the right soil is very important. In other words, if the soil is unsuitable, no matter how much effort we make in planting, flowers may wither. People often say that Hong Kong is dead; have we and the Government made the best efforts to create the right soil?

6306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Many people have said that the filibustering Members are creating trouble and they are just wasting time in proposing so many amendments. However, if we can tell what problems are present in Hong Kong, we should understand that what I have been saying just now is the current situation of Hong Kong. Yet, if the Budget which totally fails to solve the problems is welcomed by all of us and can be passed, I think the whole society is creating trouble and has problems. We will bury the future of Hong Kong together.

I speak to oppose the Budget. We should no longer deceive ourselves, saying that everything is normal outside. I believe that it is time for us to stop for a while and face the reality.

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, you have been sitting here these two days listening to the Budget debate. Members have spoken on many areas, including health care, education, housing, development, the economy, and so on, but I wonder if you have noticed an area which Members have probably not mentioned. The Director of Bureau for that area sat in this Chamber for a while last night, but I have not seen him today. I am referring to the area of environmental protection which a couple of Members have mentioned earlier. Why do I have to talk about environmental policies now? If Members have read through the entire Budget, they will find that there is not one single paragraph on environmental policies. Let me take this opportunity to briefly comment on the work of the Environment Bureau over the past five years.

I am not saying that the Secretary for the Environment is very lazy or the Government has done nothing in implementing environmental policies. In fact, the Secretary has done two things which have far-reaching implications. First, he has spent almost $11 billion to replace a total of 80 000 Euro I, Euro II and Euro III and pre-Euro goods vehicles in Hong Kong to improve the roadside air quality. Second, he has taken forward the work of "three landfills and one incinerator" and the construction of an incinerator has commenced. Why do I have to mention these two matters in particular? President, I think the Government has introduced contradictory measures in implementing these two policies.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6307

Dr CHENG Chung-tai said earlier that the Budget this year has retrogressed significantly in the work on environmental protection, and one of the examples was the reduction of tax waiver for electric cars. Dr CHENG has considered the problem from a political perspective or on the basis of a conspiracy theory. As the Steering Committee on the Promotion of Electric Vehicles was led by former Financial Secretary John TSANG, Dr CHENG questioned whether the tax waiver reduction was Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying's attempt to fix John TSANG. I do not endorse such a view. I think the Environment Bureau is really quite miserable; it is just like a piece of green artificial turf to cover up the blunders of public policies for the Government. Cutting the tax waiver for electric cars is a case in point. If the Government uses $11 billion to replace old diesel vehicles, why should it reduce the tax waiver for electric cars? That is simply a big retrogression in policy implementation.

What is the reason for that? President, let us first consider how many electric cars there are in Hong Kong. The answer is fewer than 8 000. What will happen if there is a tax waiver? What will be the effects? At most, there will be 1 000 to 2 000 more electric cars running on the roads, and even if the number is doubled, there will only be a total of 14 000 electric cars. Why does the Government have to cut the tax waiver? According to the Policy Bureau led by Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, there are too many vehicles in Hong Kong. I agree, but does it mean that the Government should retrogress in environmental protection? Even if the public do not buy electric cars, they will buy other luxurious cars. Reducing the tax waiver for electric cars cannot solve the problem of an increasing number of vehicles; it is just a slap on the face of Secretary WONG Kam-sing. While I support the Government's measure of spending $11 billion to replace the diesel vehicles, I fail to understand why the tax waiver for electric cars, which does not cost much, has to be aborted? This proves that the Environment Bureau is really a piece of artificial turf used to cover up blunders of the SAR Government.

Next, Dr Junius HO said earlier that the roofs of many small houses in villages of the New Territories had not been utilized. He asked the Government to subsidize villagers to install solar panels on their roofs. The suggestion is nothing new. In the Mainland, the Golden Sun programme was introduced in 2009, under which the Government subsidized the installation of solar panels on roofs. The initiative is environmentally friendly, reduces electricity charges and helps promote the development of environmental industries. What has Hong 6308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Kong done so far in this respect? At present, we are only talking about installing solar panels at reservoirs and on roofs. The Mainland has taken many steps ahead of us. If we want to develop renewable power but aim at increasing its ratio from 1% to 2%, the pace will be too slow. If we rely solely on the Environment Bureau to do the environmental work, the current problems will not be solved even if Hong Kong becomes highly polluted or is littered with rubbish.

As I said earlier, the waste reduction policy of the Government includes building an incinerator. Many people wonder if the Government's incentive or determination to reduce waste will weaken upon the commissioning of the incinerator. I think the answer is probably in the negative because the Government has proposed a waste charging scheme in the Budget. Many members of the public told me that they supported waste charging in principle, but the excessively high charges would exert a heavy burden on the grass roots and they also wondered how the Government would deal with the problem of illegal waste disposal. When Taiwan implemented waste charging back then, a strange phenomenon had arisen. Some employees took domestic waste to their workplace for disposal in order to save money. What will happen in Hong Kong when waste charging is implemented? I anticipate that bags of domestic waste will be illegally dumped in private residential buildings or the rural areas. If waste charging is introduced before such problems are solved, it will not be effective.

At present, there is a surplus of $900-odd billion in the Government coffers. If the Government levies charges to reduce waste, the public are willing to pay, but the Government should use the money collected to subsidize environmental industries and not deposit the money into the "big reservoir", i.e. the coffers. For a similar reason, many people have strong views on the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags. While the amount of levy collected at $0.5 per plastic bag has gone to the coffers, the Government has not done anything for or provided any assistance to the environmental industries. From another perspective, the environmental levy is similar to a punitive measure. Instead of punishing the public, can the Government provide incentives to encourage waste reduction? For example, if members of the public can reduce or recycle their domestic waste to a certain amount, they will receive waivers for water charges, electricity charges or rates. I believe such methods will surely be more effective than the proposed waste charging scheme. More people will participate in waste reduction and problems of illegal waste disposal that I mentioned earlier will not be so rampant because people will have a strong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6309 incentive to recycle waste. Secretary, one should not consider a problem from only one perspective; various aspects should be taken into consideration. Apart from punishments, rewards should also be offered.

That is all I want to say about environmental protection. Let me talk about my overall impression on the Budget. Today, many pro-establishment Members and pro-democracy Members have expressed the view that this Budget is rather stingy. I agree. While the Government often says that it has to help the most needy people, it seems that this Budget has not offered help to those in need. The "N have-nots" and the disadvantaged query why the Government has not proposed any measures to help them get out of their predicaments. With a fiscal surplus of $900-odd billion, the "cake" is getting bigger and bigger, why then does the Government not give some crumbs to the "N have-nots"? Why do these people have to pay high rents? Why not lower the age for means test exemption for "fruit grant" applicants to 65? In fact, the SAR Government really has to consider these questions. Money should be spent appropriately and it is meaningless to keep money only in the coffers.

I also wish to point out a number of fallacies made in the speeches delivered by some pro-democracy Members earlier. Mr Nathan LAW mentioned the "infrastructure revolving door" and the "white elephant" infrastructure projects. According to him, infrastructure development led to higher property and land prices, bringing sufferings to the grass roots. I hope Mr Nathan LAW will seriously consider the logic of his statement. While I criticize the Government for not doing enough to help the poor, I do not oppose the Government's implementation of infrastructure projects. The opposition Members and the pro-democracy Members have based their arguments on a fallacy, saying that the Government's funding is used for infrastructure development instead of assisting the grass roots. Therefore, the Government should not develop infrastructure and they have to oppose the Budget by means of filibustering.

This kind of reasoning is totally wrong. Yesterday Mr KWONG Chun-yu said that many grass-roots families lived in small subdivided units without getting any help from the Government. However, the incomes of many grass-roots families come from the construction sector. In other words, if there are infrastructure projects, people will get employed and can earn money to support their families. Imagine what will happen if the pro-democracy Members filibuster incessantly. President, how many public works projects has the 6310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Finance Committee approved so far? How much funding have we approved? Incessant filibustering by the pro-democracy Members has impeded people from working and making a living. Have these Members considered that many workers have to work to support their families? Who will help the grass roots if they have no money to pay rent and buy food?

Therefore, while I agree with the opposition Members that the Budget has offered too little help to the grass roots, I think these Members are somewhat hypocritical. Have they thought of the livelihood of other people when they filibuster? With a fiscal surplus, the Government can implement infrastructure projects as well as help the grass roots. These are two different matters which should not be treated as one. A Member asked the Government earlier, "Can you be more normal?" which is a line in a movie. I also want to ask the pro-democracy Members if they can be more normal and stop filibustering. Can they allow infrastructure projects be approved more quickly? Can they be more normal and stop being so hypocritical?

President, we have to help the grass roots, but we cannot spend money recklessly. This point was made by a Member yesterday and I will not repeat now. Instead, I will give an example. If the Government "hands out a candy" to the residents of North District, I believe they would rather the Government improve the outbound traffic of North District because the majority of local residents have to travel a long way to work. If the Government wants to help residents of North District, it should do a good job in providing community facilities and a good transport and road network. It should not simply hand out money; instead it should also solve livelihood problems. Sometimes, doing a good job in building infrastructure is even better than "handing out candies", but if the Government can do both, it will earn hearty applause.

In my view, this year's Budget has inadequacies, but it marks a good beginning. I also hope that under the leadership of the new Chief Executive, the Government of the next term will have new thoughts on public finance management. President, let me quote another line in a movie, "rather take a step forward than come to a standstill". I hope that the Government of the new term can let the grass roots see hope.

With these remarks, President, I support the Budget.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6311

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I will talk about the areas on education, the environment and conservation covered in the Budget. I have submitted a Committee stage amendment ("CSA") to the Appropriation Bill 2017 ("the Bill"), proposing to deduct the salaries of the Secretary for Education for three months. The reason is very simple. I think the Secretary's performance is highly ineffective during his term of office which has infuriated the public, and he should be held responsible.

The Education Bureau has cheated the public in the implementation of free kindergarten education. The promise of providing 15 years of free education has not been materialized. At present, the Government has only fully subsidized the tuition fees of about 80% of students in half-day kindergartens. The remaining 20% of students in these kindergartens and 45 000 students of whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens still have to pay tuition fees. If we consolidate the figures, 40% of students in the non-profit-making local kindergartens across the territory have to pay tuition fees. As such, the promise of providing 15-year free education is just cheating the public. The Education Bureau has ignored the demands of society and failed to give full subsidies to whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens. Despite many dissenting voices, the Education Bureau insists on the current arrangement and completely disregards the needs of parents and students of whole-day kindergartens. It has no regard for the visions of whole-day education.

If the Government subsidizes whole-day kindergartens, more women can take up employment after sending their children to kindergartens, thereby unleashing the potential of women workforce. The fact that no subsidy is provided for whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens runs counter to the vision of unleashing the potential of women workforce as advocated by the Government in recent years.

According to our estimation, if the Government provides full subsidies to whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens, an additional $1.1 billion will be incurred each year at most. Given that the Government has a huge surplus at present, shouldn't it ponder on its decision to refuse investing in kindergarten education just to save $1.1 billion.

I now talk about the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). Many Members have voiced their objections time and again and actually, Members from all parties have unanimously objected to the resumption of TSA. Despite 6312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 the waves of dissenting voices, the Education Bureau insisted on extending the so-called Research Study and renamed it as the Basic Competency Assessment ("BCA"). As we all know, this arrangement is just old wine in a new bottle. The nature of BCA is no different from TSA. The claim that BCA questions will be easier will not reduce the incentive for drilling at all. Back then, TSA questions became increasingly difficult because the questions were set long ago and no changes could be made. BCA questions may be less difficult, but when more and more students can meet the requirements and the Education Bureau finds it difficult to tell which students perform better, it may gradually make BCA questions more difficult. Eventually, students cannot avoid drilling.

Many parents and students have expressed the misery of excessive drilling, but the Government was obstinate and refused to allow parents to decide whether their children will take part in the assessment. That was possible if the Government had changed its mind. Thus, I have proposed a CSA to the Bill to deduct the expenditure of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") on BCA this year. We submitted a written question on the Budget to the Government, but it did not respond. Regarding the funding earmarked for BCA this year, the Government has only provided a total amount to us, saying that $73 million will be allocated to HKEAA to conduct various assessments. The Government will not, in any case, disclose the funding earmarked for conducting Primary three BCA, and so I have to wait for the President's approval of my proposed CSA on BCA. The Government has employed dirty tactics, but it dares not admit what it has done. The Government is determined to introduce BCA, but it dares not tell the public how much will be spent on it. Hence, Members who have the authority to deduct the proposed funding are helpless. The Government is just hiding in its shell like a tortoise.

Next, I will talk about the overseas trips made by the Secretary for Education. The Secretary made a total of 17 overseas trips last year and this year, he has already made 60-odd overseas trips and spent a total of $3.16 million. The Secretary is really fond of travelling. Regarding the current funding applications, a significant part will be spent on exchange programmes, including those under the Belt and Road Initiative, which amount to more than $10 million in 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The Belt and Road countries include: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yeman, Bahrain, Cyprus, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, China, Mongolia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brunei and the Philippines. If the funding is approved, I believe the Secretary, being so passionate in travelling, will make LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6313 such visits in each of his remaining days during his tenure, and he will be flying more often than an air hostess. After his departure from office, he may well become a Belt and Road commissioner and by then, he may apply to us for funding to attend an international conference in Maldives. Thus, I have proposed a CSA to the Appropriation Bill this year to deduct the Secretary's expenditure by about $895,000 in the hope that the Government and the Secretary can be held responsible for what they have done.

Now I will talk about conservation. I have submitted a CSA to deduct the expenditure of the Antiquities and Monuments Office ("AMO") by $106,830,000. In the past few years, there is nothing commendable about the work of AMO. I think it should change its name to Destruction of Monuments Office. Let me analyse the performance of AMO in respect of a few areas. First, declared monuments. AMO is responsible for overseeing that declared monuments, which are our valuable historic heritage, are properly protected under the legal framework. Regarding the incident concerning the collapse of the external wall of the former Central Police Station (Tai Kwun), the truth has not been brought to light even now. AMO simply said that the collapse was due to some technical problems and it has not issued any report to explain the reasons. I have asked AMO to provide a full evaluation report on the loss and damage to our historic heritage, but to no avail.

Next, let us consider the example of Hung Lau. Owing to the Government's belated awareness, it only took action after damage was done to Hung Lau; had no damage been done, the Government would continue to disregard the building. Ho Tung Garden is an earlier example. The Government was at its wits' end and allowed Ho Tung Garden to be damaged. These incidents concerning declared monuments show that there is dereliction of duty on the part of AMO.

Furthermore, there are buildings which are not as intact and beautiful as declared monuments, but their cultural value is far more important than their architectural value. Some buildings are neither Victorian nor Bauhaus in style, but they have a profound meaning in terms of local culture. An example is the State Theatre which is only graded by the authorities after insistent demands by various sectors. Another example is Wing Woo Grocery in Central. It is the oldest tenement building in Hong Kong which has survived for a hundred years. Since it is a tenement building and not the residence of any public official and does not have a beautiful architectural design, the authorities paid no attention to 6314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 it. The authorities have been saying over the past 10 years that they may demolish the building, but have they conducted any assessment or grading on the building? If so, have they given an account to the public? As for the old tenement house remains on Cockrane Street, in order to tie with redevelopment, AMO gave us a most slipshod and ridiculous justification that the site had no historic value and the remains were not as old as some people had thought. However, the authorities could not provide us with any figures or justifications. Many scholars and experts have produced loads of evidence to rebut the Government's suggestion, but AMO did not respond to them and clung obstinately to its own course.

There are other buildings which have great significance despite their short history, such as the General Post Office in Central, which the Government has similarly insisted on demolishing. Has the Government conducted any assessment and research on the history of those buildings before making a decision? If the Government demolishes the General Post Office in Central today, it will demolish City Hall tomorrow. Such an approach completely ignores the sentiments attached by Hong Kong people to local buildings with historic value.

Moreover, I also question the transparency and professionalism of AMO. In giving historic grading, AMO seldom makes public the historic information it has used for reference. In the past, Members had invited staff members of AMO to attend meetings of District Councils to explain why certain historic buildings in their districts had to be demolished or why AMO refused to give grading to the buildings, but they often refused to attend the meetings. They would only give joint written replies with the Development Bureau or the Urban Renewal Authority. AMO is actually working to facilitate redevelopment rather than conservation, not to mention that many of its members are "LEUNG's fans" or members of the pro-establishment camp.

I also have to point out that the head of AMO, i.e. the Antiquities Authority, is the Secretary for Development. Is there a conflict of roles? In the long term, I think we should consider turning AMO into an independent statutory authority. This is a subject worthy of consideration by society. For these reasons, I have proposed to deduct the expenditures for AMO for the whole year. I hope that the Government can take this opportunity to consider restructuring AMO and reviewing its modus operandi.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6315

With little time left, I would like to talk about the First Registration Tax for electric vehicles. According to the latest arrangement announced by the Government, tax exemptions and concessions on First Registration Tax for electric private cars will be reduced. I am very disappointed about this arrangement and I do not endorse it. The Government explained that this arrangement sought to slow down the overall growth of the private car fleet, so as to reduce the total number of vehicles. Nevertheless, electric vehicles only represent about 1% of the total number of vehicles. Reducing its growth will not produce any significant effect on alleviating traffic congestion and decreasing the total number of vehicles. Yet, the Government has not introduced any restrictive measures on vehicles which take up a greater proportion of the car fleet. Thus, I fail to understand why the Government has adopted such an approach.

There is another objective which the Government should try to achieve but has failed to do so. Even if the authorities cannot reduce the overall private car fleet on the roads in one go, they should at least put in place measures to encourage private car drivers to drive electric cars instead. If they do so, the effluent produced during traffic congestion will be reduced and it will also help promote the greater use of an alternative form of cleaner energy.

The Government has not implemented any measure to encourage the public to replace their conventional petrol cars with electric cars, but even capped the waiver for First Registration Tax for electric cars. This approach runs contrary to its policy objectives and is tantamount to encouraging the public to drive other cars but not electric cars which are more costly. This arrangement of the Government is really inconsistent with its policy objectives. It can neither reduce the growth or the total number of vehicles, nor encourage the public to drive electric cars. The Government's approach is baffling. Is there actually a lack of communication between the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Environment Bureau which makes the Government unable to set clear policy objectives?

If the Government considers that it has the responsibility to promote the use of electric cars, I have made a specific proposal of introducing a "one-for-one" scheme. The Government can draw reference from overseas practice of giving concessions to encourage drivers of conventional private cars or petrol cars which are at least 10 years old to switch to electric cars. Hence electric cars will not become toys of the rich, and people will not be encouraged to buy more than one car. This measure has been discussed in the community 6316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 for some time, but the Government has not taken it into consideration. I have specifically raised this point in my speech on the Budget, hoping that the Government will reflect on its approach.

These are my remarks in relation to the areas on the environment, education and conservation.

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the passage of the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill 2017. Many livelihood-related policies proposed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong to the Government have been implemented, and in particular, the allowance provided for the elderly has been increased significantly. We welcome and support such initiatives. However, I am a bit disappointed that the proposal put forward by me for years has yet to be implemented by the Government. Despite my disappointment, I will surely persevere and continue to follow up and strive for its implementation. I believe the Government will one day understand this major principle.

How can I expound on this major principle? It seems that right now the Government has closed its ears to any theories. In that case, I will only tell a story, which I think is more pleasant to the ear. In this story, the Hong Kong Government is a rich man with a big fortune, and how should he distribute the wealth to his children? He comes up with three approaches. The first approach is not to distribute the wealth to them for the time being for they do not have to worry about their basic necessities in life. However, when they grow up, they have to leave home and earn their own living. If they succeed, they need not return home; but if they fail and return home, they will be given a bowl of rice, and if they still feel hungry, they will be given one more bowl of rice. This is the idea often embraced by the Government now. The rich man and the Government are both looking for solutions.

Another approach of the rich man is suggested by "Long Hair". He needs not distribute his wealth to his young children for the time being, all he needs to do is to provide his children with good education, and when they grow up, they have to leave home and work. No matter they succeed or not, they will have their share of the fortune someday.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6317

The rich man considers that the above two approaches are rife with problems, and so he comes up with the third approach. He will open a bank account for each child after birth and deposit a small sum of money in the account every year. If he earns more in a certain year, he will deposit more. The aim is to encourage children and their parents to save up for the future together. When the parent earns more, he will deposit more in the account but the money in that account cannot be drawn in any circumstances until the child has grown up and started to work. By that time, the savings should be sufficient for the down payment of a flat. As long as the child continues to work hard and pay the mortgage instalments, he will at least have a roof over his head and some spare money when he gets old. The Government may even provide a reverse mortgage for him at that time. If the children are very successful and can buy their own flats without using their "baby fund", then they can combine the savings in their accounts with the future Mandatory Provident Fund benefits and this large sum of money can ensure that their retirement is secure.

After hearing the above three approaches, which one do Members prefer? Parents certainly wish to encourage their children to work hard, save up more and even plan for their future or retirement. Similarly, government officials, who should care about the masses as parents, are also duty-bound to plan for the future of Hong Kong people.

We have repeatedly put forth a detailed proposal to the Government for its consideration. The calculation method is more or less the same. The main purpose of establishing a "baby fund" is to give young people hope and let them at least know that they are not totally destitute; they have a fund and their deposits in the fund will continue to grow. As a matter of fact, some parents are not fair to their children. When children ask their parents for the red packet money they received during the Chinese Lunar New Year, their parents will tell them that the money has been deposited in the bank, but very often, the money is deposited in the parent's account because many young children do not have their own account. Hence the children may very often think that their parents have embezzled their money. Hence, to nurture children's saving habit, I think the Government can open a bank account for each child to help them form a habit of saving since childhood.

I hope that the Government will consider this proposal when preparing the Budget next year and I do not mind introducing in detail the relevant papers and reports to it. I believe that a "baby fund" will not only reduce a family's burden of providing for the children, but also provide grass-roots children with a chance 6318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 to move upward. I also believe that the fund will be an incentive for people to have more children, which will help the Government formulate a long-term population policy. More importantly, it can truly help finance the retirement scheme of the elderly. I hope that the Government will consider this proposal seriously.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): President, I remember that when the Financial Secretary, Mr Paul CHAN, delivered his maiden Budget speech last month, I had described the Budget with 12 Chinese words, that is, "闡述理財哲學、注重團隊 精神" (elaborating his financial philosophy and underlining the importance of team spirit). By "underlining the importance of team spirit", I am referring to the Budget's proposals to allocate financial resources to actively support various initiatives outlined in the Policy Address. In other words, the Financial Secretary has attached importance to the Government's work as a team, as well as the overall interest of society, which is commendable. Regarding his financial philosophy, it relates to questions such as: how will the new Financial Secretary use public financial resources, what principles of fiscal management will he observe, and what kind of new thinking or new vision will he lay before us?

Frankly speaking, no matter how competent the Financial Secretary is, he cannot escape from the bounds of the current well-established financial philosophy, including the principles of free market, managing public finances with prudence and keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues, committing resources as and when needed, user pays, as well as maintaining a simple and low tax regime. But the problem is that given the rapidly changing international political and economic situations, as well as the increasingly fierce competition among the world's economies, the Government must adopt a sound, progressive and proactive fiscal policy so that Hong Kong's business environment can remain competitive. As we can see from this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary is trying to break away from the usual practice of "handing out candies" in the past and starting to tackle some thorny fiscal issues, for example, the plan to set up a tax policy unit to explore a new direction on tax reform. All these practices are worthy of recognition. In the following time I will express my personal views on the fiscal policy from the taxation perspective. It is my hope that long-term planning can be made by the Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6319

First of all, I must point out the critical importance of our tax policy because taxation is the major source of government revenue. Five revenue items―including the tax items of profits tax, stamp duties, salaries tax and rates, as well as land premium―account for over 70% of the Government's total revenue. Meanwhile, to return wealth to the people, the Government also ensures that people from all walks of life can share the fruits of economic advancement through a number of tax relief measures. Hence, our tax policy should be regarded as a pipe which regulates the inflow and outflow of water, while the Financial Secretary is the one having the important role of controlling the pipe.

But over the years, members of the public are getting used to the idea that the Financial Secretary always gets his estimates wrong, and the only difference is by how much. In the year 2016-2017, the revised estimate on government revenue is $559.5 billion, that is, 12% or $61.3 billion higher than the original estimate. Given the hectic trading in the property market these days, the Government has seen its revenue from this source soar. Considering from this perspective, isn't it true that the Government also has vested interest in the crazy property market? If so, is the Government genuinely motivated to curb property prices?

Talking about high land premium and property prices, some scholars have hit the nail on the head by pointing out that they are nothing less than a "super Government rent". To put it simply, "super Government rent" is not a Government rent per se, but hidden in property prices and rents, and it invariably becomes a tool of profiteering for the Government and property developers. Hence, the extra burden of Hong Kong people in respect of mortgage repayment or rental payment can be viewed as a form of quasi-taxation. In other words, regardless of whether members of the public are buying or renting a property, they must pay a hidden property tax created by the high land premium.

It is true that Hong Kong has limited types of taxes and hence, it is reputed for having a simple tax regime. But any talk about Hong Kong having a low tax rate or narrow tax base is simply self-deceiving. As a form of indirect taxes, Government rent and land premium have pushed up our tax rate substantially, not to mention that such taxes are payable by all walks of life and cover every aspect of life. Clearly, middle-class owner-occupiers are the ones bearing the greatest brunt. In the past, home ownership was the greatest aspiration of many middle-class people, so much so that they willingly became mortgage slaves. 6320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

But nowadays, with the price of first-hand starter homes easily fetching over $10 million, middle-class people may not even be qualified to become mortgage slaves even if they have wanted to. Isn't it very sad indeed?

Mr CHAN King-cheung, former chief editor of the Hong Kong Economic Journal, stated in a recent article that while people in Mainland China always hold that taming the rivers is the key to ruling the country, for the SAR, taming the property market is the key to ruling the territory. I think his view has epitomized the problem: stabilizing property prices is the only way to ensure that the income of the middle class will no longer be eroded by the "super Government rent". Also, it goes without saying that the "super Government rent" is not conducive to Hong Kong's favourable business environment and stifles the development of a diversified economy.

President, during the postwar boom of the world economy from 1945 to 2005, free market economies gained the upper hand over command economies. During those 60 years, Hong Kong not only achieved phenomenal economic growth, but also became a bridgehead of free-market capitalism. While having a conservative budget is meant to be a strategy against a rainy day by cutting expenditure, our hands have become tied as we face the current situation, particularly when business transactions have become increasingly complicated, and a simple tax system can hardly meet the changes in the business world. As a result, we are now plagued by problems such as uncertainties and waning competitiveness. In any case, a review of the tax regime is an issue that the next-term Government cannot evade.

Firstly, to maintain Hong Kong's competitiveness, we must reduce profits tax further. According to a relevant study, low tax rates are regarded as the most important factor for maintaining a tax system that helps enhance the business environment, to be followed by clear tax laws, certainty in the practical application of tax laws, low compliance costs and targeted incentives.

After Donald TRUMP, the President of the United States, took office, he announced his intention to substantially reduce the corporate income tax rate from the current 35% to 15%. Similar actions have already been taken by our major competitors. For example, both Singapore and Taiwan have reduced their corporate income tax rates to 17% in 2010. In 2005, South Korea first adopted a two-tier profits tax system, to be followed by a three-tier system in 2013, with corporate tax rates ranging from 10% to 22%. In the face of such competitive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6321 tax rates globally, the appeal of Hong Kong's existing 16.5% of profits tax is waning. In fact, the number of overseas corporations setting up regional headquarters in Hong Kong has been declining. It is a situation we cannot ignore. Hence, it would really help maintain Hong Kong's competitiveness if the next-term Government can introduce either a progressive or two-tier profits tax.

Secondly, the Government must review the tax system from the perspective of industries. The industrial and commercial sectors welcome the Financial Secretary's proposal to set up a new committee on innovation and technology development and re-industrialization. Taking the opportunity of the tax review, the Government should also explore ways to attract foreign emerging industries to come to Hong Kong through tax incentives, so as to identify new economic drivers for Hong Kong. For instance, the Government can consider providing "super tax reductions" for research and development expenditures of corporations or personal income tax concessions for overseas scientific research personnel, so as to attract enterprises to consider conducting scientific researches in Hong Kong. The Government can also consider offering tax concessions to enterprises in the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in the Loop, so that more businesses will operate there.

Thirdly, the Government should review section 39E of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. This is also a demand constantly made by my predecessor, Dr LAM Tai-fai, former Member representing the industrial functional constituency. Why is a review necessary? It is because notwithstanding the Government's proposal for the re-industrialization of Hong Kong, only certain high value-added processes will remain in Hong Kong, while most production processes will be conducted outside Hong Kong. If sections 39E or 16EC of the Inland Revenue Ordinance is not amended, there will not be any incentive for Hong Kong's industries to further increase their investments. Incidentally, conducting the said review can also dovetail with China's ongoing Belt and Road Initiative as Hong Kong enterprises will be encouraged to invest in the setting up of production lines in the Belt and Road countries.

By contrast, our competitor Singapore adopts a set of generally proactive fiscal and tax policies with clear objectives. Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the design and implementation of such policies, Singapore has the advantage of having clear-cut objectives. Since the policies are intended to pursue specific objectives, future reviews can be conducted with better justifications. For 6322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 instance, Singapore launched a 10-year plan in 2013, specifically for the objective of developing the country as a global Intellectual Property ("IP") hub. Subsequently, the Singapore Government would proactively design and offer customized tax incentives for individual enterprises, so as to encourage their anchoring in Singapore. Of course, such an approach has achieved immediate results, and Hong Kong should learn its lesson from this success story.

President, the problems with Hong Kong's tax system can only be dealt with through a new mindset, and they are not necessarily related to our narrow tax base. According to the 2016 Economic Report of the President of the United States, economic disparity is mainly reflected in the unequal distribution of income, wealth, and opportunity. When Hong Kong is close to tipping point as a result of various deep-seated structural conflicts, the Government must change its public finance policies by including the function of wealth distribution, so that resources can be redistributed through the tax system or other means, for example, the making of additional provisions on education, public health care, elderly services, poverty alleviation and so on. This will not only help promote social equality, but also narrow down the gap between the rich and the poor.

Over the past few years, the Government has continuously accumulated huge fiscal surpluses. With the amount of accumulated fiscal reserves now standing at $900-odd billion, the public coffers are practically overflowing. To a large extent, this is a result of Hong Kong being under the Financial Secretary's mantra because Article 107 of the Basic Law has stipulated that, "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget, and strive to achieve a fiscal balance, avoid deficits and keep the budget commensurate with the growth rate of its gross domestic product."

Surely, there are different views in society with some people saying that strict adherence to the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues is only the virtue of a scrooge. Lest the Financial Secretary should forget, it has also been stipulated in Article 108 of the Basic Law that, "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall practise an independent taxation system. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, taking the low tax policy previously pursued in Hong Kong as reference, enact laws on its own concerning types of taxes, tax rates, tax reductions, allowances and exemptions, and other matters of taxation." It is thus clear that the Basic Law has given us much room for manoeuvre, and the Government can make all sorts of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6323 arrangements in respect of the types or rates of taxes so long as our expenditure is kept within the limits of revenues, without deviating from the spirit of having relatively low tax rates.

In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary proposes to attract aircraft leasing companies to develop their business in Hong Kong by the offer of tax concessions. Earlier, the Government has already introduced a bill into the Legislative Council to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance. I can say that this is a good attempt on the Government's part to establish a specialized taxation system in Hong Kong and hence, it has wide support in the community.

On the subject of the Government's funding provisions for investment in the future, I would like to say a few words about the ongoing consultation on abolishing the MPF offsetting mechanism, which is due to end next Tuesday. As I understand it, employers and employees have further narrowed down their difference as they both agreed that the matter can be taken forward initially by the Government establishing an offsetting fund pool with an one-off provision to pay out long service and severance compensation to workers. Judging from the discussion so far, the Government's financial commitment would be over $10 billion, to say the least, regardless of whether it is the employers' or the employees' proposal that would be implemented eventually. The question is: Is the Government willing to earmark the necessary provisions out of its huge fiscal surpluses? In this regard, I hope the Government can change its previous conservative and passive fiscal policies and adopt a new mindset, so that our surpluses can be better utilized to revitalize the economy, invest in the future, and create a better society for our next generation.

President, many stakeholders are involved in the management of public finance. Any change in the tax regime will definitely change the distribution of benefits in society. That is why the Government should carefully consider the priorities of different policies to ensure the sustainable growth of our public finances so that people from all walks of life can share the fruits of economic advancement.

To conclude, I support the Government's Appropriation Bill 2017. President, I so submit.

6324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Budget offers an important opportunity for the Government to reallocate social resources on a yearly basis. The Government mainly reallocates financial resources receivable through land sales and taxation. Therefore, the rules for using public funds are very important. The overall direction of development of society depends on the rules of the game set by the Government. One of the functions of the Budget is to solve problems for the community. While we certainly need to invest in the future, we must also solve the existing problems. When the economy is good, we should consider how to invest in the future and store up grain against famine; when the community is in distress, we should use public money and public resources to solve the problems.

President, in the past few years, the economy of Hong Kong appeared good with low unemployment rate and steady economic growth, though the rate of increase is not very high, it is not bad for a developed economy. However, are there social problems despite the apparent prosperity? Over the years, we have been discussing the issue of poverty and the disparity between the rich and the poor, especially the high poverty rate of the elderly and the disabled. While the overall poverty rate exceeds 19% and is close to 20%, the poverty rate of the elderly reaches 45%, and the poverty rate of the disabled is at the same level. Despite policy interventions, 30% of the elderly and the disabled are still living in poverty.

Given an ageing population, how should public resources be invested? The Government states that more money should be reserved while the former Chief Secretary for Administration said that a Future Fund should be set up with an initial endowment of hundreds of billions of dollars held against the Land Fund. More than $300 billion has been put into the Future Fund, and revenues from each land sale will also be put into the Fund. But what assistance will the Government provide to the elderly who are now living in hardship? Being in poor health and having lost the ability to make money, how can the elderly maintain their living? We get very few answers from this year's Budget.

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

The Government said that it would "hand out candies" worth more than $29 billion this year, of which only $3.6 billion will be used to provide an extra allowance to social security recipients, equal to one month of the standard rate Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payments, Old Age Living Allowance, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6325

Disability Allowance and "fruit grant", while the remaining amount will be used for waiving rates and reducing salaries tax. As the Government is not handing out money this year, it is returning public money to the public through these reductions and waivers. When a government draws resources from the community and then returns the resources to the public and the companies, this reflects the fact that the Government does not know how to use public money.

On the other hand, the Government has generously invested hundreds of billions of public funds in what we consider as "white elephant" infrastructure projects. According to the Government, it is necessary to invest in infrastructure in order to look towards the future, and there are no problems with these projects as they will bring about economic benefits. We are not sure if there will be economic benefits, but how many years of operation are required to recover the $100-odd billion construction costs of the most expensive high-speed rail in the world? I believe it is impossible to recover the costs; are there still economic benefits? The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge costs more than $100 billion and the third runway at the airport costs more than $100 billion; will there be economic benefits? How many years will it take to get back the amount invested? I really do not think that these projects will produce economic benefits.

However, even if the Government tells us that there will be economic benefits in the future, what kinds of hardship are we now facing? On this year's Budget, the authorities, in reply to our question, said that more than 6 000 elderly persons passed away while waiting for elderly homes. We have asked the same question in each of the past few years and the number of deaths has increased year by year. Should public funds be used for future development or should public funds be used for solving the existing social problems instead? In fact, under the Government's public policies, 30% of elderly persons are still living in poverty. The Government has turned a blind eye to these problems and it has not implemented universal retirement protection. This year, it only provides 149 additional subsidized residential care places but 40 000 elderly persons are on the waiting list. The Secretary said that there may be nearly 9 000 additional places 5 to 10 years later; yet, 40 000 people are now waiting.

It is not that the elderly like to stay in residential care homes but there are insufficient community care services. All of us will one day become old and feeble, and we may even become disabled, so why don't we take good care of those who are now in such a state? Why is it that only the development of more large-scale "white elephant" infrastructure projects will be beneficial to society? 6326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

How can we ignore those who cannot make ends meet and can hardly take care of themselves? Organizations which provide meal delivery services to the elderly have to tell the elderly reluctantly that they can only deliver meals every other day owing to the lack of resources and an increasing number of applicants. Nonetheless, the Government invests hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructures.

According to Mr CHAN Hak-kan, the pro-democracy Members often filibuster to block funding for infrastructure projects, they query the huge amount of funding applied by the Government and after the approval of funding, the repeated cost overruns amounting to more than $100 million each time, hence the progress of the project has been stalled and many workers are out of employment. Indeed, we query why the Government builds the third runway at the airport and the Liantang Boundary Control Point instead of additional elderly homes. It is not true that we disapprove the implementation of infrastructure projects, but since the Government has a huge surplus, why not build more elderly homes at the same time? Why not build more hospitals? Why not solve the problem of many chronically ill patients having to wait a long time for specialty services? Why not hire more doctors and train more doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other professionals to help the public? Why not set up another university so that all young people who meet the entrance requirements can be admitted to university?

Why is the Government so bold and resolute in the construction of infrastructures but indifferent to our request for taking care of the elderly? Dr KWOK Ka-ki and I visited the Kowloon City Dental Clinic 10 years ago. At present, there are only 11 such dental clinics in Hong Kong which also provide general public sessions apart from serving civil servants. However, these 11 clinics only provide one, two or four sessions of services per week. According to a report compiled by the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat, dental services in Hong Kong are generally very inadequate. Many elderly people do not even have 20 teeth and many elderly people do not seek dental treatment even if they suffer from toothache and cannot sleep due to the high consultation fees. Only 40% of elderly persons seek dental treatment for not being able to sleep due to toothache. When we visited the Kowloon City Dental Clinic 10 years ago, we learnt that the first old man in the queue travelled from Sham Shui Po to the clinic at around 3:00 am for fear of not getting a disc. This was the third time that he queued up at the clinic because he had to extract three teeth.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6327

Yesterday, I went to Tung Chung to visit an old lady. She took a bus at 5:00 am to Tsuen Wan for dental appointment because there are no dental services in Tung Chung. Although there is a dental clinic in Tung Chung, it only serves civil servants and we have recently allocated additional resources to improve dental services for civil servants. Few people visit the Tung Chung Dental Clinic but it does not provide service to the public. The old lady got up at 5:00 am and took a bus to the Tsuen Wan Dental Clinic. She was the 85th in the queue but only 84 discs were distributed on that day. The old lady did not want to leave the clinic; she really wanted to get treatment as she suffered from toothache for a long time. Fortunately, one of the 84 persons was an accompanying carer; so the old lady had her tooth extracted on that day and she was happy.

Deputy President, Hong Kong is an international city in the 21st century. It is very wealthy with a per capita fiscal reserve ranking second in the world, and it ranks first for having $3 trillion reserve. How come so far no improvement has been made in the dental services for the elderly, which is a basic service? Some members of the public criticized the report published by the Government about 10 years ago as "a toothless tiger", and they had lodge complaints with the Legislative Council. No improvement has been made to the long-term care services for the elderly and people with disabilities in Hong Kong. Many elderly persons could not live long enough to get residential care services. The number of people waiting for residential places is on the increase, and the waiting time for people with disabilities is getting longer and longer. Improvements have not been made.

The Old Age Living Allowance Scheme, which has been implemented for two to three years, should have some effects. According to the latest report published by the Commission on Poverty at the end of last year, the poverty rate of the elderly has not dropped, indicating that the policy is not effective and resources are insufficient. We have been striving for the provision of subsidies to carers, and the Government has initially provided subsidies to 2 000 carers of elderly persons. After a long fight, the Government will also provide subsidies to 2 000 carers of persons with disabilities. May I ask how many carers of elderly persons and persons with disabilities are there in Hong Kong? The Government has gone so far as to require them to pass the means tests and set a limit to the number of recipients.

6328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

One of the characteristics of the SAR Government is that it puts resources in various projects, but each project has insufficient resources. The Government invests a lot of money in non-livelihood related projects, and then it accuses Members like us who care about people's livelihood that we have created obstacles by asking questions. When the Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars, is it helping local workers or it is benefiting international consortia, international consultants or contractors? The money spent will not plough back to Hong Kong. Why does the Government not implement a universal retirement protection system? Why not construct more facilities related to people's livelihood, including community centres and child care centres? Why not provide patients with more drugs? It is reported in the "Warm Current" section of a newspaper today that a patient seeks help to buy a self-financed target therapy drug for cancer, and without financial help, he can only wait for death. Today, Hong Kong people are in dire straits, but how come the Budget does not show any concern? Deputy President, I hope that the SAR Government will review the matter seriously.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this year's Budget is not very different from those in previous years and it is still an unfair budget. It cares for the rich and ignores the poor; it upsets the balance and distributes unfairly; it "fattens the top and thins the bottom", it harbours the bigwigs and mistreats the grass roots; it tilts towards consortia and disregards labour rights. These are my basic views on the Budget.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just talked about dental service; colleagues of the pro-establishment camp may also need such service in the future. They criticize opposition Members for filibustering. I would like to spend a little time to talk about filibustering as criticized by them.

Indeed, previously we had arguments about public expenditures and projects at some meetings, but shouldn't such issues be discussed? Shouldn't we discuss pay rise for senior officials? The Government bundled the Wang Chau incident with some 9 000 projects to "extort" the Legislative Council, the Finance Committee and the Public Works Subcommittee; shouldn't we discuss these matters, Deputy President? Is it wrong for Honourable colleagues to ask detailed questions on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge? I do not know why these matters have become "omnipotent keys" or "universal keys" for putting all the blame on pan-democratic Members. I believe the public have discerning eyes. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6329

I have heard many pro-establishment colleagues criticizing the Budget today, pointing out its deficiencies. However, they conclude in saying that they will support the Budget.

Deputy President, I have recently watched two movies with my children; one of them is Ghost in the Shell. I think these colleagues are just like "Ghost out of the Shell", and they have "empty shells". These Members with "empty shells" have no soul. When there are tasks, they will come back and vote mechanically. Once "Grandpa" gives out commands, they will immediately comply. Once the Government summons them, they will show up to vote. Another movie is The Boss Baby, which is also applicable to some Honourable colleagues. They are babies of the boss and they will be ready when summoned by the boss.

Deputy President, I would like to focus my discussions on land, housing, labour rights and welfare today. According to our projections on the latest housing demand, from 2017-2018 to 2026-2027, 460 000 units will be supplied and the proportion of public and private units will remain at 6:4. According to this trend, the target is to construct 280 000 public housing units, of which 200 000 are public rental flats, 80 000 are subsidized sale flats and 180 000 are private flats.

The Democratic Party thinks that there is a need to adjust the proportion of public and private housing under the Long Term Housing Strategy. In fact, at an earlier meeting of the Panel on Housing, a Member proposed a non-binding motion asking the Government to adjust the ratio to 7:3, i.e. 70% subsidized housing (including subsidized sale flats) and 30% private housing. We think that this can balance the demands and meet the needs of the public.

At that time, some Members immediately said that the idea was not feasible. I remember the Secretary said at the time that the revised proportion would upset the supply of and demand for both public and private housing. However, I believe he might misunderstand our message. The 70% included subsidized sale flats which would meet the needs of the general public for home ownership. I will explain this approach in detail later.

I think the Government should resolutely and boldly implement certain measures. In addition to the approach just mentioned, the Government should invoke the Lands Resumption Ordinance and engage in large-scale land 6330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 development. It should make efforts to increase the housing supply and should even adopt the mode of new town development in the past to build a large number of public housing and subsidized housing, so as to respond to and meet the needs of the public.

Unfortunately, we have to face the Wang Chau problem in the past few years. Will the Government resume the land of the Golf Club at Fanling as suggested by us? Issues such as small house concessionary rights raised by us have not been addressed and the Government has been procrastinating. In respect of land development and planning, I think major changes and reviews are needed.

At present, the entire housing supply market or the whole housing strategy focuses on investment and speculation while self-occupation, i.e. the use values becomes secondary. In recent years, there is a popular saying which goes, "commercial housing suppresses residential housing". Given the current high property prices, we certainly agree to this saying as internal as well as external factors are involved. Yet, we cannot say that since many external factors such as hot money are involved, control is not possible. Does it mean that we do not need to do anything? Has the Government made efforts? We think that it has not done enough.

The Democratic Party agrees with many Honourable colleagues that some practices in Singapore can serve as reference. I believe we all remember that in the 1980s and 1990s, Singapore always learnt from Hong Kong, and now the situation has reversed. Nevertheless, if some practices are worth learning from, I think we should take them into consideration. We can separate commodity housing and residential housing, i.e. we can separate the investment-based housing market and the owner-occupier housing market.

In the 1960s in the 20th century, Singapore enacted the Singapore Housing and Development Act and at the same time enacted legislation on the Housing and Development Board ("HDB") and residential property. By virtue of these regulations and systems, the speculative market and the private market were gradually separated so as to meet the housing needs of owner-occupiers. Hence, we rarely hear citizens of Singapore complaining that they cannot afford to buy homes or they have no place to live. Singapore is proud of its HDB flat scheme which has won commendation around the world.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6331

To suppress property speculation, efforts should be made to ensure that flats are only sold a number of years after purchase. In Singapore, flats cannot be arbitrarily sold within five years after purchase and the sale must be registered in government agencies, and speculation in the private market is not allowed. Each family can only own one HDB flat; if there is a change in the number of family members or the children get married in the future, they will have to reapply in order to avoid speculation and affect the supply of housing.

I think this practice has a reference value and Hong Kong absolutely has the conditions to adopt similar measures. The incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying proposed a similar concept when he took office, but unfortunately, it only bore the same name. While the Singapore Government ensures that local residents can buy HDB flats, the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" scheme has eventually become a laughing stock, such as there are flats at $18,000 per square foot which are not affordable by Hong Kong people. The scheme is also riddled with loopholes such as several flats are covered under the same agreement. Many people bought several flats in one go under the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" scheme, and it has even been exposed that officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR are involved in the speculation activities.

In my view, to solve the housing problem in Hong Kong, we need a multi-ladder housing supply market. In addition to public rental housing ("PRH"), Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") flats and private housing, there should be an additional product supply layer. The Government has previously introduced the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme ("SCHS") and it has recently introduced flats under the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme ("GSH"). However, the Government can hardly solve the problems we are now facing and cannot meet the demand.

I think it is necessary to make adjustments in respect of HOS flats, private flats and GSH flats, including the reintroduction of SCHS to help the public buy affordable private housing. In addition, regarding GSH, I believe that we can make reference to the experience of Singapore and develop flats not for speculation, thereby reducing their exchange values and emphasizing their use values. For example, restrictions can be put on the sale and purchase period, as well as setting cost-linked prices rather than linking prices to land prices and the so-called comparison values. The flats will then be more easily affordable by 6332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 the public and land prices and affordability will serve as indicators of the public's ability to purchase and the pricing of flats. Eventually, flats will not become tools or carriers of speculation in the market. We no longer want to see the speculation of PRH units with the per-square-foot price being pushed up to more than $10,000. We have noticed that such a situation has already emerged under the current Tenants Purchase Scheme.

This year's Budget has not adequately addressed the housing aspect issue and we are aware that there will be a large housing supply gap in the future. There will be a shortage of 44 000 units in the next five years. What can the public do? Members of the public who are waiting for PRH allocation are not given rental allowance during the extended waiting time and PRH tenants are not given rent waiver for one to two months as in the past. What is the intent of the Government? As I have just said, this is a proposal of "fattening the top and thinning the bottom", which is absolutely unfair to the general public.

Furthermore, I very much agree with a point just raised by Mr Jimmy NG. I am astonished that he, as a representative of the business community, has raised the concept of real estate tax. We have been criticizing that the high land price policy is tantamount to collecting real estate tax or Government rent from the general public, which further affects the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong. Hence, the housing needs of the general public cannot be met, and they cannot live in contentment.

I think it is essential to first, adjust the relevant policy and examine the high land price policy; and second, make greater efforts in housing supply. While we cannot control the external environment, we can control supply, and has the Government made any efforts in this connection? What is the present situation of land development? When the Chief Executive-elect Carrie LAM was interviewed by the South China Morning Post in 2012, she said that the issue of small house concessionary rights should be addressed. Five years have passed; she was the former Chief Secretary for Administration and she has now become the Chief Executive-elect. Within these years, she had not made any accomplishment though some may say that she is not the only person who should be responsible. We have not considered the issue and solved the supply problem in a holistic manner: so long as there is no flour, the prices of bread will remain high. This is the situation we are facing now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6333

I am also concerned about the issue of small house concessionary rights. As we all know, of the sites in Hong Kong that are immediately available, many have been reserved for rural development. As indicated by available information, among the 1 300 hectares of land, excluding roads and man-made slopes, more than 930 hectares have been reserved for rural development. In other words, the Government has only reserved 390 hectares of land for residential housing development, which is absolutely out of balance.

The work done by the Government in this regard in the past few years was inadequate and no one dared raise the issue of small house concessionary rights. In the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030", the issue of brownfield sites is lightly mentioned, and nothing is said on small house concessionary rights. Does this mean that the Government is also afraid of the rural force and local tyrants? Is it that the Government would rather offend most Hong Kong people and sacrifice the overall interests of Hong Kong than make effort to identify land, so as to avoid offending the rural force and local tyrants in the New Territories? I think the Government should give a direct response.

In addition, in recent years, many disputes have arisen due to the Government's shortcomings when revoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance. For instance, in the Wang Chau incident, how come the Government has not adopted the past practice of revoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance, hence the Lands Department could immediately conduct a freezing survey and calculate the value of the land to determine the future compensation proposal? Wouldn't the issue be resolved more expeditiously by this approach? How come the Government has expeditiously handled the issues related to the development in Northeast New Territories, but has adopted another approach in dealing with matters that may involve certain interest groups?

Deputy President, this Budget covers many other aspects and some Honourable colleagues have discussed welfare and labour issues just now. Concerning this year's Budget, I think the policy objectives of the Government are still inclined to plutocrats. As the resource allocation concepts and practices are unfair, unjust, imbalanced, favouring plutocrats and ignoring the grass roots, I can hardly give my support.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

6334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when it comes to fiscal matters, the ancient Chinese believed that it would be most ideal if the common people had sufficient resources and the state's coffers were filled to overflowing. In today's Hong Kong, we can definitely see that the Government's coffers are overflowing and our reserves are enormous, but do the masses have sufficient resources? Why is our wealth stored in the Government's coffers but not used for the benefit of the public's daily living? As pointed out by many Members, money unused is nothing more than numbers. This is evident in many areas.

I am now in my fifth year as a Legislative Council Member; over the past five years, I have taken part in scrutinizing all the five policy addresses and five budgets of the current Government. After a quick reread of the speeches given by me on policy addresses and budgets in this Council in the past few years, I find that I can just randomly pick one of those speeches made in any of those years and reuse it. This is very disappointing. We hoped that the Government would make progress and do better year by year, but unfortunately it has hardly made any headway. In particular, as a representative of the education sector, I am utterly disappointed at the Government's spending on education. Over the past five years, the Government has not faced up to the various aspirations of the education sector, but has kept them on the back burner all along without taking education affairs seriously. We certainly know that this is because neither the Chief Executive nor the Secretary for Education appointed by him has attached importance to education. In the circumstances, the most disappointed are surely our school principals, teachers, parents and students. The general public also fully appreciates the severity of this problem.

In my view, the SAR Government's attitude towards the aspirations of the education sector can be summed up in three words: first, indifferent; second, evasive; and third, disregardful. Simply put, it is a "couldn't care less" attitude.

When I say the SAR Government is indifferent, I am saying that some of its principal officials appear to be totally apathetic and nonchalant about the current plight and discontent of the teaching teams of our primary and secondary schools, the pressure on students, and the protests from parents. Teachers are seriously overloaded with work; the many new initiatives introduced since the education reform have put a very heavy burden on them. While the importance attached to school education by parents and their involvement in it have been increasing, the Government is contrarily becoming more and more unconcerned LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6335 about it. There is a succession gap in our teaching force, directly affecting the quality of education. Young contract teachers are rootless; they have become passers-by in the field of education and failed to establish stable relationships with their students and colleagues. Over the past few years, in the face of these circumstances, has the Government done anything about them?

Following a decline in the primary student population, a similar situation has now occurred with secondary schools. A decline in the secondary student population has caused the schools to face crises such as class reduction and a surplus of teachers, plunging them into great instability and turbulence. The Government must make focused efforts to resolve these crises. Over the past few years, we have put forward proposals for, inter alia, stepping up efforts to reduce the number of students allocated per class, but the Government did not fully accept our proposals in the end. It has uncaringly allowed changes in the population to impact on the overall quality of secondary education.

Students have been under tremendous pressure, which has led to a spate of student suicide tragedies. We need to improve the teaching establishment and strengthen the manpower of guidance personnel. We need social workers, and we should conduct a comprehensive review of the manpower of social workers. However, the Government has stated in response that there may not be an obvious relationship between the student suicide problem and the education and school systems. Such a statement is intended to rationalize the problem, and it goes to show the Government's unwillingness to make further investments in education.

Deputy President, the foregoing are only some of the aspirations of the education sector. We have many other aspirations involving different issues, such as the redevelopment, reprovisioning and repair of old school premises; the ratio of graduate teacher posts; the lack of Information Technology Coordinators; and whether the Extensive Reading Scheme Grants should be reinstated. Also, air conditioning is currently regarded as a luxury for schools, which are required to bear the cost of it on their own. Should this be the case? Why is this not the case for government departments? The Government has not directly responded to any of these questions. Hong Kong has been performing well in education internationally, and this is the fruit of the painstaking efforts of our teachers and students, but if the Government still does not improve its education policy, it will not be able to sustain our overall good performance in education.

6336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Secondly, the Government is evasive. Everyone knows what this means. The education sector has many views on many education issues, but it has been very difficult to discuss these issues in depth and in detail with the Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie NG. To my shame, as the education sector's representative in the legislature, I am supposed to have more communication and contact with Secretary Eddie NG, but over the past four years or so, I have had extremely little communication and contact with him. I have also heard that many Legislative Council Members (including my Honourable friends in the pro-establishment camp) find that there has been hardly any chance for them to discuss education issues with Secretary Eddie NG. Recently, 35 Members and I wrote to Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG and Secretary Eddie NG to request a discussion with them on matters relating to the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"), but in their reply to us, they merely asked us to read the papers of the Panel on Education without saying whether they would see us. I, together with the other six Members from the Professionals Guild and Dr Pierre CHAN, once invited Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG for a meeting to discuss TSA for primary schools and the student suicide problem; the date of the meeting was then fixed, but two days before that date, he suddenly cancelled the meeting. Why were so many of us, as Members of this Council, given short shrift when we sought to meet the officials to discuss major education issues? Why did the officials refuse to discuss with us? We were full of good intentions and hoped to resolve the issues.

Deputy President, we had a talk just yesterday. We really want to resolve the issues. As long as the officials are willing to discuss with us, I believe we can definitely find solutions. But the Government is unwilling to discuss. This is the biggest problem.

Thirdly, the Government is disregardful. In addition to being indifferent and evasive, it is undoubtedly disregardful of the issues. The issues are very serious, but it has not addressed them. Does it think that the issues will resolve themselves naturally? The reduction in the number of students is an issue that has rocked the school system. We need to resolve this issue. It is resolvable. We cannot say that because of turbulence, a plane is bound to ascend or descend; the pilot can always make adjustments to keep the plane at a steady altitude and speed. However, on the front of education, the Government has not undertaken proper planning, has not established a proper adjustment mechanism, and has not properly handled the issues. Instead, it has allowed the objective circumstances to drag down the whole system and throw it into upheaval. Should these issues not be addressed by the Government? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6337

In the past, when there was a drop in the primary student population, the Government rushed into cutting classes and closing schools, but when there was a rise in the population, the Government did not increase the number of classes but increased the number of students per class. Now, the policy on small class teaching in primary schools has started to be undermined, and we have even seen the emergence of so-called "big belly classes". When the population grows, education suffers; when the population shrinks, education also suffers. This is the result of the Government's disregardful attitude.

The same problem is faced by the kindergarten education sector. Hong Kong used to have a salary scale for kindergarten teachers, but it was abolished later. Now, although the Government has proposed free kindergarten education, it is still unwilling to devise a salary scale for kindergarten teachers, but prefers to subsidize kindergartens using the lump sum grant approach on a mid-point salary basis. Yet, as we all know, such a system has caused a great furore in the social welfare sector; if this approach is applied to kindergartens, which are smaller social organizations, the problem will be even more serious because the mid-point salary of kindergarten teachers will then become their maximum pay. Everyone is well aware of this issue, but the Government is unwilling to resolve it. This will only lead to persistent wastage of kindergarten teachers; that is, we will not be able to retain quality personnel to continue working as kindergarten teachers. After some time, kindergarten teachers will realize that they have no prospects. We must seriously resolve this issue.

Deputy President, after five years of pain and helplessness, we are finally going to see a new Government taking office. According to Mrs Carrie LAM, the new Government will, first of all, earmark an additional recurrent expenditure of $5 billion for the education sector to resolve issues. This is very important. I hope the new Secretary for Education, whoever he or she is, will be able to first resolve in this July or August during the summer holidays certain issues that must be resolved without delay. These issues include the possible non-renewal of contracts with contract teachers, the massive class reduction in secondary schools, and the failure to improve the overall situation of kindergartens. I hope the new Secretary for Education will be able to give priority to dealing with some urgent matters in July or August, and then allow the whole education sector to recuperate in the next two or three years by reducing meaningless work and enhancing the teaching establishment, so that teachers can put the focus of their work back on genuine education without having to deal with student enrolment matters, such as 6338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 distributing leaflets on the streets and going to the other side of Shenzhen River to recruit students. Consequently, teachers will be able to take a respite and focus their attention on students, thereby enabling students to get their studies back on an even keel.

I hope that in the coming five years, the new Government will face up to some issues that remain to be addressed. For instance, the authorities think that integrated education is only about putting students with special educational needs in mainstream schools. But it is more than that. Genuine integrated education should ensure that these students will benefit from, and be taken good care of, in mainstream schools; that other students will also have the opportunity to receive good education; and that teachers will feel competent to help these students when facing them. I am just using integrated education as an example. I hope that in the coming few years, the new Government will be able to translate beautiful rhetoric into action, instead of uttering beautiful rhetoric while reducing actual financial commitments. Integrated education is an example of the Government's practice of reducing financial commitments through beautiful rhetoric. This has caused suffering to teachers, students and parents in the end.

Deputy President, if we really want to achieve excellence in education, we need not only money but also determination. Basic funding must be raised to a sufficient level. What we have seen in recent years is very disappointing. I hope the new Government can provide the masses with sufficient resources (The buzzer sounded) … and fill the public coffers to overflowing.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, your speaking time is up.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will not use up the 15 minutes of my speaking time. With regard to this Budget, I think the major plan has been laid down by the former Financial Secretary whereas the incumbent Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has made some additions within a short period of time.

Many Hong Kong people should know the direction of public finance management adopted by the SAR Government over the past 8 to 10 years, and as known to all, the Government has amassed a huge surplus. If someone asks LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6339 whether it is better to have fiscal deficit or surplus, surely it will be better to have surplus. But what is the implication of having surplus for a prolonged period of time? Deputy President, it implies that the Government has not undertaken a lot of work that should be undertaken. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong people are facing a great deal of problems, including housing and youth employment, whereas on the economic front, only very few industries have the potential for further development. All these problems have yet remained to be solved. Is it a matter of money that the problems have remained unresolved? No, our financial position is sound. The problem is the Government has adopted an extremely prudent approach in managing public finance.

Deputy President, I am not going to castigate the Government because at the end of the day, I will support this Budget. I just want to express some different views, and I certainly would not give this Budget full mark. As a representative of the wholesale and retail constituency, I must say that Hong Kong's retail business has been experiencing a downturn for 24 consecutive months. When the decline dropped to only 1% in January, we thought that the decline has tapered, but then it climbed back to 5.7% in February, reflecting that our retail and tourism industries are actually pretty weak. As I have always said, these two industries can give impetus to a number of industries, such as wholesale, catering, transport and advertising. In the absence of such an impetus, many frontline staff do not get any pay rise, not to mention an opportunity for promotion.

As I have previously said to the Financial Secretary and the SAR Government, we should boost both domestic and export demands. To boost domestic demand, the Government should return wealth to the people. I once proposed to the Government that after giving out $20,000 last year, it would be desirable to give out $40,000 this year. Yet, in the end, the Government has merely given out $20,000. How can this amount of money stimulate domestic demand and encourage spending by local people? I fail to see that.

More ridiculous still, with a surplus of $92.8 billion, it is proposed that the current-term Government should waive a number of licence fees. However, instead of reducing the rent for public market stall tenants, the Government proposed an increase on 1 July. Deputy President, when the issue was discussed at a subcommittee meeting, all political parties, be they leftists, centrist or 6340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 rightists, opposed the proposal. The Government indicated that the rent has not been increased for 20 years, but we considered that the decision on rent increase should vary with different sectors. So long as the Government has resources, it should use them to help the people in need. May I ask how much an operator of a common public market stall can earn? Most of the stalls are family-operated. In this year's Budget, the Government has not reduced the rent of market stalls, but instead proposed an increase on 1 July. I hope the Government will listen to the voices of the people, return wealth to them and help those with genuine need. I think the approach of the Government is wrong.

Furthermore, on the external front, the Government has increased the provision for the tourism industry to $243 million. While this sounds a huge sum of money, Hong Kong people must be aware that the provision of last year was $240 million. In other words, this year's provision has only increased by $3 million, which is slightly more than 1%. This is the SAR Government's support for the tourism industry, do Members think that an additional provision of a mere 1% sufficient? Hong Kong people should know very well. Likewise, I think many Hong Kong people also know how important the tourism industry is to Hong Kong. Therefore, in my opinion, an additional provision of a mere $3 million is absolutely insufficient to assist the tourism industry. As I have said before, Hong Kong has a lot of local characteristics and we can thus organize some festivals centered on dried seafood, Chinese medicine and even beauty care and hairdressing, etc. However, not a single festival can be organized without money. We need money for advertisements and promotion leaflets. Given that the Government has only increased the provision by $3 million this year, how many projects of such kind can be carried out? I am aware that the Hong Kong Tourism Board is already doing a very good job, but no matter how good its work is, nothing can be done without money. Although the Government has money, it is reluctant to use it, and then it tells us how much surplus it has. This would only turn the Government into a miser. Deputy President, money kept by the Government is not for use. The current situation is that not all industries can stand on their feet without support. Therefore, I think the SAR Government must put in greater effort in this regard.

With regard to Hong Kong as a whole, since I often liaise with civil servants from different bureaux and departments, I have an impression that they work really hard. Sometimes they still give us a call late at night, meaning that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6341 they work from morning to night. As I am aware, they have manpower shortage problem and there are just "nine lids for ten" pots most of the time. Many government departments are facing a manpower shortage problem with insufficient staff. How can Hong Kong go on this way? I am aware that many years ago, in view of the bloated establishment, the Government had significantly reduced manpower and expected the remaining civil servants to share out the work. Yet, civil servants can hardly cope with the additional workload even though they have been working overtime till 8:00 pm or 9:00 pm day after day. Given that the Government has abundant fiscal reserves now, various departments should be asked if they have problems of manpower shortage and require additional manpower or resources. There is no need to worry if Hong Kong people would disapprove allocating more provisions to recruit additional civil servants, as the job can only be properly done with sufficient manpower. On the contrary, if the Government keeps pressurizing civil servants, they will not be able to do their job well. For example, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau needs to increase manpower in order to come up with some better ideas. If the staff are busy dealing with complaint cases every morning, leaving only the afternoon to handle other tasks, do they still have time to think about the future economic development of Hong Kong? Therefore, I think the general direction is to deploy extra resources for recruiting more civil servants.

The top priority issue of Hong Kong is housing and property prices are currently very high. Deputy President, a fresh graduate earning as much as $20,000 to $30,000 is already good enough, but such an income is insufficient to pay the property mortgage, as the rental will take up $17,000 to $18,000, so how can they live? This explains why Hong Kong people are always so dissatisfied.

For this reason, I think the Government must step up its effort in respect of land supply. It is a common practice for the Government to make relocation arrangements for old ladies engaging in farming. When disputes arise, has the Government tried to find out why they refused to move out, is it a matter of money or are they really passionate about farming? If the Government forces them to move out, rendering them homeless, they will definitely refuse to leave. But if the Government provides them with new homes where they can lead a cozy life, they may be more willing to move out. In that case, we will have more land for development and can expeditiously build more public housing. Therefore, the Government should seriously consider the issue of compensation so as to 6342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 minimize future confrontations―Mr CHU Hoi-dick, who is not present at the meeting, often fights for these residents. If the old ladies maintain that they are really passionate about farming, we will have no alternative but ask Hong Kong people to decide whether the Government should allow the old ladies concerned to continue with the farming activities, thus depriving 300 000 people of the chance to move into public housing. If the Government forces them to move out, thus rendering them homeless, or relocates them to places with poor living environment which is even worse than their present living conditions, then given the availability of fiscal surplus and resources, the Government should revisit the relocation arrangement and measures to speed up the process. There is no point for us to get tangled up in this issue and how long will this drag on? The development of North East New Territories still remains at the discussion stage and has yet to be implemented. It is therefore imperative for the Government to consider the land issue.

Secondly, as Members may be aware, the labour sector often warns against the importation of foreign workers. I nonetheless would like to ask the Deputy President, what is the construction cost at present? The construction cost used to be $2,000 per square foot, but it is now $5,000 to $6,000 per square foot. Take a flat of 600 sq ft as an example, the construction cost alone, excluding land premium, is more than $3 million. That is why property prices remain so high in Hong Kong. Many Hong Kong people do not understand, most developed countries have to rely on imported foreign workers to take up the low-skilled jobs. I heard that in Malaysia, all low-skilled jobs are taken up by imported workers, which is very different from Hong Kong as our imported workers only accounts for a few percentage points. While people from the labour sector stress the need to protect local workers, we notice that many industries have encountered great difficulties in hiring workers in recent years. As I have said time and again, Members from the labour sector are terrific. The current problem is the difficulty of recruiting workers, and the business sector is no exception. How can we develop our economy then?

As I have just said, although the construction cost is extremely high, reaching $5,000 to $6,000 per square foot, the importation of foreign workers is prohibited. If we can import foreign workers, the construction cost may be lowered to $2,000 to $3,000 per square foot, thereby enabling Hong Kong people to purchase their own homes at a lower price. And yet, the labour sector has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6343 expressed the concern that the imported workers might take up all the jobs. Let me tell them, all sectors now have difficulties in recruiting workers. Just as Mr Frankie YICK has said time and again, the total age of three public light bus drivers is 210 years. Two days ago, a resident came to me and complained about a public light bus driver. So, I rang up the boss of the public light bus company and complained to him about the poor attitude of that driver. However, the boss dared not censure that driver for fear that he might not be able to recruit another driver to fill the vacancy. There is insufficient manpower in Hong Kong. In this connection, to address the housing problem, we cannot just increase land as manpower shortage also causes property prices to go unrestrained. Therefore, members of the public have to think carefully if they prefer high or low property prices.

Actually, foreign workers do have another merit, and that is, Hong Kong people need not worry about having no job opportunities because if we stop issuing visas to foreign workers tomorrow, they can no longer stay in Hong Kong next year. Or else, they will become illegal workers. We can send them home right away and they will not pose any problem to Hong Kong people. If the Government still does not import foreign workers, I fail to see how property prices can be lowered.

With regard to the abolition of the offsetting arrangement of the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme, the current-term Government has been very keen on this and many people have put forward different proposals. As the Government has a hefty fiscal surplus, why does it often ask the business sector to foot the bill? The Government has moved the goalposts on the pretext of protecting the employees, fearing that their money would be cheated. In fact, the Government, being rich, should solve the problem by itself. Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has put forward a proposal, which has been discussed in the community and covered by the media, requiring the Government to set aside a sum of money while each member of the public should contribute $100 at the same time. This is a win-win proposal. Given that the Government has considerable fiscal surplus, I think that is the right approach. The business sector is greatly worried that the problem has yet to surface. If the Government pushes forward the proposed abolition, I reckon that there will be a wave of company closure, with many companies closing down one after another. As a result, the number of small to medium enterprises in Hong Kong will drop, leaving behind the large corporations. By that time, trade unions will be fighting against large 6344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 corporations in Hong Kong, as in the case of overseas countries, and there will be frequent disputes and demonstrations. Therefore, with the availability of fiscal surplus, the Government should try to help these people.

Noting that the Secretary for Innovation and Technology is present at the meeting, I would like to talk about re-industrialization. In my opinion, in order for Hong Kong to re-industrialize, a careful choice must be made in selecting the appropriate industries. If a low value-added industry, given the problems of high wages and manpower shortage, coupled with the high land price, the product cost will definitely not be low. Do we have no choice at all? I don't think so. Members may look at the example of iPhones manufactured in the United States. They are valuable products. Hence, we must choose high value-added products, such as medicine, which has a high value-added rate. Even a small box of medicine that we usually buy may cost up to a few hundred dollars. Although medicine requires prolonged research, the costs of formula development and production are not very high. The same case applies to beauty products. As we all know, ladies usually spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars buying beauty products of international brands. There is no doubt that formula development takes a long time, but I believe once the formula is successfully developed, the cost of production should not be very high. Therefore, if we can manufacture these kinds of products in Hong Kong, I think re-industrialization is feasible. As for low cost products, as manual assembling for sale is required after successful development, very high wage cast is incurred. How can these products be re-industrialized?

Therefore, the products just mentioned by me are possible products or industries for re-industrialization, and the Secretary should therefore give strong support. The Government always talks about the lack of land, which is a well-known fact. This is why it is all the more important to identify the appropriate industries and then provide strong support. I think this would help Hong Kong to re-industrialize.

Deputy President, I have spoken for nearly 15 minutes and have to stop right away. Thank you, Deputy President.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6345

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding this Budget prepared by the Financial Secretary who takes up the post halfway, I think members of the public do not have very high expectations of it. As a matter of fact, as pointed out by many colleagues, the groundwork might have been laid long ago; hence, under the established framework, there are few novel ideas.

However, I wish to point out that the Introduction of the Budget is well written. The questions raised in paragraph 2 are well asked, such as: what are citizens' expectations of the Government? What is our ideal way of life? How do we position Hong Kong as an international city? These are all very good questions. In paragraph 3, the Financial Secretary hopes that "young people can cherish hopes for the future, the middle-aged need not worry about the competitiveness of the younger generation, and the elderly will have no fear of abandonment". That is also a good start. In paragraph 4, the Financial Secretary talks about easing the heavy burden of middle-class families and making appropriate investments essential for building a better Hong Kong. The introduction is very good indeed. However, I am afraid I can only say that the questions are comprehensive but the answers are partial.

Deputy President, I would like to talk about Hong Kong's position first as raised by the Financial Secretary. May I ask what the visions of Hong Kong are? At present, companies having the highest market capitalization value, such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook and even Tencent in Mainland China, share one thing in common, i.e. the application of very advanced information technology. These companies are very innovative and are not copycats. When they see new needs of the world or they even create such new needs, they provide new solutions for such needs. More importantly, wherever there is Internet connection, money can be made. This is the direction of development for Hong Kong, and young people in Hong Kong should pay very close attention to this trend.

I have recently read a report on the company Spotify, a music streaming platform that will be listed in the United States in September this year with an estimated market value of US$10 billion. Mr LI Ka-shing of Hong Kong once said that he made the right decision to invest in that company years ago as the anticipated profit was 100 to 150 times of the investment. Do not belittle him because of his age. He indeed has great foresight. Does this Budget have a forward-looking vision regarding its direction of development?

6346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

First of all, on the front of education, the provision is $87.5 billion, the second highest share of public expenditure by policy area after infrastructure, which receives $89.2 billion. However, after many rounds of education reform over the years, what results do we get? Many students committed suicide, many students flee from Hong Kong to study abroad, and many university students complain about being deeply in debt after graduation. It can be said that these students have no prospect and no hope for the future.

Deputy President, let me give a recent example. A person called Mr Joseph LAM has given up his practice as a barrister to become a "tutor king". As I have always said, if the tutoring industry in a certain place is so prosperous that one would rather be a "tutor king" than a barrister, there must be something wrong with the standard, level and system of education in that place.

Likewise, if many people of a place are obliged to hire private security guards or body guards for protection other than regular security guards or government security officers, the law and order in that place must have gone seriously wrong.

What I wish to say is that apart from increasing the provision on education, can we move a few steps forward and consider why so many parents arrange their children to study abroad, and why so many students prefer studying in international schools to attending schools under the local education system?

Rumour has it that after the Umbrella Movement, certain senior government officials proposed at the Government's morning prayer meetings to adopt the measures taken after the 1967 Riot, that is, to hold youth parties in different districts so that young people could dance and make friends with the opposite sex. Such kind of thinking is really behind the times. This can also explain why there are so many governance problems in Hong Kong.

Deputy President, it is announced in paragraph 68(d) that $1 billion will be deployed for youth development, which is the right direction. However, as I said just now, we do not have vision and government policies are totally out of touch with reality. In this respect, I hope that the Government will formulate some unconventional policies, and I will put forward some suggestions later on when I have the chance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6347

What vision do we have in respect of the financial industry? The Government seems happy and satisfied with issuing Silver Bonds and Islamic bonds, and becoming a small shareholder of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank ("AIIB"). However, we should be more ambitious. For example, as I have mentioned time and again, Hong Kong should strive to become the Renminbi infrastructure bond market to make up for the lack of a large capital pool, or the lack of a Renminbi infrastructure capital pool; or Hong Kong should strive to become a co-headquarter of AIIB. These are policies based on a grander vision and we should make greater efforts.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

In respect of bonds, I have proposed time and again that we should issue the "ONE bond", that is, the Belt and Road bond. Instead of just talking about the Belt and Road Initiative, we should capitalize on the Initiative to make money by issuing Renminbi infrastructure bonds. I hope that when the opportunity comes, the Government will not just focus on trivial matters.

A group of senators from the United States came to visit Hong Kong this morning and they asked a number of questions. I found the answers of a colleague representing the banking sector very interesting. He said that we used to compare Hong Kong with New York and London, and hence the term "Nylongkong" was coined. However, gradually we only compare Hong Kong with Singapore; worse still, we now compare Hong Kong with Shenzhen and Shanghai. As a matter of fact, according to the statistics in the first quarter, Hong Kong's initial public offerings ranking has dropped as it only ranks fifth after Shenzhen and Shanghai. This is attributed to our lack of vision in respect of the financial industry.

President, recently certain incidents have been disclosed which I presume that "Ben Sir", a popular figure on television who teaches Cantonese foul language, would, upon learning them, definitely say "so stupid" and "so mad". These incidents include the $40 million expenses of the Office of the Chief Executive-elect, even though second-hand furniture was used; the latest $5.4 billion government injection into the Hong Kong Disneyland, a black hole, 6348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 despite its deficit each year, while no subsidy has been given to the Ocean Park; and an expenditure of $157 million, a relatively smaller amount, by the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints ("JOIWSC"), an office which is frequently complained by the public and ridiculed by the media as the office that let people off the hook.

This morning, a colleague (Dr YIU Chung-yim I think) said that from 1997 to 2016, all infrastructure projects over $1 billion had a cost overrun of 30% on average and they have all along been losing money. Therefore, I think we have to allocate additional resources to two departments. The first is the Audit Commission. The Public Accounts Committee supports the work of the Audit Commission and specifically addresses the problems raised in the two Audit reports released each year. As a matter of fact, the Audit Commission always identifies the problems of government departments, in the hope that bureaux/departments will be more disciplined and use their resources more effectively and economically. The other department that I find to be very effective is the Project Cost Management Office ("PCMO"). PCMO plays a very constructive role in conducting value for money audits. After reviewing 60 infrastructure projects, an amount of $13 billion has been saved. I hope that the Government will allocate more resources to PCMO so that it can produce better results. I also hope that it will become a permanent department to further monitor the Government's spending.

President, concerning the section on infrastructure in the Budget (paragraphs 170 and 171), the Financial Secretary has not mentioned a loophole, which is the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal which I always ridicule it as a "zombie town". A few days ago, two major newspapers also criticized the present situation of the "Zombie Cruise Terminal". The so-called Energizing Kowloon East Office does not give people an impression that the Office has been "energized", instead the Office is moving at slow pace in respect of policy implementation. The Office was set up by the Chief Executive-elect. Other than making improvement in respect of providing one-stop service, few specific developments or changes have been made. We cannot lay all the blame on the Office as its ranking is relatively low. Apart from energizing property prices in Kowloon East, no other achievements have been made. At least, it cannot even build a bridge connecting Kwun Tong and the Cruise Terminal. Perhaps owing to the restrictions imposed by the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6349 authorities just cannot devise a bridge connecting the two places in a non-conventional and innovative manner, even an inexpensive floating bridge cannot be built.

As regards the footbridge system in Kowloon Bay, which has been discussed for years, it has yet to be constructed and one of the reasons is related to problems involving commercial buildings. The Kwun Tong footbridge has been discussed for years but so far, there is still no construction plan. The latest news is that the pavements in Kwun Tong will only be slightly widened and that is it. Nothing has been mentioned about the waterfront promenade from Kwun Tong to Cha Kwo Ling, which we have also discussed for a long time. It seems that Energizing Kowloon East has failed to accomplish anything to meet our expectation.

It is high time to review the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance that we have just mentioned. Will the restraints imposed by the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal on the Ordinance restrict the construction and development of Hong Kong? While I fully support protecting our Harbour, but if the current judgment of the Court of Final Appeal … I remember that when I discussed with the former Financial Secretary about making some minor amendment to the Cruise Terminal, he said that one could not even insert a nail. I believe many officials have come across this problem. I think it is time to conduct a review, and if the Government cannot take the lead in amending the Ordinance, I would propose a private Member's Bill to relax the over stringent restraints so as to avoid stifling all developments in Hong Kong.

President, some colleagues have pointed out that the Budget still sticks to the colonial practice in many ways. I have cited some examples, one of which is JOIWSC. Since it can perform its function, why not just disband it and outsource the work. Or if the Hong Kong Disneyland loses money every year, should we consider writing it off and stop injecting money into it and then make better use of the land? Or if the Mandatory Provident Fund that I always mention fails to protect people's retirement life, should we consider taking some unconventional approach and abolish it? This seems to be a drastic move but as in the case of Obamacare in the United States that I have cited before, although the former President of the United States boasted it as his greatest political 6350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 achievement, the incumbent President vowed to abolish it during his election campaign. As soon as he assumed office, he wanted to take immediate action to abolish it, but owing to various political reasons, such action has yet to be taken. We should learn from this incident to think out of the box. If certain approach proves to be unfeasible, then after giving due consideration and critically assessing the real situation, we must make some drastic decisions and break the old protocol, instead of making piecemeal patch-ups and following the established paths. This Budget should not follow the footsteps of others in making payments of reducing rents, that is not thinking out of the box and making consideration form a higher level perspective, which are prerequisites of an effective Budget.

President, in the remaining time, please allow me to talk about the housing problem, the prime concern of the public in recent years. If Members do not mind, let me quote from an article published by Mr SHIH Wing-ching a few days ago, which I think was very well-written. He proposed an unconventional approach to address our land and housing problem. Colleagues have raised different ideas but I think basically we can divide housing into three categories. The first one is public housing. If the problem with caged homes is to be resolved together, we must also provide some temporary housing and put more resources in constructing public housing, which should be our top priority.

Second, we do not need to build too many Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme or Home Ownership Scheme flats because that is not the role to be played by the Government. The Government only needs to implement certain policies, earmark some land for the exclusive use of Hong Kong people, restrict the target buyers and size of the flats, and also only allow each Hong Kong people to buy such kind of flat once in their lifetime. With such strict requirements, the land can be sold to developers at reasonable price to build flats for those who can afford to pay the appropriate construction costs and certain profits. That is all the Government has to do, it does not need to interfere too much in the free market.

The third is the private market. It no longer needs to adopt any "curb measures" (The buzzer sounded) …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6351

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): … Thank you, President.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2017 be adjourned to the meeting of 26 April 2017.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2017 be adjourned to the meeting of 26 April 2017.

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)

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 2017 at the meeting of 26 April 2017 during which public officers will respond. If the Bill receives Second Reading, its remaining stages will be proceeded with at that meeting.

6352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill").

PRIVATE COLUMBARIA BILL

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 November 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bills Committee"), I now report on the major deliberations of the Bills Committee.

In the last Legislative Council, a Bills Committee was formed to study the Private Columbaria Bill introduced by the Government in 2014 ("the Former Bill"). The resumption of Second Reading debate on the Former Bill was supported by the Bills Committee. However, as the Council must first deal with other priority items, the Former Bill did not resume its Second Reading debate and lapsed upon the prorogation of the previous term of the Legislative Council. The present Bill is largely the same as the Former Bill introduced in 2014 and incorporates all the Committee stage amendments ("CSAs") agreed to by the then Bills Committee ("the Former Bills Committee").

The Bill seeks to provide for the licensing of private columbaria for keeping ashes resulting from the cremation of human remains, as well as the establishment of the Private Columbaria Licensing Board ("the Licensing Board"), and make other provisions to deal with related matters.

The Bills Committee held eight meetings with the Administration and received written views from 17 organizations/individuals.

In the course of scrutinizing the Bill, members concurred with the concerns expressed by the Former Bills Committee that the Licensing Board or enforcement authorities might encounter enforcement difficulties in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6353 implementing specific provisions of the Bill. In this regard, the Administration reaffirmed its undertaking given to the Former Bills Committee, that is, it would keep in view the implementation of the Private Columbaria Ordinance ("the Ordinance") after its enactment, propose amendments to the Ordinance as and when necessary, and conduct a review of the Ordinance in any event around three years after its enactment. Later, the Secretary for Food and Health will give the above undertakings in his speech for resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Regarding private columbaria that were in operation, and in which ashes were interred in niches, immediately before the cut-off time as set out in the Bill (which is 8:00 am on 18 June 2014) ("pre-cut-off columbaria"), some members hold that if they are located on unlawfully-occupied unleased land, the Administration should endeavour to eradicate them rather than allowing operators of these columbaria to apply for regularization. These members also request the Administration to take measures to prevent operators of such columbaria from making profit by way of selling interment rights.

The Administration has advised that stringent requirements have been imposed for the regularization of unlawful occupation of unleased land or lease breach by pre-cut-off columbaria. Under these requirements, applications for regularization by pre-cut-off columbaria will be processed on a case-by-case basis having regard to their individual merits. Operators of pre-cut-off columbaria applying for a licence are subject to payment of full market value premium, waiver fee or short term tenancy rental as well as administrative fee for regularization, while pre-cut-off columbaria applying for the grant of exemption must fulfil the eligibility criteria of being dated (that is, they have commenced operation before 1 January 1990) and having ceased the selling or new letting of niches from the cut-off time onwards, and hence there has been no more income from sale of niches since then. Insofar as a pre-cut-off columbarium is concerned, irrespective of whether the columbarium is applying for a licence or an exemption, its occupation of land is limited to the extent as was necessary for its operation as at the cut-off time.

The Administration has further advised that in parallel, government departments with enforcement powers have been staying vigilant in their enforcement actions to contain the problem of unauthorized private columbaria. They have been nipping in the bud unauthorized private columbaria which have yet to start columbarium operations, so as to help contain the proliferation of newly-emerging cases.

6354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Members note that under section 4(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Bill, the Licensing Board may publish a notice of an application for the issue of a licence in respect of a private columbarium through the Internet or a similar electronic network or in any other manner that the Licensing Board considers appropriate. Some members consider that in addition to the notice of a licence application, other information on the application should also be uploaded onto the Licensing Board's website. Such online publication should also cover information on applications for the other two types of specified instruments (that is, an exemption and a temporary suspension of liability). In response, the Administration has advised that the suggestions would be relayed to the Licensing Board.

Separately, Members note the concern expressed by the Former Bills Committee that some requirements imposed by the Licensing Board or the Administration were not provided for in subsidiary legislation and hence not subject to scrutiny or amendment by the Legislative Council, but non-compliance of such requirements would entail criminal sanction. While members concur with the Former Bills Committee's concern about the serious consequence (that is, criminal sanction) for non-compliance, they are also aware that criminal sanction is necessary in order to have sufficient deterrent effect. Moreover, they consider that as non-compliance cases would be handled by the court, it could play the role of "gatekeeper" in deciding the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the offenders concerned. Taking into account the above factors, members decide to adopt the same approach as the Former Bills Committee, that is, they accept the relevant provisions as proposed by the Administration, and suggest that the Secretary should elaborate on such concerns of the Bills Committee in his speech later.

Members also note that an example of such requirements relates to the information about ashes and claims handled in carrying out the prescribed ash disposal procedures required by the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene ("DFEH") to be contained in the record of the steps that an ash handler has taken to carry out the procedures under section 10(1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill as revised by the Administration's proposed CSAs.

Regarding this requirement, the Bills Committee has requested the Administration to reaffirm its undertaking given to the Former Bills Committee that it will brief the relevant Panel after the implementation of the Ordinance on the difficulties encountered in enforcing the provision and on the details of information referred to therein. The Bills Committee has also requested the Secretary to give this undertaking again in his speech later.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6355

Moreover, responding to the comments made by members of the Bills Committee, the Legal Adviser and different stakeholder groups, the Administration has agreed to move a number of CSAs to various provisions of the Bill, including section 6(2) of Schedule 5. Apart from the three categories of "prescribed claimant" originally set out in the Bill (namely, an "authorized representative", a "personal representative" or "relative", or the "purchaser of the interment right"), the Administration proposes to add "related person" as an additional category of "prescribed claimant", so that a person who was living with the deceased person in the same household immediately before the date of the death of the deceased person and had been living with the deceased person in the same household for at least two years before that date ("the prescribed living period") may claim for the return of ashes of the deceased person interred in the columbarium. On the priority of claims, the claim of the "related person" would be lower than that of an "authorized representative" and a "personal representative" or "relative", but higher than that of the "purchaser of the interment right".

Some members ask about the basis of setting the prescribed living period to two years and whether it could be shortened to one year. They also ask about the rationale for according lower priority to a "related person" than a "relative" in claiming for the return of ashes of a deceased person. In this connection, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has indicated that he may consider proposing CSAs to further amend the Administration's proposed definition of "related person" and the relevant priority of claims. Dr Fernando CHEUNG has also indicated that he would move a CSA to extend the definition of "relative", so that a deceased person's same-sex partner in a marriage, civil partnership or civil union in any place outside Hong Kong is also eligible to claim for the return of the deceased person's ashes.

The Administration has advised that it has made reference to other existing legislation in formulating the definition of "related person". A "related person" will have the highest priority if he/she is also an "authorized representative". The Administration considers its proposed order of priority for claiming for the return of ashes appropriate.

Regarding Dr Fernando CHEUNG's proposed CSA, the Administration has advised that according to the current provisions in the Bill, a same-sex partner married at a place outside Hong Kong may already claim for the return of the ashes of the deceased person in the capacities of an "authorized representative", a "personal representative" or the "purchaser of the interment right", which do not require the claimant to have any connection with the deceased person by blood or 6356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 marriage. A same-sex partner, depending on the actual circumstances, may also be an "eligible claimant" and as such claim for the return of the ashes. In the circumstances that the ashes are in the possession of DFEH and no legal proceedings are pending, DFEH may, by exercising her discretion, hand the ashes to, among others, a same-sex partner married at a place outside Hong Kong as she deems appropriate. The Administration therefore considers that the current provisions in the Bill, together with its proposed CSA, are sufficient to facilitate the return of ashes to the relevant "related persons". It would hence be unnecessary to further amend the definition of "relative" as it will arouse serious controversy in society, and the Bill is not a suitable forum to tackle such controversy.

In addition, a member is concerned about the press report which alleges the existence of an 18-month vacuum period upon the gazettal of the Ordinance, during which there will be no supply of niches in the market. In this connection, members ask about the supply of public niches in that period, and how the public demand for niches therein could be met. The Administration has advised that the allegation is unsubstantiated. The Administration has already provided a paper to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene on the supply of niches and related issues after the enactment of the Bill. The Panel has also agreed that the matter will be discussed at its meeting on 9 May 2017.

President, the above is my report on the work of the Bills Committee. I shall now express my personal views on the Bill.

President, I hope that with the enactment of the Bill, an all-win situation can be created so that additional protection can be provided for members of the general public, the consumers as well as those compliant columbaria. As a matter of fact, many existing columbaria have either contravened the relevant land use requirements or breached the terms of the deeds of mutual covenant, while the operation of some columbaria has adversely impacted on the environment as well as the nearby traffic conditions. It is indeed true that the existing private columbaria are of varying standard.

I believe that after the passage of the Bill, non-compliant columbaria will be effectively regulated or even eradicated, thus bringing benefits to the public, the consumers, the environment and even the sustainable development of the trade. Hence, I hope the Bill will have cross-party support from Members of the Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6357

I have a few concerns about the specific contents of the Bill which I would like to share with the Secretary now. As I mentioned in the report of the Bills Committee a moment ago, the Bills Committee has discussed the possibility of having an 18-month vacuum period after the passage of the Bill. Although the Government has dismissed such an allegation, I would like to do some calculations for the Government. If the Bill is passed, it will take six months to establish the Licensing Board, to be followed by a period of three months for all private columbaria to lodge their applications for the vetting and approval of the Licensing Board. Time-wise, the whole process will take at least nine months (that is, six months plus another three months afterwards), not counting the time required by the Licensing Board to vet and approve the applications. I reckon that it will take at least 12 months before the relevant licenses can be granted by the Licensing Board.

So, while the 18-month vacuum period stated in the press report is perhaps too long, I think the transitional period will not be too short either. Thus it would be most important for the Government to adopt suitable measures to address the lack of supply of private niches.

According to the Government, the authorities have already come up with a back-up plan, that is, facilities would be made available for temporary storage of ashes. But paying of tribute by family members will not be allowed in these temporary storage facilities. The Administration has also suggested that members of the public can buy niches in columbaria managed by the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries or other authorized religious bodies. While such measures can indeed solve part of the problem, what is the actual situation in society?

President, many operators of private columbaria are now regarding niches as sought after rarities. Recently, a niche for placing up to three sets of ashes in a private columbarium in Sha Tin was put up for sale. At what price? The asking price is $3.48 million! President, it seems that the prices of housing both for the living and the dead have gone crazy! Now we often say that Hong Kong people cannot get married because they cannot afford home ownership. I am afraid that in future, we cannot be filial descendants even if we want to because private niches with a price tag of $3-odd million are indeed beyond our affordability.

6358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

At present, a standard private niche can cost up to $300,000 to $400,000, while some private niches have been sold for over $1 million, not to mention the niche I mentioned just now with an asking price of $3.4 million. If the columbaria concerned are operating legally, it should not create too much of a problem because they can most likely obtain a licence eventually. But if the columbaria concerned are what we commonly call Part B columbaria, they may have difficulty in obtaining a licence. Hence, consumers who have bought the niches in those columbaria may not get their money back, and even the ashes of their deceased relatives in the columbaria are not protected.

Personally, as no buying or selling of private niches is allowed after the gazettal of the Ordinance, I expect that private columbaria would be facing great operational difficulties, particularly those Part B columbaria, that is, the ones which may unlikely obtain a licence. They may close down one after another. In case the cessation of operation of these Part B columbaria coincides with the 12 months or so vacuum period, what places are available for the storage of ashes? This is the question which the Government must resolve.

Meanwhile, I note from some press reports that some qualified columbarium operators have applied to the Government for land use rezoning in respect of certain sites. But when negotiating the land premium to be paid, the Government is demanding astronomical sums. The Secretary should know very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the operators of these private columbaria are asked to pay hefty land premiums, the niches they are going to sell in future will definitely be very expensive. This will only repeat the mistake in the present real estate market.

I believe that if the Government and the relevant private columbarium operators can agree on reasonable sums of land premium to be paid, the future supply of medium-priced niches will be increased, which will help address the current problems of inadequate supply as well as exorbitant prices of niches. Hence, I very much hope that the Government can adopt a more flexible approach in any future discussions on land premium, instead of simply asking the operators concerned to pay as much as they can. If the operators are willing to pay the hefty land premiums, the niches they are going to sell in future will definitely be very expensive. But if they are unwilling to do so, the supply of private niches in the market will decrease, which is not a good thing in terms of the overall prices of private niches.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6359

There is another issue which I would like to talk about. At present, the Development Bureau has already kept a list of private columbaria in Hong Kong that is, the Part A and Part B columbaria as they are commonly called. In fact, the authorities already have a good grasp of the operation of individual private columbarium through these two categories, that is, whether there are any contraventions or breach of land requirements, and so on. When the Licensing Board considers the applications in future, it cannot practically review the cases of all the 100-odd columbaria in on go. That is why the Licensing Board must prioritize its work. I strongly call on the Government and the Licensing Board to give priority to handling the applications from "List A" columbaria because their operations are in compliance with the Government's existing requirements in respect of land use, the terms of land leases, as well as environmental impact assessments, and so on. Presumably, they have a greater chance of being issued with a licence, meaning that the vetting and approval of their applications can be completed sooner. The Government must not mix all applications from the 100-odd private columbaria in its review. If the authorities can review the Part A columbaria first so that they can be issued with a licence in the first instance, Members' concern about the vacuum period can be resolved earlier. That is my expectation for the Bill or the work of the Licensing Board.

Last but not least, I would like to tell the Secretary that although results have indeed been achieved in respect of green burial as promoted by the Administration, there is still much room for improvement because so far, green burial (that is, scattering of ashes in gardens of remembrance or at sea) only accounts for about 10% of cremations. With more efforts made by the Government in this regard, I am sure that it will help address the inadequate supply of niches in both the public and private sectors.

President, that brings me to the end of my speech. With these remarks, I support the Bill. Thank you, President.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the Government proposes to enact the Private Columbaria Ordinance ("the Ordinance") for the purpose of regulating private columbaria. The Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") now being scrutinized by the Council seeks to establish a licensing scheme of private columbaria, provide for the criminal liabilities of illegal operators and prescribe the procedures for the handling of ashes in the event of private columbaria ceasing operation.

6360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

At present, many private columbaria are operating in breach of user restrictions in land leases or statutory town planning requirements. According to the survey conducted by the Development Bureau on private columbaria since December 2010, as at 31 March 2017, there were about 153 private columbaria in Hong Kong, and of which, as many as 123 are in breach of the relevant planning requirements or lease conditions, or have even occupied Government land illegally. Compared with the findings of the first survey in 2010, the number of such columbaria has increased substantially by 52.

In view of the above situation, what actions have been taken by the Lands Department, the Planning Department and the Buildings Department over the years? As shown by the Development Bureau's survey, most unauthorized columbaria have been in operation since December 2010. They have been operating for more than six years and are still charging expensive fees. Nonetheless, the Bureau simply records such violations in its reports to be updated once every three months, without taking any enforcement actions. The situation is like a teacher who never punishes his students even though they have been cheating in examinations repeatedly. Every time, the teacher would only write down the names of the cheating students without punishing them, hence they need not bear any consequence up till graduation.

I think I need not explain in detail the deplorable operation conditions of such columbaria. What we consider to be even more ridiculous is the stance taken by the authorities in dealing with columbaria which operate in breach of the relevant planning requirements or lease conditions or even occupy Government land illegally. We cannot help but ask whether the Government is actually conniving at the continued operation of these unauthorized columbaria. The best example is the illegal occupation of Government land by rural forces in the New Territories as revealed by the Wang Chau incident. After the passage of the Bill, even though the Food and Health Bureau is vested with statutory powers to eradicate unauthorized columbaria, it does not mean that the situation of illegal occupation of Government land will actually be improved. In the long run, not only should all unauthorized columbaria be eradicated, but all unauthorized premises which breach the relevant requirements or use the land illegally for commercial development should be severely penalized in accordance with the law, so as to ensure the optimal use of land in Hong Kong, as well as the allocation of scarce land resources to the people with the greatest need.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6361

As far as the Bill is concerned, I would like to stress in particular that the Government must enforce the law vigorously to prevent unauthorized columbaria from abusing the new system and deferring the application of a formal licence indefinitely by applying for an exemption or the issue of a temporary suspension of liability. Otherwise, the Ordinance will only become a "toothless tiger". With the formal implementation of the Ordinance, the previous situation where the authorities only issue warnings without taking any enforcement actions must be rectified seriously.

We often say that Hong Kong people have a huge demand for housing, but actually the demand for housing for the dead is also great. The purpose for enacting the Ordinance to regulate private columbaria is to protect consumers, as well as their relatives and friends, in purchasing niches. Hence, as far as the protection of consumer rights is concerned, consumers will have an easier and more systematic way to identify reliable columbarium operators after the commencement of the Ordinance. Hence, I greatly welcome the legislation. In the long run, I hope the Government can study whether the sale of niches as well as the business practices of private columbaria should be put under further regulation, so as to ensure the dissemination of open and transparent information without any misleading element.

Some concern groups hope that the legislation can provide for the establishment of an operation or compensation fund by columbarium operators, as well as the introduction of a licensing system of sales personnel. As the services provided by private columbaria are for life, and niches are sold at expensive prices, the Government must step up regulation so as to give consumers longer and more robust protection, even after they pass away. Therefore, I urge the Government to commence the relevant study as well as the legislative exercise as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill, and to review the effectiveness of the Ordinance within three years.

Last but not least, the interment of ashes of the deceased is closely related to family values. Of course, the Ordinance has given regard to such values and hence, when an unauthorized columbarium is eradicated, family members of the deceased are given priority to claim for the return of ashes interred in the columbarium to prevent any loss or misplacement. Nonetheless, the Bill also presents an excellent opportunity for us to review the current state of family and marriage equality in Hong Kong. As we consider the procedures for handling the ashes of the deceased, is it possible to better protect people in different kinds 6362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 of close relationships, so that same-sex domestic partners of deceased persons can also claim for the return of ashes and continue to protect their beloved ones? I will further explain my stance and justifications during the Committee stage. I will also propose a Committee stage amendment on the requirements of the claimant.

All in all, the enactment of the Ordinance is the first step towards regulating private columbaria and protecting the ashes of the deceased. Members from different parties and political groupings should support the Bill. But the Government should not be complacent or stop moving forward. We must continue to improve and review the laws concerning the regulation of private columbaria or other related industries.

With these remarks, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, "live without a decent home, die without a burial place" is an inauspicious remark, but ironically, it is an apt description of the reality faced by Hong Kong people nowadays. In fact, Hong Kong people, when alive, have to face high property prices and some even cannot afford to rent a residential unit. After they passed away, getting a niche is extremely difficult. One has to wait endlessly for niche allocation or a private niche is unaffordable; even if one has bought a niche, he is worried if the columbarium is authorized or if he is protected under the law. In other words, Hong Kong people cannot rest in peace.

Therefore, President, we must expeditiously pass the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") to regulate private columbaria and empower the authorities to stop the operation of unauthorized columbaria. Since there is currently a huge demand for niches in the market, many business operators or religious groups have illegally operated columbaria in premises that breach land leases and planning requirements.

Unfortunately, the Town Planning Board does not have statutory power to enforce the laws, the Lands Department has difficulties in investigating and eradicating each unauthorized columbarium, and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") has no power to do anything in this regard. Thus, we must expeditiously pass the Bill to clearly provide for the centralized licensing of columbaria and the powers and responsibilities of law enforcement, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6363 so as to protect the rights of consumers. While the Bill should be passed expeditiously, it still has many inadequacies, and we expect the Government to conduct a review and plug the loopholes as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill.

After the passage of the Bill, the Government and the Licensing Board should reach a consensus that the vetting and approval of applications should be stringent rather than loose. Non-compliant columbaria must meet the requirements before licenses are granted for continued operation; otherwise they should be eradicated. If the Board is loose in processing the applications or even grants amnesty to non-compliant columbaria, many business operators or groups may think they can try their luck and expect the Government to give them the "green light" to continue with their operation. As a result, consumers will be misled and victimized. I do not want the authorities to become a "toothless tiger" after the passage of the Bill, failing to enforce the law according to the legislative intent. Thus, after the passage of the Bill, the Government must conduct inspections and be stringent in processing licence applications. At present, many groups and persons are exploiting the legal loopholes to continue with their operation of columbaria. Therefore, after the passage of the Bill, the Government should increase manpower to conduct frequent inspections to check if any columbarium is exploiting the legal loopholes to continue with its operation.

President, I have a few suggestions on the Bill which I hope the Policy Bureau will at least put them on record for future consideration when conducting the review. First, the Government should consider establishing an operation or compensation fund to protect the rights of consumers. The Government can take reference from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund on the modus operandi of the fund. The columbaria operators will be required to contribute a certain percentage of the profits from the sale of niches to the compensation fund. In case a columbarium closes down due to mismanagement, etc., money can be taken out from the fund to compensate the victims. I think this arrangement can give consumers very good protection. Certainly, the compensation fund should be managed by an independent board which will provide clear statements of accounts and details of the compensation proposals, so that the public will know under what circumstances will compensation be awarded and through which channels they can take actions against non-compliant columbaria to safeguard their interests.

6364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Second, the operation fund should also be prudently managed because the amount of money involved may be huge. The fund needs to be monitored. After the Government has established the fund, the constitution of the board should be determined appropriately, so that the board will be well monitored and operate under high transparency. We hope that the authorities will allow more representatives of community groups to become board members to monitor the operation of the fund.

Third, while the Bill regulates the land use, planning and buildings of columbaria, agents and private investors are not subject to regulation and hence they do not have to bear legal liability. Owing to this inadequacy of the Bill, law breakers may exploit the loopholes to deceive consumers. At present, real estate agents are regulated by law to comply with the code of practice and they cannot act recklessly. However, it seems that the authorities have not imposed regulation on columbaria agents. Thus, the Government should seriously consider this problem in its future review; otherwise, buyers of "housing for the dead" may be misled or cheated, as at the time when real estate agents were not subject to regulation. When the Government reviews the law in future, I hope it will consider this problem.

Fourth, the grace period. At present, the grace period is "3+3", i.e. three years plus three years. An unlicensed columbarium can apply for temporary suspension of liability, so that it can make improvements within a period of three years. After three years, it can apply for an extension of another three years and obtain exemption for a total period of six years. The Bill provides that a grace period of "not more than three years" can be given in the first three years. In other words, the grace period can be less than three years. In fact, some columbaria have already breached various requirements and their applications to the Town Planning Board ("TPB") for changing land uses have already been rejected. Extending the grace period will not help these columbaria to get approval from TPB, and these columbaria apply to extend the grace period merely to extend their operation period. The Government should devise ways to stop extending the grace period again and again. I think the grace period should not be extended unless the applicant has a very special reason. Although the maximum duration of a grace period is three years, it is not a must to grant a grace period of three years.

Besides, under the Town Planning Ordinance, there is no limit to the number of applications made to TPB. Even if an application is rejected within the grace period of three years, another application can be made. The applicants LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6365 are very clever. If an applicant suspects that his application may likely be rejected, he may withdraw the application during the hearing, and reapply again a few months later, so as to get further extension. He may even apply for an extension of the grace period on this pretext. Thus, the Government and the Licensing Board should issue clear licensing guidelines, and prohibit applicants from reapplying after they have withdrawn their applications. Moreover, applicants can only apply once, either their application is approved or rejected. This will prevent applicants from adopting delaying tactics to buy time to continue with their operation.

Fourth, after the passage of the Bill, the Government or the Licensing Board should increase the transparency of information on columbaria, and upload as much information as possible for public access. The information to be provided should include the name of the company, whether it is registered in Hong Kong or overseas, its mortgage information, the scope of the licensed columbarium, the selling prices of niches and the number of niches available. The online information should also include whether the columbarium has breached any requirement or received any sanction before. Consumers will then be more informed and less likely to fall into traps when they buy niches. I hope the Government and the Licensing Board will pay more attention to these areas and put in more efforts.

Fifth, the constitution, functions and powers of the Licensing Board. The Bill provides that all members, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Licensing Board shall be appointed by the Chief Executive. It does not provide for the background of members and only stipulates that the Chief Executive has full power to determine the constitution of the Board. If any conflict of interests is involved, the member concerned only has to declare interests. I am very worried that the members appointed by the Government to the Licensing Board will mainly comprise of practitioners of the columbarium trade, resulting in licensing matters not being handled justly, effectively and fairly. Therefore, I hope that the Licensing Board will comprise of more neutral persons to monitor the overall operation. I also hope that more members of the Licensing Board are representatives of community groups so that the public can perform a monitoring role. Besides, the Licensing Board should also have planning and lands experts. Certainly, practitioners of the trade cannot be excluded, but I hope that their number will be as few as possible to avoid conflict of interests.

6366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Sixth, after the passage of the Bill, FEHD should conduct another stocktaking exercise on public niches to ascertain their numbers (including those in which ashes are interred, those which have not been sold and those which are vacant). FEHD conducted a stocktaking exercise when the Bill was announced in June 2014, but a long time has passed since then. It is necessary to conduct another stocktaking exercise to review the current situation. This will facilitate regulation and avoid confusion after the issuance of licenses.

President, finally, I have to stress one point, owing to a shortage of public niches and a large number of non-compliant private columbaria, regulation is thus necessary. It would be best if the Government can expedite the construction of public columbaria so that the public do not have to resort to buying private niches as no other choices are available. I hope that the number of private niches will continue to decrease while the number of public niches will keep increasing.

I hope that the Government will make more efforts in meeting the increasing demand for niches by the public. We do not wish to see the rich being compelled to buy niches despite the high prices, while the poor who cannot afford to buy niches are anxious about the placement of their ashes after they passed away. I think the Government has to practically deal with these situations. Certainly, as I said earlier, the best solution is to increase the number of public niches. In addition, while the Government is already promoting green burial, I hope more efforts can be made, so that the demand for niches will drop. Moreover, I think the Government should set a time limit for the use of niches (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please stop speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Second Reading of the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill"). I believe that many Hong Kong people, especially those who have recently lost their beloved ones, are eager to see the expeditious passage of this long-awaited Bill by the Legislative Council in this current session.

Instead of saying that this Bill has made a contribution, I might as well describe it as a rectification of the past policy blunders of the Government. Surely, government officials of the current-term Government, including Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6367

Dr KO, might not be held accountable for these policy blunders because the decision to cease the building of public columbaria was actually made by the last-term Government. After the then Secretary for Food and Health adopted a public-private partnership approach for building columbaria, which is now considered pretty unacceptable, there was a proliferation of unauthorized or illegally-operated columbaria in the market, the sales practices of which are unscrupulous.

Recently, as some private columbaria operators anticipated that they might be affected upon the commencement of the Bill, they held a press conference on 5 April, claiming that as many as 200 000 to 300 000 niches in private columbaria might not be granted license, which was higher than 80 000 as predicted by the Government. I hope that when the Secretary speaks later on, he will tell us clearly if the Government has underestimated the number, and what other alternatives are available to those members of the public who have been misled into purchasing illegal niches. I understand that the Government will certainly minimize by all means the nuisance caused to members of the public who need to claim for the return of ashes of the deceased during the vacuum period after the unauthorized columbaria are eradicated, but distant water cannot put out a fire nearby. If the Government estimates that only 80 000 niches are affected, how is it going to deal with 200 000 to 300 000 niches?

And yet, I do not endorse the proposal put forward by operators of private columbaria to extend the grace period to 2047. This proposal is interesting in the sense that it is tantamount to asking the Government not to enforce the law against lawbreakers who have cheated the public, for once the law is enforced, people who have been cheated will suffer further. We hope that the Government will not only refrain from extending the grace period, but also step up law enforcement. Otherwise, operators of private columbaria may harbour the hope that the Government will grant exemptions or amnesty from time to time, thereby encouraging the proliferation of unauthorized private columbaria.

In fact, the current-term Government has already increased the provision of niches. Although 14 sites providing a total of 500 000 new niches will gradually be completed from 2021 onwards, there is still a long way to go from now to 2018 when new niches are available. Although the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries will also provide 12 600 new niches, it is still insufficient to meet the demand for niches to inter ashes of the deceased from last year to this year and early next year. Moreover, the Government has to identify 6368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 sites to relocate the ashes interred in unauthorized private columbaria being eradicated after the Bill comes into operation. I hope that the Government will step up its effort to assist those helpless descendants who are desperately looking for alternative niches to inter the ashes of their ancestors.

During the scrutiny of the Bill and at the previous Council meetings, we have asked the Government to promote more vigorously green burial. In my opinion, the Government's current publicity on scattering ashes in gardens of remembrance or at sea is not too impactful. In a tiny city like Hong Kong, I think no matter how many niches will be built in future, the supply will still be insufficient after a certain period of time. It is therefore unrealistic, in theory, to expect that this tiny city can meet the insatiable demand. In many places, including Asian and some Western countries, the practices and concepts of green burial are pretty well advanced, but the Hong Kong Government is lagging behind in this regard. Apart from promoting the scattering of ashes in gardens of remembrance or at sea, has the Government considered allowing or encouraging people to keep a small amount of ashes at home through various means? As a matter of fact, memorial jewelry made from ashes, such as rings, is now available in the market.

In my view, apart from relying on the private sector, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") should also give due consideration to this area, and offer members of the public other affordable alternatives that also comply with the principle of green burial, for example, the production of memorial jewelry or allow people to keep a small amount of ashes at home. Many places including Japan and Korea have already adopted such practices, how come Hong Kong always lags behind others?

On the other hand, the Bill has also exposed a number of problems, especially the law enforcement actions against unauthorized columbaria. In fact, the major reason why so many unauthorized columbaria are able to survive and even continue to cheat consumers is due to negligence on the part of some government departments, particularly the Lands Department ("LandsD") and the Planning Department ("PlanD"). Unauthorized columbaria are mainly found in the New Territories, especially New Territories West or New Territories East, but these two departments have not taken any action from the commencement of sale of niches to the time all niches were sold out. This explains the proliferation of unauthorized columbaria at present.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6369

Even if the Government steps up effort and takes enforcement actions after the passage of the Bill, can Members imagine the conflicts that will arise if the number of affected niches is as many as over 200 000? Can Members imagine the confrontation and conflicts that will arise if the affected descendants are forced to claim for the return of their ancestors' ashes but not given any alternative space for storage?

This is the last thing that I would wish to see, and to me, these consumers are also victims. Owing to the Government's policy blunders in the past, there is a shortage of niches and consumers are forced to pay huge amount of money to buy niches to inter the ashes of their ancestors. Hence, they are absolutely innocent. One or two years ago, many friends asked me whether the messages contained in columbarium advertisements were true or not. Given that the price of a niche usually ranges from $50,000 or $60,000 to a maximum of $200,000, how many families can afford to buy? Even if they can afford to buy, it is possible that a few years later, the Government may announce a total ban on those unauthorized columbaria within six years. Can Members imagine the blow dealt on them? While we do not wish to see the Government relaxing its law enforcement action, we also eagerly hope that it can provide appropriate assistance to people who have been misled into buying or who voluntarily bought unauthorized niches.

At present, the biggest problem is the provision of temporary niches during this period of time. The 80 000 niches to be provided by the Government is not enough. Is it possible for the Government to identify certain vacant buildings of PlanD, LandsD or the Government Property Agency in the New Territories for temporary storage of ashes? I think this is the option that the Government should explore, given that there are currently many abandoned village schools or buildings in Hong Kong that are suitable for temporary storage of ashes.

As for the unauthorized columbaria, I hope that the future enforcement actions will be more specific. After all, this is related to the power vested in the Private Columbaria Licensing Board ("Licensing Board") and the Appeal Board under the Bill. To my regret, I fail to see that the constitution of the Licensing Board has a high degree of transparency. This will not only lead to the public's query about the credibility the Licensing Board, but also their disapproval of its practices. I eagerly hope that these two boards can really be a help to the Government in respect of processing license applications and advising on how law enforcement actions should be taken, and that they will not, as in the case of many statutory bodies at present, be a drag on the Government.

6370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Furthermore, after the Bill comes into operation, we hope that a number of government departments, including FEHD, Buildings Department, LandsD and PlanD will strictly enforce the law. Although different departments had indicated during the scrutiny of the Bill that a cut-off time was set in 2014, we are very concerned if there is any under-the-table transaction since then. Has anyone continued to secretly sell niches through other means? Has anyone continued to occupy Government land illegally? Has anyone continued to disregard the law enforcement actions taken by various departments after the Bill comes into operation? Even if the Bill is passed, there is still doubtful whether unauthorized columbaria can really be eradicated.

Another issue is related to applications made to the Town Planning Board ("TPB") for changing land use, which Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has also mentioned earlier on. According to the application criteria laid down by TPB, an applicant may submit application for unlimited times and a new application can be submitted after the previous application is turned down. I am gravely worried that this loophole may encourage unauthorized columbaria operators to continue occupying Government land illegally, or even continue using unscrupulous means to mislead consumers into buying their unauthorized niches. There was a suggestion that the Government should establish an operation fund to provide assistance. I must point out that the Government has to be very cautious when establishing the operation fund, otherwise it may become a complement to the unscrupulous practices of the unauthorized columbaria.

Furthermore, there is another point that may not be directly related to the Bill, and that is, the allocation system of public niches. Members may recall that The Ombudsman had expressed strong views about the practice adopted by FEHD, saying that the balloting exercise was indeed a punishment to the descendants, especially those who have recently lost their family members, and there is currently no other mechanism that can offer a more reasonable allocation. Some suggested and The Ombudsman also proposed that the Government should adopt the "first registration, then allocation" approach to replace the existing balloting exercise. Why do descendants who have been waiting for years have to ballot with applicants who have just submitted their applications? The Government's approach is so unfair.

No matter what, after the passage of the Bill, the Government should not slow down its pace in the provision of public niches because in the long run, the supply of niches still depends heavily on the Government. Notwithstanding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6371 that, just as I have said time and again at the beginning of my speech, the Government should promote green burial vigorously, which include providing supporting facilities or even financial support. All alternatives should be explored.

In this tiny city in which even the living cannot be tolerated, we are indeed very miserable, but I believe that by introducing new or more advanced concepts and by adopting an open attitude, problems relating to niches can be resolved.

With these remarks, I support the Second Reading.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, given the large population and scarcity of land in Hong Kong, the relative shortage of columbarium facilities is an issue of wide public concern. In the past, I had expressed my views and concerns on this issue to the authorities in different capacities, including as a member of the Town Planning Board in vetting and approving applications and as a member of the District Council in attending consultative meetings to collect views on columbaria. Sites suitable for building columbaria are few and decisions to build them are often met with oppositions from residents of the districts where the chosen sites are located. These factors have presented difficulties to both public and private columbarium operators. If a proposed plan to build a columbarium is compatible with the surroundings; will not cause too much interference with the daily lives of the local residents; will be supported by adequate ancillary transport facilities; and is justified in terms of project feasibility and compatibility with the community, the authorities should consider the planning application from the perspective of meeting the social needs and render prudent support.

The main purpose of the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") tabled by the SAR Government is to provide for the licensing of private columbaria for keeping ashes resulting from the cremation of human remains, including the establishment of the Private Columbaria Licensing Board ("the Licensing Board"); and provide for consequential amendments to other Ordinances. The Bill will help to regulate private columbaria and enhance consumer protection and there are not many substantial disputes about the Bill in the community. Surprisingly, there had been twists and turns in the scrutiny of the Bill at the Legislative Council. The Administration introduced the 2014 Bill ("the Former Bill") into the Legislative Council of the last term in June 2014 and a Bills Committee ("the 6372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Former Bills Committee") was subsequently formed by the Council. In response to the deliberations of the Former Bills Committee, the Administration submitted a total of 547 Committee stage amendments ("CSAs"). The resumption of the Second Reading debate, Committee stage and Third Reading of the Former Bill were put on the Agendas of the Council meetings of 6 and 13 July 2016. Nevertheless, owing to the filibustering of some Members, the deliberation had not been completed and the Former Bill lapsed upon the prorogation of the previous term of the Legislative Council.

After the commencement of the current-term Legislative Council, the Administration made another attempt and reintroduced the Bill into this Council in November last year. The Bill is based on the Former Bill and incorporates all the aforesaid CSAs. Some technical amendments are also made. A new Bills Committee is formed, and being a member of the Bills Committee, I have participated in the scrutiny of the Bill. The Bills Committee held eight meetings with the Government and received written views from some community groups and members of the public. The Bills Committee eventually supported the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Bill at this Council meeting.

From the contents of the Bill, it is well evident that the authorities have considered the main concerns of the Bills Committees of the two terms and made further amendments to the original CSAs. For example, stringent requirements have been imposed for the regularization of unlawful occupation of unleashed land and/or lease breach by pre-cut-off columbaria. In other words, applications for regularization by private columbaria that were in operation immediately before the cut-off time of 8:00 am on 18 June 2014 will be processed on a case-by-case basis having regard to their individual merits, and enforcement actions will also be taken against non-compliant columbaria by the Government. Another example is that in view of the endless dubious operation practices, the Bill requires the registers of pre-cut-off columbaria to contain the particulars specified by the Licensing Board so that it can flexibly deal with unforeseen circumstances.

President, the divergent views between the Administration and some members of the Bills Committee of this term are reflected in the CSAs proposed by some Members. The differences are mainly related to the definition of "related person" and the priority of claim for the return of ashes in the process of disposing ashes. Under section 6(2) of Schedule 5 to the Bill, a "prescribed claimant", in relation to the ashes of a deceased person, means an "authorized LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6373 representative"; a "personal representative" or "relative"; or the "purchaser of the interment right". With a view to further facilitating the return of ashes to relevant persons related to the deceased, the Government proposes to move a CSA to add "related person" as an additional category of "prescribed claimant" under section 6 of Schedule 5 to the Bill.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr Fernando CHEUNG will respectively propose CSAs to extend the definition of "related person" or "relative" so that a deceased person's same-sex partner in a marriage, civil partnership or civil union in any jurisdiction outside Hong Kong shall also be eligible to claim for the return of the deceased person's ashes. As the authorities have explained to the Bills Committee, the Government will make reference to other existing legislation in formulating the definition of "related person" and in verifying the status of a "related person". Besides, under the existing provisions of the Bill, a same-sex partner married at a place outside Hong Kong may already claim for the return of the ashes of the deceased person in the capacity of an "authorized representative" which does not require the claimant to have any connection with the deceased person by blood or marriage. Thus, it is not necessary to amend the definitions of "related person" or "relative" as proposed by the Members. Amending the definitions will cause great controversies in society and a debate on the Bill is not an appropriate platform to deal with such controversies.

Furthermore, section 9(5) of Schedule 5 to the Bill has already provided the priority of claim of a "related person" for the return of ashes among claims of prescribed claimants. Some people are of the view that if a "related person" is considered as an "authorized representative", the claim will have the highest priority. The CSA proposed by the Government seeks to provide that the order of priority of the claim of a "related person" is lower than those of an "authorized representative" and a "personal representative" or "relative", but higher than that of the "purchaser of the interment right".

The CSAs proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Nathan LAW and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung are substantially the same. They seek to provide that the priority of claim of a "related person" is lower than that of an "authorized representative", but is equal to that of a "personal representative" or "relative", and higher than that of a "purchaser of interment right". The Government has advised that it has made reference to the relevant legislation and considered the order of priority proposed by the authorities appropriate.

6374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

President, I and Members of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") consider the explanations given by the Administration for the two issues mentioned above justified. In addition, the Administration has taken reference of the other existing legislation in formulating CSAs. We consider its approach prudent and appropriate. On the contrary, Members have proposed CSAs, particularly those which seek to amend the definitions of "related person" or "relative", the contents of which are actually very controversial in society. It will be inappropriate to rashly include the relevant amendments in the Bill before reaching any consensus in the community. Thus, a more practical approach is to scrutinize and pass the provisions on which consensus has been reached, so as to respond to the demands of society to enhance the regulation of private columbaria. I have also noticed that the Administration has actually undertaken repeatedly that it will keep in view the implementation of the Ordinance after the passage of the Bill; propose amendments where necessary and definitely review the Ordinance about three years after its enactment.

President, as our demographic structure changes, the authorities have predicted a continuous increase in the number of deceased persons in Hong Kong in the next 20 years. Given the scarcity of our land resources, it is obviously not a sustainable approach to solely rely on the supply of new niches for disposing ashes. In the long term, the Government should enhance the regulation of private columbaria and seek to increase the supply of niches to meet the public demand for columbarium facilities and services. More importantly, the Government should strive to promote green burial and encourage the public to scatter ashes of deceased persons in gardens of remembrance and the sea with a view to facilitating changes in the customs and traditions. That will be a fundamental solution to the problem.

President, based on the above mentioned considerations, I and Members of BPA support the passage of the Bill and CSAs proposed by the Government, but we oppose the relevant CSAs proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Nathan LAW and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung.

President, I so submit.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Second Reading debate on the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") was not resumed in the last term of the Legislative Council because of the filibuster staged by some Members; the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6375

Liberal Party and I found this regrettable. At present, confusing messages on columbaria have been circulated in the market. Rumour has it that the supply of niches will be substantially reduced after the enactment of legislation, hence the selling prices of private niches have been surging. So, it is essential to pass the Bill as soon as possible.

As a member of the related Bills Committee in the last and current term, I have to thank the Chairmen of the two Bills Committees and Miss Diane WONG, Principal Assistant Secretary for Food and Health for her hard work and contribution; my gratitude will certainly include the Legal Adviser and the Clerks. They have participated fully in the deliberation of the Bill. However, I am not sure if we will get half the results with twice the effort as the passage of the Bill is still uncertain.

President, the Liberal Party welcomes the Bill which provides a legal framework and a licensing system to regulate private columbaria in Hong Kong. In fact, this is a piece of new legislation with wide coverage and great complexity. The Bills Committees of the two terms have spent nearly three years to carry out discussions. The contents of the Bill introduced by the Government are roughly the same as the Former Bill introduced in the last term, except that the previous 547 Committee stage amendments have entirely been incorporated into this Bill.

As there was a lack of regulation of private columbaria in Hong Kong, these columbaria have been expanding in the community, giving rise to many livelihood problems without our being aware of them. Therefore, it is necessary for us to face up to and deal with the problems.

Although the Bill has not provided for the constitution of the Licensing Board, I would like to remind the authorities on behalf of the Liberal Party that members of the Licensing Board must include professionals who are familiar with the operation of government departments relating to the licensing procedures such as fire services and planning. Of course, public participation is necessary to ensure that licensing conditions are practicable and feasible and can balance the needs and interests of various stakeholders.

The Administration specifies in the Bill that a public officer cannot be panel member of the Appeal Board, but a judge, a deputy judge, a recorder of the Court of First Instance or a District Judge may be appointed as panel members of 6376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 the Appeal Board. I think this is a reasonable arrangement. I have mentioned on various occasions that it is appropriate and desirable to appoint retired judges as panel members of the Appeal Board. They often hold pertinent and objective views and have rich legal knowledge for handling these cases.

Frankly speaking, though I do not have strong views on the Bill, I still cannot be certain if it can be implemented smoothly. It is a headache that there are a lot of private columbaria which fail to comply with user restrictions in the land leases and the statutory town planning requirements, that is, the columbaria listed in Part B of the Information on Private Columbaria published by the Development Bureau. We still do not know how many private columbaria will eventually have to cease operation because of premium issues and changes in property ownership, etc., and whether this will consequently lead to the displacement of a large number of niches.

According to the information provided by the Development Bureau, there are at present a total of 385 000 private niches, about 80% of them are kept in columbaria with a long history, that is, columbaria that are granted exemption or temporary suspension of liability. It is estimated that around 80 000 niches have to be relocated. These are the biggest hidden worries concerning the Bill.

I advise the Administration to plan ahead. In case some columbaria have to cease operation for non-compliance with the licensing requirements, the Government must set up an effective mechanism to provide adequate temporary niches, so as to resolve the ash disposal problem faced by the public after the closure of columbaria. The Government should also consider how consumers can effectively recover losses when private columbaria cease operation.

The Liberal Party suggests that the Government should set up a fund from levies collected from operators, as in the case of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund. Money from the fund can be used to pay a certain percentage of costs payable by consumers to relocate their ancestors' ashes.

After all, the Bill alone cannot sufficiently resolve the problem of a serious shortage of columbaria at present. The Administration must honour the commitment to build adequate public niches to meet the needs of different people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6377

The Administration promised years ago to deal with the problem on a regional basis by "building columbarium in every district". According to the Administration, 24 sites have been identified in 18 districts for the development of columbaria.

As pointed out by Secretary for Food and Health Dr KO Wing-man earlier, after a few rounds of technical assessment and consultation with District Councils, progress has been made on 14 sites, and it is estimated that a total of 590 000 new niches can be provided.

I certainly welcome the progress, but it has been proved by facts that the objective of "building columbarium in every district" can hardly be achieved. Everyone wants to have a garden in their district, while refuse depots should be set in other districts. If we just focus on our immediate needs, it will be really hard to identify sites for building niches. Therefore, I think the Administration should enhance the promotion of green burial, so that more people would accept and use such services, thereby reducing the demand for niches.

Finally, I would like to summarize the views of the Liberal Party on the amendments proposed by a few Members. In fact, the amendments proposed by the four Members are similar and they mainly seek to broaden the definition of those eligible to claim for the return of ashes.

The amendments of Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Nathan LAW are more specific and they seek to allow a deceased person's same-sex partner in a marriage, civil partnership or civil union in any jurisdiction outside Hong Kong be eligible to claim for the return of the deceased person's ashes. Dr Fernando CHEUNG adds the above to the definition of "relative", which will indirectly create a gap as this implies that the law of Hong Kong recognizes same-sex marriage as a relationship. In any case, the amendments of the two Members are evidently contrary to the consensus of our society and the monogamous marriage system in Hong Kong.

In addition, I agree with the Government that, under the existing provisions of the Bill, if a same-sex partner married the deceased outside Hong Kong, he/she is entitled to claim for the return of the deceased's ashes in the capacity of (a) an "authorized representative", (b) a "personal representative" or (c) "the purchaser of interment rights", and the claimant does not need to be a relative of the deceased by blood or marriage.

6378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

The Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene may also exercise discretion to dispose of such ashes in any manner which he thinks fit, including passing the ashes to the same-sex partner who married the deceased outside Hong Kong.

As a matter of fact, the Government has taken a step further and proposed an amendment to include a "related person" as a "prescribed claimant" to provide greater flexibility to the Bill, so as to facilitate the collection of the deceased's articles and ashes by people associated with the deceased, including same-sex partners.

The Administration has defined a "related person" as a person who (a) was living with the deceased person in the same household immediately before the date of the death of the deceased person; and (b) had been living with the deceased person in the same household for at least two years before that date. The Liberal Party and I think that this is a compromising approach that avoids an excessively broad definition.

Hence, except for the Government's amendment, the Liberal Party will not support the amendment of other Members.

President, I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in Hong Kong every piece of land is very precious. Over the years, inadequate housing supply and soaring property prices have already made it difficult for members of the public to purchase a flat and live in contentment. In fact, while prices of housing for the living are sky-high, prices of housing for the dead are not cheap at all. The supply of public niches is limited. As about 210 000 niches provided in the eight public columbaria managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") have all been allocated, only a small number of remaining niches are available for application by the public. As in the case of waiting for public housing, applicants for public niches need to wait bitterly for years before being able to secure a niche to inter the ashes of the deceased.

Although cemeteries managed by the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries ("BMCPC") and certain religious organizations also provide niches for application by the public, these niches have likewise almost all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6379 been allocated. Against the backdrop of insufficient public niches and a supply-demand imbalance, the private niche market is characterized by high prices and ardent demand. The price of a private niche can range from some $100,000 to as high as hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rumour has it that a niche with good feng shui is sold at an astronomical price of over $1 million, a price which ordinary people can hardly afford.

Due to the huge potential interests involved in the private columbaria market, private columbaria have mushroomed. As a result of the lack of regulation, private columbaria are subject to no control. Many of them operate illegally: some are in contravention of the land leases, some occupy government land illegally, and some are even located in residential properties. This has not only caused great nuisances to residents in the vicinity, but also provided no safeguards to purchasers of such niches. For this reason, it is necessary for the Government to enact legislation to regulate the operation of private columbaria. I greatly support this act, which is also an aspiration of the general public.

To put private columbaria under regulation is undoubtedly an important policy change. In the process of regulating such columbaria, how to minimize the impact on the public and alleviate their concerns will be an important task of the Government. In fact, as the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") will soon be scrutinized in the Legislative Council, many people have hastened to purchase niches for fear that no niches would be available for sale during the vacuum period of some 18 months after the completion of the legislative process.

On the other hand, some members of the sector estimate that following the passage of the Bill, half of private columbaria in Hong Kong will be eradicated for failing to comply with the licensing conditions, consequently 200 000 to 300 000 niches will be affected and probably need to be relocated. Certainly, the ultimate number of niches to be affected can only be ascertained following the implementation of the legislation in the future. However, members of the public would inevitably worried whether the columbaria where the ashes of their ancestors were interred will be granted licenses; if not, how to relocate the ashes of the deceased; given the tight supply of niches nowadays, whether they can succeed in securing new niches, and whether the prices of the new niches will rise proportionately to levels that they cannot afford. All these concerns are well grounded.

6380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

The Government has already indicated that it will continuously increase the supply of public niches in the coming years, and it is estimated that at least 130 000 public niches will be available for allocation by 2021. Cemeteries managed by BMCPC and certain religious organizations will provide some 60 000 niches in the coming three years, and FEHD will provide some 65 000 temporary niches for storage of ashes in the coming two years.

Unlike residential properties, however, the demand for niches will only accumulate continuously, and few niches will be available for re-circulation. According to statistics, the number of deaths in Hong Kong is around 40 000 every year, and 90% of the deceased will be cremated. For this reason, there is still a considerable demand for niches every year, and this, coupled with the fact that certain niches need to be relocated as some private columbaria are eventually not licenced, it is indeed worrying whether the increase in public niches can satisfy all the demand.

I understand that the Government has over the years made arduous efforts to identify appropriate sites to build new columbaria. That said, columbarium is a typical "not-in-my-backyard" facility, much needed but unpopular. Such a facility is needed by all, but nobody wants it in their vicinity. Former Chief Executive Donald TSANG requested all the 18 District Councils to identify sites for building columbarium. Without doubt, this wishful aspiration can hardly be realized.

The Government has in recent years been actively promoting green burial, encouraging members of the public to scatter ashes in gardens of remembrance or at sea as a way of disposing the ashes of the deceased. I greatly support the work in this regard, which is conducive to alleviating the demand for niches. However, it is after all not easy to change people's established customs and habits, which is a long-term task. Thus the demand for niches will continue to increase in the short and medium term. For this reason, while we certainly need to step up the promotion of green burial, we should not slacken our efforts to build more niches. I hope that the Government can continue to balance the views of various sides, identify appropriate sites and increase the supply of niches, so as to cater to the continuing demand for niches.

President, this Bill should have been deliberated at the last term of the Legislative Council, but due to prolonged filibustering during the deliberation of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016, the Second Reading of the Bill LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6381 introduced in 2014 ("the Former Bill") was unable to be resumed at the last term of the Council. The legislative process reactivated at the current term of the Council has incurred a waste of time and resources. The Bill currently proposed by the Government is almost the same as the Former Bill. It has incorporated the amendments on which consensuses had already reached at the last term, and it has also made certain technical amendments. During the scrutiny of the Bills Committee of the current term, the Government has also accepted the views of certain members and has proposed some amendments. For this reason, as a member of the Bills Committee, I support the amendments proposed by the Government, and I hope that the Bill will be passed as soon as possible, so as to put the operation of private columbaria on the right track. Following the enactment of legislation, we also need to make timely reviews on its effectiveness and make further improvements in the light of its implementation.

President, some Members have proposed amendments to extend the definition of "relative" or "related person" to cover sex-same partners married outside Hong Kong. As the issue of whether same-sex marriage should be recognized is still highly controversial in society, and a consensus is yet to be reached, I think only when a social consensus is reached should we make amendments to the relevant laws of Hong Kong in one go, instead of proposing amendments to individual bills, which may give rise to discrepancies in the laws of Hong Kong. Since the Government has proposed to add "related person" as a category under "prescribed claimant" to cater to the needs of related persons, I will not support the relevant amendments proposed by these Members.

With these remarks, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. Thank you, President.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the expeditious passage of the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") in my capacity as the Chairman of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene ("the Panel") and a member of the Bills Committee on Private Columbaria Bill.

As a family member of mine passed away recently, I have to visit a funeral parlour in Hung Hom frequently. At the office of the Universal Funeral Parlour, I have seen some blue bags containing ashes of the deceased which cannot be interred after the funeral due to the lack of niches. Hence, identical blue bags, with names of the deceased written thereon, are placed on an iron shelf.

6382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

In the past, people used to say that burial brings peace to the deceased. However, burial in the ground has become an extravagant hope nowadays. As we all know, given the shortage of land, many Hong Kong people has accepted the reality that it is very unlikely for them to be buried in the ground after death. The majority of people will choose cremation instead. Once cremated, the bodies of the deceased will be turned into ashes to be put into those blue bags. All of us have to go through this stage. We will eventually become ashes to be put inside a blue bag with our names written on the bag.

How come bags of ashes are placed on the iron shelf in the funeral parlour? A parlour operator told us that temporary storage of ashes will not incur an additional charge because this service has been included in the rental of funeral hall. Family members may claim the ashes back after they are allocated a public niche or they have purchased a private niche. While waiting for a niche, they may also take the ashes out during the Ching Ming Festival and the Chung Yeung Festival to pay tribute to the deceased. All they need to do is to register with the funeral parlour. In addition, a staff has also suggested that the ashes of the deceased can be kept in service units such as Taoist halls and columbarium facilities located in private residential units. Such units are subsidiaries of the funeral parlour. Hence, the Bill under discussion today affects more than 7 million Hong Kong people in respect of the interment of the ashes of our deceased ancestors and in future, our ashes.

The Second Reading of the Bill finally resumed today. The scrutiny of the Bill should have been completed in the previous term of the Legislative Council, but the work was aborted due to various reasons. In this term, we have completed the scrutiny of the Bill and entered the stage of Second Reading. The Government has, since 2010, started to seriously address the problems of private columbaria. We know that the Government has made a lot of effort in the past seven years.

While there is a serious shortage of public niches, private niches are also plagued with various problems. Some private niches have become exorbitantly priced commodities for profit-making purposes. Their prices have been continuously raised to as high as $300,000 and even $500,000 in some instances. Due to a lack of land, niches have become rare and precious. Some private columbaria are located in private residences. Funeral parlours have also engaged in columbarium businesses by providing private niches in residential units. Obviously, these columbaria may have breached the deeds of mutual LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6383 covenant, the user restrictions in land leases or the rules of the Town Planning Board. In addition, some private columbaria have been illegally occupied the land. There are numerous examples of private columbaria occupying adjoining government land in addition to its own land.

As Members, we have also received similar requests for assistance. For example, after purchasing private niches, some members of the public found that the land occupied by the columbarium concerned is partly private and partly Government-owned. The part built on a government site is certainly illegal. In addition, some columbaria are in close proximity to private residences. Local residents have been complaining from time to time about traffic congestion, environmental pollution and noise problem, etc. caused by visitors paying tribute to the deceased. Some private columbaria located in private residences have even used a mega-sized furnace to burn sacrificial offerings, posing potential fire safety hazards. Located in residential areas, these facilities have caused great distress to residents. These problems have to be resolved as well.

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

Bulkeley Street in Hung Hom, where I used to live when I was young, has also become one of the seriously affected areas. Hung Hom itself has certainly become a seriously affected district. Notwithstanding the absence of a licensing regime in respect of private columbaria now, some undertakers in the district have been issued an Undertaker of Burials licence. Among the 75 licensees in Kowloon, 61 are located in Hung Hom, representing over 80% of the undertakers in Kowloon. Combined with unlicensed operators including those funeral shops and private columbaria which have introduced various types of products, there are a total of more than 100 undertakers in the district. This number is quite alarming. They have caused nuisance which worries the local residents, depriving them of any peaceful moments.

According to the Outline Zoning Plan ("the Plan") of Hung Hom District, Hung Hom has been designated as the "Residential (Group A) 4" ("R(A)4") zone. According to the Notes to the Plan, no funeral service centres, funeral facilities, funeral parlours or columbaria are permitted in R(A)4 zone. Although the above uses are prohibited under the law, as I have mentioned just now, Hung Hom has indeed become a seriously affected area where non-compliant private columbaria 6384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 are found everywhere. These problems cannot be resolved by Members or District Councillors simply under the complaints mechanism. It is indeed necessary for us to expeditiously enact legislation to regulate and handle the vacuum or grey areas in the existing legislation, as well as resolve the problems which we have been unable to handle.

Hence, there is indeed an urgent need for passing the Bill. I understand that passing the Bill does not mean that all of the problems arising from the malpractices of private columbaria can be resolved. However, it is always better to put the chaotic situation under control rather than leaving it unregulated as it is now. Hence, Members from the Democratic Party support the Second Reading and the expeditious passage of the Bill in order to regulate the private columbaria market and put it back on the right track.

The current situation in the private columbaria market in Hong Kong is chaotic. Many columbaria claim to be compliant with the standards. When selling niches to consumers, their sales representatives always claim that everything is in order. Once the licensing regime is formally in place, the prices of niches are expected to rise significantly. During the transitional period before the passage of the Bill in which uncertainty reigns, and before the completion of the formal licensing process, some members of the public may buy niches out of panic. Before buying a niche, members of the public should first check clearly the list of private columbaria compiled by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), which we commonly refer to as Part A and Part B. Part A lists the private columbaria which have been verified by FEHD to be compliant with the relevant requirements; and Part B lists the non-compliant columbaria, which will create trouble for buyers. However, many people may possibly not know how to check online before buying a niche whether a columbarium is listed under Part A or Part B. FEHD must step up publicity and education.

The columbaria under Part B should have failed to meet the licensing requirements. I do not know whether Miss Diane WONG, Principal Assistant Secretary for Food and Health, will further explain later whether the columbaria under Part B will really be banned from operation or may be issued a new license after the Bill is passed. Members of the public are in desperate need for such information. They have purchased niches to inter the ashes of the deceased with cold, hard cash. It is necessary for them to understand clearly the relevant processing procedures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6385

After all, the chaotic situation in the private columbaria market basically originates from the short supply of public niches. We have recently consulted FEHD on the timetable for the supply of public niches. The response given was very negative, as there would be no supply in the next one to two years until 2019 at the earliest. As I am waiting for a public niche for my mother, I would also like to know how long I have to wait for a public niche if I do not buy a private one. According to FEHD, the Board of Management of The Chinese Permanent Cemeteries will roll out some niches in the latter half of this year. However, there will be no supply by FEHD in 2017 and possibly 2018 as well. People have to wait almost until the end of 2019. As such, we should try to stay alive in the next one to two years. Otherwise, with no place of interment, we will end up as ashes placed in those blue bags with our names written on them. That is really very deplorable. I have to declare my interest. My mother is waiting for a public niche. Just like everyone else, I strongly hope that the Government will expeditiously identify more sites for increasing the supply of niches.

Nevertheless, according to government documents, no new niches will be available in the next two years. Applicants will have to wait until the year 2031 for the supply of several hundred thousand new niches. It is also stated in the document that presently, eight projects which provide a total of 450 000 niches have got the support of the relevant District Council ("DC"). The Government has all along told us that land has been identified in every district. However, why is it still so difficult to get the approval of DCs? In fact, as most DCs are comprised of members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), DAB Chairwoman Ms Starry LEE, who is now chairing the meeting, should advise her fellow DAB members against obstructing any consultation from DCs again. The DC members and Legislative Council Members from the Democratic Party are the most cooperative. Mr WU Chi-wai has resolved the problem of Diamond Hill by supporting the construction plan of the Government. Mr TING Tsz-tuen has also supported the construction plan in Sha Tin proposed by the Government. It is only the pro-establishment members from DAB, etc. who have impeded the developments. Mr LAU Kwok-fan, don't you look at me this way. You also have to pay attention as you are also a DAB member. The pro-establishment camp should support the Government. In doing so, they should be open and above board but not evasive. Secretary for Food and Health Dr KO Wing-man is also present. I know that he maintains an excellent relationship with the pro-establishment camp, but why has he failed to convince them?

6386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

The Government has failed to properly allocate sites for increasing the supply of public niches for years. What is the reason for that? Why is there such a long queue for niches to inter ashes of the deceased? Many people who had passed away earlier than my mother still did not have their ashes interred. Has the Government fallen asleep in the past 10 years, or has DAB all along hindered the construction of public columbaria in the past 10 years? They should offer us an explanation. The Democratic Party definitely supports the construction of columbaria by identifying sites in various districts. It is precisely due to the shortage of public niches that the public has to resort to buying private niches, regardless of how expensive they are. They simply do not want the ashes of their deceased family members to be placed on a shelf pending proper disposal.

Hence, the Bill should be passed expeditiously. Meanwhile, however, the Government should definitely not drag on its feet, but should do a good job in the supply of public niches. I know that the current-term Government is trying its best to seek funding for the Sandy Ridge Cemetery before the end of its term of office. We strongly support the expeditious approval of this funding request. The Sandy Ridge Cemetery is one of the biggest public columbaria, which will help resolve the long-standing problem. However, we all understand that it takes time for niche allocation. The Government is advised to implement the work in this regard expeditiously, which should be tackled in the context of the Bill. We hope this will alleviate the current outstanding problems.

Of course, I also strongly agree that we still have to make an all-out effort to promote green burial after all. As the Chairman of the Panel, I have urged the Food and Health Bureau at a Panel meeting to expeditiously arrange a visit for Members to understand the actual operation of green burial. In fact, the Legislative Council has approved funding to pursue the work of scattering ashes in gardens of remembrance or at sea. Not many Members have a chance to learn about green burial. We hope to invite the Bureau to join the visit with us and promote green burial to the public. Of course, we will not force this concept on members of the public. We should promote green burial on the one hand, and increase public niches and better regulate the management of private columbaria on the other, with a view to addressing the current shortage of niches in a practical manner.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6387

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have a very important message to convey, namely, Article 75 of the Basic Law should be borne in mind. Our …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are you requesting a headcount?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. I request a headcount under Article 75 of the Basic Law.

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

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, regarding the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") under discussion today, I believe that apart from me, Miss Diane WONG and Daniel probably also feel that it has been a long wait to get to this stage. Now, we are finally in the home stretch. Many colleagues have worked very hard to make this happen. 6388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

I do not know if this is God's will. Today, one may think that it has come late … As I mentioned earlier on, one of my comrades in the Alliance for the Concern Over Columbarium Policy passed away some time ago. He had no chance to witness the passage of the Bill. But strangely enough, the issue now under discussion and I seem to be connected by fate. I started dealing with this issue many years ago in my capacity as a Legislative Council Member. At the time, I said jokingly that I had to follow up matters relating to accommodation for the dead, as well as housing for the living. By "accommodation for the dead", I mean columbaria, that is, the subject matter of the Bill, and by "housing for the living", I mean first-hand residential properties. In the twinkling of an eye, the bill on the sale of first-hand residential properties was passed, but the Bill could not be passed last year. The Government certainly has the authority to rearrange agenda items, but since I now have the opportunity to deal with the Bill, I hope I can scrutinize it properly. The Government has taken relevant views on board and incorporated all the Committee stage amendments ("CSAs") supported by the former Bills Committee into the Bill. As far as community groups and the Civic Party are concerned, it can be said that we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, or, in common parlance, we are finally in the home stretch. Still, we should look at what community groups have done over the past seven years.

In fact, problems relating to columbaria have been around for many years, but initially all we could see were sporadic cases. For example, in 2009, if all the space of a three-storey small house measuring 700 sq ft was converted into niches, the total value of such niches could be as high as $200 million. A small house could never be sold for $200 million, but if it was converted into a building of niches with no kitchen or toilet but only a staircase to facilitate people paying tribute to the deceased, its value could rise to $200 million. This goes to show how large the columbarium market is.

In November 2009, Sai Lam Temple in Sha Tin was suspected of building niches for sale in breach of its land lease. The Lands Department therefore demanded that the temple cease operating its columbarium, or else the land in question would be resumed. At the time, there was a very important discussion on whether "human remains" referred to in the land lease included human ashes, and some cases even had to be brought to court. After this incident came to light, many people who had bought niches approached Members for assistance, and I also received many requests for assistance in relation to niches, including some weird cases. In one of the cases, the assistance seeker originally intended to inter the ashes of the deceased, but the staff of the columbarium concerned said that the interment procedure must be gone through by the purchaser of the niche. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6389

How was that possible? The purchaser of the niche had passed away. Did they want to summon the spirit of the deceased to go through the interment procedure? President, there are indeed many similar cases. You may think that there are all sorts of problems with housing for the living, but the fact is that there are similar problems with housing for the dead.

Later on, some other private columbaria were successively found to be unauthorized operations. As it seemed that the situation back then would only get worse, community groups and the Civic Party called on the Government to enact legislation to tackle this problem. When we started discussing this issue, York CHOW was still the Secretary for Food and Health. At the time, I really did not understand why columbaria came under the purview of the Food and Health Bureau. In what ways were columbaria unhygienic? It was only later that I realized that for policy reasons, matters relating to ashes were taken care of by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and hence fell within the purview of York CHOW, the then Secretary for Food and Health. And now, it is being handled by Secretary Dr KO Wing-man.

Subsequently, we saw unauthorized columbaria appear one after another in many areas of the New Territories, and we found that many of those columbaria were developed under the aegis of indigenous villagers. To better understand the development of columbaria, I went to many places that I had rarely visited before, including Lantau Island. At the time, I said jokingly that I could write a "travelogue on columbaria". Back then, there were more than 10 columbaria on Lantau Island. While some of them claimed to have a Buddhist or religious background, they had fly catcher ribbons hanging on their premises. President, you must be aware that Buddhism advocates no killing, but those columbaria had fly catcher ribbons hanging on their premises. Instead of seeing monks reciting scriptures, I only saw machines playing Buddhist chants through loudspeakers in those columbaria. This was really outrageous. Many parts of those columbaria had been smashed by their operators. They did so for the purpose of converting the damaged parts into niches. I also visited many other places such as Tsiu Keng in Sheung Shui and Mong Tung Wan on Lantau Island to observe the outrageous operation of such columbaria.

In mid-2010 and late 2011, in response to public opinion, the Government conducted two phases of public consultation, during which I, on behalf of the Civic Party, proposed many policy objectives, including legislating to regulate columbaria, expediting the elimination of unauthorized columbaria, speeding up the development of public columbaria, and strengthening consumer protection. 6390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Later, the Development Bureau compiled Part A and Part B of the Information on Private Columbaria. Yet it is most paradoxical that the private columbaria listed in Part A are not necessarily compliant, whereas those listed in Part B are not necessarily non-compliant but are less likely to be compliant. Although the Information on Private Columbaria is a bit complicated, it is of reference value after all, for it can at least remind the public to refer to Part A and Part B before buying niches.

In 2014, the Government finally introduced the Bill. During the two years of deliberations, the Civic Party, other political parties and community groups worked very hard, and the Government proposed hundreds of CSAs in the hope of refining the whole licensing regime. Originally, the Bill should have been passed, but in the end, the Second Reading debate on it could not be resumed until today. The Civic Party will support the Second Reading of the Bill, and takes this opportunity to express its heartfelt gratitude to community groups for their continued efforts.

President, while the Civic Party will support the Bill today, I would still like to point out the parts of the Bill that we think warrant attention and should be further improved.

First of all, I wish to talk about the requirements for the information to be contained in the registers of pre-cut-off columbaria. Under the Bill, the Private Columbaria Licensing Board ("the Licensing Board") will have considerable flexibility in requiring individual columbaria applying for specified instruments to include different information in the registers. However, this flexibility is not subject to any statutory provision. That is to say, there is no statutory provision prescribing such information and stipulating criminal liability for contravention thereof.

In fact, at a meeting of the Bills Committee, having been reminded by the Legal Adviser, I did enquire whether the types of information to be contained in the registers should be expressly prescribed in the legislation, so that they will be subject to review and amendment by the Legislative Council. According to the Administration, the Secretary will undertake in his speech for the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill that the Licensing Board will only require the inclusion of necessary information in the registers. I agree that at this stage, the authorities may not be able to fully determine what information is suitable to be prescribed in the legislation. I therefore also agree with the Government's approach. That said, as the Government has stated clearly that it will conduct a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6391 review three years after the enactment of the legislation, I hope the Government will, at that time, carefully consider what information should be prescribed in statutory provisions after the Licensing Board has taken stock of its operational experience.

There is a similar problem regarding the time frame for the provision of information to the Licensing Board by a columbarium for updating its register. The Bill gives the Licensing Board considerable flexibility in specifying the time frame for the provision of the required information. My concern is that if the specified time frame is too short, the columbarium may be unable to provide the information within the time frame and thus be held criminally liable. This may be inappropriate or undesirable. Nonetheless, the Secretary has undertaken that in exercising such flexibility, the Licensing Board will allow the columbarium reasonable time to provide the information. I hope that during the future review, the Government will also look into the time frame issue.

President, the report of the Bills Committee sets out clearly the undertakings given by the Administration to the Legislative Council. These include conducting a review three years after the gazettal of the legislation, regularly reporting on the enforcement of the legislation to the relevant Panel of the Legislative Council, and studying ways to deal with certain elements that have not been incorporated into statutory requirements as I mentioned just now. I note that the Administration will report on this issue at the next meeting of the relevant Panel, and I look forward to that. I hope the Secretary will not only include these undertakings in his reply, but also immediately instruct the Policy Bureau and departments concerned to draw up specific work plans and timetables for implementing the Government's undertakings.

Another major area that the Government must follow up is the work of reviewing and amending the Undertakers of Burials Regulation. It is expressly provided in the Bill that licensed undertakers regulated under the Undertakers of Burials Regulation―there are now 81 of them in Hong Kong―may temporarily keep ashes of deceased persons at the addresses specified in their undertakers' licences without having to obtain a licence from the Licensing Board. However, it has been recently reported in the media that some licensed undertakers have set up branches at locations other than the specified premises, or have claimed that certain places are their branches, with a view to expanding their business. Many consumers who are not clear about the requirements of the legislation may have deposited ashes in those places, thus exposing themselves to risk.

6392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Actually, when the Bill was first introduced into the Legislative Council in 2014, the Administration already undertook that upon the passage of the Bill, the Food and Health Bureau would immediately get down to the work of reviewing and amending the Undertakers of Burials Regulation. I hope the Secretary will, in his reply later on, give an undertaking on the work and timetable in this regard as well.

Next, I will talk about the Civic Party's positions on different CSAs. As the Administration has incorporated nearly all the CSAs proposed in the last term into the Bill, the number of CSAs that we have to deal with this time has been substantially reduced. In view of this, coupled with the fact that these CSAs are mostly technical amendments, the Civic Party will support the CSAs proposed by the Government. As regards the CSAs proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG and other Members, the Civic Party will not oppose them.

President, although the Bill is highly likely to be passed, it does not mean that there is nothing left to be done. The Government still has a lot of work to do. First of all, it certainly should step up enforcement efforts. In particular, it must not let unauthorized columbaria off the hook. Some reports have pointed out that upon the passage of the Bill, ashes deposited in 300 000-odd niches may be displaced, but according to a genuine assessment (which I believe is known to the Government), the number of niches affected may be close to 100 000. As far as I know, the Government provides a temporary storage service for ashes, but we are concerned that there seems to be no arrangement for users of this service to pay tribute to the deceased during the period of such temporary storage, despite their wish to do so. That being the case, we hope the Government will consider whether it is possible to erect memorial tablets, thus allowing users of this service to pay tribute to the deceased.

The Government should also step up publicity efforts to prevent people from falling into traps. Consumer rights and interests must be protected. For this reason, I absolutely believe that the Government must do a more accurate and better job in respect of education. I know the Government has been seeking land for building niches in various districts. We, as Members, will continue to work hard and endeavour to pass any relevant legislative proposals submitted to the Legislative Council. Of course, transport is another factor that we are very concerned about.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6393

The Secretary or Miss Diane WONG may be aware that the Alliance for the Concern Over Columbarium Policy has put in a five-page submission, in which it suggests that the Government should consider the establishment of an operational fund when reviewing the legislation. As we all know, what we are discussing is not a short-term business, and we cannot just regard it as a business, for it may be a service that lasts longer than a lifetime. We should think of ways to enable truly competent or resolute members of the death care industry to do their jobs properly.

Moreover, we hope that in conducting the review, the Government will also explore the idea of regulating agents. I believe this is what the Government needs to do in the next round of work. When it comes to enhancing the supply of public niches, I can see that the Government is working hard on it. Although the authorities have identified sites in the 18 districts, it may not be easy to get the District Councils to pass the relevant proposals. I hope the authorities will keep up the effort.

As for green burial, many Honourable friends have talked about it. I have also discussed this topic with the Secretary. It really takes time to transform social customs, but to my surprise, Hong Kong people have gradually become more open to new approaches to after-death arrangements. In the past, the elderly were reluctant to talk about the making of wills, but now, many elderly people have discussed and agreed on their funeral and burial arrangements with their families, and are willing to attend related seminars; green burial has become increasingly common. I hope that at the next stage, more Members will get to know what "Great Body Teachers" are. Of course, not everyone is willing to be a "Great Body Teacher", but for burden-free people like me, being a "Great Body Teacher" may be an option. Members of the public can also consider whether they are willing to be "Great Body Teachers" in addition to organ donors.

Four Members have proposed CSAs to the Bill. The Civic Party will support their CSAs. We will also support the Bill. We hope that this is a starting point, and that over time, more people will be willing to accept different points of view or different relationships, so that our society will become more harmonious and we will be able to incorporate the relevant relationships into the legislation.

I so submit.

6394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, at present, Hong Kong people "live without a decent home and die without a burial place". While it is difficult to be allocated a public rental housing unit, it is equally difficult to get a niche to inter the ashes of the deceased. At present, the annual average number of deaths in Hong Kong is 46 000 and 90% of the body will be cremated. Take last year as an example. The number of green burial cases is fewer than 5 000. Thus, if the Government wants to bring about changes in customs and traditions, more efforts should be made. Nonetheless, the supply of niches lags far behind demand. In 2016, only 5 000-odd public niches were allocated, and we have to wait till 2019 upon the completion of the columbarium facilities in Tuen Mun and North District that about 200 000 niches will be provided. However, as more than 40 000 people die each year and close to 40 000 niches are needed, the new supply will still be unable to meet the demand. The shortage of public niches will certainly drive up the demand for private niches in the market.

Before the authorities introduced the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill"), into the Legislative Council, many private columbaria have already been operating and niches were sought-after rarities due to their short supply. Niches are available for purchase on the Internet. A niche in a columbarium in Sha Tin for placing three sets of ashes asks for $3.48 million. The highest asking price of a niche for placing the ashes of one deceased person is $1.15 million. Even if one can afford to buy niches at such exorbitant prices, the legality of the niches is not guaranteed. According to the figures provided by the Development Bureau, as at the end of December last year, there were a total of 153 private columbaria in Hong Kong among which 123 were listed under Part B.

Do Members know the implication of a columbarium being listed under Part B? It is a gentle reminder that the columbarium has not complied with the requirements of the user restrictions in the land leases or the statutory town planning requirements, or has illegally occupied Government land. The Government estimated that 80 000 unlicensed niches in these columbaria will be eradicated after the enactment of the legislation. In other words, the ashes of 80 000 deceased persons have to be relocated. Nevertheless, the number of unlicensed niches estimated by the trade is different from that of the Government, and it may well be "inflated". The trade estimated that as many as 200 000 to 300 000 niches may be affected, which is a few times more than the number of 80 000 estimated by the Government. If so many non-compliant private columbaria cannot be licensed and cease operation, the problem will be really serious. Community groups which are concerned about the issue of columbaria LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6395 hope that I can remind the Government on their behalf to face the reality. The Government estimated that 80 000 niches would be eradicated, but what will happen if the number is actually much larger? Will the Government adopt a compromised stance and handle the matter leniently, or will it enforce the standards strictly? The concern groups hope that the Secretary can reaffirm here that the purpose of this legislative exercise is to require the columbaria to meet the licensing requirements; otherwise they will be banned from operation. The Government should not grant amnesty to non-compliant columbaria so that no developer will decide to try their luck or mislead consumers with wrong information. The Government has to make such a pledge and confirmation.

In fact, I have also raised some questions at meetings of the Bills Committee. For example, given that village houses or small houses of the New Territories should be used for residential purpose, will the Government be deviating from its policy if it allows some of these houses which have been used as private columbaria to apply for regularization? What was the reply of the Government? The authorities said that generally speaking, the user clause of leases of New Territories small houses was for "non-industrial" purpose. The relevant government departments and the Licensing Board would take into account a number of factors in considering the applications. The reply implies that different decisions can be made. In other words, the authorities have not given a definite answer in the affirmative or the negative. Some people are worried whether the authorities will face the reality when they enforce the law in the future. If the authorities strictly enforce the law, they will have to eradicate 100 000 to 200 000 niches, but they have only reserved one "warehouse" for accommodating 80 000 niches at present; how are they going to solve the problem then? Do the authorities have any contingency plan and will it build another "warehouse"? Can the basement of the Central Government Offices be used for keeping ashes too?

In fact, we anticipated that there would be a problem of niches long ago. When former Chief Executive Donald TSANG proposed that we should consider building columbarium facilities in each of the 18 districts, I actually supported the idea. Certainly, it is easier said than done. During consultation with the residents or the District Councils, difficulties will certainly be encountered. This relates to customs and traditions. I have visited some columbaria in Japan. The Japanese call these places sites for the souls. All temples are sites for the souls. Some niches are located outside the temples while others are located inside and they blend harmoniously into the lives of the people. In Tokyo, 6396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Osaka or Kyoto, there are sites for the souls almost at each end of every street for placement of niches. If one can go this far, there will be no problem of dislike or opposition of the arrangement in a certain district, but how can that be achieved? It may be unnecessary to take drastic actions to change our customs and traditions, but we have to make people understand that columbaria are needed. Your mother will die, and so will my father; you will die, and so will I. We have to face the problem sooner or later.

In fact, the problem is related to two kinds of belief. First, columbaria are inauspicious. Nevertheless, consider the luxurious flats in districts such as Happy Valley, the views of cemeteries have not affected their prices in any significant way. It is only a matter of whether people are accustomed to the views and whether they can accept them. Another point is that people paying tribute to the deceased may create problems of pollution and hygiene and so residents do not like having a columbarium in their district. Another kind of belief is that the provision of a columbarium will create traffic problems in the area due to the increase in visitor flow and traffic flow. If the problem involves town planning, we should not only consider how many niches can be accommodated in a certain place, but also the expected number of visitors who will pay tribute to the deceased.

When I was discussing this issue with the Government, the Government informally indicated that if paying tribute is not allowed at the columbarium, the method of computing the number of niches to be developed would be different and more could be provided. Actually, I think the Government should introduce a pilot scheme in this connection. For example, in developing a new columbarium in the future, a small area can be designated for people to pay tribute by booking in advance. The greatest worry is that many people will visit the columbarium at the same time during the Ching Ming Festival and the Chung Yeung Festival. There are also worries about whether the roads can accommodate the visitor flow. The authorities can set a quota of visitors for each session. If the booking is full, sorry, visit the next day or the next week. If this arrangement is clearly provided in the terms and conditions of the agreement at the outset, people will have to make a choice if no other niches are available. Similarly, as I have often suggested, a time limit for keeping ashes can also be set by the new columbaria in the future. At present, public niches are not recyclable because once ashes are interred, they can be kept there forever. Can a time limit be set for the new columbaria? For example, the time limit can be set for 30 years. I have heard the saying that certain niches are "centennial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6397 niches". Ashes can be kept in the niches for 10 years or until the 100th birthday of the deceased person. The ashes have to be removed then and they can be scattered or disposed in other ways. If a person died at 95, the ashes can be kept until his 105th birthday; if a person died within the age range of 60 to 70, the ashes can be kept until his 100th birthday.

In fact, I think this arrangement is worth trying. Some people say that the arrangement is disrespectful to deceased persons, but there is a gap between the ideal and the reality. If there is a new columbarium offering niches on a short lease of 30 years, those who are willing to keep the ashes there can join the queue. This queue may be shorter because some people will prefer waiting for permanent niches. However, I believe even if a columbarium offers niches on a short lease of 30 years, all niches will immediately be taken up and the lessees only have to consider what to do after 30 years. Nevertheless, at present since many people cannot inter the ashes of the deceased after a long wait, they may suddenly become enlightened one day and decide to scatter the ashes of the deceased somewhere instead of to keep on waiting for niches. I do not know if the Government has intended to use this way to resolve the problem.

Furthermore, many people have pointed out that after the commencement of the legislation, there may be a vacuum period during which there will be a shortage of supply of private niches and at the same time, some columbaria will cease operation for their licence applications were rejected. I said earlier that the authorities would provide 80 000 temporary niches, but community groups estimated that 300 000 would be needed in the worst-case scenario. What arrangements will the authorities make to deal with the situation? I think the Government should prepare for different scenarios.

Just now, Ms Tanya CHAN also expressed the view that the Government would just provide the storage place for 80 000 niches and people cannot pay tribute to the deceased. She asked whether the authorities could find other places for people to pay tribute. In fact, keeping ashes and paying tribute are two separate issues. Apart from my remarks that columbaria are inauspicious or unclean and affect traffic conditions, some people have asked whether the Government needs to regulate memorial tablets as well. The place for keeping a memorial tablet will not keep ashes; it is merely a tablet for people to pay respect and theoretically, traffic problems will also arise. I have recently seen an advertisement on the latest arrangement of keeping ashes of the deceased on the Mainland while placing memorial tablets in Prince Edward or other places for 6398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 paying respect. I think memorial tablets cannot be regulated even after the passage of the new legislation. However, I think that will be an issue to be handled in the future. The Government should pay more attention as to how to handle this issue. If the Government decides to legislate on regulating the operation of memorial tablets, it will be too harsh and that may not be achieved even after the conduct of the review three years later.

Moreover, I hope that after the passage of the Bill, the Government will really enforce the law and it has to strengthen the manpower concerned. It is suggested that the Government should step up inspections and even carry out undercover operations with the Customs and Excise Department to stop operators from engaging in illegal sales activities before the issuance of licenses and to rectify conditions non-compliant to apply for exemption.

Furthermore, the existing Bill does not regulate agents or salespersons and so these persons do not have to bear any legal liability at present. Any person can sell or assist in selling niches and the commissions involved are significant. I also hope that the Government will monitor the developments and consider whether regulation of agents or salespersons should be included in the legislation in its review of the Ordinance to be conducted in three years.

Certainly, the problem can only be resolved by expediting the supply of public niches. This is surely a guiding principle. A Member said earlier that some Members from certain political parties had hindered the Government's work in the District Councils ("DCs"). Actually, we all have different demands. Certainly, some DC members might, in view of residents' concern that building a columbarium in their district would affect property prices and rent, oppose the development plan. However, if we consider the matter from the perspective of public interests, no political party should create too many obstacles for the Government, otherwise if only a small number of niches can be developed after consulting the 18 DCs, it will be a waste of time for everyone.

Moreover, many Members have been keen to express their views on the Committee stage amendments ("CSAs"). The Government has incorporated most of the CSAs made in the last legislative exercise in this Blue Bill, except the CSA proposed by Ms Cyd HO regarding the right of an overseas same-sex partner of the deceased person to demand for the return of the ashes, which was not accepted by the Government. I remember that last time, the Government even opposed the admissibility of the CSA, but Jasper TSANG, President of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6399

Legislative Council of the last term, ruled that the CSA was admissible and Members could discuss accordingly. This time, the Government only proposed the idea of a "related person" at a very late stage.

Given the time constraints, I will explain further to Members when we later debate on the CSAs at the Committee stage. In fact, the proposal on claiming for the return of ashes of a deceased person is made in the light of the practices of some unscrupulous columbarium operators in the past or the anticipation that some columbaria cannot continue to operate after the passage of the Bill. Claiming for the return of the ashes of a deceased person for interment is a humble request and an unfortunate matter. The CSA, either proposed by the Government or by Members, serves to facilitate the arrangement; respect the deceased and the related persons of the deceased person, so that the latter can claim for the return of ashes. The purpose is not to change people's concept of families or same-sex marriage and I think Members who think so have exaggerated the matter (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, first of all I have to thank the Chairman and other Honourable colleagues of the Bills Committee on Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill"), especially government officials. We have scrutinized the Bill for several years and I am aware that Principal Assistant Secretary Miss WONG always works overtime on Saturdays and Sundays. It is very hard work and I must thank them for all their efforts.

I just had a meeting at the District Council ("DC"). A colleague of DC always says, "In Hong Kong, we live without a decent home and die without a burial place." It is all related to the issue of land supply. We have been plagued by the short supply of niches for many years. Some colleagues have just mentioned the remarks made by the former Chief Executive of "having a columbarium in every district". At that time, I was the deputy DC chairman. When I heard this remark, I strongly doubt if that was feasible. If we understand the needs of various districts, we would know that it is not feasible to build columbarium in all districts. When columbarium becomes a community facility, people will ask whether the ashes of local residents can be interred in the columbarium of the same district. Can ashes of Kwai Tsing residents be interred 6400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 in Kwai Tsing? Hence, we must think twice about this public policy. In increasing the supply of niches, must we meet the objective of "having a columbarium in every district" despite the difficulties involved. Perhaps a better approach is to identify a suitable site for the construction of a big columbarium to provide a large number of niches. That is better than "having a columbarium in every district".

I rather agree to what Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has just said. As I often attend DC meetings, I also understand that everyone has different needs. Please do not lay all the blame on the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, as there are opposition voices in every political party or grouping. Kwai Tsing is not too bad. When the idea of "having a columbarium in every district" was raised, the first columbarium was built in Kwai Tsing. However, we also requested for in-situ placement of ashes. I hope Members will understand that no one wishes to hear the saying "we live without a decent home and die without a burial place" again. Hence, colleagues from various political parties and groupings should deal with the supply of public niches more rationally.

Owing to the long-standing shortage of public niches and the allocation of public niches by drawing lots and not by queuing, as pointed out by Honourable Members just now, the colleague who likes to make jokes thus says, "we live without winning Mark Six Lottery and die without getting a niche by drawing lots." The situation is that bad. In view of all these reasons, the rampant speculation of niches can be comparable to that of private housing. I wonder why today, I have been speaking more or less the same thing as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, who is not present now. As we can see on the Internet, a niche for interring the ashes of three persons asks for $3.48 million and that for interring the ashes of one person asks for $1.15 million. How ridiculous!

Speaking of the exorbitant prices of private niches, the Government should bear part of the blame. Mr CHAN Hak-kan has just mentioned the land premium. The high land price policy not only affects housing but also niches. We have heard from some columbaria operators that the land premium of a columbarium is $100,000 and $200,000. That being the case, the prices of niches are naturally exorbitant. Hence, I hope that the Secretary and the Lands Department will tackle this problem jointly. We do not wish to see the high land price policy affecting the housing of the living and the housing for the dead. Otherwise, members of the public can hardly afford to buy either of them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6401

Owing to the keen demand for niches, unauthorized private columbaria have been in operation a few years ago. At that time, the Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") set up a concern group on columbaria to study the related problems. I was not a Member of the Legislative Council then but I held press conferences, reviewed the contracts and helped victims who had been cheated. In 2014, the Government introduced the Bill into the Legislative Council. Regrettably, despite the all-out efforts made by government officials and the colleagues of this Council, and after two years of scrutiny, the Bill could not get passed because a colleague filibustered to stop the reform of the Medical Council of Hong Kong. Finally, today, the Second Reading of the Bill will resume and we will definitely support it.

Nevertheless, even though we support the Bill, there are some outstanding problems that need to be addressed and hence we will not support it blindly. Since the Licensing Board will only be established six months after the Ordinance comes into effective, there will not be any supply of niches in the market during that six-month period, and under normal circumstance, no niches are available for sale, and hence a vacuum period will be formed. According to some reports, it will take six months to establish the Licensing Board, to be followed by three months for the Board to receive applications, and then God knows how many months for the vetting and approval of applications. Hence, niches are only available for sale at least 18 months later. We once said one should not die during that period; otherwise, they would "die without a burial place" even though the Government has indicated that temporary niches will be provided and the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries ("BMCPC") will also provide niches.

Concerning the vacuum period, during the Bills Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, I wrote to the Government asking for additional information and I also met with government officials later. We specifically told the Government our wish that the vacuum period should be kept as short as possible. Even though the Government indicated that during that period, BMCPC would provide facilities for temporary storage of ashes, we still think that the vacuum period should be kept short. In theory, if the Licensing Board is formed six months after the enactment of the relevant legislation, it would be ideal if the Board can process the applications in the seventh month, so as to shorten the vacuum period. In particular, we know that the Part A columbaria can get a licence easier. We hope that staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department or the Licensing Board will process the licence applications on a case-by-case basis 6402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 instead of processing the applications after receiving a certain number of applications, which will in turn lengthen the vacuum period. A long vacuum period is undesirable. One of the reasons is that we do not wish to see the ashes of the deceased not being properly interred. Another problem is that many people wish to buy niches now for fear of an 18-month vacuum period and prices of niches will shoot up by then. If they buy a niche now, they can use it to inter the ashes of the deceased when necessary. If everyone holds this attitude, speculation during that period will be even more rampant.

The Government must clearly tell the public not to buy niches hastily. When I paid a visit to the cemetery, I heard some salesperson say, "There will be no more niches for sale for a period of more than 10 months, and the price of niches will certainly rise by then. Our columbaria can surely get the licence and after obtaining the licence, the price of niches will definitely be higher than now. I advise you to buy now." I listened very carefully to see if that person had violated the Trade Descriptions Ordinance but it was very hard to accuse him of violating the Ordinance because the Government had never announced how long the vacuum period would be. He said it would be over 10 months and that could be derived through simple calculation. Hence, the Government must convey a clear message to the public.

We do not wish to fuel speculation, and we also do not wish to see practitioners of the related trades having no income during the vacuum period. I told government officials at our meeting that there was a trade union under FTU whose members were engaged in selling niches and interring ashes in niches. If there was no supply of private niches for sale during the vaccum period, they would be out of employment and hence no income. The Government said that after the private columbaria were licensed 10-odd months later, the practitioners could resume their work of interment of ashes, and for the time being, the ashes were placed in some temporary facilities. However, those wage earners cannot possibly wait 10-odd months. Even if they might earn a lot later, they still have to make ends meet during the vacuum period. Hence, I hope that the Government will keep the vacuum period as short as possible. I hope the Secretary will respond to this question later on.

Moreover, in respect of management, after the licensing system is implemented, it is also very important to state in the contract how the consumers' rights and interests can be protected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6403

We also understand that after private columbaria are put under regulation, we have to deal with tens of thousands of private niches that are not licensed. It can thus be anticipated there will be a shortfall in both the housing for the dead and the housing for the living in the next few years. Hence, the Government must introduce various solutions, including the promotion of green burials.

I strongly agree with Miss Tanya CHAN in saying that, "We can do anything." I always joke about letting people take whatever useful from my body when I die. I will donate all useful organs to avoid wastage, so that I can still help others at the very last minute of my life. I think that these concepts should be promoted. Hence, publicity and education are very important.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about the position of the Members of FTU in voting. We agree that it is not a joyful thing to handle the ashes of the deceased. The beloved ones of the deceased must be sad at such a moment. Therefore, in dealing with the issue of who has the right to claim for the return of ashes, we should try our best to facilitate them and avoid disputes. Based on this principle, we support the Government's proposal to define a "related person" as "a person who had been living with the deceased person in the same household for at least two years before that date" regardless of the background or gender of that person, in the hope of giving the same-sex companion or carer of the deceased person the right to claim and handle the ashes of the deceased person.

In respect of our colleagues' amendments, including their revision to the definition of "relative" or prescribing the priority of claimants in the provisions, and so on, we think that social consensus must be obtained and the matter should be thoroughly discussed. Hence, we decide to support the Government's proposals. However, that does not mean we do not recognize the right of the same-sex partner of the deceased person to handle the ashes or arrange for the funeral of the deceased person. We only think that the definition of "relative" needs clearer and more thorough discussions so as to forge a consensus in society. We consider the Government's present approach more desirable and it also takes into account the needs of the related persons. We will support the Bill as amended by the Government. I so submit.

6404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): There is not even one Member of the Democratic Party present in the Chamber now, but I hope that they, especially Dr Helena WONG, will listen to my speech as I am going to make a response. Nonetheless, I will start with the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") under discussion today. Here, I would like to state clearly that I support this Bill.

The Wo Hop Shek Columbarium ("WHSC") falls within my District Council ("DC") constituency, and I noticed that this year, both before and after the Ching Ming Festival, a large number of people travelled a long way to WHSC in Fanling to pay respect to their ancestors. Owing to the recent completion of the expansion project of WHSC, there was an upsurge of grave sweepers. I was told by members of the public that the number of people visiting WHSC often soared before and after the Ching Ming Festival, and the footbridge at the MTR Fanling Station was particularly crowded. I hence asked them to be understanding and tolerant as this situation only happened on the few days before and after the Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals. In fact, the residents were merely airing grievances. They have been, as always, very understanding.

The North DC has rendered strong support to the expansion proposals of columbaria, be it WHSC or the future Sandy Ridge Cemetery. And yet, we notice that there is still a shortage of public niches because not long ago, soon after the Government announced in its website the availability of new niches at the newly expanded WHSC, all of them had been allocated by computer balloting right away. In the absence of new supply of public niches, members of the public were forced to purchase private niches to inter the ashes of the deceased. However, the standard of private columbaria varies and the legitimacy of some of them has been called into question. This Bill has provided a specific regulatory scope, setting out which columbaria are legitimate and eligible to apply for licenses, thereby offering protection to the consumers.

As Members may be aware, while it is not easy to purchase our own flat nowadays, it is also very difficult to get a niche for the deceased. If one is so unfortunate as to purchase a niche from an unauthorized private columbarium, what should be done then? This is indeed very saddening, we therefore support the Bill.

Notwithstanding that, we also understand that even if the Bill is passed, as no public niches will be provided in the next three years, it is therefore necessary to provide some licensed or legitimate niches for descendants to inter the ashes of their ancestors. Undoubtedly, the issue of land premium just mentioned by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6405

Mr CHAN Hak-kan is of grave concern to us. We often learn from members of the trade, especially those who lodge application as required, that the land premium has to pay off in one go, thereby posing enormous difficulties to their operation. Therefore, I hope that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Food and Health Bureau will liaise with the Lands Department to see what kind of support can be provided to licensed or legitimate operators, with a view to providing better arrangements for descendants who do not wish to wait for allocation of public niche and want to buy private niches instead.

Another issue is the allocation of public niches by balloting which I have often mentioned, and I think there is still room for improvement. I have often received complaints from many members of the public, saying that they have been waiting desperately for the allocation of public niches to inter the ashes of their deceased family members. However, although they submit applications whenever there is a new batch of public niches, they are still unsuccessful in balloting. This is very disheartening and they can only continue to wait, and submit applications again when there is a new batch of public niches. Yet, they still cannot secure a niche. According to a kaifong, he has participated in the allocation of niches for several times and has waited for as long as seven to eight years. He felt distressed when seeing new public niches being allocated to other applicants. The point is, public niches are not allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, nor is there a queuing system similar to that for the allocation of public housing. Rather, a new balloting exercise will be conducted each time. In this connection, I suggest that the Government should refine the allocation system by introducing, inter alia, a points system, under which points would be awarded to applicants who were unsuccessful in the previous ballot, or they would be given another chance of ballot. And, if he fails again in the second time, he might be given the third chance.

I understand that this issue does not fall within the scope of today's discussion of the Bill, but I do hope that the Government will review the relevant system. Although there will be no supply of new public niches for the time being, if the Government can fine-tune the relevant legislation before the next batch of new niches and set out the necessary rules, I think this would be of great help to members of the public.

Just now, a Member tried to explore the reasons why the Government had failed to increase the supply of public niches. According to Dr Helena WONG of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress 6406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 of Hong Kong ("DAB"), which has the largest number of DC members, should bear the greatest responsibility for failing to build new columbaria. Just now, she also specifically asked me to look at her. As a saying goes, others can bestow honours on you but humiliation is always the result of one's own making. I did not look at her because I feel so shameful seeing her talking nonsense and telling lies with her eyes wide open and face not turning red.

Later, I can print out the computer record, that is, the minutes of meeting of the North DC on 8 February 2007. It was clearly recorded that at that time, all the nine DC members of the Democratic Party―the largest political party in the North DC back then―opposed the proposed expansion of WHSC. If Dr Helena WONG said that those DC members were not members of the Democratic Party or if she, after reviewing the minutes, claimed that the record was not genuine, she should either eat the paper or make an open apology to our DC members.

I would like to point out that the expansion of WHSC was only made possible due to efforts made by DC members of DAB and I (WHSC falls within my constituency) to mediate and coordinate between the Government and local residents. Unlike some political parties which blindly opposed all proposals, we did not blindly support all proposals either. When the Government put forth the proposal to expand WHSC, we first examined its implication on the residents and the stakeholders in the vicinity, collected their views and then negotiated with the Government to see if further refinements could be made.

At that time, I suggested the then Assistant Director Ms Rhonda LO to slightly adjust the proposed location of WHSC, changing its position from facing the local residents to facing away from them, or making some minor refinements to the design. Furthermore, we had also relayed certain concerns to the department about the proposed expansion. Noting that the number of grave sweepers would certainly surge during the Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals after the expansion, we requested the Government to first address the problems relating to supporting services, such as extending the existing footbridge connecting the Fanling MTR Station. As the Government acceded to the request, we could then convince the residents during our meeting with them of the goodwill demonstrated by the Government. Consequently, the residents accepted the expansion proposal. I cited this example just to illustrate that when the Government implements any proposal in the district, while we certainly share the feelings and views of local residents, we have to, as Members, take into consideration of the interest of the community as a whole. This is indeed the practical attitude of DAB. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6407

Today, the expansion of WHSC had completed and the works of extending the footbridge connecting the Fanling MTR Station, which will benefit local residents, has also commenced. May I invite all Legislative Council Members to visit the expanded WHSC. The place is beautifully designed with a completely different outlook from the traditional gloomy columbarium. Its outer walls are adorned with green plants and surrounded by bamboo shoots, and it looks more like an eco-hotel or library. I remember that the travel magazine Weekend Weekly once used a picture of WHSC as the cover photo and described the expansion project. "Slow Beat" made a good point just now, for it is true that everyone has his own aspiration. I hope certain Members will not shoot their mouths off and talk nonsense. Later I will ask Dr WONG to inspect all the minutes of meetings, but she might no longer regard those former DC who failed to be re-elected as members of the Democratic Party.

Apart from Fanling, I also wish to say something about Tuen Mun. I just learnt that former DC member Josephine CHAN had expressed reservation about the proposed expansion of the Tsang Tsui Columbarium, she even said that she could hardly support the plan. I think the Food and Health Bureau or FEHD should have such records as well, and if Dr Helena WONG wants to confront me openly, I welcome your inspection of the minutes to ascertain if it was the Democratic Party or other person who had obstructed columbarium development in the district. Do not find fault with others when you have not done bad things for once. We are duty-bound to properly implement every single project in a pragmatic manner.

Here, I also wish to share a couplet with Members. I remember that there was a couplet―I am not sure if it is an elegiac couplet―inscribed at the entrance of the Catholic cemetery in Happy Valley, which reads "As my body turns to dust today, so will yours in the future". The residents had said something similar to me when I approached them to solicit their support for the proposed expansion of WHSC. I think it makes perfect sense because we will leave this world one day. We should therefore discard certain traditional thinking. First, we should discard the feeling of not wanting to have a columbarium in our district. Then, we should discard the traditional mindset and accept green burial. Of course, the Government should also step up its promotion. I have looked up the record and found that the number of application for green burial had increased by 1.74 times from 2 814 in 2012 to 4 904 in 2016. And yet, I think the Government would also agree that the number is still small and negligible with regard to the present demand for niches. Therefore, seizing the opportunity of today's 6408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Council meeting, I urge members of the public and DC members who are watching the live broadcast to be more pragmatic. In case a proposal has any implication on the stakeholders, we may liaise with the Government. WHSC is a case in point. It is a win-win case where the Government has, through negotiation, implemented the necessary proposal with public consensus. On the other hand, I also hope that people will gradually accept the concept of green burial. Like Ms Alice MAK, I have already signed an organ donation card. This is no big deal as we both think that donating our useful organs to other people in case we meet with misfortune is indeed our very last contribution to the community, and we are obliged to do so.

Last but not least, I am aware that there are a couple of amendments to the Bill and the Government has also put forth some refinements, especially on the definition of "related person". Therefore, I eagerly hope that Members can put aside their differences and support this Bill as well as the Government's amendments today, such that better regulation can be expeditiously put in place to ensure that we will have an ideal abode after we die.

President, I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to express regret over Dr Helena WONG's remarks, which has misled members of the public who are listening to the live broadcast of this Legislative Council meeting about the whole matter. In this connection, Mr LAU Kwok-fan has already clarified. I also wish to reiterate that as Members of the Legislative Council, we must be responsible for what we say. If not supported by evidence, we should not make reckless remarks for it is irresponsible to do so.

President, the population of Hong Kong is predominantly Chinese and the concept of family is very strong. As we well understand, Hong Kong people want to have a home, but in Hong Kong, it is equally hard for young people to realize their dream of home acquisition or for us to buy a niche to inter the ashes of our deceased family members.

Recently, I have read an article about an industry practitioner comparing a niche for the deceased to a housing unit. He has aptly pointed out the difficulties that I have just mentioned. He said that to wait for a public niche is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6409 like waiting for allocation of a public rental housing ("PRH") unit, yet the rich do not need to wait as they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a private niche, as in the case that they will not be deterred by "curb" measures since private housing units are readily available in the market.

Nevertheless, for those who do not have money, they do not have other alternatives but wait for allocation of a public niche, but the waiting time may be as long as PRH allocation. However, a comparison between the two is not possible. For PRH, everyone knows that the average waiting time is 4.7 years, but public niches are allocated by balloting and hence no one knows how long one has to wait.

For those who are relatively well-off and do not want to wait forever for the result of balloting, they can wait for niches provided by statutory organizations, just like the sandwich class waiting for the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") flats. At present, 5 000 HOS flats are provided each year, and buying a flat is more difficult than winning a grand price. For those who wish to buy an "HOS" niche for the deceased, like those who want to get an HOS flat, they can opt for those provided by the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries. Although these niches may cost more, from the cases we have come into contact with, we learn that the demand far exceeds the supply.

Therefore, I very much agree with the points mentioned by Mr LAU Kwok-fan just now. At the meeting of the Panel held earlier, I suggested the Secretary to consider changing the method of allocating "economic" niches during the term of the current or next Government. Allocation by balloting can be considered fair and also unfair. Some people may be lucky enough to be allocated a niche after the first ballot, but some people may have to wait five years and still have not been allocated a public niche. Hence, it may be more practical to set up a waiting list and allocate the niches on the first-come-first-served basis, which I believe everyone will agree.

I remember a case very well. An elder rather senior in age often came to my office to ask for help and soon we were well acquainted. Every time he came, he only had one question, "Ms LEE, can you help me? I have kept the ashes of my wife at home for many years. I am still waiting for a public niche, but I never have any luck in balloting." From this case we can see the unreasonableness of the system. I finally heard good news recently. The elder 6410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 told me, "Ms LEE, I finally secure a niche after a long wait of five years!" He has waited longer than the average waiting time for PRH units. Although this problem cannot be addressed by the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") today, I still hope that the Secretary can relay it to the Bureau for further studies. If the problem can be resolved within this legislative session, it will win more support from the people.

President, in the face of the present situation and the restriction imposed by the allocation arrangements, many people, especially the grass roots, are in a dire situation. Very often, they are at their wits' end. To Chinese, filial piety is the top virtue. As they are anxious to have the ashes of their deceased family members interred, they thus buy private niches. They do not know if the columbaria are licensed or not, or if it is operating legally. They only know that a certain columbarium has niches for sale and so they buy the niches there. In the end, perhaps because the system is flawed, and they have not checked clearly, they suffer financial losses. Worse still, sometimes they may even lose the ashes of their ancestors.

I have recently learnt from the industry practitioners that some people rent the so-called "monthly-leased niche hotels" operated by Taoist temples or even floral shops. When the premises are found to be non-compliant with the requirements, the persons in charge flee and the families of the deceased cannot even get back the ashes of the deceased. According to the industry, these are not uncommon individual cases but it is a real situation.

According to the information provided by the Development Bureau, there are a total of 153 private columbaria in Hong Kong, but only 30 of them are listed under Part A, meaning that they are compliant with land leases and planning requirements. It should be noted that 123 private columbaria are listed under Part B, meaning that they are not compliant with land leases or land use requirements, or they are occupying Government land, and the problems are yet to be resolved. According to statistics, such unauthorized columbaria constitute 80% of all private columbaria.

In other words, regarding the columbaria that are unlikely to be licensed after the enactment of the Private Columbaria Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), the public actually have forged a consensus. I remember that I raised this issue with the Secretary long ago. I recall that when LEUNG Chun-ying was running for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6411 the Chief Executive election, I especially arranged him to conduct a site visit in Hung Hom as I had been a member of the Kowloon City District Council ("DC") for over 10 years. During the visit, I told him about this problem. Members of the public have been waiting too long for this legislation. Apart from helping this group of innocent people and protecting the rights of consumers, the legislation also safeguards people living in the vicinity of private columbaria.

President, Hung Hom is worst hit by this problem. Over one fifth of private columbaria in the territory are established in that district. Over the years, whenever local residents see me, they always talk about the same issue. Can you imagine the feelings of residents in Hung Hom where housing for the living is basically inseparable from housing for the dead? How would you feel if you see the conduct of funeral rituals or services day after day on your way home?

Apart from the subjective feelings, private columbaria also pose physical nuisances to residents. We must put ourselves in their shoes to understand what they go through every day. According to some residents, as a private columbarium is established on the floor below their flat, they cannot open the windows. As we all know, Chinese people will burn paper offerings during ancestral worship, hence if residents open the windows, the smoke will get in and fill the whole flat. Some people have told me that due to the exorbitant property prices, they cannot find another flat and some of them suffer from respiratory diseases as a result of constant smoke inhalation. Some residents also complain about people leaving behind many offerings in the back alleys after the worship, thus further aggravating the environment of the old district.

Another nuisance that plagues the residents is noise. We are well aware of the problem as beating drums and gongs, an inevitable part of the funeral ritual, give out very loud noises. When residents are bombarded by these noises round the clock, they suffer from great mental distress. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") conducted a questionnaire survey in Hung Hom in 2015. It was found that over 90% of the residents said that private columbaria posed great nuisances to their daily lives and the situation was very serious.

President, in the long run, the coexistence of housing for the dead and housing for the living has caused great nuisances to the residents. It is also a great impediment to the development of the community, in particular the 6412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 community in the vicinity of funeral parlours. DAB pointed out long ago that the Government should address the problem when it conducted the planning. Of course, that issue is not within Secretary Dr KO's policy portfolio. But I am very disappointed that the Government has never considered and reviewed this kind of obsolete planning which would cause pollution to the environment of the districts. Frankly speaking, the existence of three major funeral parlours in Hung Hom is completely against the norm of community planning.

We all understand that it is never easy to move such facilities. Which district would accept them? Should they be moved into caverns? Or perhaps caverns have other specified uses instead of accommodating funeral parlours. Apart from funeral parlours, there are other supporting facilities such as floral shops and other related businesses, and how should they be dealt with? All these matters have to be considered as a whole during planning. Yet, I fail to see that the Government has listed the planning of these offensive trades in the agenda of either the Development Bureau or the Planning Department. I hope that the Secretary will relay this message to the relevant departments. I also request the incumbent or the new Chief Executive to review the policies on the planning of old districts and the handling of contaminative business on a regular basis. Otherwise, no matter how many petitions the local residents have staged or how many motions Members have put forward, no practical help will be provided to improve the situation.

Private columbaria have indeed caused many problems. When the Legislative Council of the last term dragged down the former Bill such that it could not be passed, residents of Hung Hom were most disappointed. When I visited the district, I could see how disappointed the residents were. They urged me to pass the relevant legislation expeditiously. Though I do not live in Hung Hom, I feel bad every time I walk pass the affected areas. The residents have to face all those problems every day. They have no choice as they cannot move elsewhere. While they are emotionally attached to the district, they really want to see an end to all nuisances. Therefore, I really wish to bring out this message in this Council and I also appeal to the Government to make further efforts in addressing the troubles that the residents are facing every day.

President, I can recall that Donald TSANG, the former Chief Executive, once said that niches should be provided in each of the 18 districts. At that time, the Government boasted that it would provide 900 000 public niches and it even LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6413 had identified 24 sites in 18 districts for columbaria development. So far, the projects in Diamond Hill and Cheung Chau have basically been completed but they only provide 2 500 niches. To be honest, the progress is just too slow. I understand that there are great difficulties. While some districts have consented to the construction of a columbarium, the works have not been carried out instantly for reasons of money or policy. I have looked up the information and found that among the 18 districts, 14 proposed projects have been supported by DCs. If all construction projects are carried out, about 590 000 niches can be provided.

I hope that the Bureau will, after the passage of the Bill, also review the above situation. If all funds have been allocated to infrastructure projects, leaving none for columbaria development, will the authorities consider setting up a "columbaria development fund" to provide funding for the immediate commencement of the works? I really wonder what is holding the projects back. As far as I understand, the present shortage of niches is not due to the objection of DCs, in fact many DCs have given their consent, but the Government fails to provide a specific timetable for the implementation of the works. If I have mistaken, I hope the Secretary will clarify later on, and I also hope that he will tell us the timetable and roadmap for the increase of the "economy" niches.

President, I am eager to see the expeditious passage of the Bill so that consumers' rights and interests can be protected. I hope that through the regulation by licensing, the adverse impacts of private columbaria on the residents will be reduced. I also hope that in the long run, the Government will properly address the realistic problem of the coexistence of housing for the dead and housing for the living. Apart from passing the Bill, the authorities should also promptly review why no timetable has been devised for the construction of columbaria even though many DCs have approved the construction at the chosen sites. The Government should take practical steps to increase the number of niches as soon as possible so that people waiting for allocation of niches can feel relieved. Hong Kong people have to worry about not having a flat to live in while they are alive and they also have to worry if they are able to secure a niche for their deceased family members. This should not happen in Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

6414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill").

The Bill has arrived a year late. It should have been passed as early as in July 2016. At that time, in order to block the passage of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016, the pan-democratic Members had been filibustering at the expense of the Bill. Hence, I really hope that Members will not request the ringing of the summoning bell or filibuster deliberately this time. I hope that the Bill can be passed smoothly so that the expectations of many members of the public will be addressed.

When I first became a Member in 2008, the first oral question I raised was related to the licensing regime and legislation in respect of private columbaria and the funeral trade. As I have set up a ward office in my dual capacity as a Legislative Council Member and a District Council member in Hung Hom, I have been going in and out of that district on a daily basis. Many residents have relayed to me that quite a few shops there, of which the front portion has been used for business and the rear portion for dwelling, have obtained a business licence irrelevant to funeral or columbarium business. In fact, the operation of private columbaria can generate a rather handsome profit. As such, many columbaria are located next to residential buildings, or some street-level shops have kept over 100 niches. It is the biggest hope of local residents that housing for the living should be separated from housing for the dead. This is a very fundamental living requirement.

When I was examining the issue, I was surprised to find that the existing legislation is quite lax. I have never expected that no application is required for a shop engaging in funeral business to set up a branch carrying on the same kind of business within a distance of 500 m. This situation is similar to the previous case of tutorial schools. Due to the ever-increasing number of tutorial schools, all private tutorial schools were later required to apply for a licence if their number of students exceeds 20. At that time, I proposed to the then Secretary for Food and Health Dr York CHOW to strengthen the regulation of the funeral trade. If the number of niches is regulated so that a license is required for an operator with more than 20 niches, the incentive for running the business may be reduced. On one occasion, I went to Beijing to attend a function with Dr York CHOW. I had also been bothering him with this issue. I believe that he should be very impressed by that.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6415

I later found that the problem is very serious not only in Hung Hom, but also in Kowloon Tong where temples abound. Both high- and low-end residential districts have been bothered by the problems with columbaria. Back then, together with Mr CHAN King-wong, a former District Council member, I went to the Food and Health Bureau repeatedly to urge the authorities to come up with methods to restrict the number of columbaria. At that time, columbaria could be found everywhere, and they were as common as rice shops and even outnumbered schools. The problem of the coexistence of columbaria and residential settlements has all along been very serious. Hence, I raised an oral question back then in the hope that the authorities could regulate the operation of columbaria by way of legislation. I also hoped that columbaria and residential settlements could be separated, and this long-standing problem could no longer be connived.

In addition, columbaria have turned out to be very profitable. I do not know if you still recall the Lehman Brothers incident in 2008. At that time, the advertisements of Lehman Brothers products were seen everywhere. Numerous victims ranging from hawkers to the more affluent middle class had been affected. I once indicated in my speech at the Legislative Council that it was essential to ward off the occurrence of the Lehman Brothers incident in the columbaria trade. After members of the public had seen the advertisements of columbaria―I also brought along many promotional flyers to the Chamber then―they might spend $100,000 to $200,000 to buy niches. Subsequently, if the columbaria concerned were found to be operating without a license, the niches therein would be rendered useless and the buyers would become victims. If this really happened, this incident would be even more deplorable than the Lehman Brothers incident. To Chinese people, for the purpose of fulfilling filial piety, proper interment of the deceased is vital. Regrettably, $100,000 or $200,000 is a large sum of money to ordinary families. It is absolutely not our hope to see more niche users being victimized as a result of the Government's handling of the licensing of columbaria.

We suggest that the Government consider formulating an alternative plan to offer assistance to users affected by any columbarium which fails to comply with the regulations or obtain a license. As I have mentioned just now, some operators have kept more than 100 niches in a private residence. Just imagine, if one niche is priced at $100,000, then more than 100 niches will be worth over $10 million. As such, many people would readily run the business. However, will the users end up buying "unfinished" niches? How can the authorities deal with unlicensed operations? How to plug the current legal loophole? These 6416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 questions are indeed worrying. If the place in which niches are kept ceases operation suddenly, a big problem will arise. Quite a few colleagues have suggested just now that the Government provides alternative plans such as one similar to the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund ("the Fund"). Provided that consumers can finally prove that they have met the requirements for buying niches and they have been deceived after paying in full, making it impossible for the ashes of the deceased to be interred, will the Government provide an alternative plan such as arranging new niches for the deceased or allocating some public niches to innocent consumers who had been deceived, with a view to reducing the number of victims? I strongly hope that the Government will make proper arrangement for those consumers.

When I raised an oral question on private columbaria in 2008, the authorities responded by saying that they were very concerned about the fire safety problems of columbaria and the suitability of the sites identified for columbaria. As it turned out, the only legislation which applied to columbaria back then was the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. I have received many requests for help from local residents, who have also come to the Legislative Council from time to time to stage petitions and demonstrations. They all said that more and more columbaria have been set up in violation of deeds of mutual covenant. Members may well recall the many lawsuits filed over relevant problems in Hung Hom. For example, a resident sued a neighbour for burning incense and performing funeral rituals all day, the noise of which has put him on the brink of a mental breakdown and made it impossible for his children to focus on their studies. This is precisely the deadlock created by the coexistence of housing for the living and housing for the dead. I strongly hope that the Bill will reduce the painful disputes among neighbours. When I first served Hung Hom District, my professor asked me to conduct a mental health survey on local residents to study the mental state of the residents in Hung Hom or in those areas alleged to be heavily affected, as well as the mental state of students in their studies. Dr KO Wing-man is also present now. Dr KO is very fortunate in that he will be able to make good on his promise to us. The Bill is expected to be passed successfully this year.

During the transitional period before the Bill takes effect, I hope that we can consider offering assistance to two types of people. The first type is consumers. After they have purchased a niche, they may discover that the columbaria concerned may fail to get a license or meet the requirements. We must deal with the transitional arrangement involved. The second type is the relevant columbaria mentioned above. These columbaria have all along been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6417 running but they have been unable to get a license. The problems arising from the transition of their operation need to be tackled. These columbaria are in fact one of the stakeholders which should be taken care of. In addition, advertisements of columbaria must be banned. In the past, columbaria could post advertisements at will. One of the examples is the "golden columbarium". Members of the public had been attracted to buy the niches upon seeing the advertisements, which is similar to the case of the Lehman Brothers incident. Back then, many Lehman advertisements had been put up even in MTR stations. As a result, even some hawkers had spent $50,000 or even $100,000 on these high-risk products.

The case with columbaria is the same. While cheaper than Lehman Brothers products, niches are vital to a family and a clan. It is absolutely unreasonable if ashes could no longer be interred in a columbarium after being kept there for years. Hence, I do not agree with such an arrangement. Descendants would assume that ashes could be permanently interred in the niche they have purchased. If the authorities subsequently shorten the operation period of a columbarium, the staff thereof could not even know whom to contact for return of the ashes. Some of the ashes might have been interred there for decades, and the descendants may not come back to dispose of them. This is very common. The authorities have previously failed to contact the relevant descendants to dispose of the ashes of their ancestors as well. In my view, when dealing with columbaria, the Government should also handle these problems altogether. Some niches might have been purchased with tens of thousands of dollars raised collectively from members of the whole family. We should help them address the problem in relation to seeking another columbarium. Sympathetic consideration should certainly be given to this kind of situation. The Government should also take into consideration the problems which may be difficult to tackle during or after the implementation of the Bill.

I also understand that the ash claimants are well-intentioned. It is certainly due to their affection for their family that they have initiated the claim. Hence, I absolutely do not hope that the claimants will file a lawsuit over their claim. I concur with one amendment proposed by the Government, namely the definition of "related persons" as people who have lived with the deceased person for at least two years. This item was not included in the amendments proposed last year, but was only added after the Government had listened to the views of Members. I consider this amendment desirable as it can be regarded as a form of compromise which makes it unnecessary to involve the definition of kinship or the even more controversial definition of same-sex spouse. As we all know, 6418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 according to the court order on the W case, the Legislative Council was required to examine the Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014 within one year. However, the Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014 was negatived back then, with 11 votes in favour and 40 votes against it. As the majority of Members had voted against it, it was definitely not only the orientation of different political camps that had come into play. Despite vigorous persuasion by the Government then, the Marriage (Amendment) Bill was not passed. In the end, the proposal to amend the relevant legislation was in vain. As same-sex marriage, de facto union and other issues relating to the legality in other jurisdictions are involved, no consensus may be reached even after further discussion for decades. Taking into account the sincerity of various parties, I consider that the definition of "relevant persons" has covered the scenarios which we are all concerned about. Regardless of the relationship between the claimants and the deceased, a person can be defined as a "relevant person" as long as it is proven that he has lived with the deceased for two years. In this way, the traditional definition of marriage, which should be monogamous between one man and one woman, shall not be touched upon. This is a compromise which I consider worthy of consideration.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed an amendment to change the period from two years to one year. In my view, the Bill has to be consistent with other existing legislation, such as the Fatal Accidents Ordinance, in respect of the definition of "related persons". I consider consistency to be very important. Hence, I do not agree that the Bill should set a precedent. The enactment of legislation calls for consistency. As the Bill involves the definition of marriage, it will thus also have to do with the definitions of marriage and of spouse in numerous other ordinances, and the rights and interests involved. Hence, I do not agree to the amendment of Dr Fernando CHEUNG or any amendments relating to this aspect. I strongly support the Government's amendments which will be conducive to minimizing disputes. Hence, I will support the proposal of the Government, which is the outcome of months of hard work since November of last year. I also urge colleagues to support the Government's amendments so that the Bill can be successfully passed. I will wait until the Committee stage to speak on the other amendments. I cannot support those amendments because they involve the traditional definition of marriage, which should be monogamous between one man and one woman. This issue has aroused controversy in the Hong Kong community and is likely to cause dissension. As such, I cannot support those amendments.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I hope that the Bill can be passed expeditiously.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6419

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong is commonly referred to as a small but densely populated city. As such, there is not enough living space for us when we are alive, and there are no burial places for us when we are dead. In fact, when the current-term Chief Executive assumed office, he clearly said that Hong Kong did not lack land, but rather it lacked land planning. Nowadays, land for housing for the living only accounts for some 7% of the total land area of Hong Kong, and land for housing for the dead certainly accounts for a smaller percentage. That said, housing for both the living and the dead are likewise inadequate. Yet, a strange phenomenon has now emerged in that housing for the dead is more expensive than those for the living in terms of the price per square foot. As indicated by several Members just now, a niche can cost as much as over $1 million. How does such a strange phenomenon come about? Over the years the Government has adopted a laissez-faire attitude and paid no regard to the apparent social needs, thus giving rise to the present situation.

In fact, it was clearly stated in Report No. 65 of the Director of Audit in 2015 that the supply of niches was seriously inadequate. With 40 000 to 50 000 deaths every year, mostly treated by cremation, the number of niches needed each year was about 40 000, but the supply of niches, in particular public niches, could hardly catch up. In 2016, the Ombudsman also talked about the supply of niches. The Government was once determined to build columbarium in every district, and from 2010 to 2011, it announced that 24 sites were suitable for columbarium development. However, according to the report of the Office of The Ombudsman released on 28 June last year, so far only two development projects had been completed, providing only 2 540 niches. The progress in building public columbaria is excessively slow.

In the year before last, the Audit Commission also gave a similar warning. Little progress has been made so far. According to the report of the Audit Commission, the situation would only be slightly alleviated in 2019 with the additional supply of 160 000 niches. However, this is only an expectation and we do not know whether additional niches will really be provided in two or three years. Given the inadequate supply of public niches, most people can only turn to private columbaria. Unfortunately, most of these private columbaria have breached the existing regulations in respect of planning, land and building safety.

It is really ironic that elderly persons, when alive, had to wait for residential care homes for the elderly and they could not live long enough to be admitted to such homes; and after they died, they also had to wait for niches, and 6420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 likewise, they also had to rely on the private sector. If elderly persons, when alive, would not be admitted to subsidized residential care homes with better conditions, they could only live in private homes with varying quality and management standards, depending on their luck. After they died, if public niches are not available, private niches are the only choice, the quality of which likewise varies, and the rights and interests of consumers can hardly be protected. Many private columbaria are unauthorized, showing no regard to the living environment of nearby residents, a green environment and ancillary transport facilities, and the relevant departments have failed to enforce the law correspondingly to improve the environment.

In 2010, the Development Bureau published the Information on Private Columbaria which consisted of two parts. Part A included private columbaria which complied with land leases and the requirements of the Town Planning Board ("TPB") and did not illegally occupy Government land. But there were only 30 such columbaria out of some 150. Back then, Part B only listed 52 unauthorized private columbaria which occupied Government land illegally, but now, the number of unauthorized private columbaria has increased from 52 to 123.

I would like to give two examples concerning unauthorized columbaria. The first one is the Chung Woo Ching Shea in Tai Po, which is in the vicinity of the Classical Gardens, a residential building. Since 2008, Chung Woo Ching Shea has applied to TPB seven times for rezoning the relevant site for the redevelopment of a temple, but its applications were all rejected, two of which were rejected directly. That said, Chung Woo Ching Shea has paid no heed and continued to operate during the application period. It has erected illegal structures, set up niches to solicit business and charge fees; it first damaged the environment and then applied for approval; it ignored removal orders issued by the Lands Department or the Buildings Department, and contravened all the requirements concerning urban planning, building safety, fire safety, environmental hygiene and environmental protection as well as land leases.

However, during the application period of Chung Woo Ching Shea, the departments concerned indicated that they could not do anything except allow it to make applications. Hence, it has continuously made applications for the purpose of procrastinating, doing business and collecting fees. Residents in the vicinity have over the years been harassed by sutra chanting, bell ringing, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6421 religious rituals and burning of joss paper, as well as congested traffic during festive days. I need not say too much about such situations, for all directly elected Members must have received relevant complaints.

The case with Puguangming Temple in Sha Tin is also the same. As such, I doubt whether our law enforcement agencies are connected with the bodies behind these columbaria. I even suspect whether corruption is involved, hence the agencies do not take enforcement actions against the obvious illegal practices. Today we absolutely support the expeditious passage of the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill"). We hope that the Bill will be passed as early as possible, so that there will be proper planning for and constraints on columbaria, and the requirements concerning the environment and transportation will not be neglected. I certainly support the Second Reading, and I hope that the Bill will be passed as soon as possible.

However, we have some concerns after the passage of the Bill. First, will the Government, following the passage of the Bill, allow the continuous operation of 100 or so unauthorized columbaria by granting amnesty to them? We certainly know that columbaria developed before 1990 have no problems, but following the publication of the Information on Private Columbaria by the Development Bureau, dozens of unauthorized columbaria have been established. We consider it unacceptable if we grant amnesty to unauthorized columbaria, or if we set the precedent of grandfathering to exempt existing columbaria. We opine that the law must be enforced stringently.

Second, law enforcement may result in possible closing down of certain columbaria. As indicated by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, the industry estimates that some 200 000 to 300 000 niches will possibly be affected. In the event of the closing down of such columbaria, how can consumers seek compensation? I hereby urge all consumers who have purchased niches, particularly niches in unauthorized columbaria as set out in Part B, to retain all the relevant papers. The authorities must make preparations to respond to consumers who seek compensation, or else I am afraid there will be chaos when they come to claim the return of the ashes. In addition, where can the ashes be stored after they are claimed? Will there be any transitional arrangements? I think the Government cannot totally ignore these scenarios in the legislative process.

6422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

In addition, the Audit Commission has pointed out that even if some 100 000 new niches could be provided in 2019―if projects in the districts progress smoothly and are not delayed―how to allocate such niches to members of the public as early as possible was also very important, for the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") has over the years allocated niches in batches by balloting. It was clearly stated in the report of the Audit Commission that even if 160 000 new niches were available for allocation, FEHD only planned to allocate 20 000 in batches by open balloting each year. While open balloting is certainly fair, many niches are thus left idle for years, causing a waste of public money and public facilities. For this reason, I hope that the authorities will give serious consideration to this matter, so that members of the public will not have to wait for years before being allocated the niches even after the commissioning of the columbaria.

Finally, is the continuous development of more columbaria or the regulation of private columbaria the best solution? We hold that green burial is one possible solution and hopefully it will be a major way out. Regrettably, however, as far as the total number of deaths is concerned, less than 10% of the relatives of the deceased would choose green burial. According to the report of The Ombudsman, in 2015 only 8.7% of the relatives of the deceased chose green burial, with the number of cases standing at less than 5 000 or roughly 4 000 only. FEHD and the Government at large are duty-bound to proceed with work in this regard, and offer more choices and better facilities, so that members of the public will have the incentives to choose green burial. Why has the work in this regard failed to effectively enable a higher percentage of Hong Kong people to choose green burial over the years? I think that the Government must be held accountable in this regard and reviews need to be conducted.

Lastly, I have proposed an amendment to the Bill. Ms Cyd HO proposed a similar amendment to the relevant bill at the last term. My amendment has no direct bearing on the existing definition of legal marital status in Hong Kong. Rather, it merely seeks to enable, from a humane perspective, relatives and friends to claim for the return of the ashes of the deceased in the event of the closing down of unauthorized columbaria of varying quality. In some special cases, a person may have obtained the formal status as a relative of the deceased when he was alive in another jurisdiction, although this may not be recognized under Hong Kong laws. In respect of claiming for the return of ashes, we should allow that person to enjoy basic human rights by recognizing his status as the same-sex spouse or civil partner of the deceased registered in a foreign place, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6423 so that he will be treated as an ordinary relative and be entitled to claim the ashes of and things left behind by the deceased. The amendment merely aims at achieving this end, rather than seeking to change the definition of marriage in Hong Kong. In this connection, I will further elaborate when moving my amendment.

I so submit.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") introduced in 2014 had been scrutinized for a couple of years, but in the last legislative term, it could not be given the Second Reading and Third Reading because of the filibustering over the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016. With the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill today, I believe the Bill stands a good chance of being passed in the end.

Can the Bill actually achieve its legislative intent after it is passed? I note that the legislative intent of the Bill is to regulate the operation of existing private columbaria. In order to bring private columbaria under preliminary regulation, the Government has compiled Part A and Part B of the Information on Private Columbaria. Many of the private columbaria listed in Part B are not compliant with statutory or land lease requirements, and this is going to put the Government in a very awkward position―the trade has estimated that upon the passage of the Bill, ashes interred in 200 000 to 300 000 niches will be displaced, and even the Government will not be able to properly accommodate these ashes. However, the Government has optimistically estimated that only about 80 000 niches will be affected, saying that the authorities will be able to accommodate the ashes concerned and there will be no problem. I hope the Government can deal with this issue properly in a more proactive manner.

Chinese people set great store by funerals and burials. Life is a process of birth, ageing, illness and death. To Chinese people, birth and death are matters of particular importance which warrant the making of significant arrangements; if the ashes or remains of ancestors were not interred properly, it could spell great misfortune for descendants. Therefore, in Chinese society, people attach great importance to the interment of their ancestors' ashes, and many people will seek to bury their ancestors in better sites or so-called feng shui sites. But in Hong Kong, the situation is bizarre in that the dead, like the living, have to compete for housing. The housing scramble among the living is a real headache for the 6424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

Government these days. Similarly, it is very difficult to find housing for the dead. At the moment, a lot of ashes are still kept in funeral parlours and waiting to be moved into government columbaria, the niches of which are very hard to secure. According to reports, some ashes have been on the waiting list for eight to ten years, and yet no public niches have been allotted to them. All these are matters of concern to us.

At present, there are eight columbaria under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") offering a total of 214 300 niches, compared to 365 200 niches in non-governmental columbaria (including private columbaria). In other words, the number of niches currently provided by the Government is less than the number of private niches. As the Government has never regulated private columbaria before, some of these 300 000-odd private niches are not compliant with statutory requirements. People are worried that after the passage of the Bill, the Government may not be able to accommodate the ashes interred in those non-compliant niches. The Government has told the public that in the coming five years, the Government alone will provide the public with 130 000 niches, and there will be 61 800 new niches in the private market. In other words, the Government will put a lot of effort into the construction of columbaria in the coming five years.

The trade has estimated that 200 000 to 300 000 niches will be weeded out as a result of the passage of the Bill. If the number of niches to be weeded out is 200 000, it seems that the 200 000 or so new niches to be provided in the coming five years will be barely enough to make up for the loss of niches; and if the 10% of cremations accounted for by green burial services are taken into account, the actual supply of niches will be acceptable, with a shortfall of just a few thousand niches. However, if the number of niches to be weeded out exceeds 200 000, the Government may not be able to accommodate all the ashes displaced. These figures have sparked some panic among the public, especially those people who have interred the ashes of their ancestors in columbaria that are considered to be non-compliant and may thus be put out of business. What should they do? I call on the Secretary to really step up efforts and continue to build more niches after the passage of the Bill. The Secretary and FEHD may be rather optimistic about the situation, but I am not.

To be honest, the Government is now working hard to tackle this issue. The previous Government led by former Chief Executive Donald TSANG once floated the idea of "having niches in every district", but the authorities have only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6425 managed to find sites in 8 of the 18 districts. I know the authorities have been striving to identify sites in the other districts, including the Yuen Long District; the authorities have advised that they may be able to find a suitable site in the Yuen Long District. Nonetheless, the Government has yet to ask the Legislative Council for funding, and there is a possibility that the District Councils will not pass the relevant proposals. So the Government must expedite its work in order to be able to properly accommodate the ashes concerned in the coming five to six years―the Government has proposed a grace period of six years; otherwise there will be big trouble.

There is no guarantee that regulation by legislation can ensure that the trade will operate normally in true accordance with the law. We did raise specific questions at the meetings of the Bills Committee. For example, suppose there is a private columbarium operating on a leased plot of private land; if the private landowner suddenly demands to repossess the land, the operator of the private columbarium may have to reduce its scale by cutting the number of its niches from, say, 20 000 to 10 000. Where should the ashes in the 10 000 unwanted niches go then? Such an issue has to be resolved by the Government at the end of the day. The Government responded at a meeting of the Bills Committee that it would undertake the responsibility. This is a big problem. The Government has estimated that it can provide ash accommodation for 80 000 niches to be weeded out, but there may be more niches to be weeded out. Can the Government make better arrangements to address this issue? In my view, once the Bill is passed, the problem facing the community will become more serious, and the public will be more anxious about whether their ancestors can be properly interred.

At present, the public actually has a lot of different options when it comes to columbaria. I agree that there should be a specific ratio between public and private niches, and the Government should not take all the responsibility. Some Honourable colleagues have suggested that the Government should build a large number of niches, so that when private columbaria are unable to accommodate more ashes, the Government will be able to accommodate all the ashes left out. This is certainly an ideal approach, but then again, having a choice is always better than having no choice. For some people, the Government's arrangement may not necessarily be the first choice, as they may choose a columbarium at a different location on account of such factors as feng shui and transport. Private columbaria can rightly provide the public with flexible options. So, I suggest that the Government should take reference from the current 40:60 split between 6426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 public and private housing. It is best to have 40% of niches supplied by the private sector and 60% by the Government. This ratio will best suit the needs of the public.

Besides, we are all concerned about green burial nowadays. Can the Government build a Garden of Remembrance in every district? Although the Government may not be able to build a columbarium in every district, it is possible to build Gardens of Remembrance in country parks or on green belt sites. Can the Government consider this proposal? I hope the authorities will consider making arrangements for "green burials in every district". After checking out some statistics on the usage of green burial services, I have found that in 2011, green burial services accounted for only 4.2% of cremations, but in 2016, this percentage already rose to over 10%. In other words, green burial is gradually gaining public acceptance. I therefore hope that the Government can set up a relevant committee―Deputy President, you have also made a similar suggestion earlier on―to help promote green burial, or even appeal to the public to make early choices about their own death care, so that their descendants will be able to make better arrangements.

Lastly, I would like to say something about fees and charges. I believe that upon the enactment of the Bill, some private columbaria will be naturally eliminated, and so the rest of them will be much sought after. In that case, can they keep their fees and charges at fair and reasonable levels to give the public choices? Can the Government impose certain requirements through the Private Columbaria Licensing Board to prevent private columbaria from offering niches for sale at prices unacceptable to the public? Also, I hope the Government can expeditiously achieve the goal of having 60% of niches supplied by the public sector as I mentioned just now, so that people will have better options.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the passage of the Bill.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I did not apply for a niche for my mother when she passed away because I was very poor then. I have no intention to make any application and we have been at peace with this decision.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6427

In fact, the Government introduced the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") because of a long outstanding problem. In Hong Kong, people have difficulties living in a decent home when they are alive. One of the reasons is the high rental―it was not so high in the past. Naturally, we understand that the use of land has to reap marginal benefits. If you have a piece of land, how will you use it to make money? As the Government has failed to provide burial places for the dead for some time, a problem will naturally arise. I always advocate that even if there is a market mechanism, the Government has to intervene when the market becomes greedy or ineffective. That is my position. On the contrary, the Government should not intervene although it has the power to do so and it should let the market take control. Hence, we have to discuss the Bill today.

Our Government's incompetence has gone so far as victimizing the dead. In fact, victimizing the dead is tantamount to victimizing the living. The dead would not know what the living are doing, but out of love for the dead, the living are morally obliged to enable the dead, whom they respect and love, to rest in peace in their preferred ways. As the Government has failed to solve the burial problem of Hong Kong people and regressed from providing the Chinese Permanent Cemetery to providing columbaria for burying our ancestors and other deceased persons, a shortage of the facilities has invited the market to take over. Certainly, the market will become greedy, this explains why there are so many columbaria operating illegally by exploiting the legal loopholes. Since various problems have arisen, the Government has to deal with them and we have to solve them by enacting legislation.

Deputy President, if the Bill is passed, a problem will instantly arise. Since some columbaria which have been operating by exploiting the legal loopholes cannot continue with their operation, how should the ashes which have "rested in peace" in these columbaria be relocated? The Government has given us an answer. According to the estimate of the authorities, about 200 000 niches will have to be relocated. As it is better to clarify things at the beginning than to argue afterwards, may I ask the Government, "Can the problem be solved?" If it cannot and we have passed the Bill, the entire Legislative Council Complex might be demolished by members of the public. I think Secretary Dr KO Wing-man really has to make a promise to all Hong Kong people later. Secretary Dr KO may say, "'Long Hair', you are again acting like rascal. How can I be sure that the promise can be delivered?" That is not the point. If the Secretary makes a promise and cannot deliver it in the future, he will have to bear legal liability, either someone may institute proceedings of a judicial review, or 6428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 the Legislative Council may demand the Government to take expeditious actions. If there is still a shortage of niches, the Government will have to solve the problem as soon as possible. I think the Government should first make this commitment today because the problem has arisen due to the Government's failure to perform in the first place.

We have to understand―Deputy President may not understand though― the general public can in no way handle matters relating to dead bodies. Thus, the funeral trade is so booming, and so is the columbarium trade. In fact, we do not have statutory power to handle dead bodies and have to rely on the relevant trades. After hearing this exposition, we come to realize that the current problem is attributed solely to the Government's unjust and unkind treatment of the living and so the dead cannot rest in peace. Frankly speaking, when our society cannot even solve the problem of accommodating the living, can we afford to care about other problems? In our previous discussions, we said that residents of subdivided units were like living in coffins. Deputy President, these people are living in "coffin units". They have to live in "coffins" though they are not yet dead because we have not solved the housing problem.

I do not mean to be disrespectful to the dead. I think if the dead are in the underworld now―that is only my belief and I do apologize if all Hong Kong people feel offended by what I am going to say―I think the dead are already dead; they were really kind and they might think that perhaps the problem of the living whom they love should first be solved, so that the living would lead a better life. Is that right? When the Government cannot even solve the problem of providing homes for the living, today's proposal to solve the problem of the dead is, frankly speaking, putting the cart before the horse. I still think that the dead, being kind-hearted, would certainly not be attached to love and hatred in life.

Let me make another point here―I may be wrong. If people who are now watching the television broadcast disagree with me, they can scold me. I think there is a problem with us the Chinese. Buddy, you would not think there is a problem to keep the ashes of your parents, ancestors or friends near you, and you may even travel a long way to pay respect to them. The deceased friends and elders of other people are similar to yours. As the saying goes, "Respect the dead as if they were alive". What does it mean? It means if you respect a person, you will remember his merits and good teachings, but forget how he had berated you. If you still had such a memory, why would you bury him? Thus, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6429

I hope people who are now watching the television broadcast will respect the elders and friends of other people because that is acting an act of respecting oneself and others. Frankly speaking, why do people raise objections? The cemeteries of overseas countries give visitors a feeling of tranquility and respect for deceased persons. Deputy President, that reminds me of another problem. The cemeteries in Hong Kong are very poorly managed, giving visitors a bad feeling. Therefore, if the Government has the opportunity to implement green burial in the future, I will ask it to do a good job.

In fact, changing traditions and customs requires people with public power or capability to make efforts. If a garden of remembrance is landscaped with greeneries, visitors will have a dignified and solemn feeling and consider it a preferred place to keep the ashes of the deceased, right? Thus, if the Government can promise to make an effort in this regard, I do not mind making such a choice.

Next, regarding the claims for the return of ashes, I consider it inappropriate for the Government to require the claimant to possess the will of the deceased. Deputy President, I do not know if one can designate, in his will, certain people to claim the return of his ashes. If so, I will definitely make a will. What is the current problem? The immediate family members of the deceased person or other persons whom people consider to have a close relationship with the deceased person will have priority to claim the ashes. If a person is considered not very close to the deceased person by the general public, that person will not have priority to claim the ashes. What does this imply? It implies that the deceased person was not respected.

I will give an example. To put it bluntly, if I was gay and had a same-sex partner, who would care? The problem is that when I was alive, the Government respected me by not decriminalizing homosexuality and allowing me to live with my partner, claiming that society has become very liberal. However, after I died, my beloved one could not get back my ashes. Is there a problem with the Government? In fact, the crux of the whole problem is whether the Government respects the deceased. Buddy, frankly speaking, when a person is alive, his children and grandchildren who show filial obedience to him, or other people who is close to him, may not even meet once a year or they may only have meals together. On the other hand, that person may be living with a same-sex partner for a year or two. The two of them have been together through thick and thin and take care of each other when one is sick. But 6430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 according to the existing law, when that person died, his same-sex partner cannot get back his ashes. That is really sad. There is such kind of love in life and the couple loved each other. Since the Government did not separate them when they were alive, why does it do so when one of them is dead? Therefore, in this respect, I think there is no need for the Government to yield to Dr Priscilla LEUNG's pressure. The best approach is to let the same-sex partner get back the ashes. We should let the dead rest in peace, shouldn't we?

Furthermore, I think the Government has played foul. I do not know if the President will disagree with me. As the Government's motion is put to vote first, Members are in a dilemma. If we do not pass the Government's motion, all CSAs cannot be passed; but if we pass the Government's motion, all of our CSAs will not be passed. Even at meetings of student unions, amendments to a motion are put to vote first and there is no reason to vote on the original motion first. Since the Government adopts this tactics today, I can tell you that people above observing the proceedings are all very nervous.

We hope that the passage of the Bill will benefit the general public, but the CSAs which contain our humble requests will probably not be passed. Frankly speaking, the Government should provide an opportunity to let this Council … "Mending the rift" is a popular phrase now, isn't it? Buddy, one has to find an opportunity to mend the rift. We are not discussing whether one party dictatorship should be ended and yet, the Government has acted in this manner even on the current issue. Frankly speaking, I think the Government has made a big mistake on this point.

Lastly, I think the Government should put in more resources in the future to solve the problems for Hong Kong people, including supporting them when they are alive and burying them when they are dead. I will not talk about supporting the people when they are alive because I have done so during the budget debate. I am already very upset because the Government cannot support the elderly and there is no reason why the Government should also fail in providing burial places for the dead. I am saying that the Government should bear 400% and I repeat, 400% responsibility to take care of the burial issues of Hong Kong people. Certainly, Hong Kong people should think out of the box and consider whether such kind of burial is the only way to show respect to a deceased person. That is a question that involves changing our customs and traditions. If the Government intends to change customs and traditions, it should impress us with its imposing bearing and care for the people. Otherwise, people will think that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6431

Government promotes scattering ashes into the sea or other burial options only because it cannot solve the problem. The people will only be convinced if the Government has solved the problem.

Secretary, you should understand―actually it should be the next Chief Executive Carrie LAM, she should understand that if the problems of the living cannot be solved, and the problems of the dead cannot be solved, the situation is just deplorable. Thus, if she cannot solve the problems of the living, she should solve the problems of the dead. Deputy President, I think the Government and the Legislative Council can make any changes, with the exception of turning man into woman. In promoting building green gardens of remembrance or columbaria in all districts, if the Government can provide adequate facilities, who will raise objection? Buddy, these facilities may even bring business to the districts.

In fact, I have a very humble suggestion. Since people respect the deceased as if they were alive and are so earnest in playing tribute to the ancestors, they should follow the example of Moses and walk to the columbarium. Buddy, those people should have parked their cars outside the columbarium and walk there slowly. As they walk, they can tell their children to pay tribute to their ancestors and what a good man their grandfather was; instead of eating the roast pork and leaving the place after paying a visit. If the Government has to solve the problem, it should require people to park their cars outside the columbarium and forbid cars to enter. It should also beautify the paths of the columbarium, so that people can walk slowly to the sites and pay tribute to their ancestors.

Deputy President, I will not speak any further. I hope that the Government can really undertake to provide 200 000 niches, otherwise I will be at loggerheads with it.

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

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

6432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you are not raising a point of order, please sit down.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung sat down)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no Member wishes to speak, I now call upon the Secretary for Food and Health to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government introduced the Private Columbaria Bill into the Legislative Council in June 2014 ("the Former Bill"). Although the Second Reading of the Former Bill could not be resumed due to the filibustering of Members on another bill, we have incorporated the 547 Committee stage amendments ("CSAs") agreed between the Former Bills Committee and the Government after two years of scrutiny into the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") re-introduced into the current Legislative Council last November.

The current Legislative Council has once again scrutinized the underlying policy and various provisions of the Bill in a comprehensive, in-depth and detailed manner. I would like to thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan and Ms Tanya CHAN, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Bills Committee of the current Legislative Council, as well as some other 30 Members, the Legislative Council Secretariat and the legal advisory team for their efforts and time spent in scrutinizing the Bill. My gratitude also goes to other deputations and individuals for expressing many valuable views to us during the process. After taking on board their views, we have proposed further amendments to the Bill. I will explain the amendments in detail when we enter the Committee stage later.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6433

I have already expounded on the background of the Bill when I moved the Second Reading, so I am not going to repeat now. However, I would like to mention a fact again, and that is, the existing private columbaria vary considerably with diverse standards. Through the Bill, we seek to introduce for the first time in Hong Kong a regulatory regime for private columbaria, with a view to effectively achieving the following objectives:

(a) ensuring that columbaria brought under regulation would comply with relevant statutory and government requirements;

(b) enhancing the protection of consumers' rights and interests; and

(c) assisting the industry to operate and develop in a sustainable mode.

However, as we cannot fully foresee the adjustments to be made by the existing columbaria at the initial stage after the passage of the Bill, we have to provide flexibility in certain provisions of the Bill. It is impractical to expect that the Bill can resolve in one go all the regulatory problems that may arise. I appreciate the Bills Committee's understanding of this point and its consent to the present arrangement, on the premise that I have to respond to their concerns in my speech. I will now respond accordingly.

First, timely review. The provisions of the Bill are very complicated, and the scope and extent covered are deep and extensive. We will probably only have a more concrete and clearer understanding of the numerous problems and possible scenarios after the Private Columbaria Ordinance ("the Ordinance") is implemented. In this connection, we will closely monitor the implementation of the Ordinance and introduce an Amendment Bill when necessary. In fact, while we have pledged to conduct a review of the Ordinance around three years after implementation, we may have to initiate discussions with the Legislative Council at an earlier date if there is an urgent need.

Second, some members of the Bills Committee have suggested that the Licensing Board should consider uploading information on applications for specified instruments onto its website. We noted this suggestion and will relay it to the Licensing Board. At present, we propose to make the following information available online for public information:

6434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

(a) the status of applications for specified instruments received by the Licensing Board (pending determination, approved or rejected); and

(b) the corresponding validity period of specified instruments issued.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

This can facilitate consumers' access to data to better protect themselves from untrue claims made by operators that they have been duly authorized to sell niches under a licence.

Furthermore, some provisions of the Bill stipulate that the concerned parties must act according to the requirements specified by the Licensing Board or the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene ("DFEH") and failure to do so constitutes a criminal offence. Relevant examples include:

(a) pre-cut-off columbaria granted with exemption should, in connection with changes of dedicated persons of niches, update their registers containing the particulars specified by the Licensing Board in a timely manner;

(b) if there is a material change in the information provided for the application for a specified instrument, the holder of a specified instrument must notify the Licensing Board of such a change within the time specified in the Ordinance;

(c) a person holding a licence in respect of a columbarium must enter the particulars of each of the agreement for sale of an interment right into a register within a period of time as specified by the Licensing Board;

(d) an ash handler is required to, on the expiry of the claim period for returning ashes, deliver unclaimed ashes to DFEH in a manner specified by DFEH; and

(e) records kept by an ash handler must contain information required by DFEH.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6435

Some members are concerned that the relevant requirements will not be explicitly provided in the legislation; yet non-compliance with such requirements will entail criminal consequences, which is serious. Nevertheless, they also agree that the provisions have to provide certain deterrent. I appreciate the Bills Committee's understanding of the Administration's dilemma: on the one hand, stipulating the relevant requirements in detail in the legislation can make such requirements more concrete and explicit; yet on the other hand, there might be omissions to render the Licensing Board unable to deal with the scenarios that we cannot project today. Having taken into account the relevant considerations, the Bills Committee finally does not object to retaining the original provisions, so as to allow the Licensing Board to set out requirements based on the specific facts and actual situations of different cases, and refine the arrangements in due course after drawing experience from practice. The Bills Committee also agrees that there is a need to introduce criminal liabilities against non-compliance for deterrent effect. Since the courts will handle the adjudication of criminal liability, they can play the role of gatekeeper in deciding whether the merits of prosecution are justified, as well as whether the penalty and punishment are administered appropriately.

Should there be further development or any difficulty encountered in the implementation of the above arrangements, we will brief the Panels concerned in a timely manner.

Meanwhile, the Bills Committee is also concerned about the arrangements concerning religious ash pagodas, and it wishes to have a better understanding of the Home Affairs Bureau's idea regarding the operation of the appeal and relevant mechanism. To handle potential objections to the decisions made by the Secretary for Home Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill (including decisions specified by notice published in the Gazette, such as the maximum number of sets of ashes of religious practitioners that can be interred in religious ash pagodas of certain temples), the Home Affairs Bureau will consider setting up a committee independent of the Bureau, comprising of members from the religious sector and other sectors, to offer advice to the Secretary for Home Affairs in respect of such cases of objection.

Other concerns include the prohibition of private columbaria to sell or newly let niches between the enactment date of the Ordinance and the issuance of licence upon the passage of the Bill, so as to protect consumer's rights and interests and prevent the aggravation of non-compliance of columbaria which 6436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 ultimately fail to meet with the requirements after the enactment of the Ordinance. However, this arrangement has aroused the concern of members of the industry about the supply of niches over a certain period in the future.

We have promised the Bills Committee to discuss the matters concerned in relevant Panels and have issued an information paper in this connection for Members' reference. In gist, non-governmental private cemeteries, including non-profit-making cemeteries managed by the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries ("BMCPC") and religious or ethnic bodies, will continue to supply a certain quantity of niches in the next few years, and the Government will also strive to provide additional public niches. Moreover, members of the public may also consider applying for placing additional sets of ashes in niches allocated by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") or BMCPC, using the short-term facilities provided by FEHD for temporary storage of ashes or using green burial, as well as keeping ashes of the deceased at home. In the information paper that we provided to the Panel, it is stated that around 10 000 to some 40 000 or 50 000 niches will be provided in each of the coming five years (i.e. from this year till the next five years); altogether, some 190 000 niches will be provided in the next five years.

From the speeches delivered earlier, I also notice that Members have expressed concerns about at least two other issues. First, the irregular practices of undertakers. I hereby undertake to deal with problems related to undertakers in the next phase upon the enactment of the Ordinance. Second, several Members have mentioned the allocation method of public niches. I also undertake to review the allocation method for the next batch of new public niches upon the passage of the Bill.

President, I hope that presently priority will be given to passing the Bill, so as to provide the legal basis to gradually put unauthorized private columbaria back on track to comply with planning, land, fire and building safety as well as other regulatory requirements. Before the benefits of the Ordinance comes into effect, we will have a difficult transitional period, including insufficient supply of niches in private columbaria, resistance from parties with vested interests, and applicants trying to strive for the biggest interests in the course of regularization or rectification of non-compliance. In the meantime, all affected parties would like to have their cases processed with top priority and great flexibility. However, I hope Members will understand, as the regulations and procedures LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017 6437 related to planning, land and building are often very complicated, the problems cannot be resolved overnight; hence the concerted efforts of all stakeholders are required and members of the public should also be prepared psychologically for the transitional period.

In any case, as far as I understand, the expeditious passage of the Bill to implement a licensing scheme to regulate private columbaria is a consensus reached amongst various political parties. While we will not underestimate the difficulty of resolving the problem left over from history, we also understand that we have to continue joining hands with the Legislative Council to face any future challenges.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step. At this juncture, it is my earnest hope that we can take a step forward, which is also of vital importance. I implore Members to support the Bill as well as the Committee stage amendments proposed by me later.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Private Columbaria Bill be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Private Columbaria Bill.

6438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 13 April 2017

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now almost 6:36 pm. This Council is not able to complete the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill within today.

I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday 26 April 2017.

Adjourned accordingly at 6:36 pm.