LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2719

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, 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.

2720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

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 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 KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

# 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 ― 11 January 2017 2721

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

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 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 LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

2722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

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.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

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 YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

# 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 ― 11 January 2017 2723

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.S., M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

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

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

2724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Honourable Members. The meeting today is the first Legislative Council meeting in 2017. I wish you every success in your work, and look forward to stability in politics and harmony.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.

Hazardous Chemicals Control Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2016 ...... 194/2016

Banking (Disclosure) (Amendment) Rules 2016 ...... 195/2016

Banking (Specification of Class of Exempted Charges) (Amendment) Notice 2016 ...... 196/2016

Other Paper

Report No. 8/16-17 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2725

Public officers continuing to implement agreements for provision of services to commercial organizations which they entered into before taking office

1. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was elected Chief Executive ("CE") in March 2012. Before he was elected, Mr LEUNG resigned from the office of the Asia Pacific Director of DTZ in November 2011 and entered into an agreement in December of the same year with UGL Limited ("UGL"), which was then planning to acquire DTZ. The agreement stipulated that within two years upon completion of the acquisition, apart from not poaching any people from or competing with DTZ, Mr LEUNG would, in promoting the business of the UGL Group and the DTZ Group, provide assistance from time to time, which included acting as referee and adviser, in accordance with the reasonable requests made by UGL. Mr LEUNG received under the agreement a remuneration of £4 million in total in the first two years after his taking the office of CE, but he had all along failed to declare his interests relating to the agreement to the Clerk to the Executive Council ("ExCo"). Upon revelation of the aforesaid agreement by the media in October 2014, some members of the public queried that such practice of CE involved a conflict of interests and his failure to declare the interests constituted a misconduct in public office. In response to such queries, the Government pointed out that (i) the agreement had been entered into before Mr LEUNG took office; (ii) the agreement contained a clause providing for the avoidance of conflict of interests, i.e. he would provide the aforesaid assistance to UGL only under the situation that such assistance would not create any conflict of interests; (iii) UGL had not requested him to provide any services; and (iv) he had never provided any services to UGL ("the four conditions"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, under the existing requirements, politically appointed officials, ExCo Members and civil servants may follow CE's practice, i.e. they may continue to implement agreements for provision of services to commercial organizations that were entered into before their taking office and are still in force thereafter ("agreements entered into before taking office"), and they may receive remuneration in accordance with such agreements without making any declaration or obtaining any approval, so long as the aforesaid four conditions are met; if they may not, of the reasons for that;

2726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(2) whether it has studied if those types of persons mentioned in (1) will not contravene the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and the relevant declaration requirements, and nor will they be liable for the offence of misconduct in public office, for accepting advantages, so long as they meet the aforesaid four conditions and have received such advantages in accordance with the agreements that were entered into before their taking office; if it has studied and the outcome is that this will be the case, how the Government will plug the loophole to maintain the corruption-free system in Hong Kong; and

(3) how the Government will handle the situation in which a person of the types mentioned in (1) is found to have failed to make declaration of an agreement that he entered into before taking office and has failed to fully implement that agreement; whether it will order such person to cancel the agreement concerned and return or refrain from receiving the relevant remuneration and, when the situation warrants, institute disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation in respect of cases of conflict of interests, so as to allay public concern; if it will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, with regard to Member's question, after consulting the relevant offices and bureaux, I am providing a consolidated reply as follows:

Public officers, including politically appointed officials ("PAOs"), Members of the Executive Council ("ExCo") and civil servants, are governed by their respective systems for declaration of interests.

The current declaration system for PAOs requires PAOs of all ranks to declare their investment, shareholding, direct or indirect interest in any company; their directorships, proprietorships or partnerships in any company; and, if any, the specific details concerning their participation in any private company's affairs. They are also required to declare any investment and interest held by themselves or in the name of their spouses, children or other persons, agents or companies, but are actually acquired on their account or in which they have a beneficial interest. According to the requirements of the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System ("the Code"), investments and interests declared by PAOs of all ranks in the prescribed form are made available on the websites of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2727 the respective offices/bureaux for public inspection. Such declarations will be updated annually.

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

For the ExCo, it has put in place a rigorous and well-established system for declaration of interests for all ExCo Members. This is to ensure that unbiased and impartial advice is offered by ExCo Members to the Chief Executive. The declaration system mainly comprises two parts. The first part is regular declarations. On first appointment and annually thereafter, each ExCo Member should declare their personal interests, and the declaration includes (a) remunerated directorships; (b) remunerated employments, offices, trades, profession, and so on; (c) if the interests in the above two items include provision to clients of personal services which arise out of or relate in any manner to Members' position as ExCo Members, the clients' names should be declared; (d) land and property owned by Members in or outside Hong Kong; (e) names of companies or bodies in which Members have, either themselves or with or on behalf of their spouses or children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings; and (f) membership of boards, committees or other organizations. In addition, ExCo Members should declare to the Chief Executive on a confidential basis and in greater detail their financial interests, including shareholdings (irrespective of the amount) in companies as well as futures and options contracts, held by themselves or jointly with their spouses, children or other close relatives. The second part of the declaration system is declarations in respect of individual items discussed by the ExCo. It is the personal responsibility of every ExCo Member to examine whether he/she has an interest in any item discussed by the ExCo and declare it before the ExCo discussion. In line with the principle of confidentiality of the ExCo, the Government does not disclose the content of ExCo discussions or the related declarations of interests.

All serving civil servants are subject to the Government Regulations, Rules, Circulars and Departmental Instructions that govern their conduct. The Government has established mechanisms to handle declaration of interests by civil servants and related disciplinary matters. Any person who has been appointed as a civil servant is required to observe the related requirements. If there is evidence that a civil servant has misconducted himself, appropriate 2728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 action, including administrative or disciplinary action, will be taken against him in accordance with the established procedures.

Furthermore, PAOs, ExCo Members and civil servants are all required to abide by the relevant requirements. The Independent Commission Against Corruption will enforce the law impartially and strictly, and handle all reports and cases against public officers suspected of committing an illegal act in accordance with the established procedures.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, Secretary Raymond TAM has provided a very long "reply" to the Legislative Council, but he has not touched upon the core of the main question. The core of the main question comprises four points, and LEUNG Chun-ying has explained that: (i) the agreement had been entered into before he took office; (ii) the agreement contained a clause to avoid conflict of interests; (iii) the company had not requested any services from LEUNG Chun-ying; and (iv) LEUNG Chun-ying had never provided any services to the company. With an explanation like this, LEUNG Chun-ying claims that no declaration was necessary and considers that no conflict of interests existed.

Can other public officers also invoke these four conditions? I mean, can they receive millions or tens of millions of dollars while holding office under an agreement with a private organization entered into before they took office? Does this involve conflict of interests? Why doesn't the Government respond to this? The Government has all along been unable to answer this question. Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM was not able to answer this question last time during the motion debate concerning UGL, and Secretary Raymond TAM still fails to account for this now. It is because, if the response …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, what is your supplementary question?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I only have a simple supplementary question. President, I am about to finish raising my question. As the saying goes, if the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant. Tolerating such a practice will in effect ruin the corruption-free culture in Hong Kong. Therefore, I want to ask the Secretary why he is unable to answer my main question? Why is he unable to respond directly to these four conditions? Does LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2729 the Government allow serving public officers to execute agreements with private companies entered into before they took office under these four conditions?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, the key point in my main reply concerns the existing declaration systems for three types of public officers and arrangements for avoidance of conflict of interests, and so on, while the core of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's question is about so-called resignation agreements.

First of all, regarding civil servants, most civil servants, me included, have never worked in the private sector, so the issue of resignation agreements does not exist in our case. With respect to politically appointed officials ("PAOs") and Members of the Executive Council ("ExCo"), as I have pointed out just now, under the current declaration system they are required to regularly declare investments, property and shares held by them, or their membership of certain organizations, and so on. Apart from this, PAOs and ExCo Members also have to make declarations regarding individual items and subjects when they take part in corresponding discussions or tasks. Officers in charge will then decide if the official concerned has to avoid suspicion by refraining from handling the case concerned, or leaving the case for other officials, and even withdrawing from meetings or not having access to related documents, and so on. Such measures are also mentioned in the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System ("the Code") and the code for ExCo.

The term resignation agreement covers a relatively wider area. By "wider", I mean the issues must be dealt with having regard to actual circumstances and the two types of requirements for declaration of interests and avoidance of conflict of interests mentioned by me just now. The two types of requirements refer to regular declarations and declarations in respect of potential conflict of interests regarding individual items. Therefore, we cannot make any generalization this moment.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, apart from PAOs and ExCo Members, many civil servants, directorate civil servants in particular, also have access to classified and sensitive information. The Secretary used to be a civil servant as well. Can he explain to us the system for declaration of interests applicable to directorate civil servants? Can the system effectively prevent conflict of interests?

2730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Jeffrey LAM for the question. I have already mentioned this briefly in the main reply just now, but I still thank Member for the question. I can specify a few more points. President, according to the existing Civil Service Code, all civil servants, including directorate civil servants, must make effort to avoid and declare any potential or existing conflict of interests. Unless permitted by superiors, civil servants should avoid handling or following up the duties concerned after making declarations. I have also briefly pointed this out when replying to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting earlier.

Moreover, to avoid conflict of interests between civil servants' personal investments and their official duties, the Civil Service Bureau maintains a system for declaration of investments by civil servants, requiring all, I mean all directorate civil servants to regularly declare their personal investments and the occupations of their spouses. Investment transactions equivalent to or exceeding HK$200,000 must be declared within seven days of transaction, and such declarations are of a non-regular nature. In a nutshell, civil servants have to declare within seven days once they make such investments, so as to facilitate the authorities' examination of all declarations and adoption of appropriate management or preventive measures. Personal investments applicable to civil servants mentioned by me just now include investment, shareholding, direct or indirect interest in companies or organizations in or outside Hong Kong, including directorship, and any interests in real estate or property, including self-occupied property. Moreover, declarations are also required if civil servants actually have beneficial interests in investments held in the name of their spouse or other trusted agents or companies.

Finally, apart from all directorate civil servants, top civil servants, such as Permanent Secretaries, are also subject to extra declaration requirements. On first appointment and annually thereafter, they have to register, for public access, information such as real estate and property owned by them, their proprietorships, partnerships/directorships and shareholdings of 1% or more of the issued share capital in any listed, public or private company. We believe that the system for declaration of interests applicable to top civil servants is effective in addressing concerns in this respect.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2731

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): The Secretary has talked a lot about declaration of investments by civil servants just now, yet he has not answered if the authorities have any declaration system and regulation for civil servants who take up outside work or lodge any application for taking up outside work.

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

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, perhaps I should put it this way. As I pointed out just now, civil servants are subject to a system for regular declaration of interests concerning their investments or interests. Moreover, civil servants will have to avoid suspicion if there is a conflict of personal interest with the issue they deal with. Under the Civil Service Code, civil servants must wholeheartedly devote themselves to serving the public. Therefore, it is our policy not to allow civil servants to take up any outside work that may affect their execution of duties. Civil servants will be given approval only under extraordinary circumstances, and in such case, they must lodge applications with their supervisors, otherwise, even outside normal working hours, government employees are not allowed to take up any outside work and receive any pay for that. There are established preventive measures in this regard. When giving consideration, Heads of Departments will focus on maintaining that the outside work will not affect the official duties of the civil servants concerned. However, in some cases, some civil servants take part in voluntary or community service outside, such as participating in voluntary work in certain organizations beyond their official duties, or taking up roles as executives in their churches. Declarations made by civil servants regarding the above circumstances are subject to approval granted at the discretion of their superiors, under the premise that their official duties will not be affected.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Secretary has just mentioned the requirement for civil servants to serve the public wholeheartedly. Do we not need to define a higher standard if we apply this principle on the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux? The system for declaration of interests aims at examining the interests they hold and whether they will be influenced by these interests, as well as who they are genuinely devoted to. However, with regard to the incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying, President, we cannot help 2732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 but ask how come he can actually retain office as the Chief Executive and keep on receiving interests, even long-term interests maybe, while being charged with certain tasks and duties for certain people during his term of office?

President, when even President XI Jingping announces his fight against corruption, our Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux can be allowed to keep on receiving interests and possibly fulfil certain responsibilities under an agreement. They even do not have to declare this under the system in Hong Kong. Does the Secretary want to harbour them? Does the incumbent Chief Executive wish Hong Kong to have a system worse than that in the Mainland? The whole country is aspiring to prosperity, strength and the manifestation of the Chinese Dream, yet Hong Kong chooses to go backward and adopt a lower standard in which no declaration is required even under such circumstances. Will this not let Hong Kong people down, or even not let the country's development down?

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

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I must point out that the word "harbour" applied by Mr James TO on me is a rather serious accusation. I suggest we should respect each other. In the new year, Members do not have to use such words in this occasion without any substantiated proof.

With regard to the incident involving the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration did respond to relevant questions from Members in detail in the Council before, and the Office of the Chief Executive also issued numerous statement in this respect before. The Council does keep detailed records about the issue, therefore I am not going to further account for this today. Moreover, I learn that certain other committees in the Council may discuss this as well, so I believe I need not, and should not, add anything today.

However, the Chief Secretary for Administration mentioned in her reply given in this Council that Mr LEUNG would not and should not offer relevant assistance to UGL, the company concerned, after his was elected Chief Executive. As a matter of fact, after the agreement mentioned by Members just now was entered into, Mr LEUNG had never provided any services to UGL, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2733 same as what the company had pointed out in its statement. If we see this from a wider perspective, I agree with Mr James TO that, apart from civil servants, politically appointed Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux should also serve the public wholeheartedly in their official positions. This is a requirement stipulated expressly in the beginning of the Code, which will be strictly observed by all Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Under Secretaries and Political Assistants.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered the query about the logic behind the standard adopted at this moment, in which the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux are not required to declare any interests they continuously receive and the responsibilities they have to fulfil under an agreement.

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

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, there are two kinds of declarations. The first one is regular declarations mainly concerning investments, real estate, shares and directorships or membership of committees other than their official positions, and so on. This is about declarations made and published in this respect. Another kind of declaration is about the potential or possible conflict of interests between their personal interests and individual policies or issues handled by them. In this case, they have to make declarations under the mechanism. Arrangements under the mechanism regarding avoidance of conflict of interests include measures for avoidance of suspicion, such as not issuing documents to officials concerned, withdrawing from and passing the duties in question to other officers instead. The latter is adopted under the Government's mechanism. Members may well notice that previously there were many similar examples of published arrangements for avoidance of suspicion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

2734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Development of underground space

2. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, the authorities launched a study in June 2015 to examine the feasibility of modelling after the business district of La Défense in Paris, France and the underground streets in Tokyo, Japan, etc. to develop underground space in four Strategic Urban Areas ("SUAs"), namely Tsim Sha Tsui West, Admiralty/Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Happy Valley, with a view to improving road traffic, providing more community facilities and land, as well as alleviating the overcrowded pedestrian environment. The authorities have drawn up the preliminary planning concepts and launched in November last year a three-month Stage 1 Public Engagement for the "Pilot Study on Underground Space Development in Selected Strategic Urban Areas". Regarding the development of underground space, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the authorities have indicated that it is necessary to analyze in detail the various considerations for underground space development, including geotechnical and structural constraints, fire safety, financial viability, land ownership, as well as the impacts on the surrounding environment, etc., of the details of the relevant analyses;

(2) whether the authorities have determined the order of priority for the development of underground space in the aforesaid four SUAs; if they have, of the SUA in which underground space will first be developed; of the respective anticipated completion dates and construction costs of such development projects in the various SUAs; and

(3) given that the Government has proposed to develop two underground shopping streets in the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan to connect Kowloon City and San Po Kong with the Kai Tak Station of the Shatin to Central Link currently under construction and to enhance the integration of the new and the old districts, of the latest progress of the implementation of such proposal?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, President and Honourable Members. Hong Kong is a small city with a dense population. The streets in the developed urban areas are often clogged with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2735 heavy pedestrian and vehicular flow. The compact urban layout makes it hard to resolve the congestion problem and meet the demands of the community. It also imposes severe constraints on the sustainable development of urban areas. Underground space is a hidden land resource. If we can use it systematically, it can bring new opportunities to meet various needs of social and commercial facilities as well as to address various issues including traffic, environmental, and so on, due to inadequate at-grade space in urban areas.

The Government commenced in June 2015 a Pilot Study on Underground Space Development in Selected Strategic Urban Areas ("the Study"), which has selected Causeway Bay, Happy Valley, Admiralty/Wan Chai and Tsim Sha Tsui West as four strategic urban areas ("SUAs") for study. The scope of the Study includes the following three aspects:

(i) identify the opportunities, suitability and considerations for developing the underground space in these areas, the needs of local communities as well as possible uses of locations with potential for underground space development;

(ii) formulate Underground Master Plans for these four areas; and

(iii) develop conceptual development schemes for the potential underground space development.

A number of successful examples overseas indicate that underground space, when developed with creativity and appropriate spatial strategies, can resolve many district issues, including inadequate at-grade circulation space, lack of connectivity amongst pedestrian walkways, poor environment, inadequate community facilities, and so on.

My reply to the various parts of Mr Jeffrey LAM's question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

President, since the commencement of the Study, the study team has conducted a baseline review to find out the existing situation and needs of the respective SUAs as well as their opportunities for and constraints of future underground space development. The Study has also made reference to the successful experience of other cities 2736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

in drawing up preliminary planning concepts. We launched the Stage 1 Public Engagement ("PE1") in November 2016. We consulted the District Councils of Wan Chai and Yau Tsim Mong as well as the Town Planning Board and Harbourfront Commission. We also held three focus group meetings to discuss relevant topics with various stakeholders. In addition, we organized roving exhibitions and established a dedicated website to collect views from the general public and disseminate information to them.

On completing the PE1 exercise, we will develop conceptual schemes for underground space development with due consideration of the views received. Preliminary technical assessments on different aspects of these conceptual schemes, including geotechnical/structural constraints, fire safety, financial viability, land ownership and impact on the surrounding environment, will then be undertaken. Based on the findings of these technical assessments, we will make projections for the preliminary development schedules and costs for the underground space development projects. We anticipate that these tasks should be substantially completed by early 2018. After that, we will launch the Stage 2 Public Engagement for the relevant conceptual schemes. To sum up, we cannot provide the information requested by Mr LAM for the time being.

(3) President, as for the two planned underground shopping streets in the Kai Tak Development ("KTD") according to the approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan, they are about 1 500 m long, linking with Kowloon City and San Po Kong respectively, and connecting to To Kwa Wan Station and Kai Tak Station of the MTR Shatin to Central Link. We have already reserved connection points at these two MTR stations, currently under construction, for connecting with the underground shopping streets.

Since the major parts of these two underground shopping streets will adjoin or run alongside various development sites, we plan to develop the two streets and their adjacent development sites together. To achieve synergy effect and provide a comfortable and attractive shopping and walking environment, we will require the developers to arrange part of the retail floor area of their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2737

development sites to connect with the underground shopping streets. In future, barrier-free pedestrian walkways/corridors will be available round the clock at the underground shopping streets for ease of access by the general public. To tie in with the land sale programmes of the development sites concerned, we plan to implement the underground shopping streets in KTD in stages. Suitable land sale conditions will be imposed to require the developers to build, manage and operate the underground shopping streets connected with their development sites.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, although the Secretary cannot provide the information requested in part (2) of my question, I hope the Government will undertake a study as soon as possible because as mentioned by the Secretary just now, land resources in Hong Kong are limited and it is indeed a good idea to develop underground space, which the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong has proposed earlier to both the Secretary and the Government. Of course, one of the factors we have to take into consideration is the costs involved, but if a study on the use of underground space is not conducted in advance when large-scale planning is carried out by the Government in the future, it will be very difficult for us to implement development projects in this respect once the construction works are completed. I would like to ask the Secretary whether the Government will include the planning of underground space in all planning studies so that it will become a part of these studies?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Jeffrey LAM for his supplementary question. President, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr LAM and the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong for submitting to us their views on underground space development. In this connection, we have to conduct two studies, one on the four Strategic Urban Areas ("SUAs") as mentioned in the main question and the other on a holistic review of the challenges and difficulties encountered in taking forward the development of underground space.

Mr LAM opined just now that care should be taken in our future planning to allow flexibility for the development of underground space. In addition, views have also been expressed on the need to give due consideration in advance 2738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 in the future to the use of underground space in some new development areas, such as Kwu Tung North, Fanling North, Hung Shui Kiu, and so on. This is the approach we will adopt, and we will sum up experience in the next stage with a view to exploring what prior preparation is required for taking forward the development of underground space, and allowing flexibility in this regard.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): As many people in Hong Kong are well aware, the supply of land for retail businesses has all along been very tight in Hong Kong, and this is a factor behind the problem of soaring rents. Hence, I very much support the Bureau's initiative to develop underground space. The idea was first announced in the 2013 Policy Address, and to my knowledge, the Secretary launched a study in June 2015 but according to his reply, preliminary conceptual schemes will only be available in 2018. Given the long-standingland shortage in Hong Kong, I would first like to express my aspiration for the Secretary to act timely in taking forward the development plan.

There are two supplementary questions which I would like to raise, and first of all …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU, you can only raise one supplementary question.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): I can only raise one supplementary question? I am sorry, President, because I am new to this Council and may not be very familiar with the rules. There are so many questions but I can only raise one … I would like to ask the Secretary one question. You have launched the Stage 1 Public Engagement, so can you tell me whether the relevant stakeholders in the four Strategic Urban Areas, major landowners in particular, have started putting forward their suggestions to the Government during consultation? Since they are very important stakeholders, whether the views they expressed will have an impact on the Government's enthusiasm in taking forward the development of underground space in such areas? As I believe that there will be less demand when supply increases, which may result in less revenue for landowners, what consideration will be made by the Secretary in this regard?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2739

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr SHIU Ka-fai for his supplementary question. President, with regard to the timing for taking forward our plan, we will definitely take timely action to develop underground space. However, when development projects are implemented in this respect, we must launch two stages of public engagement on the one hand, and on the other hand, after completing the Stage 1 Public Engagement, we must do a series of technical assessments as mentioned in the main reply on the conceptual schemes developed with due consideration of the views received, so as to determine which proposals can be taken on board and give an account of those which cannot be implemented. It will thus be necessary for us to complete these technical assessments before more precise and concrete schemes can be put forward for discussion. All these take time but we will lose no time in taking forward the development plan.

Mr SHIU mentioned the consultation conducted for the four SUAs, especially district consultation, and enquired about the views received as well as the consideration made by the Government. The Member is absolutely correct, and certain views have indeed been expressed by stakeholders in the local communities during consultation, but these stakeholders may not see eye to eye with each other and a balance has to be struck. As pointed out by the Member, individual operators who are running their business at present in on-street shops are concerned about the development of underground streets with shopping facilities since it may affect their business. This is one of the factors we should take into consideration. However, on the other hand, it is also our concern that if commercial facilities are not included in the development of underground space, it may not be very easy for such projects to break even as far as cost-effectiveness is concerned. Hence, we have to strike a balance.

Nevertheless, from another point of view, I can tell everyone that generally speaking, and according to the views received in our consultation with the two District Councils and the roving exhibitions launched, about 85% or more respondents supported our initiatives to develop underground space and carry out further study on the plan. Views have also been expressed on the possibility of including appropriately some commercial facilities in the development of underground space, and it is also considered feasible to provide the required community facilities in underground space, or relocate some unwelcome facilities above ground (such as refuse station) to such space. There are also views that we can consider including some sports facilities like table tennis room in the community facilities provided. We will consider all these views as a whole and provide the relevant conceptual schemes in the next stage for discussion.

2740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has always supported government actions in expanding land resources comprehensively, including the optimal use of rock caverns and development of underground space, with a view to improving road traffic, providing more community facilities and using land more efficiently. In this connection, I hope the Secretary would consider the initiatives of energizing Kowloon East in parallel with the planning for Kai Tak Development. In fact, the Kai Tak Development Area adjoins Kowloon East, Wong Tai Sin and Kwun Tong, and is located in close proximity to the development area in Kowloon Bay, and I hope the Secretary would take this into consideration.

Besides, I would like to ask the Secretary to respond to another question, because whenever a suggestion is made to develop underground space, certain environmental and ecological impacts will be encountered, such as groundwater resources and the above ground ecological impacts of the development. Since a great amount of earth and rocks will be generated from the development of underground space, I would like to ask the Secretary what study has been made and what measure have been taken by the Bureau in the development process to deal with the issue?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Wilson OR for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier in the main reply, we will continue to gradually take forward the development project of the two underground shopping streets in the Kai Tak Development ("KTD"). As we can all see, over the past year, the Government has started putting up sites in KTD for sale in the market. If these sites adjoin the two planned underground shopping streets, suitable terms and conditions will be included in the land sale conditions to require the developers to make necessary arrangements in their development projects to tie in with the development of the two streets. This will not only expedite development, but will also achieve synergy effect by developing the two streets together with the commercial developments planned for individual sites, because according to consultancy studies, economies of scale and diversified services are very important factors contributing to the development of a successful underground shopping street. In this connection, Members can rest assure that we will take forward the development project.

As for the concern expressed by the Member just now about the possibility of giving rise to certain ecological and other environmental impacts above ground LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2741 and underground during the development process, we will watch out for this. For example, we will conduct a heritage impact assessment in accordance with the established mechanism if cultural heritage is involved; efforts would definitely be made to preserve valuable trees if trees are affected, and mitigation measures have already been formulated in this respect. Therefore, Mr OR can rest assure that we will pay attention to this. In case certain government departments are found to be involved when we are handling such matters, consultation will also be conducted within the Government to gauge their views and have the matters properly dealt with.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, Mong Kok is traditionally a hot tourist spot with heavy pedestrian flow and the long existing problem of traffic congestion. Among the four Strategic Urban Areas, the problem in Happy Valley should be less severe. Recently, the Highways Department has also proposed in the District Council the construction of a super long footbridge in Mong Kok to improve pedestrian flow, but it is estimated that the construction works will take five years to complete. Since the Bureau also understands where the problem lies, I would like to ask the Secretary why does the Government not consider developing underground shopping streets in Mong Kok? As a matter of fact, public nuisance caused by the development of underground shopping streets should be less serious than that caused by the construction of a super long footbridge. Hence, what consideration will be given by the Secretary to the development of underground shopping streets in Mong Kok, which will achieve better effects, has no impact on road traffic, but will increase the supply of shop facilities in the district?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YIU Si-wing for his supplementary question. What are the reasons for selecting the four SUAs instead of Yau Tsim Mong for study on underground space development? A very important reason is that in the existing selected areas, the sites involved are mainly parks/open space and government land, thus making it easier to resolve the ownership problem if we decide to develop underground space there. Moreover, generally speaking, there are not many complicated underground facilities in the sites involved, though it has been discovered during the discussion of the development plan for Wan Chai that MTR facilities would be involved and some adjustments might have to be made.

2742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

However, Yau Tsim Mong is a very densely populated area with many underground facilities and complicated ownership. Revenue generated from the sale of land does not cover only the ownership of premises and facilities above ground, but also facilities built underground or located deep down under the earth. Hence, further consideration will only be made after we have summed up experience in the next stage.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): President, the study and development of underground space will inevitably involve the acquisition of underground space ownership of private lots, and past experiences in implementing railway projects like the Shatin to Central Link and West Island Line indicate that this has always led to serious doubts and nuisance. According to a paper submitted by the Government to this Council in 2011, tens of regional forums were held then to explain the case to the public, and the affected residents were generally concerned about such issues as compensation, impacts on redevelopment, structural safety, and so on. It was even stated in the paper submitted by the Government to this Council that it would be possible for the affected persons to claim compensation from the Government.

Therefore, in order to avoid similar or even greater worries when underground space development projects are implemented, I would like to ask the Government whether it will learn from past experiences and explore what ordinances should be invoked for the recovery of underground space? While Mass Transit Railway Ordinance may be invoked to facilitate the resumption of land for the construction of railways, what ordinances should be invoked for the development of underground space? Can the authorities address public concerns in this regard by preparing a paper to clearly explain to the public whether a compensation mechanism is provided for in these ordinances, and how such issues as redevelopment and structural safety will be dealt with under such ordinances?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the issues mentioned in the supplementary question, that is, the problems arise in such aspects as compensation, structural safety and impacts on redevelopment when underground space development projects are implemented, the extent of influence brought forth may vary from case to case. However, as I have pointed out just now in my reply to the supplementary question raised by Mr YIU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2743

Si-wing, most of the sites involved in the four areas selected for the current study are parks/open space, which are basically government land, and the problems concerned are thus relatively simple.

Secondly, as for the concerns expressed about structural safety, Members can rest assure that practitioners of various related professions in Hong Kong have all along been performing their duties diligently. During all these years, a large number of tunnels, railways, bridges and roads have been constructed in Hong Kong but structural safety concerns have never been identified in any of them. We should keep an eye on the issue but there is no need to cause any unnecessary worry. In case there is a need to acquire the ownership of underground space, there are also precedents which we can refer to, including the relevant ordinances invoked back in those years to deal with the construction of MTR lines. Hence, we are confident that we can tackle the problems involved in this regard.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, apart from the four urban areas selected for the Pilot Study as mentioned by the Secretary just now, there are in fact a large number of tunnel networks on Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon and in the New Territories. Some of these networks stretch across a number of traffic junctions, link up different buildings and infrastructural facilities, and some even link up MTR stations and large shopping malls. However, it seems that only the MTR Corporation Limited is blessed with the provision of some underground facilities, while most of the space in these networks, as we can see, have been wasted. In this connection, what are the major obstacles? Is it possible for the Secretary to abolish unnecessary regulations and restrictions, so that commercial activities and even regional facilities may be developed expeditiously in suitable sites, with a view to making best use of such golden opportunities?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, this will really depend on the location of different sites identified for underground space development, the underground facilities in these sites, their ownership as well as the surrounding environment. I agree with Ir Dr LO that as far as the issue of underground space is concerned, Hong Kong does have the potential to address it with consolidated and comprehensive consideration and development, and in this connection, a review has already been conducted in the other study.

2744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The study currently undertaken on the four SUAs can help us sum up experience with the hope of facilitating society to reach a consensus on the issue more easily. This will be beneficial to our efforts to solicit support from society as a whole in the next stage when a comprehensive review is conducted on underground space development and development projects are implemented in this regard.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.

List of Recognized Villages

3. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, I declare in the first place that I am an indigenous villager and also the Chairman of Heung Yee Kuk.

The List of Recognized Villages (the "List") is an important document based on which the Lands Department ("LandsD") vets and approves applications from New Territories indigenous male villagers for grant to build New Territories small houses within the environs of the villages concerned. When considering whether a certain village should be included in the List, LandsD takes into account several basic criteria, including (i) the village involved must have been in existence in 1898, and (ii) the village has been included in the Demarcation District sheets and the Block Government Leases. I have received complaints from residents of different villages, alleging that LandsD did not approve their applications for including their villages in the List ("applications for inclusion") even though they had provided the relevant documents and information to prove that the villages concerned have been in existence since 1898. For instance, villagers from Ha Fa Shan Village in Tsuen Wan filed an application for inclusion more than two decades ago, and provided proof such as aerial photographs, press cuttings and testimonies from members of the community proving that the village was inhabited before 1945, but LandsD rejected the application on the ground that "the village had been deserted". However, Ha Fa Shan Village was included in the List of Established Villages, which was jointly compiled by Heung Yee Kuk and the former Planning and Lands Branch in 1991. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the procedure that applications for inclusion have to undergo; the mechanism for vetting and approving the applications and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2745

average processing time for such applications; the types of documents and information that will be accepted as valid proof in support of such applications;

(2) of the details of the applications for inclusion received by the authorities since 2002, including the names and locations of the villages involved, the year in which the applications were first received and the application outcome concerned, as well as the main reasons for some of the applications being rejected; and

(3) given that most of the age-old documentary heritages were scattered and lost due to wars and other reasons, rendering it difficult for the villagers filing applications for inclusion to present valid written evidence, whether the authorities will, when vetting and approving such types of applications, give discretionary consideration to oral evidence such as oral history and statements taken from members of the community; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether they will consider accepting, under special circumstances, such oral evidence as proof in support of applications for inclusion; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Small House Policy ("the Policy") was introduced in 1972. Under the Policy, in general, a male indigenous villager aged 18 years old or above who is descended through the male line from a resident in 1898 of a recognized village in the New Territories may apply to the authority once during his lifetime for permission to build for himself a small house on a suitable site within his own village.

To implement the Policy, the first version of the List of Recognized Villages, which contained 591 recognized villages, was drawn up in 1973. Some villages were not included in the List of Recognized Villages probably due to remoteness, inconvenient location or economic/social factors leading to the Government's belief that most of such villages had been deserted for years. Upon further subsequent verification and rectification, eligible villages were added to the List of Recognized Villages in the early years after 1973. At present, there are a total of 642 approved recognized villages in the territory.

2746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

As for the other list mentioned in the question, namely, the List of Established Villages, it was compiled under the Government Rent (Assessment and Collection) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") (Cap. 515) with the purpose of enabling villagers of established villages to apply for rent concessions under the Ordinance. Given that the background and purposes of drawing up those two lists are different, the relevant criteria taken into consideration are also different. Hence, the two lists should not be compared in the same light. In fact, whether an individual village could be included in the List of Established Villages compiled for the purpose of rent concessions is solely subject to whether the Director of Lands is satisfied under the Ordinance that the individual village was in existence in Hong Kong in 1898 by examining the schedule to the Block Government Leases. This is different from the criteria which an individual village has to meet in order for it to be included in the List of Recognized Villages.

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

(1) The Lands Department ("LandsD") considers and examines applications for inclusion in the List of Recognized Villages based on the following five basic criteria:

(i) the village was in existence in 1898;

(ii) the village name appeared on both the Demarcation District sheets produced between 1899 and 1904 and the Block Government Leases that came into effect in 1905;

(iii) there are private lots within the village area on which erection of houses is allowed under the land lease;

(iv) village houses had been granted on concessionary terms in the village before the implementation of the Policy; and

(v) there must be signs of continuous habitation by indigenous villagers within the village since 1945.

Generally speaking, LandsD considers and examines each application by making reference to the relevant information in the Block Government Leases, the Demarcation District sheets produced between 1899 and 1904, old aerial photographs and file records in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2747

the District Lands Offices, and by conducting site inspections with a view to looking into the situation of the villages concerned and the signs of habitation by the villagers concerned.

Given the unique circumstances of each case, the actual processing time taken by LandsD varies depending on the nature and complexity of the matters involved in the case itself. As far as cases processed by LandsD in recent years are concerned, the actual processing time generally ranged from about 16 months and 36 months.

(2) From 2002 up to present, LandsD received applications from three villages for inclusion in the List of Recognized Villages, namely, Kap Lung Village in Yuen Long, Yuen Long Kau Hui and Leung Tin Tsuen in Tuen Mun respectively in 2004, 2006 and 2013. Kap Lung Village in Yuen Long, which fully met the five basic criteria mentioned in part (1) above, was already included in the List of Recognized Villages in 2005 upon LandsD's approval; the two remaining villages (i.e. Yuen Long Kau Hui and Leung Tin Tsuen in Tuen Mun) were not included in the List of Recognized Villages by LandsD as they failed to meet fully the five basic criteria mentioned in part (1) above.

As for Ha Fa Shan Village in Tsuen Wan referred to in the question, LandsD received an application from the village in 1996 for inclusion in the List of Recognized Villages. However, the village also failed to fully meet the five basic criteria mentioned in part (1) above, and hence was not included in the List of Recognized Villages by LandsD.

(3) LandsD examines each application primarily by making reference to information mentioned in part (1) above and by conducting site inspections with a view to looking into the situation of the villages concerned and the signs of habitation by the villagers concerned. As regards the other information provided by the villagers of the villages under application, including oral history and verbal evidence made by members of the community, LandsD makes reference of it but cannot make decisions for including the villages concerned in the List of Recognized Villages solely based on verbal evidence.

2748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, villagers from Ha Fa Shan Village have updated me on their latest situation recently. They say that the Government has plans to include their village in the "Green Belt". Does the Government intend to take over their "Tso Tong" as well?

According to the correspondence between the Government and Ha Fa Shan Village, the authorities entered the village to carry out a site inspection in 1996. After conducting the inspection, they came to the conclusion that the village was already deserted. Given the obvious fact that there are still people dwelling in the village and someone can bear witnesses to this, I have serious doubt about their conclusion. Based on what assessment criteria did the government departments arrive at the conclusion that the village was already deserted? Could it be possible that seeing such a huge mountain before them, the inspection officers that day simply had a casual look and then concluded that the village was already deserted with no one dwelling in it? I demand that the department in charge of the inspection that day provides the inspection record, including details of the date, time, mountain visited and photographs as proofs.

As mentioned in the Secretary's main reply, one of the basic condition was: "there must be signs of continuous habitation by indigenous villagers within the village since 1945". 1945 is a year that marked the liberation of Hong Kong from the Japanese occupation following Japan's surrender in the Second World War. Many of the villagers lost their homes as they were displaced by war and some families were even torn apart then. It took quite a long while before they could return to the village to live in their old homes. Thus, it is inappropriate for a responsible government to apply the said criteria especially in handling the case of Ha Fa Shan Village. Will the Government consider taking a "special-arrangements-for-special-cases" approach to address the issue concerned?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Kenneth LAU for his supplementary question. President, as regards the application submitted by Ha Fa Shan Village in Tsuen Wan, according to the records of LandsD, it was rejected because: first, village houses had not been granted on concessionary terms in that village before the implementation of the Policy, which was one of the reasons why the village failed to be included in the List of Established Villages; second, by the time LandsD launched investigations into the case, including the site inspection, it considered the village a long LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2749 deserted one without any villagers dwelling in it. Meanwhile, the information papers provided in relation to the application failed to serve as evidence for proving that the village has been continuously inhabited by those villagers after the Second World War was over up to the present.

President, I have to point out here that each application must be given equal treatment and I hope you will understand that we are not in a position to make special arrangements for any cases so lightly, in particular for the reason I mentioned when giving replies to Members' questions here last month: since the Policy is now under judicial review, we must be even more careful not to deviate from our usual practice so lightly.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, there is no access road leading to Ha Fa Shan Village as it is located in a mountainous area. People have to walk along the catchwater channel to enter the area so as to get to the village. Its villagers furnished to the relevant departments information on Block Government Leases before the Second World War, aerial photographs of all years, records documenting the visit paid to the village by the District Officer in 1963 together with the register of the 1960 population census for the village, and the District Office even issued the Ha Fa Shan shrine notice in 1970. Besides, Mr James William HAYES, former Town Manager & District Officer Tsuen Wan, acted as an expert witness to testify that the villagers have all along been living in the village.

Despite the various proofs furnished, however, the Government still required them to submit proofs of public utility consumption in the village (including water, electricity and telephone bills) before 1972. Yet, we all know that neither water supply nor power supply was available in the village back in 1972. It was until 1973 was there power supply, and communal letter box was not present until 1998, while fresh water pipe was not laid until the 1990s. Given these facts, how can the village produce the required proofs?

I would like to ask if the Government intends to impose upon them a difficult task by requiring them to provide the bills of public utilities that did not exist before 1972? May I ask if the Secretary will promise us at this Chamber that the request by Ha Fa Shan Village will be examined afresh by the authorities?

2750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN Han-pan for his question.

President, I have mentioned in my main reply that LandsD will consider various basic criteria in handling each application for inclusion in the List of Recognized Villages. I have also stated the five basic criteria just now. I believe that our colleagues in LandsD may require the applicant village to produce different kinds of evidence or document proofs so as to make sure the application meets such basic criteria. Mr CHAN Han-pan has mentioned just now about LandsD's requiring Ha Fa Shan Village to provide bills of public utilities of those days. Understandably, such bills do not exist at all since those public utilities were not yet available in those days. Nevertheless, I trust that LandsD did not reject to include the village in the List of Established Villages simply because of this.

According to the information provided to me by LandsD, as I have said just now, apart from the fact that the village was considered a deserted one in the last examination (including site inspection), village houses had not been granted by the Government on concessionary terms in that village before the implementation of the Policy. That is why the village is not included as an established village because this is one of the five basic criteria that must be met. Should any new proofs arise or that the villagers have other information to provide, LandsD will certainly have to consider. But for the request that the authorities adopt the "special-arrangements-for-special-case" approach to handle this case, we simply cannot give a nod to that.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, according to item (v) of the Government's main reply, one of the conditions being "there must be signs of continuous habitation by indigenous villagers within the village since 1945". I would like to ask if there is any instances in which, say, an indigenous village was delisted due to scattering or departure of its villagers? What mechanism is in place for handling that sort of cases?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Andrew WAN for his question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2751

I want to make sure if I got it right, President. Does Mr WAN mean to ask if any villages, which had once been included in the List of Established Villages in the past, were ever delisted?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I mean the village in the list … because you are talking about the conditions and it is a condition―let me be more specific―excuse me, President, please allow me a bit more time to speak. According to my observation, some villages are no longer inhabited by indigenous villagers, or that no inhabitation is formed with only one person or two people, mostly people from outside, still living in the village. Will such instances be dealt with under the existing mechanism? Has any village ever been delisted?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, no village has ever been delisted so far for the very reason mentioned by Mr WAN just now.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has indicated in his reply just now that he does not wish to make special arrangements for a special case, but Mr CHAN Han-pan is not asking the Secretary to make special arrangements for a special case. He is only seeking the answer to the question of how to prove that the village has all along been inhabited. In LandsD … there is a pile of aerial photographs in front which were taken in the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s up to 1990s. All of them show that the village has been inhabited, but still, the Government requires them to provide bills of public utilities as proofs. We have clearly stated just now that it is impossible for the villagers to provide such proofs since both water supply and power supply were not available in those days. As to whether the village houses had been granted on concessionary terms, well, the villagers have their own land for construction of houses.

I would like to ask the Government: If the Government's aerial photographs can prove that there has been continuous inhabitation within the village, then will the Government examine afresh the proofs we got and judge whether it is a deserted village?

2752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Steven HO for his supplementary question. President, as I have mentioned in my reply just now, such bills do not exist at all if the public utilities were not yet available in the village in those days, and we cannot impose on them such a difficult task as to provide this kind of proofs. Also, I wish to point out that this is not the sole reason for rejecting to include a village in the List of Established Villages. And then, how to prove continuous inhabitation within a village? The two Members have referred to different documents just now. They can contact LandsD and I can ask my colleagues in LandsD to examine afresh the application based the document proofs mentioned by the villagers and Members. It is advisable to do so. LandsD will also take into account any new information if they can provide. This is the first point.

The second point, as I have pointed out just now, is that apart from the fact that LandsD was not convinced of the continuous inhabitation within the village when the application was being handled last time, applications for village houses had not been granted by the Government on concessionary terms in that village before the implementation of the Policy. That is why the village has failed to meet one of the five basic criteria.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I have already mentioned just now that the information that I have in hand can serve as proofs, but the officials under your supervision just imposed a difficult task on them by requiring them to produce such information. Therefore, I hope that you will go back to tell your subordinates not to make such an unreasonable demand.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I think Mr Steven HO did not hear my reply clearly. I have made it clear just now that the bills do not exist at all since public utilities were not available then. LandsD will take into account other document proofs altogether in considering whether the village is inhabited by people. It will also examine afresh the proofs, so you may provide new information, if any, for its consideration.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, oral evidence has been held in considerable respect under the judicial system of Hong Kong where a great deal of importance has been attached particularly to evidence given on oath as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2753 criminal liability is involved. In this connection, can the authorities review the so-called five basic criteria, and, have they ever been amended? If not, will they be amended? Or is it possible to make evidence given on oath a supplemental criterion and not something for reference only?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Paul TSE for his supplementary question. President, as I have pointed out in my main reply, we will make reference to such information. As to whether information provided on oath can be accepted as supplementary evidence, well, it can be listed as supplementary evidence, but it will be quite difficult to make a crucial decision on the sole basis of oral evidence given on oath. I would say: I will not rule out the admissibility of such evidence but trust that LandsD will give it due consideration with the support from other proofs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

Occupational safety of operators of tail lifts

4. MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): The Labour Department ("LD") published in 2013 the Guidance Notes on Prevention of Trapping Hazards of Tail Lifts ("Notes") for reference by members of the freight transport sector. However, some members of the sector have pointed out that a number of industrial accidents involving the operation of tail lifts occurred in the past six years, resulting in the death of four workers and a number of injuries. They therefore consider that the Government cannot truly safeguard the occupational safety of operators of tail lifts by relying solely on the Notes, which have no legal effect. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as LD indicated in June last year that it would launch special law enforcement actions in respect of safe operation of tail lifts, of the details and the number of such actions taken so far, the number of cases in which the safety requirements have been breached, and the follow-up actions taken by the authorities in respect of such non-compliant cases;

2754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(2) whether it has conducted any survey to find out if the tail lifts currently fitted to goods vehicles are in compliance with the relevant requirements in the Notes; if it has, of the outcome; of the current number of government vehicles not in compliance with such requirements, and whether the Government has plans to replace such vehicles to ensure the occupational safety of the employees concerned; and

(3) whether it will consider requiring operators of tail lifts to attend courses on safe use of tail lifts offered by the Occupational Safety and Health Council, so as to raise their safety awareness, thereby avoiding accidents involving the operation of tail lifts?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the questions raised by Mr POON Siu-ping is as follows:

(1) Labour Department ("LD") has all along been very concerned about the occupational safety of tail lift operation. Apart from regular enforcement inspection, LD also carries out special enforcement operations targeting the logistics and related industries. These operations cover the safe operation of tail lifts. In the past three years (i.e. 2014 to 2016), LD launched five special enforcement operations to the aforementioned industries, and three prosecutions for unsafe tail lift operation were taken out. The duty holders concerned were convicted and fined by the Court. Besides, LD issued warnings and improvement notices to duty holders involved in unsafe tail lift operation, and followed up with these duty holders to ensure that prompt remedial actions are taken. LD does not keep statistics on the concerned warnings and improvement notices issued.

(2) Last year, LD conducted a survey on the compliance of goods vehicles with tail lifts with the Guidance Notes on Prevention of Trapping Hazard of Tail Lifts ("GN"). Over 1 000 goods vehicles were sampled for the study and the findings revealed that only about 5% of the goods vehicles were installed with the two-hand control device as required in GN. This compliance rate was far from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2755

satisfactory. As a matter of fact, after the issuance of the revised GN in 2015, LD has been maintaining close contact with the industry. In view of the large number of goods vehicles fitted with tail lifts in Hong Kong, concerned trade associations, workers' unions and some Legislative Council Members appealed to LD to allow sufficient time for the industry to retrofit their goods vehicles in accordance with GN and to take this into account in taking enforcement actions. LD is considering these views and will continue to liaise with the industry with a view to reaching a consensus with the industry as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that LD earnestly hope that the industry will install the concerned devices in reasonably practicable circumstances as soon as possible in order to protect the safety of tail lift operators. Before completion of the retrofitting, the industry must develop and implement in a rigorous manner a safe system of work in accordance with the requirements as stipulated in GN. The safe system of work shall include posting of warning notices conspicuously on the goods vehicles and taking measures to prevent any person from approaching the closing nip between the tail lift and the rear part of the goods vehicles so as to ensure the safety of the operators and other persons.

For the goods vehicles owned by the Government, 21 newly-purchased goods vehicles with tail lifts are fitted with safety devices in accordance with GN. Arrangement is also being made to retrofit about 280 existing government goods vehicles to meet the safety requirements in accordance with GN.

(3) The several fatal accidents involving tail lift were attributed to the absence of necessary safety devices. This underlined the fact that potential hazards of tail lift operation could not be completely eliminated by relying solely on personal alertness and vigilance. Installation of safety devices as required in GN can prevent tail lift accidents caused by human negligence. In order to better equip the industry with the technique required to install the safety devices, the Hong Kong Productivity Council is providing relevant technical support and consultancy services to the industry.

2756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Meanwhile, LD agrees that enhancing the safety awareness of workers is equally important. In this regard, LD has been maintaining close contact with relevant workers' unions and trade associations and conveying through these organizations the relevant safety messages to their frontline workers. Since 2013, LD has organized a number of seminars about safe tail lift operation for the industry and invited trade associations, workers' unions and tail lift suppliers/contractors to join.

LD has also issued "Work Safety Alerts" to alert the industry to the occurrence of fatal accidents and to remind them to take corresponding safety measures to prevent recurrence of such accidents. LD, in collaboration with Occupational Safety and Health Council ("OSHC"), produced a promotional video on the safety of tail lift operation in 2016. In addition to uploading the video to the web page of LD and OSHC, LD has broadcasted the video through public platforms such as public transport and government locations equipped with broadcasting facilities. LD also produced relevant safety posters and leaflets, and disseminated them to the industry through trade associations and workers' unions.

At this stage, LD has no plan to mandate tail lift operators to attend training courses on safe operation of tail lifts. LD will continue to promote the safety awareness of tail lift operators through various publicity, promotion and education initiatives.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary points out in the main reply that LD conducted a survey last year and the survey result shows that only 5% of the 1 000 goods vehicles being surveyed installed the safety device required in GN, and the compliance rate is far from satisfactory; and that of the 280 existing government goods vehicles, only 21 goods vehicles installed the safety device.

In part (3) of the reply, the Secretary specifically points out that the several accidents involving tail lift operation are attributed to the absence of safety devices, underlining the fact that potential hazards of tail lift operation cannot be completely eliminated by relying solely on personal alertness and vigilance, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2757 that installing the safety devices required in GN can prevent tail lift accidents caused by human negligence.

In the United Kingdom, tail lift devices for goods vehicles and their operation are regulated by law. May I ask the Government whether it will consider enacting legislation to require that safety devices be installed in all newly-registered goods vehicles fitted with tail lift and subsidizing existing goods vehicles to replace their non-compliant tail lift?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr POON for his supplementary question and concern. The Administration is equally concerned about this issue. First of all, as you already know, the Administration published GN in 2013 and the revised GN in 2015 to achieve better clarity and provide more details on the safety standards of the devices. All these standards meet international standards, and the actual circumstances of the industry have been taken into account.

We certainly concur with the view that installing the safety devices is the most effective preventive measure, but this involves a process. There are currently over 30 000 goods vehicles in Hong Kong, which is quite a large number. The industry cannot install the devices for all goods vehicles immediately in one single step. We thus hold that we should start with providing more resources for the industry in the form of technical support, and explore how we can give guidance to them to install the safety devices, so that they can carry out the related work orderly. The Administration is now exploring this subject with the industry. It is our hope that the industry can expeditiously install the safety devices in accordance with the requirements in GN.

We also understand that the industry needs time. We will thus proceed in two directions. On the one hand, we will step up publicity, education and promotion, and maintain communication with the industry; and on the other, we will kick start certain feasible and specific tasks. For instance, we will require goods vehicles with safety devices yet to be installed for their tail lift to at least affix sufficient warning and notices and tail lift operators to watch out for people walking nearby during tail lift operation. These are simple steps which can prevent accidents from happening. The industry must follow these measures as far as practicable.

2758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to point out that GN is a legally-binding document, rather than purely a guiding note, as Mr POON understand it.

It is mentioned in part (2) of the Government's main reply that after the issuance of the revised GN in 2015, LD has been maintaining close contact with the industry. And the Secretary also mentioned just now the series of consultative work done. However, if such work has been properly taken forward, the industry would not have appealed to LD to give them sufficient time to install the safety devices in an orderly manner, as indicated in the ensuing part of the main reply.

In fact, the main reply already tells us that the Government has failed to conduct proper prior consultation and has hastily published the revised GN without a sound prior implementation plan. As a result, owners of goods vehicles fitted with tail lift have inadvertently broken the law. In order to avoid similar cases from happening again, may I ask the Secretary whether he will consider amending the ordinance concerned, so that any new legal requirements in future can be made in the form of subsidiary legislation, as Mr POON suggested just now, rather than by revising GN, thereby making it possible for all stakeholders to be informed of the changes early and for the Government to formulate a sound implementation plan before the subsidiary legislation takes effect?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr YICK, first of all, I do not think we were in a rush when we launched GN. In fact, we will continue to communicate with the industry on GN, so Member need not worry. We have met with the industry to discuss this issue and we understand their concerns.

We now focus on providing technical support and conducting publicity and promotion as far as feasible. We also understand that the industry needs sufficient time to install such safety devices. I thus hope that they can grasp this period of time because one accident is already too many to us. In the past few years, there have been four accidents caused by human negligence, which actually could be avoided. Hence, every life is very important to us. We need to work pragmatically. We know the concerns of the industry. For instance, some members of the industry are concerned that they do not have adequate knowledge LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2759 of the devises, while some are worried that there may not be so many devices available in the market. We will provide the relevant information for them, and we have invited the Hong Kong Productivity Council to provide the relevant assistance. So, Member need not worry too much.

As to whether legislation will be enacted to introduce further revisions to GN, as you just mentioned, GN is already a legally-binding document. Nevertheless, we do not rule out the possibility of considering the enactment of specific subsidiary legislation to enhance the clarity of GN. But we will pragmatically take forward these tasks first. When all the 30 000-odd goods vehicles have been retrofitted with the safety devices, we will see what else can be done to make GN clearer and easier to understand. We can explore this issue in the next step.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frankie YICK, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): I think the Government's approach is too hasty, though the Secretary disagrees. If the approach is not hasty, we will not find only a very small fraction of the 30 000-odd goods vehicles having retrofitted with the safety devices after the launch of GN (that is, after the law took effect). This is why I say the Secretary's approach is too hasty. The Government should lay down the effective date of the law only after all goods vehicles have been retrofitted with the safety devices. This will make all concerned parties happy. So, if the Government continues to introduce updates by revising GN and not by introducing subsidiary legislation, the industry will be beset by a very difficult situation.

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

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I wish to say that GN is meant to clearly explain what those safety devices are, and if further updates are made by means of subsidiary legislation in the future, the subsidiary legislation is also meant to make such explanation. If Members agree with the perspective that safety is of utmost importance and that workers' safety should not be compromised, then whether updates are made by means of subsidiary 2760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 legislation is quite an off topic. I hold that we should be pragmatic and work towards early installation of the safety devices. But I do understand the difficulties the industry is facing. We thus need to tackle this issue together.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): When LD revised GN in October 2015, it did not take into consideration the difficulties the industry and frontline drivers would encounter. This is an important reason why to date very few goods vehicles have installed a compliant tail lift, as can also be seen in the data the Secretary just cited. Besides, many practitioners are unsure whether their newly-installed tail lifts comply with the requirements. Some say that the installation costs at least a few ten thousand dollars, which is an unaffordable amount to many self-employed drivers and also something which has created much difficulty to the industry. May I ask the Government whether it has provided relevant assistance and clear guidance, such as cash allowance, to encourage manufacturers to supply compliant tail lifts or provide a list of qualified manufacturers; and of LD, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department or Transport Department, which department should take charge of the testing of tail lift tests for their compliance?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LUK for his supplementary question. We will provide comprehensive information for the industry and the labour sector, including information on the contractors you just mentioned, the companies which can supply the devices, etc. Actually, there are about 10 companies currently providing related services. Hence, when some people said that it was very difficult to find companies to provide these devices, we relayed such demands to the market and received feedbacks from companies which could provide these devises. Some of these companies charge a reasonable price and some people have already installed the devices.

Secondly, regarding your question on whether the Government will provide financial assistance, I believe it will be rather difficult for us to do so at this stage, because it involves a major change in our policy if we were to provide financial assistance to the 30 000-odd goods vehicles. We thus hold that we should give the industry sufficient time and provide them with technical support and relevant information, so as to help them comply with the requirements in GN.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2761

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Is it possible to put a follow-up question? President …

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): A number of lives have been lost, but the Government has done so little in this regard. The Secretary says that it is difficult to make the installation of safety devices compulsory and that providing financial assistance is expensive, so on and so forth. But why can't it even mandatorily require tail lift operators to receive safety training? When will the Government do something? Government records in this regard show that only 7.5% has completed the installation, which is a very low percentage. In order to prevent any further loss of lives, not to mention those cases involving only injured victims with no loss of lives, may I know what the Government will do in the future to actually tackle this issue? For instance, will the Government mandatorily enforce the requirement of posting warning notices? Or, should prosecution be made instead? Or, does it think that giving warnings is good enough?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, we must adopt a multi-pronged approach. First, GN has laid down a clear framework and mechanism to explain what devices are safe and what work needs to be done. Actually, we have listed them all out clearly. Second, Members may have heard Mr YICK and Members from the labour sector say that the industry needs sufficient time to install such safety devices. Therefore, we will seriously consider the view of the industry. We need to enhance communication and mutual understanding, and enhance the operation of tail lift. In particular, we have invited the Hong Kong Productivity Council to provide technical support and other assistance, in a bid to help the industry to comply with the requirements.

The Government also encourages members of the industry to receive the training provided by OSHC. Moreover, the Government will implement measures, such as requiring employers to post warning notices conspicuously on goods vehicles and providing relevant information for the operators of the 30 000 goods vehicles. We hope that they can get the message and ensure the safe operation of goods vehicles.

2762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is mentioned in part (2) of the Secretary's main reply that in view of the large number of goods vehicles fitted with tail lifts in Hong Kong, concerned trade associations, workers' unions and some Legislative Council Members appealed to LD to allow sufficient time for the industry to install these devices in an orderly manner. Given the low compliance rate on installing safety devices in goods vehicles fitted with tail lifts, may I ask the Secretary whether the reasons he states in the main reply the only reasons resulting in the slow compliance of the duty holders? Are there other reasons? For instance, as some colleagues pointed out just now, self-employed drivers who own the goods vehicles do not have sufficient money to replace the devices concerned. Can this be one of the reasons? Has LD tried to find out the reasons? And after finding out the reasons, does LD have any means to help them?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as I just said, there are currently over 30 900 such vehicles in Hong Kong. There is actual difficulty if the Government require all of them to immediately comply with the requirements. Even on the part of contractors, it also takes time for them to install the devices in vehicle repair garages. This is very time-consuming. We thus accept that there will be a process. That said, duty holders should not be allowed to unlimited time to comply with the requirements just because of this reason.

We thus wish to work pragmatically in two directions. I hold that at this stage, first of all, we need to conduct sufficient publicity and education, so that duty holders will at least post warning notices at the conspicuous part of their goods vehicles to warn people of the tail lift and ensure that no passers-by or workers will walk near the vehicle during tail lift operation. These are some tasks that can be done.

Regarding the installation of devices, I agree that it takes time for the industry to tackle and adapt to the change. GN sets out six types of devices that need to be installed. Assuming that duty holders cannot install all of the devices, they should still install some of them first. For instance, they should at least install audio and visual warning devices, such as buzzers, which give a beeping sound during operation of the goods vehicle, so that people nearby will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2763 know that the tail lift of a vehicle is closing and in operation when hearing the sound. These devices can enhance people's alertness which is helpful. At the end of the day, we certainly hope that goods vehicles can install all of the six devices required in GN. Even if goods vehicles cannot comply with the requirements immediately, we still think that gradual installation should still be beneficial. The most important of all is to prevent accidents from happening.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question at all. Perhaps he does not get it. My supplementary question is clear and that is: can this issue be really tackled in an orderly manner by giving more time for the industry? Or will the issue remain unresolved because LD has not found out why such a small fraction of the goods vehicles have made the retrofitting? Can there be other reasons? If there are, will the Government provide assistance based on those reasons?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I have already answered his question. First of all, it could be caused by insufficient knowledge of the issue. (Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung is still standing) Mr LEUNG, please sit. Regarding insufficient knowledge of the issue, some people say that they are unable to buy these devices because they don't know where to place order or which vehicle repair garages can install these devices for them. We thus have disseminated such information to them through the Hong Kong Productivity Council, so that they know which contractors can provide these services and how much these services cost. Besides, the Hong Kong Productivity Council also assists them by providing technical guidance. I believe that with these efforts made, together with the contact and communication our frontline staff have made with the employers and employees in the industry, it will not take a long time (and actually it cannot take a long time) for the industry to comply with the requirements, and we hope that they can do so within a reasonable transitional period.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

2764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Implementation of arrangements for co-location of boundary control

5. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), the construction of which commenced in 2010, is expected to be commissioned in the third quarter of 2018. The Government plans to conduct border checks for XRL passengers at the XRL West Kowloon Terminus ("WKT") under the arrangements for "co-location of boundary control" ("the co-location arrangements"). As such arrangements involve complicated legal and constitutional issues, the Government has all along been conducting discussions with the relevant Mainland departments for a number of years. The Under Secretary for Transport and Housing indicated on the 10th of last month that the relevant discussions had reached the final stage. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it is still the target of the Government to implement the co-location arrangements at WKT upon the commissioning of XRL in 2018; if so, how much time the Government will set aside for the public to discuss the concrete proposal on the implementation of the co-location arrangements; according to the current plan, what approach the Government will adopt for conducting border checks for XRL passengers under the scenario that the co-location arrangements cannot be implemented upon the commissioning of XRL;

(2) of the latest progress of the discussions on the implementation of the co-location arrangements conducted between the Government and the relevant Mainland departments, including the details of the consensus reached so far by both sides, as well as the schedule of and roadmap for the implementation of such arrangements; if it cannot provide such information, of the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the discussions conducted between the Government and the relevant Mainland departments include an interpretation of the articles of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress so as to facilitate the implementation of the co-location arrangements; if so, of the articles involved; and whether it has any plan to solve the legal problems associated with the co-location arrangements by way of local legislation?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2765

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link is a 140 km high-speed rail link connecting Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou, the Hong Kong section of which is 26 km. Upon commissioning, the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") will connect with the national high-speed rail network, which is now over 20 000 km long, and will greatly reduce the journey time between Hong Kong and major cities in the Mainland. The XRL will boost connections with the Mainland in various aspects, enhance exchange between people in Hong Kong and the Mainland, foster the development of trade, tourism and professional services, and bring enormous economic and social benefits. Therefore, not only does the XRL have important strategic significance and value to Hong Kong's external traffic and transport, but it can also raise Hong Kong's overall competitiveness and consolidate Hong Kong's status as a regional hub.

The Government and the MTR Corporation Limited are pressing ahead in full speed with the works on the XRL, the progress of which is reported to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council quarterly. Currently, the works are over 85% complete. The relatively critical works contracts at present include the construction of the West Kowloon Terminus ("WKT") (North), and the electrical and mechanical systems works currently being carried out in the WKT and tunnels. We expect to commence testing, commissioning and trial operation of the XRL in phases from the second quarter of 2017. At the same time, we are preparing for the operation of the XRL, with a view to commissioning the XRL by the third quarter of next year (i.e. 2018) as scheduled.

High speed is the XRL's most special feature, and convenient customs, immigration and quarantine ("CIQ") procedures are instrumental to realizing the high speed of the XRL's cross-boundary service. Therefore, when the XRL project was established in early 2010, the Government stated its target to implement co-location of CIQ facilities, and has been actively examining how it can be implemented at the WKT. Under this arrangement, passengers travelling on the XRL from Hong Kong to the Mainland can go through the CIQ procedures of both Hong Kong and the Mainland successively at WKT before boarding the train, and then travel to Mainland cities on the national high-speed rail network direct without going through CIQ procedures again. On the other hand, passengers can travel by XRL from any cities on the national high-speed rail network to Hong Kong direct and only go through CIQ procedures of both places at WKT. Passengers going in either direction can go through CIQ procedures of Hong Kong and the Mainland at WKT, and do not have to get off the train 2766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 midway to go through boundary control, thereby fully realizing the convenience and time-saving benefit of travelling by the XRL.

There are overseas examples of implementation of co-location of CIQ facilities of two jurisdictions, including the arrangement between the United Kingdom and France and that between the United States and Canada. The most crucial issue in relation to the implementation of co-location of CIQ facilities of Hong Kong and the Mainland is how Mainland officials are to be allowed to implement Mainland CIQ-related rules at the WKT in compliance with the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems". The Department of Justice, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Security Bureau and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau have been discussing this with the relevant Mainland authorities. Both sides agree that the target should be to implement a co-location arrangement at the WKT that complies with both the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems" when the XRL commences operation by the third quarter of next year. Since this involves many complicated constitutional, legal and operational issues, the two sides have been discussing and studying in depth on how such issues should be handled.

We appreciate that time is running short. When both sides have reached a consensus regarding the aforementioned arrangements for the XRL, we will report to the Legislative Council and the public as soon as possible, allow all walks of society a chance to express their views and the Government to answer any queries. We will then proceed with the local legislative work, in accordance with our target date for commissioning of the XRL. As I mentioned before, implementing co-location of CIQ facilities at WKT is key to realizing the maximum benefits of the XRL. Therefore, the foremost and obvious objective of the Government is to try to implement co-location arrangement at the commissioning of the XRL.

President, despite co-location being a complicated issue, it is not without precedents. There is experience in implementing co-location, no matter in other countries or in the Shenzhen Bay Control Point. We are therefore confident that through making reference to such examples and active discussion with the relevant Mainland authorities, we can implement co-location at WKT in compliance with the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems". The Government understands the public's concern about the co-location arrangement, especially when the XRL is an important investment on Hong Kong's future. Therefore, the Government will allow ample opportunities to listen to the views of the public after the proposal for implementing co-location of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2767

CIQ facilities is announced. We hope that we can, based on open and rational discussion, finalize the co-location arrangements as soon as possible, before the XRL commences operation, so that the XRL can realize the maximum benefits it can bring to the public.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): When giving the main reply, the Secretary spent much time on explaining XRL but missed the core of my main question. What arrangements does the Bureau have in place if the "co-location of boundary control" still cannot be implemented when XRL commences operational? Would the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") be asked to interpret the Basic Law so as to implement the "co-location of boundary control"?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, Mr YEUNG's supplementary question is about whether the Government will make interim arrangements. At this moment, this is a hypothetical question. As I said in the main reply, at present, the SAR Government and the relevant Mainland authorities aim at completing the works on XRL in the third quarter of next year, and wish that a co-location arrangement that complies with the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" principle can be implemented when XRL commences operation. We cannot give Members the details today as we are still in discussion with the relevant Mainland authorities. Once we come up with a final plan, we will definitely report to the Legislative Council and the public as soon as possible. Also, all walks of society will have time to express their views. I mentioned earlier that we will proceed with local legislative work in the future. So, the public will have the opportunity to know clearly the content of the arrangement, the legal basis and the issues which have been considered in the entire course of discussion.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, XRL is really a headache since many issues remain unresolved. The Secretary now says that the target is to have it commissioned in the third quarter of 2018. Assuming XRL is now completed and commissioned, will Hong Kong people be subject to Mainland laws or Hong Kong laws after passing through the ticket gates at WKT? It seems that we still have heard nothing up to now. If a Mainland railway employee accepts bribes within the area of WKT, can the Secretary tell me if the case should be handled by ICAC or the Anti-Corruption-and-Bribery Bureau of 2768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China? If the opposite happens, which side should handle the case? This is a very important point. "Hong Kong Our Advantage is ICAC". I wish the Secretary can answer.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I would like to state clearly that there are areas controlled by Hong Kong and the Mainland within WKT. Travellers complete the CIQ procedures within the Hong Kong area before entering the area controlled by the Mainland. We cannot say that the whole WKT falls within the Mainland area. Regarding how specifically the law is applied, I said in my main reply that it involves rather complicated constitutional, legal and operational issues, and we have been conducting the discussion under the premise that the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" principle are complied with.

Mr KWONG cited a specific example. He asked how criminal and civil matters would be handled under different circumstances. This is what we have been looking into over the past few years.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, constitutional issues are complicated. It has been seven years from 2010 to 2017, yet they remain unresolved. Now, XRL will commence operation in about one and a half years.

Secretary, as far as I know, no consensus has yet been reached between the senior officials of the Central Authorities and the relevant authorities. I have kept asking the Secretary earlier whether there would be a separate-location proposal for us to "pocket it first", but the Secretary asserted that he would not consider that. There are only six more months for this Government. If this Government does not handle this problem, there are only nine months left when the next legislative session begins in October. Secretary, you should know how long it takes the Legislative Council to pass a bill from having it gazetted to going through its first, second and finally third reading. The bill on copyright has taken five years while the one on private columbaria has taken two and a half years. Yet, both were not passed in the end. Secretary, I am a Christian. If local legislative work is to be completed in less than one and a half years, God must work miracles. Nonetheless, the Government cannot even present a plan to us today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2769

My supplementary question is very simple. Secretary, would you tell the Central Authorities that if there still is not a plan before the Chinese New Year, we will have to explain to the international community next August as to why this XRL which has gone over the budget by $20 billion and taken an additional two and a half years to complete can still not be commissioned. Secretary, would you tell the Central Authorities how we are going to face this international laughing stock?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I cannot provide instant statistical figures to answer Mr TIEN's question on how long the Legislative Council takes on average to handle a bill. Mr TIEN has cited some examples. However, I believe there are many other bills which do not take that much time to handle. The key lies in whether there is a consensus in society and whether the content of the bill is clear. The SAR Government has been discussing with the relevant Mainland authorities and Mr TIEN knows some of them well. It will be of no help to society to have a discussion if we rashly produce a plan before all the problems are properly resolved.

We fully appreciate that time is running out. XRL will commence operation in the third quarter of 2018. Thus, time is really a big challenge. Both Hong Kong and the Mainland are keeping an eye on the time element. We hope to handle well all the legal, operational and issues of concern to the people.

When the time is right for us to make an announcement, the plan will definitely be more comprehensive. We will then explain what matters we have looked into over the last few years.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. If …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, you have raised a difficult question. I think the Secretary has answered your supplementary question.

2770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the public looks forward to an early commissioning of XRL and the implementation of co-location. Secretary, I hope you will not shy away and answer Members' questions with confidence.

Co-location is nothing new. The Secretary mentioned earlier in the main reply the arrangement between the United Kingdom and France and that between the United States and Canada. He even talked about the model for Shenzhen Bay. Mr YEUNG asked in his main question if the Government would ask NPCSC for an interpretation in the end. Under the premise of looking after public interest, I think Hong Kong and the Mainland can overcome the problems involved in co-location in a constitutional and legitimate manner. It boils down to which arrangement they choose to adopt.

There are people who oppose everything. Yet, Secretary, the Government must tell the people that when XRL commences operation, there will definitely be co-location. All the models I cited earlier comply with the Basic Law.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, let me tell Dr LEUNG that I never shy away from problems. I have stated clearly in the main reply the importance of XRL to Hong Kong. The implementation of co-location is the key to bringing out the maximum benefit of XRL.

Regarding the examples of other countries, even if two jurisdictions are involved, co-location arrangement can still be implemented. There is a precedent in Hong Kong and the Mainland, the Shenzhen Bay Control Point. The Shenzhen Bay Control Point is located near to the boundary dividing Hong Kong and Mainland. But WKT is located within Hong Kong. That said, we will consider how to implement co-location with regard to the special circumstance.

In the discussions carried out in recent years, the Government and the relevant Mainland authorities have actually studied the views and proposals brought up in the community. I am not explaining to Members the various details today as that will not be conducive to a comprehensive discussion on how to come up with a feasible plan. Yet, our target is definitely to see the commissioning in the third quarter next year, and we will keep an eye on the time LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2771 frame to get our work done. Of course, local legislative work is involved during the process, but the pace and the end result is not something within the full control of the Government. All the bills the Government tables to the Legislative Council are deemed sound and we reckon that they can be passed. But we need to come to the Legislative Council to respond to Members' questions and society's views. In general, this is the legislative process which we have to go through.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I think the Secretary has pointed out the crux of the co-location issue. We all know that the situation of WKT for XRL is different from that of the Shenzhen Bay Control Point.

I would like to follow up the part on local legislation raised by Mr Alvin YEUNG and Mr Michael TIEN earlier. After the commissioning of XRL in mid-2018, someone may file a judicial review on co-location. I would like to ask the Secretary if the Bureau is prepared for that? Would it ask NPCSC for an interpretation of Basic Law provisions? Should there really be a judicial review, it is not possible for the Government to handle it in the way it handled the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge since that may render the operation of XRL impossible then.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, nowadays, many government policy decisions face the challenge of judicial reviews filed by different people in the community. This has almost become a norm. In fact, before a proposal is submitted to the Legislative Council, it has been thoroughly considered by the Government and comes with a sound legal basis.

As soon as the XRL project was established, society has been much concerned about co-location. People have different views on it. Therefore, we have to be extra careful when considering whether the proposed arrangement is sound, in compliance with the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" principle and legally sound. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a judicial review. We can only handle it through Hong Kong's established procedure.

2772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, which part of your supplementary question is not answered?

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I think the Secretary has not directly answered my question. Is the Government prepared for judicial reviews?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has answered your supplementary question. If you are dissatisfied, you may follow up through other channels. The last oral question.

Improving service quality of private residential care homes for the elderly and for persons with disabilities

6. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, a number of incidents in which residents of private residential care homes for the elderly and for persons with disabilities (collectively referred to as "care homes") were abused by care homes' personnel have happened in recent years. Such situation has aroused concerns. Some family members of the residents have relayed to me that the authorities should amend the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance, with a view to improving the service quality of care homes, including raising the statutory minimum levels of care staff manpower, so as to prevent the recurrence of incidents of abuse of residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of complaints concerning the services of care homes received by the authorities in the past five years, together with a breakdown by the content of the complaints; whether the authorities have studied the relationship between those complaints and the shortage of care staff in the care homes concerned; if they have and the outcome indicates that manpower shortage has impacted on the service quality of the care homes concerned, how the authorities improve such situation;

(2) as there are opinions that notwithstanding the aforesaid ordinances have provided that unless a health worker is present, one nurse must be on duty between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm for every 60 residents in a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2773

care-and-attention home, care homes which just meet such statutory manpower requirement can hardly provide quality care services for their residents, whether the authorities will review the relevant provisions and codes of practice, with a view to raising the manpower level of care staff in care homes; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the authorities will implement measures to enhance the service quality of care homes, such as encouraging all care homes throughout the territory to participate in accreditation schemes; if they will, of the details, including how they will assess the effectiveness of the measures concerned; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the Prof Joseph LEE's question is as follows:

(1) In the past five years, the Licensing Office of Residential Care Homes for the Elderly and the Licensing Office of Residential Care Homes for Persons with Disabilities (collectively referred to as "Licensing Offices) of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") received each year on average a total of about 300 complaints relating to residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") and residential care homes for persons with disabilities ("RCHDs"). In terms of subject matter, the above complaints received mainly involved care services (about 40%), management (about 15%), meals, environment and facilities (about 10%), and manpower arrangements (about 10%), etc.

Upon receipt of complaints, the Licensing Offices will conduct investigations. If individual homes are found to have contravened the relevant requirements (including the statutory minimum staffing requirements not being met), depending on the nature and severity of the irregularities, the Licensing Offices will issue to the homes concerned written advisory or warning letters or written directions requiring remedial measures to be taken. If a home persistently fails to improve its services, the Licensing Offices will, having regard to the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance as well as actual situation of irregularities, consider 2774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

revoking the licence/certificate of exemption ("CoE") of the home concerned or refusing to renew the licence/CoE in question or even taking prosecution actions.

(2) The Government plans to start work on the review of the RCHE and RCHD legislation in 2017. To provide a foundation for the review of the RCHE and RCHD legislation, SWD will, among others, carry out a stocktaking exercise on the manpower situation of individual RCHEs and RCHDs by way of a pragmatic approach.

(3) Apart from administering monitoring measures, SWD has all along been attaching great importance to providing training for the sector that meets their needs so as to enhance the capability of home staff. In this connection, SWD has launched or is planning several new measures. One of the new measures is for SWD to engage, with funding from the Lotteries Fund, the Hong Kong Association of Gerontology and the Hong Kong Productivity Council to implement in 2016-2017 the Quality Improvement Project for RCHEs and Management Training and Consultation Project for RCHDs respectively. The two projects last for two years and 15 months respectively. The scope of the projects includes organizing various training courses on management, staff supervision, etc., for home operators and managers; providing individual homes with professional consultation on home management; and providing training for staff through classroom learning and on-site coaching. These two projects cover more than 600 RCHEs and about 80 RCHDs respectively.

The Service Quality Standards ("SQS") now being implemented by SWD define the level of standards in terms of management and service provision that service units are expected to attain. The set of standards is currently applicable to subvented homes, contract homes and private homes participating in bought place schemes. SWD plans to formulate a set of SQS applicable to private RCHEs and RCHDs. Through training and support on service consultation, SWD will assist and encourage private home operators and managers to implement the SQS in the homes, and at the same time assist them in developing a fair, just and open complaint management system.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2775

SWD has been implementing the Service Quality Group Scheme in RCHEs and RCHDs since 2004 and 2012 respectively. Under the Scheme, arrangements are made for different community stakeholders (including health care personnel, service users, their relatives and friends as well as local leaders, etc.) to conduct unannounced visits to homes and provide feedback on their facilities and service, thereby assisting and encouraging homes to enhance their service standard. Starting from April 2016, SWD has extended the Scheme to the whole territory with all types of RCHEs and all licensed RCHDs covered. The Scheme will later be further extended to cover all RCHDs issued with CoEs.

In considering RCHEs' applications for the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme, SWD will award additional scores to those RCHEs which have passed accreditation so as to encourage private RCHEs to participate in accreditation programmes. In addition, through the Pilot Scheme on Residential Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, SWD will encourage recognized service providers to participate in accreditation programmes, including reimbursing 50% of the accreditation fee to service providers which apply for the first time and have successfully acquired accreditation under an accreditation scheme that has been accredited by the Hong Kong Accreditation Service.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the focus of my main question is how to improve the quality of care staff in the care homes. While the Secretary also admitted in the main reply that 40% to 50% of the complaints were related to manpower and health care quality, he did not answer how to improve the situation. Part (3) of the main reply concerns various projects for private homes and subvented homes. My question is: As the Secretary should know, about 50% of RCHEs in Hong Kong are under private operation. If they do not participate in the bought place schemes of the Government, how does the Government regulate them? For instance, if they only take in 59 people instead of 60 people, how can the Government regulate them and guarantee their quality? Will the Secretary introduce a risk-based mechanism by listing out those private homes not participating in these schemes so that the public will know these are high risk homes which may have less desirable health care quality?

2776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Prof LEE for asking this question.

In fact, over the last few months, this has been a major topic of discussion at the meetings of the Panel on Welfare Services, and we have been following up this issue in each and every meeting. As we all know, some incidents happened in care homes recently and we are very concerned about the situation. In brief and in summary, we will surely look forward, in the hope that the quality of these care homes can be significantly improved in future through some means. First of all, we will amend the legislation and review the manpower proportion, which will be related to the codes of practice and the ordinances. As a start, we have already undertaken to introduce some elderly services projects on which we are currently working very hard. After the consultation ends in mid-February, we hope that the report on the overall planning and the blueprint up to 2030 can be formally finished by the end of the second quarter, that is by the end of this session. I undertake that we will immediately start the review work of the legislation afterwards. This has been touched upon in part (2) of my main reply.

We will also carry out a stocktaking exercise on the manpower situation of individual RCHEs and RCHDs by way of a pragmatic approach. In other words, we will start from the basics and carry out a comprehensive assessment. Upon completion of the stocktaking exercise and collection of all the data concerned, we will take it as the basis of our review before we move forward. We will conduct a comprehensive review on various aspects including manpower, hardware and software. Concerning private homes and RCHDs, we undertake to completely abolish CoEs, and RCHDs holding CoEs will no longer be allowed to exist after three years.

Over the past few months, these few incidents have been a topic of discussion in the Panel on Welfare Services. We undertake that we will continue to maintain communication with the Panel and will brief Members on our progress. As Members can see, the Service Quality Group is maintaining a very open attitude. Under the scheme, unannounced inspections and visits to homes can be conducted for local personalities, service users and their family members, which are similar to visiting of prisons by Justices of the Peace, and they can provide feedback to us on any problems. This arrangement as a whole can increase transparency, enhance regulation and accountability.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2777

Of course, we do not only rely on prosecution and regulation, but will also provide supportive and technical training so as to enhance the capability of staff. We have invited the Hong Kong Productivity Council to our assistance so that frontline management staff can master every aspect of the management work. We will proceed in a comprehensive way. Therefore, Prof LEE, thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. I reiterate that we are highly concerned about the well-being of all the elderly people and residents in private homes, RCHEs and RCHDs. Thank you.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, manpower is the most important factor in this issue. In terms of manpower, I believe that this is not the only occupation facing the problem of manpower shortage in Hong Kong. In occupations like cleaning, transportation, catering and construction, we see that there is also shortage of manpower. How can we solve this problem and how can we enhance the quality of manpower? I believe that we can first increase the charges so that we can employ more quality staff. If there is pricing control so that the charges cannot be increased, we will have to reduce the costs. For lowering the costs, since Hong Kong is actually short of manpower, we will then mention how to import foreign labour. In regard to importation of foreign labour for handling low-skilled work, what is the view of the Secretary?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr SHIU for raising this question.

I know that your political party is very concerned about the manpower problem and it has reflected this to us on many occasions. Thank you.

We are actually facing two challenges in terms of manpower. First, there is the ageing problem among frontline care staff while not many people join this sector. We are now adopting a two-pronged approach. On one hand, we have to encourage new arrivals, women or middle-aged women to join this sector as frontline care staff. This is local provision of employment opportunities and is what we should do, as we cannot simply import foreign labour without spending our efforts to resolve the problem locally.

On the other hand, we put in place the mechanism of Supplementary Labour Scheme in 1996, which Members should know very well. Over the 2778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 recent two years, we have relaxed this mechanism, allowing those private RCHEs participating in the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme to import foreign workers for the non-bought place portion of their business, but the bought-place portions are not included. How many imported workers are now working in private RCHEs in Hong Kong at present? There are about 2 300 workers, accounting for more than half of the 4 700 odd workers imported under the Supplementary Labour Scheme.

More than half of the foreign labour work in these private homes and care homes, and most of them are on two-year contracts. Hence, if you ask me whether we only rely on foreign labour, the answer is that there is importation of foreign labour, but we cannot merely rely on foreign labour. We have to explore more employment opportunities for local people. We are working on one of the measures and the pilot scheme underway is effective at this preliminary stage. I do not dare to say about its long-term result, but the preliminary result is encouraging. This measure is to attract young people to join the sector.

Two to three years ago, we went on undeterred by the challenges ahead. Some people say that we are bound to encounter difficulties. How will the youngsters do this kind of work? We find that it does work but, of course, we need to be patient and see whether this scheme can really sustain. With a funding of over $140 million, we introduce this five-year scheme titled the Navigation Scheme for Young Persons in Care Services. It aims to recruit young people graduated from secondary schools to work in these homes as frontline care staff. In order to attract them to join the trade, we must provide some incentives: We say that there are prospects. What kind of prospects? Firstly, this is a job of 44 working hours per week with a monthly income of $10,000. Each week, they need to take classes in universities or tertiary institutes in two afternoons, studying a two-year part-time diploma course in community health care. After two years, they may be able to get promoted formally. After studying for one year and are awarded with certificates, they can be promoted as health workers with a salary increase of over $1,000. In other words, after one year, if they continue to work in the care homes and are awarded with certificates, they can have a pay rise of over $1,000 to a monthly salary of $11,000 to $12,000, to be accompanied with reasonable working hours and desirable prospects. If they pursue their studies, they can become registered nurses after graduation. They can even further study to assist in the development of care homes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2779

We provide a total of 1 000 places and we are now in the second year. Among more than 400 participating youngsters, 300 are already formally working in this sector. Therefore, we hope that we can attract young people to join this trade through this scheme. As regards new arrivals, we are now cooperating with the Employees Retraining Board. We also encourage private homes or subvented homes to employ the women concerned at fixed shifts and at fixed locations. Why do they employ these women in this way? It is because they cannot take up full-time jobs but can only have time to work after their children have gone to school. They can only work for five hours for instance. Hence, they can only work at fixed shifts, and must be off on Saturdays and Sundays. Some of them may be even arranged to work from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm or have the working time tailor-made. This has been found useful by certain RCHEs. We thus have to get out of the old framework and adopt a new way of thinking, be employee-oriented and family-oriented when addressing the manpower issue. We hope to deal with the manpower problem with a multi-pronged approach by attracting youngsters, women and new arrivals to join the sector.

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): President, in fact, I also want to follow up on the question of manpower shortage. As mentioned by the Secretary earlier, we can only really increase manpower by attracting women or young people locally to enter the elderly care sector. As reflected by many care homes, rather than not willing to increase the staff-to-resident ratio, they actually find it difficult to employ staff. However, from the Navigation Scheme for Young Persons in Care Services provided by the Bureau, we see that even the young people have taken the study course, only a few will really stay in this sector. They may take the certificate concerned as a stepping stone to study other nursing certificate courses and only a few will stay in the sector as health workers or personal care workers.

I would like to know whether the Bureau has any follow-up direction or plan so as to retain local manpower in the sector or attract new manpower to join this sector? Otherwise, the problem cannot be resolved.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Dr LAU for raising this question. I do visit these young people as this scheme is my brainchild. I thus care very much of these young people and I also undertake to find time to visit them.

2780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

From the tentative figures, I find that the turnover rate is not as bad as we imagined. We see that among the participants in the first and second years, 70% of them remain working in the care homes, while some people have left the care homes to work in other subvented homes. I think about 20% of them have really left the sector, which is not as high as imagined by Dr LAU. We, however, also have to put in efforts. Because even if we can have them remained in the sector for a period of time, whether they can stay in the sector in the long run is no less important. We thus also have to consider what kind of career ladder can be provided to them, like increasing more positions of physiotherapy assistants or occupational therapy assistants. We are now studying how to further expand and raise the career ladder in order to keep them in the sector. We will put in efforts in this regard.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The Bureau at one time undertook to enhance the transparency of care homes, including, as mentioned by the Secretary just now in his answer, making public a record on RCHEs and RCHDs which have been given warning for their irregularities, so as to strengthen the deterrent effect. Nevertheless, back then, he said that legal advice needed to be sought for this proposal before putting in place some specific arrangements.

Besides, the Secretary has also undertaken to set up a website on long-term care services in order to provide a one-stop portal for elderly services information, including service performance. Back then, he also said that this website would be launched before February 2017. Since it is already 11 January today, I would like to know the progress concerned, and whether the record of prosecutions for irregularities can also be found under service performance on the website.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for his question. He has a good memory. We have not forgotten these undertakings and are dealing with them. As you all know, and so does Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Chairman of the Panel on Welfare Services, we are very serious in this area. The major item or kind of "main course" of our discussion each month is care homes, which are our main concern. We thus will not go back on our words. Our website is now being processed and has come to a final stage. I browsed the draft version of the website the day before yesterday and we hope that it can be launched shortly after Lunar New Year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2781

When we click the "District" button on the website, we can check the care homes in a certain district. We will upload the information of all RCHEs in the whole territory, including information about irregularities and all other relevant information. If certain care homes have been prosecuted, there is no reason for us to keep secret for them. We will thus update the information with illustration, whereas the pictures will of course be provided by the care homes. It is our hope that the overall culture can be changed through enhanced transparency, strengthened regulation and the concern of the Legislative Council. I am confident that we can change for the better. Only if we have time, we can surely change the culture.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, in the main reply, the Secretary said that depending on the nature and severity of the irregularities, the authorities will issue to the homes concerned advisory or warning letters or written directions requiring remedial measures to be taken, in the hope that the services can be improved. The Secretary also said that they will handle the work concerned in accordance with the existing Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance. However, President, I think the Ordinances are already fairly out-dated, and the criteria concerned are particularly untimely. If advisory or warning letters are issued to the homes on the basis of these criteria, I think this will be to no avail.

In part (2) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that the Government will start work on the review of the two Ordinances in 2017, and will particularly carry out a stocktaking exercise on care homes in order to provide a foundation for the review of the legislation concerned. May I ask the Secretary how much time will be spent in future on carrying out the so-called stocktaking exercise in order to provide a foundation for the review of the new legislation? With the provision of a roadmap and a timetable, can the Secretary tell us when a specific legislation can really be put forward for scrutiny by the Legislative Council?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): As regards Mr LEUNG's supplementary question, first of all, for the so-called foundation of legislation, as Members would know, we have recently started some work and have never relaxed our efforts. We did refuse to renew the licences and revoke 2782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 the licences of certain RCHDs and RCHEs. SWD has already responded very clearly to the few incidents concerned and is not sloppy in handling the matter. As people are aware, we are neither indulgent towards licence holders, nor thwarted by difficulties to relocate the residents of care homes when necessary. Members could see that we have helped some elderly people move to other homes. The message we want to bring out is that we are very conscientious and serious in dealing with the quality issue of RCHEs and RCHDs, because the well-being of their residents is highly significant.

Mr LEUNG asked about our timetable and roadmap earlier. In fact, this issue has been discussed many times in the meetings of the Panel on Welfare Services, in which we have undertaken to commence work in the middle of this year. Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved a motion earlier, asking us to handle the matter properly within three years. I also undertake that we will try hard to finish our work within three years, in the hope that there can be a comprehensive change for better service.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am not sure what the Secretary means. Will three years be used in drafting the new legislation or will this new bill only be submitted to the Legislative Council after three years?

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

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, what I am now saying―Mr LEUNG, please sit down―is that the submission of a bill will mark the end of this work process, because it is out of our control of how long the Legislative Council needs to discuss, right? Members will need to discuss it in the committee. Anyway, in terms of our work, if we really have to amend the legislation, the content of the bill has to be drafted within three years, hopefully not more than three years, so that the Legislative Council can officially deal with this matter.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2783

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Implementation of the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme

7. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, since the inception of the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") Scheme in December 2000, approved trustees have all along been implementing measures to reduce administration fees in a bid to control fund costs, including the implementation of standardized and automated administration processes, such as establishing the Electronic Portability Automation Services System and the E-Payment for MPF Transfer System. In addition, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") implemented the Employee Choice Arrangement ("ECA") in November 2012 to allow employees to opt for transferring the accrued benefits derived from their MPF contributions to the MPF schemes of their choices. MPFA also introduced in 2007 a Fund Expense Ratio ("FER") as a standardized tool for use by employees to compare fees of funds. According to a report titled Fees and Expenses of MPF Funds: An Overview of the Fund Expense Ratio and Its Trends published by MPFA on 23 November last year, the average FER of MPF funds dropped from 2.06% in July 2007 to 1.57% in June last year. However, some members of the industry have pointed out that the actual FER was in fact lower than that published by MPFA since the latter did not take into account the discounts on fees and charges offered by approved trustees to scheme members (collectively referred to as "member rebates"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(1) the latest progress of the implementation of standardized and automated administration processes by MPF approved trustees;

(2) the number to-date of employees who have participated in ECA; whether the authorities have assessed the effectiveness of ECA; if they have, of the outcome; and

(3) the current actual average FER of MPF funds after taking into account member rebates?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

2784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(1) Over the past few years, MPF approved trustees ("trustees") have launched various electronic and online services, enabling scheme members to manage their MPF accounts, enquire contribution history, change personal data, submit fund switching requests etc., through online services. Employers can also provide employee's contribution data to the trustees and download administration forms online. Individual trustees also provide e-alert service, e-statements and accept e-cheque for payments.

Moreover, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") has developed the electronic Portability Automation Services System and the electronic Payment and Settlement System to standardize and automate the MPF transfer process between trustees, thus shortening the transfer processing time and enhancing efficiency and accuracy of MPF transfers.

MPFA will continue working with the trustees to further simplify and automate MPF administration processes, to lower the operating costs of MPF providers and allow employers and scheme members to manage various MPF matters more conveniently and efficiently.

(2) From the launch of Employee Choice Arrangement ("ECA") on 1 November 2012 to 30 November 2016, trustees received about 370 000 ECA transfer requests. However, we should not assess the effectiveness of ECA with the number of transfer requests received. In fact, MPFA reminds scheme members to take into account their age, the products (MPF schemes and funds) and services provided by trustees, fund fees and personal factors when they consider switching their trustees.

Since the commencement of ECA, 48% of the MPF funds (i.e. 231 funds) have reduced their management fees, with the biggest reduction reaching 76% or 128 basis points. At the same time, trustees have launched a number of "low fee funds" (i.e. funds with a fund expense ratio ("FER") ≦1.3% or m present, there are a total of 172 "low fee funds" in the market, which account for about 42% of the total number of MPF funds currently available for selection in the MPF market.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2785

(3) It is individual trustees' commercial decisions to offer unit rebates to members, and the extent of rebates differs among schemes and individual members. Not all scheme members are entitled to such rebates. Hence, if these rebates are factored into the calculation of the system wide FER, it will not reflect the actual situation of the MPF system. As such, MPFA has no plan to publish such adjusted FER.

CyberSecurity Information Sharing Platform and Cyber Intelligence Sharing Platform

8. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Chinese): President, earlier on, the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute ("ASTRI") has developed, using public money, a CyberSecurity Information Sharing Platform ("SecShare") for the purpose of collecting, consolidating and categorizing cyber security intelligence. In August last year, ASTRI licensed a private company to use SecShare, so that ASTRI's cyber security technologies could be further promoted and applied to various industries, thereby enhancing their ability to counter cyberattacks. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") indicated in May last year that it would work with The Hong Kong Association of Banks and ASTRI to establish the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Platform ("the Intelligence Platform") by the end of 2016 for sharing cyber threat intelligence among various banks through the platform in order to enhance collaboration among banks, thereby uplifting the overall cyber resilience of the banking industry of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as it has been reported that the aforesaid private company was set up by a former director of ASTRI prior to his departure, whether the Government knows if ASTRI, in vetting and approving the application from the company for the licence to use SecShare, had consulted the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in order to prevent conflicts of interests; if ASTRI had not, the reasons for that; and

(2) whether it knows the organization to be responsible for managing the Intelligence Platform; how HKMA will monitor the work of that organization?

2786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the two parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The non-exclusive technology licensing of the "Cyber Security Information Sharing Platform" granted to a company founded by a former staff ("the staff") of the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute Company Limited ("ASTRI") last year was vetted and approved in accordance with established procedures of ASTRI, including review by a Committee under the Board of Directors of ASTRI ("the Board"). Members of the Committee include members of the Board, and representatives of the Innovation and Technology Commission as well as the ASTRI management. The licensing was non-exclusive in nature and all interested companies or individuals could negotiate with ASTRI for using the software concerned. In fact, ASTRI has negotiated with a few different companies on the licensing of the software concerned.

After thorough consideration, the Committee determined that the case did not involve any misconduct or conflict of interest and that the licensing was also in line with the mission of ASTRI, including transferring of technologies to the industry, nurturing of technological talents and technology entrepreneurs. The Committee therefore supported the licensing application. The Committee however requested that the negotiation of the detailed terms and conditions of the proposed licensing should only be conducted after the staff had left ASTRI.

ASTRI has already sought advice from the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") when formulating its mechanism for preventing conflict of interest, including the Employee Code of Conduct, procedures on declaration of interest and all relevant documents, etc. ASTRI would not consult ICAC on any specific case.

(2) Regarding the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing Platform" mentioned in the question, ASTRI was granted in October last year funding support under the Innovation and Technology Fund to conduct a project titled "Cyber-Security Assessment System for Financial and Securities Institutes" for the research and development of a cyber LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2787

security intelligence exchange platform among financial institutions for use by banks. The project was supported by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"), with sponsorship from the Hong Kong Association of Banks. ASTRI is responsible for developing and managing the R&D project, which is expected to be completed in full by October 2018. In accordance with the funding mechanism, ASTRI should report project progress and submit reports to the Innovation and Technology Commission.

Neither ASTRI nor the project concerned is regulated by HKMA.

Measures to enhance food safety

9. DR JUNIUS HO (in Chinese): President, on 18 November last year, the Centre for Food Safety ("CFS") of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department released a report on the follow-up risk assessment study on aluminium in food ("the study report"). In the study, 309 samples were collected from 36 types of food products (including steamed buns and bakery products). The study report has found that several types of food products use aluminium-containing food additives. For instance, some samples of egg waffle had an aluminium concentration as high as 400 mg/kg. The study report has also pointed out that aluminium has developmental toxicity which may cause growth retardation and affect renal functions. On the other hand, the test results on extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in chicken meat published by the Consumer Council on 15 December last year ("the test results") have revealed that such bacteria are impervious to third generation cephalosporins, which is an antibiotic widely used in clinical treatment of infectious diseases with bacterial origin. The test results have also found that in the 100 samples of chicken meat, 62% contained such bacteria. Among them, the proportion of samples from live chicken freshly slaughtered on site (including Kamei chickens and Tai On chickens which are quite commonly consumed by Hong Kong people) found to contain the bacteria in question was even as high as 92%. Regarding measures to enhance food safety, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) how the authorities will follow up the recommendations put forward in the study report, including whether they will (i) by making reference to the relevant standards of the World Health 2788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Organization or the European Union, draw up guidelines on the use of aluminium-containing food additives, and (ii) consider enacting legislation to require food manufacturers to comply with the relevant guidelines, so as to prevent food products which have used excessive aluminium-containing food additives from entering the market; whether the authorities will step up public education to make people aware of the health hazards arising from consuming food products which have used excessive aluminium-containing food additives;

(2) as CFS had collected the aforesaid food samples as early as in May to July 2015 but did not publish its study results until 18 November 2016, whether CFS will take measures to shorten the time required for conducting studies so that members of the public may be informed of the latest food safety information as early as possible; if CFS will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) how the authorities will respond to the aforesaid test results; whether they will improve the food inspection mechanism to prevent chicken meat with drug-resistant bacteria from entering the market; if they will, of the implementation timetable; as the test results have found that the bacteria levels in samples of chilled chicken meat which has been defrosted and samples of frozen chicken meat were far lower than that in live chicken freshly slaughtered on site, whether the authorities will draw up guidelines on the safe storage of live chicken freshly slaughtered on site for reference by retailers; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether the authorities have assessed if the existing food safety surveillance mechanism is adequate to ensure that food products available in the market (including chicken meat and bakery products) meet the relevant food safety standards; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Centre for Food Safety ("CFS") of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") adopts the risk analysis framework promulgated by international food safety authorities in regulating food safety. Risk analysis comprises three main areas of work, namely risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2789

The purpose of conducting risk assessment is to provide the relevant background information, statistics and scientific basis for public education and regulatory work in relation to food safety. Every year, CFS conducts a number of risk assessment studies to review and analyse potential food related hazards (e.g. chemical hazards, microbiological hazards) of public health relevancy, with a view to formulating risk communication messages and management actions as appropriate to safeguard food safety. Subsequent to releasing the first risk assessment study report on aluminium in food in Hong Kong in 2009, CFS conducted a follow-up study and announced the results in 2016. The follow-up study examined the levels of aluminium in certain foods, which were shown to contain moderate to high levels of aluminium in the previous risk assessment study, and the use of aluminium-containing food additives in these foods. The levels of aluminium in these foods and those reported in the previous study were also compared to estimate the normal dietary exposure to aluminium-containing food additives of the Hong Kong population and its associated food safety risk.

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

(1) To reduce the dietary exposure of the public to aluminium, CFS formed a working group comprising trade representatives and the academia to work out together the Guidelines on the Use of Aluminium-containing Food additives ("the Guidelines"). CFS released the Guidelines in 2009 and introduced the Guidelines to the trade through its publications, seminars and trade consultation forums on many occasions. CFS calls upon the trade to adopt the principles and recommendations set out in the Guidelines to reduce the use of aluminium-containing additives when preparing food products. In view of the results of the follow-up study, CFS has updated the Guidelines accordingly by making reference to the practices of different places. The Guidelines are applicable to all food manufacturers and producers, including restaurants and bakeries. CFS will continue to publicize the Guidelines to the trade through different channels. Members of the trade will be invited to share their experience in reducing aluminium-containing food additives in food production.

CFS has been advising the public to maintain a balanced diet so as to avoid excessive exposure to aluminium from certain food items. When purchasing prepackaged food products, consumers can refer to 2790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

the ingredient lists on the food labels for information on whether aluminium-containing food additives have been included.

The Public Health and Municipal Service Ordinance stipulates that all food for sale in Hong Kong must be fit for human consumption. CFS, through the risk-based food surveillance programme, takes food samples at the import, wholesale and retail levels for chemical, microbiological and radiological testing, to ensure that the food compiles with the legislative requirements and is fit for human consumption. We will continue to keep in view of the international development of the regulatory approach of aluminium-containing food additives, and continue to review our work on the front.

(2) In general, CFS makes recommendations to the food trade and draws up trade guidelines as necessary, after conducting a risk assessment study. To facilitate the trade's better understanding of these studies and listen to their views on the recommendations and guidelines, CFS normally briefs the food trade at trade consultation forums which are held regularly before announcing the finding of the studies and the recommendations. Detailed study findings are disseminated to the public via various channels such as press releases, web pages, pamphlets and guidelines for the trade afterwards.

During the risk assessment process, if test results indicate that a food sample poses immediate threats to the public health, CFS will take suitable follow-up action and advise the public against consuming the food concerned.

(3) The samples collected by the Consumer Council for testing of antimicrobial resistant Enterobacteriaceae in chickens were raw chicken meat, including live chickens, freshly-slaughtered chickens, chilled and frozen chicken meat. Microorganisms are generally present in raw food materials and in the environment. If consumers cook raw food materials thoroughly at a suitably high temperature for a sufficiently long time, bacteria in the food can be eliminated and the food will be safe for human consumption.

For food safety purpose, FEHD imposes licence conditions on licensed fresh provision shops and market stalls selling freshly-slaughtered chicken carcasses and offal, requiring the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2791

provision of a refrigerator or chiller of suitable capacity for the storage or display for sale of freshly-dressed poultry carcasses and offal at a temperature between 0ºC and 4ºC, in order to prevent bacteria from growing and the food from turning bad. In addition, FEHD provides live chicken sellers with guidelines on hygiene, setting out the requirements for slaughtering, storing and handling of live chicken.

CFS advises the public and the trade to observe personal, food and environmental hygiene when preparing raw and cooked food in order to prevent cross-contamination. To minimize microbiological hazards, it is important to cook food thoroughly.

(4) Apart from risk analysis, the Food Surveillance Programme ("the Programme") is a key component of our efforts to protect food safety at the downstream of the food supply chain. Under the Programme, CFS collects samples at import, wholesale and retail levels for chemical, microbiological and radiological tests to ensure that food complies with the legal requirements and is fit for human consumption. With a multiplicity of food products available in Hong Kong, it is both impossible and impractical to conduct testing on every food product. It is also not consistent with the international practice to do so. CFS adopts a risk-based approach in determining the types of food samples (including chicken meat and bakery products) to be collected, the frequency and number of samples taken for testing, and the types of laboratory analyses to be conducted. The sampling programme is under regular review, taking into account factors such as past food surveillance results, food incidents occurred locally and outside Hong Kong as well as relevant risk analyses. The Programme is drawn up each year based on risk analyses. It is then finalized after being scrutinized by the Expert Committee on Food Safety. In the period between January and November 2016, CFS had taken some 63 000 food samples for testing. Other than the 139 unsatisfactory samples which were announced, all remaining samples yielded satisfactory results. The overall satisfactory rate was 99.8%. CFS will closely monitor the latest development of the food safety regulation of different places and results of local food surveillance programme, so as to review the relevant regulatory arrangements and practices where necessary.

2792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The Government's stance on responding to questions and comments from four Legislative Council Members

10. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Chinese): President, on 5 December last year, the then Financial Secretary stated in his opening remarks at a meeting of the Panel on Financial Services of this Council that the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice had commenced legal proceedings to request the court to declare the Legislative Council ("LegCo") oaths taken by four LegCo Members, namely LEUNG Kwok-hung, YIU Chung-yim, LAU Siu-lai and Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, as invalid (and to declare the relevant offices of LegCo Members to be vacant); under such circumstances and in accordance with the legal advice of the Department of Justice ("DoJ"), public officers including himself would not respond to the questions and comments from the four LegCo Members before the court made the final judgment. The authorities subsequently indicated on 14 December that in the current circumstances, it was not appropriate for them to disclose the contents of the aforesaid legal advice which was subject to the protection under legal professional privilege ("the privilege"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will, having regard to public interest (e.g. the public's right to know), give up the privilege and disclose the contents of the aforesaid legal advice, particularly the reasons or justifications based on which DoJ suggested that public officers should not respond to the questions and comments from the four Members when the court has not yet ruled that they have vacated their offices of LegCo Members; and

(2) whether it has assessed if the Government, by acting in accordance with the aforesaid legal advice, will contravene the following provisions under the Basic Law: "the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must … be accountable to the Legislative Council of the Region: … it shall answer questions raised by members of the Council" as stipulated in Article 64, and "The Legislative Council … shall exercise the following powers and functions: … (5) To raise questions on the work of the government; …" as stipulated in Article 73?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2793

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, a consolidated reply to the question raised by Mr Dennis KWOK is as follows:

As the Government pointed out in its earlier reply to a relevant request of the Panel on Financial Affairs, having considered the Chairman's request carefully, the Government does not consider that, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to disclose the advice it has obtained which is subject to legal professional privilege. When making the said decision, the Government has already taken into account all relevant factors, including public interest as mentioned by Mr Dennis KWOK. The request to waive legal professional privilege therefore cannot be acceded to.

The Government agrees that, according to Article 64 of the Basic Law, the Government has the duty to answer questions raised by Member of the Legislative Council, and that according to Article 73(5) of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council has the power and function to raise questions on the work of the Government. Nevertheless, as pointed out in the Government's letters to the Legislative Council President and Members concerned during the period from 31 October to 16 December 2016, it has always been the Government's position that public officers attending meetings of the Legislative Council or its committees will only respond to questions and comments from such Members who have duly taken the oath in accordance with the law. Yet, with a view to avoiding unnecessary arguments and maintaining a smooth operation in the Legislative Council in the overall public interest, but entirely without prejudice to the Government's position and legal proceedings, Government officials will respond to questions and comments from all Members and persons who purported to act as Members.

Policies and guidelines relating to coverage of government events by media organizations

11. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): President, at present, the Government issues press notices to media organizations through the Government News and Media Information System ("GNMIS"). Registered users of GNMIS include registered printed newspapers and periodicals, radio stations, television stations and news agencies. On the ground that currently there is no registration or licensing regime relating to online media, the Government does not issue press notices to online media. On the 7th of June last year, the Hong 2794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Kong Journalists Association lodged a complaint with the Office of The Ombudsman ("the Office") about the Information Services Department ("ISD") (i) denying the access of online media to the media centre for the Election Committee Subsector Elections to conduct news coverage on the same day and (ii) refusing online media to use GNMIS. In its reply, the Office stated that the complaint was substantiated. It also pointed out that under the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents enjoy freedom of the press. Hence, the Government should, pursuant to that principle, try its best to create an environment for the free flow of information and facilitate news coverage by media organizations. Furthermore, the Office urged the Government to expeditiously review the relevant policies and guidelines. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the specific justifications of ISD for refusing online media to (i) cover government events and (ii) register as users of GNMIS;

(2) of ISD's current policies pertaining to inviting media organizations to cover government events and allowing media organizations to register as users of GNMIS; whether ISD will, in response to the development of the media industry, revise such policies so that online media may cover government events as other media organizations do; if ISD will, of the details; whether ISD will, pending the revision of such policies, consider exercising discretion to allow journalists of online media to cover large-scale government events, such as the upcoming Chief Executive Election and Legislative Council by-election(s) and to enter the relevant media work areas; if ISD will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) as ISD is reviewing the current practice for online media to cover government events, of the details, progress and projected completion date of that review;

(4) as the policy of The Legislative Council Commission stipulates that news organizations (including online ones) may be regarded as eligible news organizations if they carry original reporting of Legislative Council-related news on a regular basis and have lawfully registered whose principal business is news reporting, and their representatives may be issued with admission passes to conduct news coverage in the Legislative Council Complex, whether ISD will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2795

adopt similar criteria for deciding which news organizations are to be allowed to cover government events; if not, of the reasons for that; and

(5) whether ISD will consider accepting the Office's recommendations of relaxing the eligibility criteria for registration as users of GNMIS and drawing up guidelines for GNMIS subscribers; if ISD will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region attaches great importance to the functions of the media. It strives to disseminate government information to the public through the mass media and facilitate media reporting work as far as possible.

My reply to Mr MA Fung-kwok's questions is as follows:

(1) and (2)

Currently, subscribers of the Government News and Media Information System ("GNMIS") of the Information Services Department ("ISD") have to be registered or licensed mass news media organizations. These organizations include:

(i) Registered Printed Newspapers and Periodicals

Newspapers and news periodicals registered with the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance (Cap. 268, Laws of Hong Kong), as well as their associated websites.

(ii) Radio Stations

Government-funded radio broadcasters and radio organizations that possess a Sound Broadcasting Licence granted under the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106, Laws of Hong Kong).

2796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(iii) Television Stations

Government-funded TV broadcasters, and commercial TV broadcasters that possess a Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licence or a Domestic Pay Television Programme Service Licence, or a Non-domestic Television Programme Service Licence granted under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562, Laws of Hong Kong).

(iv) News Agencies

News agencies registered with the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, as well as news agencies, newspapers, magazines and television/radio stations on the list of "Overseas Journalists in Hong Kong" compiled by the Overseas Public Relations Sub-division of ISD.

In general, registered subscribers of GNMIS can have access to Government press conferences or media events. However, in actual practice it may not be possible for all qualified mass news media organizations to enter into the reporting venues owing to venue constraints and other limitations. The Government will, after taking account of the relevant factors and circumstances of individual cases, make appropriate reporting arrangements so as to meet the needs of the media as far as possible, and facilitate the public to learn and understand the work of the Government through the media.

There is no universally agreed and objective definition of "mass news media organizations". In general they refer to those organizations whose principal business is regular reporting for general dissemination of original news to the public. Such qualified mass news media organizations may receive government press releases and press invitations through ISD's GNMIS. Nevertheless, not every organization which publishes information can subscribe to GNMIS. For example, non-profit organizations, think tanks or interest groups which publish advocacy or publicity materials, instead of general news reports, would not be qualified.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2797

In recent years, the rapid advance in information technology has brought about profound changes to the media. The prevalence of the Internet and social media platforms has substantially lowered the threshold for information dissemination. In view of the vast number and diverse nature of online media platforms, we believe that the classification of these online platforms as "mass news media organizations" or otherwise would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There is also not a uniform or clear definition of online media in the society and in the industry. In view of the above factors and limitations such as venue constraints, ISD currently does not arrange for admission of online media for reporting.

The admission of online media for reporting involves various considerations, and we must carefully consider the principles, implementation issues and feasibility of the relevant arrangements before reaching a decision. Since the study on this matter is still ongoing, there will be implementation difficulties and disputes may arise if we use discretion to allow admission for certain online media organizations before completion of the study. ISD will therefore maintain the current reporting arrangements before completion of the study.

(3) to (5)

The Ombudsman released in early December 2016 investigation reports on two complaints concerning the reporting of Government media events by online media. ISD generally accepts The Ombudsman's recommendations and is reviewing the arrangements for admission of the media and the criteria for registration as a GNMIS user.

ISD fully recognizes the rapid development and growing popularity of online media in recent years, and is studying the feasibility of allowing admission of online media for reporting. The study includes comparative research into the practices and procedures of overseas jurisdictions and other organizations. ISD will strive to complete the above study as soon as practicable and will communicate with the industry on the outcome of the study.

2798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Regulation of issuance of announcements of a possible offer by listed companies

12. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, Rule 3.7 (Announcement of a Possible Offer) of the Takeovers Code issued by the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") stipulates that, "[u]ntil a firm intention to make an offer has been notified a brief announcement by a potential offeror or the offeree company that talks are taking place or that a potential offeror is considering making an offer will normally satisfy the obligations under this Rule 3 …". In its Takeovers Bulletin published in June last year, SFC pointed out that the Executive had noticed a growing trend of "talks" announcements being issued by listed companies under Rule 3.7. Although "talks" announcements indicate that the relevant offer is a possibility only and that it may or may not materialize, the publication of such announcements nevertheless may have an impact on the share prices of the subject offeree companies. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(1) in each of the past five years, the respective numbers of companies whose equity securities were primary listed in Hong Kong (including those on the Main Board and on the Growth Enterprise Market) which (i) issued an announcement of "talks" under Rule 3.7, and the total number of such announcements, and (ii) issued a subsequent announcement that the talks had been terminated or the potential offeror(s) had decided not to proceed with such an offer, and the total number of such announcements;

(2) in the past five years, (i) how SFC followed up with the growing trend of listed companies issuing "talks" announcements, and (ii) in the course of its follow-up, whether SFC found any regulatory breaches by listed companies (such as issuing "talks" announcements with an intent to affect share prices); if SFC did, whether SFC took law enforcement actions against such regulatory breaches; if SFC did, of a breakdown by the type of law enforcement actions taken (e.g. initiating investigations, imposing sanctions such as reprimands or fines on the persons concerned); and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2799

(3) whether SFC will consider amending Rule 3.7 to stipulate that "talks" announcements may be issued only when specified conditions have been met, in order to guard against abuse of the Rule; if SFC will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, our response to the three parts of the question is as follows.

(1) Past five-year statistics on the announcements on "talks" made under Rule 3.7 of the Takeovers Code, as well as those where talks were terminated, as provided by the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC"), are set out in the Annex.

(2) Following the marked increase of new Rule 3.7 announcements issued in 2015, the Takeovers Executive of SFC took proactive action in 2016 to remind parties, in the course of reviewing documents when being approached, to consider whether the issuing of a Rule 3.7 announcement was necessary. The Takeovers Executive of SFC also published an article in the June 2016 issue of the Takeovers Bulletin to remind practitioners that it is not necessary to issue a "talks" announcement under Rule 3.7 so long as confidentiality is maintained when the parties are in negotiation but have not yet reached a firm intention to make an offer. Parties may be required to issue an announcement in order to comply with other rules and regulations (both local and overseas) including Part XIVA of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) ("SFO"). However, it should be noted that Part XIVA provides an effectively similar safe harbour from the obligation to disclose inside information where the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation and confidentiality has been maintained.

SFC is closely monitoring this growing trend of "talks" announcements. Although no formal action has yet been taken against this type of announcements specifically, SFC will investigate and take enforcement action if it is revealed that any of 2800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

such announcements are false or misleading, or that any persons take improper advantages of such announcements by inside dealing or manipulating the relevant stocks.

(3) Rules 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Takeovers Code set out specific situations where a "talks" announcement under Rule 3.7 should be issued. As mentioned in the June 2016 issue of the Takeovers Bulletin, a "talks" announcement under Rule 3.7 is not required to be issued under the Takeovers Code when parties are in negotiation if confidentiality is maintained. Rule 3.7 does not and cannot prevent a company from issuing a voluntary announcement, or an announcement made in order to comply with other rules and regulations (both local and overseas). In the majority of cases in 2016 and 2015 (33 of 48 in 2016 and 59 of 75 in 2015), trading in the shares of the corresponding offeree (target) company had been suspended pending an announcement of what was described by the company as inside information (under Part XIVA of the SFO and/or the relevant Listing Rules) related to a takeovers' matter under Rule 3.7. Once trading is suspended, the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong requires the relevant company to issue an announcement of the relevant information before trading can be resumed. Ultimately, the decision of whether to request suspension and/or issue an announcement is a matter for the directors of a company who are most familiar with the affairs of the company and subject to their fiduciary duties taking into account, among other things, the applicable rules and regulations. In all the circumstances, the Takeovers Executive of SFC does not consider it appropriate to stipulate specific conditions to fulfil before a Rule 3.7 announcement can be issued as this could interfere with the legitimate exercise of the directors' powers and the performance of their duties.

It is worth noting that Rule 3.7 is consistent with similar provisions in other leading overseas takeovers regimes such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2801

Annex

"Talks" Announcements Number of "talks" announcements made under Rule 3.7 of Takeovers Code

Number of new Rule 3.7 announcements* Year (talks ultimately terminated)** 2012 13 (2) 2013 30 (16) 2014 47 (16) 2015 75 (35) 2016 48 (9)

Source of information: The Securities and Futures Commission

Remarks:

* Given that Rule 3.7 announcements are normally issued by the offeree (target) company, the number of listed offeree (target) companies involved should be the same as the number of announcements issued. Hence, no separate set of statistics on the companies involved is provided.

** The majority of "talks" announcements issued under Rule 3.7, other than those where talks were terminated, led to the publication of an announcement of a firm intention to proceed with the transaction under Rule 3.5.

Regulation of canteens of post-secondary institutions

13. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in November last year, some students of a post-secondary institution launched a worm-eating protest on campus as they were dissatisfied that a hall canteen had provided unsanitary food and yet the institution had renewed the contract with the canteen operator. On the other hand, as the interpretation of the expression "food business" in the Food Business Regulation (Cap. 132 sub. leg. X) ("the Regulation") has excluded canteens provided in schools for the use exclusively of the pupils of the schools concerned, those canteens are not required to apply for and hold restaurant licenses. However, quite a number of canteens of post-secondary institutions serve staff members and are open to outsiders at present. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

2802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(1) of the number of complaints received in each of the past five years by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") about unsanitary food sold by canteens of post-secondary institutions, and whether FEHD instituted prosecutions in respect of those complaints; if FEHD did, of the number of prosecutions instituted; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) of the number of inspections conducted by FEHD on canteens of post-secondary institutions in each of the past five years, as well as the criteria adopted by FEHD for determining the frequency of inspection;

(3) whether FEHD provided, in the past five years, information concerning the number of complaints received in relation to the canteens of the post-secondary institutions, the number of prosecutions instituted, the hygiene conditions found during inspections, etc., to the administration departments of the institutions concerned for follow up; if FEHD did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether canteens of post-secondary institutions are required to apply for and hold restaurant licenses; if not, whether the authorities will consider amending the interpretation of the expression "food business" in the Regulation so as to subject those canteens to the regulation of the relevant provisions; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, according to section 4 of the Food Business Regulation (Cap. 132 sub. leg. X) ("the Regulation"), the expression "food business" does not include premises specified therein, such as canteens provided in any school or work place (except factory canteens) for the use exclusively of the pupils of the school and the persons employed in the work place respectively. Therefore, the canteens of post-secondary institutions are not required to obtain a food business licence. That said, contractors will be awarded operation contracts by post-secondary institutions only after it is confirmed that they have complied with the selection criteria set by the institutions. In general, the contracts between the institutions and contractors will clearly specify the terms and conditions that must be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2803 complied with by the contractors, including those concerning the hygiene standards required of the food supplied. Furthermore, contractors shall abide by the provisions governing food safety under Part V of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) ("the Ordinance") and its subsidiary legislation to ensure food safety.

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

(1) In the past five years, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") received a total of 22 complaints about unsanitary food sold by the canteens of post-secondary institutions. Two of the cases were subject to prosecutions under section 52 of the Ordinance.

(2) Same as the routine inspections of licensed food premises classified as medium risk, the inspections on canteens are conducted once every 10 weeks. The number of inspections conducted by FEHD on canteens (including school canteens and staff canteens and excluding factory canteens) in the past five years were 4 170, 3 840, 3 773, 3 706 and 3 747 respectively. FEHD does not maintain a breakdown of the number of inspections conducted on the canteens of post-secondary institutions.

(3) If FEHD officers find the food hygiene or environmental hygiene conditions of the canteens of post-secondary institutions unsatisfactory during their inspections, they will generally give advice to the persons-in-charge of the canteens and provide them with information on hygiene education and food safety. If the canteens are found to have violated the relevant legislation on food safety or environmental hygiene, FEHD will consider prosecuting the persons-in-charge of the canteens and inform the management of the post-secondary institutions for follow-up. FEHD does not maintain any figures on the number of referrals.

(4) According to section 4 of the Regulation, the expression "food business" does not include any canteen provided in any school for the use exclusively of the pupils of the school. The canteens of post-secondary institutions are therefore not required to obtain a food business licence. However, the contractors have to apply to FEHD 2804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

for the appropriate permits for the sale of restricted foods listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulation, such as fresh milk and frozen confections. Although a food business licence is not required for the operation of a canteen of post-secondary institution, the food items sold in such canteen are subject to regulation by provisions governing food safety under the Ordinance. In addition, FEHD officers will inspect the canteens of post-secondary institutions on a regular basis to check the environmental hygiene conditions and the food safety measures taken, and provide persons-in-charge with information on hygiene education and food safety. If the canteens are found to have violated the legislation on food safety or environmental hygiene, FEHD will consider prosecuting the persons-in-charge of the canteens and inform the management of the post-secondary institutions for follow-up. The Government considers that the existing control measures are adequate to ensure the food safety of the canteens of post-secondary institutions and amendment to the definition of "food business" in the Regulation in this regard is not necessary.

Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme

14. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Chinese): President, the Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme ("the New Scheme") has been scheduled for implementation in the 2017-2018 school year. The Education Bureau announced in early December last year that 745 kindergartens ("KGs") had applied for joining the New Scheme and it estimated that about 20% of the half-day KGs joining the Scheme would still need to charge school fees from parents of young children in the 2017-2018 school year to cover rental expenses. Moreover, under the co-payment basis between the Government and parents, whole-day ("WD") and long whole-day ("LWD") KGs are allowed to charge school fees at reasonable levels. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has set targets on the annual increases in the percentage of the free-of-charge KGs in the total number of KGs joining the New Scheme during the period from 2018-2019 to 2020-2021 school years;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2805

(2) given that quite a number of low-income families will enrol their young children in WD or LWD KGs because both husbands and wives of such families need to go out to work to sustain their living, but the Government expects that those two types of KGs will still need to charge parents schools fees in the amount of around $1,000 per month upon the implementation of the New Scheme, whether the authorities will consider further increasing the subsidies for those two types of KGs so that their school fees can be reduced, thereby alleviating the financial burden of such families;

(3) given that some media have uncovered that upon the implementation of the New Scheme, around 32 KGs in the territory will charge parents of young children school fees at levels higher than those of the school fees charged under the current Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme, whether the authorities know about such a situation and the causes for it; whether they will consider forbidding KGs under the New Scheme from charging school fees at levels higher than those of the prevailing school fees; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(4) given that each KG joining the New Scheme will be provided with a one-off start-up grant in its total amount capped at $300,000 to be spent in a period of three years, and yet some practitioners worry that after the grant has been used up, KGs will need to substantially increase their school fees, whether the authorities will review if (i) the spending period of the start-up grant can be extended and (ii) the ceiling of the grant can be raised?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, as announced in the 2016 Policy Address, the Government will implement the free quality kindergarten ("KG") education policy starting from the 2017-2018 school year. The policy objectives are to provide good quality and highly affordable KG education, and enhance the accessibility of students to different modes of services that suit their specific needs. The Government's recurrent expenditure on pre-primary education is estimated to increase from about $4 billion in 2016-2017 to about $6.7 billion in the 2017-2018 school year.

2806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

With a substantial increase in Government commitment in KG education, the quality of KG education will be improved in various aspects, including providing direct subsidies to KGs joining the Free Quality KG Education Scheme ("the Scheme"); further improving the teacher-pupil ratio; strengthening the support for students' learning and development in different areas as well as catering for the needs of non-Chinese speaking students; creating a professional ladder for KG teachers' development and career advancement; reviewing the curriculum guide; stepping up quality assurance and refining the Performance Indicators; as well as enhancing parent engagement and parent education, etc.

Regarding the question raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, our reply is as follows:

(1) It is estimated that, among KGs approved to join the Scheme ("Scheme-KGs"), about 80% of the half-day ("HD") KG will offer free places in the 2017-2018 school year. Some KGs have to charge school fees, which are estimated to be at a low level, for their HD programmes mainly to defray for expenses on rent that are not fully covered by rental subsidy. Operation of the KG sector is characterized by a high level of flexibility and diversity, with individual school sponsoring bodies having different development targets. It is hence difficult to set a specific target for the percentage of free KGs. Under the new policy, to increase the number of KGs that will not have to charge school fees to defray rental expenses, we will explore feasible measures to provide more Government-owned quality KG premises with a view to progressively increasing the supply of free HD KG places. In this connection, as a long-term strategy, adequate space would be earmarked for KG use in new public housing estates with new demand, and we will explore the feasibility of increasing Government-owned KG premises in accordance with the established mechanisms for site search and/or premises allocation as appropriate. We will also explore the feasibility of co-location of KGs and primary schools.

(2) To unleash the potential of the local labour force under the population policy, the Government will provide eligible KGs offering whole-day ("WD") and long whole-day ("LWD") services with an additional subsidy. Hence, the school fees for WD and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2807

LWD services are expected to be at a low level. For the 2017-2018 school year, information submitted by KGs by the end of November 2016 shows that about 50% of WD/LWD KGs (about 290) initially estimated to collect monthly school fees at $1,000 or below. As compared to about 5% of such KGs in the 2016-2017 school year, this is a substantial increase. In tandem, the Government will continue to provide fee remission for families that pass the means test under the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme, and provide KG students from these families with an additional grant to defray their school-related expenses. The above measures will support needy families effectively.

(3) The school fee levels as uploaded at this stage are only initial broad estimates of the schools. Schools will submit their annual audited accounts for the 2015-2016 school year in February 2017, and we will invite them to submit their detailed estimates for the 2017-2018 school year in mid-January 2017. When submitting applications for collection of school fees, KGs have to provide full justifications and supporting data. Only expenditure items in recognized areas (e.g. rental expenditure that cannot be fully covered by Government subsidies) will be considered. Our preliminary study of information submitted by KGs shows that some KGs' initial broad estimates of school fees are relatively high. To help parents grasp the situation of such cases at this stage, we have added remarks next to the school information of these KGs as uploaded for reference. Education Bureau will later vet all the applications for collection of school fees in a stringent manner to ensure that parents can benefit from the new policy.

(4) The Government will provide Scheme-KGs with a one-off start-up grant to facilitate their preparatory work, particularly the setting up of a proper internal control and reporting mechanism with rigorous checks and balances in administration, management and accountability, before the implementation of the Scheme. We understand the sector's concern about the time frame for using the start-up grant. Having regard to the possible need of individual Scheme-KGs to devise and adjust their school-based procedures and guidelines at the initial stage of implementation of the Scheme, we will set a period of up to three years for KGs to use the start-up grant 2808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

so that they have more time and room for redeployment of the grant. As regards the amount of the start-up grant, according to our assessment, the grant is sufficient for the above mentioned preparatory work. Regarding the expenses needed for KGs' daily operation, they will be covered by our recurrent subsidy to KGs, e.g. the basic unit subsidy calculated on a per student basis, which has already included elements related to general operation.

Law enforcement against illegal parking

15. MRS REGINA IP (in Chinese): President, the Police conducted a six-day territory-wide operation to combat illegal parking in November last year, during which 31 823 fixed penalty tickets ("FPTs") were issued in respect of illegal parked vehicles and 40 of such vehicles were towed away. Moreover, the Police issued a total of 1 165 779 FPTs during the period from January to September last year. That figure represents an increase of 21% as compared with the same period of the preceding year, reflecting that the problem of illegal parking is getting worse. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of illegal parking (including double parking as well as illegal picking-up/alighting or loading/unloading and waiting at restricted zones) black spots, with a tabulated breakdown by Police Land Region;

(2) of the respective staffing establishment of Traffic Wardens of various Land Regions; whether the authorities will increase the manpower concerned so as to step up law enforcement efforts (including patrolling various illegal parking black spots more frequently and issuing more FPTs); if they will not, of the reasons for that;

(3) of the measures in place to step up efforts to combat illegal parking; whether they will consider (i) raising penalty for illegal parking and (ii) issuing without prior warning FPTs to drivers who park illegally; and

(4) apart from the Electronic Fixed Penalty Tickets Scheme which is expected to be launched in 2019 the earliest, whether the authorities will consider applying more technologies to enhance the Police's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2809

efficiency in issuing FPTs, e.g. providing the relevant information of a vehicle, in the form of a scannable two-dimensional barcode, in a vehicle licence disc for the vehicle owner to place on the windscreen of the vehicle?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mrs Regina IP's question is as follows:

(1) The problem of illegal parking has been worsening, especially at certain locations in the urban area (e.g. Queen's Road Central near LANDMARK, King's Road near Fortress Hill MTR Station and Middle Road near the Sheraton Hong Kong Hotel & Towers). However, since the Police and the Transport Department currently have not defined what constitutes an illegal parking "black spot", they could not provide any information on the number of illegal parking "black spots".

(2) and (3)

At present, pursuant to the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap. 237), the Police may issue fixed penalty tickets with a penalty of $320 in respect of vehicles involved in illegal parking. Moreover, in accordance with the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240), the Police may issue fixed penalty tickets with a penalty of $450 to drivers committing certain road traffic related offences, including illegally picking up/setting down passengers or loading/unloading goods in restricted zones.

The Government has adopted a multipronged approach to combat illegal parking, including increasing penalty level, strengthening enforcements and conducting a parking policy review. The Transport Advisory Committee ("TAC"), in its Report on Study of Road Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong submitted to the Government earlier, pointed out that with rising inflation and income level, the deterrent effect of fixed penalties for traffic offences is diminishing. TAC recommended that the Government should raise the level of fixed penalties with reference to the increase of the Composite Consumer Price Index ("CCPI"). The Government 2810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

agreed with the recommendations of TAC and consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Transport in December 2015 on the proposed increase of the fixed penalties by 50% on the basis of the increase of about 50% of CCPI between 1994 (when the fixed penalties were last increased) to end September 2015 (a period of about 20 years), i.e. from $320 and $450 to $480 and $680 respectively, so as to restore their deterrent effects. The Government also attended the special meeting of the Panel on Transport held in January 2016 to listen to the views of the deputations and individuals.

The Government originally planned to table the related legislative amendments at the Legislative Council in the last legislative session (2015-2016). Nevertheless, as the end of the term of the Legislative Council was drawing near at the time, and that there were still a large number of outstanding urgent and essential Bills and legislative proposals, after discussing with Legislative Council Members from various political parties and groups, the Government had decided to put in abeyance the proposed legislative amendments temporarily. The Government now plans to table the proposed legislative amendments at the Legislative Council in the first quarter of this year.

Meanwhile, the Police have stepped up enforcement actions to combat the problem of illegal parking. Apart from routine traffic enforcements, the Police carried out four territory-wide enforcement operations last year against illegal parking under Selected Traffic Enforcement Priorities 2016. During these operations, the Police targeted offences that would cause traffic accidents or obstruct traffic flow. Stringent enforcement actions were taken including issuing fixed penalty tickets without notice, issuing summons to drivers who intentionally violated the law, and towing away illegally parked which caused serious obstruction. During the four operations, the Police issued a total of 147 048 fixed penalty tickets and towed away 54 vehicles. Between January and November 2016, the Police issued 1 472 915 tickets in total, which was 21% higher than the corresponding period in 2015. Enforcement actions such as issuing fixed penalty tickets without notice will continue in 2017. Apart from enhanced enforcement actions, the Police have also stepped up LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2811

publicity and public education with a view to increasing the safety awareness of road users and changing their improper behaviours and attitudes.

At present, there are nearly 300 traffic wardens in the Hong Kong Police Force. Their distribution by Land Regions of the Police is set out below:

Police Regions No. of Traffic Wardens Hong Kong Island 81 East Kowloon 30 West Kowloon 106 North New Territories 30 South New Territories 51 Total 298

The Government will review the number of traffic wardens from time to time and, where necessary, increase their manpower to cope with traffic enforcement work.

(4) The Police are studying the use of electronic fixed penalty tickets, including printing two-dimensional barcode on vehicle licences. Frontline enforcement staff can read related vehicle information on a vehicle licence by scanning the barcode, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the frontline staff in issuing fixed penalty tickets. The Police will keep in view technology developments so as to assist frontline staff in carrying out enforcement work and enhance efficiency of supporting staff.

Policy on coverage of government events by online media

16. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Journalists Association ("HKJA") lodged a complaint with the Office of The Ombudsman ("the Office") on the 7th of June last year that on the same day, the Information Services Department ("ISD") had denied access by journalists from a number of online media to the media centre for the Election Committee Subsector Elections to conduct news coverage. HKJA published a press release on the 6th of December last year, stating that the Office had indicated in its reply that the 2812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 complaint was substantiated, and that the Office had called on the Government to expeditiously revise its press policy and the related guidelines. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that ISD had refused to allow online media journalists to conduct the aforesaid news coverage on grounds of "the need to ensure smooth running of events" and "security needs", of ISD's concrete information and evidence which showed that allowing news coverage by online media journalists at that time would render the event not running smoothly and pose security risks;

(2) whether ISD has, at present, made a clear definition of a mass media organization; if ISD has, of the details;

(3) given that the persons-in-charge of some online media have pointed out that ISD had refused to issue to online media press notices of government events on grounds of "limited server capacity", of the specifics about the limited capacity of the server concerned (including the capacity of the server at the relevant time, and additional server capacity needed for the authorities to issue press notices to online media);

(4) given that the authorities undertook at a Legislative Council meeting three years ago that it would ensure its press policy dovetailing with the development pace of the press sector, whether the authorities have taken new measures in this respect so far; if they have, of the details; and

(5) whether the authorities have plans to discuss with the press sector in the near future to expeditiously formulate a set of criteria for determining which online media should be allowed to cover government events; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region attaches great importance to the functions of the media. It strives to disseminate government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2813 information to the public through the mass media and facilitate media reporting work as far as possible.

My reply to Ms Claudia MO's questions is as follows:

(1) and (2)

Currently, subscribers of the Government News and Media Information System ("GNMIS") of the Information Services Department ("ISD") have to be registered or licensed mass news media organizations, including registered printed newspapers and periodicals, news agencies, licensed television stations and licensed radio stations. In general, registered subscribers of GNMIS can have access to Government press conferences or media events. However, in actual practice it may not be possible for all qualified mass news media organizations to enter into the reporting venues owing to venue constraints and other limitations. The Government will, after taking account of the relevant factors and circumstances of individual cases, make appropriate reporting arrangements so as to meet the needs of the media as far as possible, and facilitate the public to learn and understand the work of the Government through the media.

There is no universally agreed and objective definition of "mass news media organizations". In general they refer to those organizations whose principal business is regular reporting for general dissemination of original news to the public. Such qualified mass news media organizations may receive government press releases and press invitations through ISD's GNMIS. Nevertheless, not every organization which publishes information can subscribe to GNMIS. For example, non-profit organizations, think tanks or interest groups which publish advocacy or publicity materials, instead of general news reports, would not be qualified.

In recent years, the rapid advance in information technology has brought about profound changes to the media. The prevalence of the Internet and social media platforms has substantially lowered the threshold for information dissemination. In view of the vast number and diverse nature of online media platforms, we believe 2814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

that the classification of these online platforms as "mass news media organizations" or otherwise would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There is also not a uniform or clear definition of online media in the society and in the industry. In view of the above factors and limitations such as venue constraints, ISD currently does not arrange for admission of online media for reporting.

(3) GNMIS of ISD completed a revamp last year. As a result, the system's capacity has been enhanced, enabling it to better meet the existing and future demand.

(4) and (5)

The Ombudsman released in early December 2016 investigation reports on two complaints concerning the reporting of Government media events by online media. ISD generally accepts The Ombudsman's recommendations and is reviewing the arrangements for admission of the media and the criteria for registration as a GNMIS user.

ISD fully recognizes the rapid development and growing popularity of online media in recent years, and is studying the feasibility of allowing admission of online media for reporting. The study includes comparative research into the practices and procedures of overseas jurisdictions and other organizations. ISD will strive to complete the above study as soon as practicable and will communicate with the industry on the outcome of the study.

Provision of primary care services by community health centres

17. DR PIERRE CHAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the primary care services provided by the community health centres ("CHCs") under the Hospital Authority ("HA"), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, since the three CHCs in Tin Shui Wai, North Lantau and Kwun Tung commenced operation, (i) the respective amounts of funding they received each year, (ii) the respective LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2815

numbers of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and staff of other grades (with a breakdown by rank) stationed there each year; and (iii) the respective numbers of consultation slots for general out-patient ("GOP") services provided by them at different time sessions (i.e. the daytime and evening sessions from Mondays to Saturdays, and on Sundays and public holidays) in each season and their utilization rates (set out such figures in a table);

(2) whether it knows how the various figures of the CHCs mentioned in (1) (except the North Lantau CHC) compare with the corresponding figures of the general out-patient clinics ("GOPCs") under HA in Yuen Long District and Kwun Tong District for the same period;

(3) as quite a number of residents living in the vicinity of the three CHCs mentioned in (1) have indicated that they are unaware of (i) the existence of a CHC in the district, and (ii) the difference between the GOP services provided by such CHCs and those provided by GOPCs under HA, whether it knows (i) the expenditure incurred by HA in the past three years for publicizing those three CHCs, and (ii) if HA has assessed the effectiveness of the related publicity work; if HA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it knows the details of the publicity materials produced by HA in print and electronic versions for publicizing those three CHCs; and

(4) of the long-term policy objectives set by the authorities in respect of the positioning of CHCs in primary care services; given that the Government mentioned in last year's Budget that CHCs would be set up in Mongkok, Shek Kip Mei and North District, of the current progress of those three projects; whether it has plans to set up CHCs in other districts?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, one of the Government's policy initiatives to enhance primary care is to explore a new primary care service model; that is, to coordinate various service providers in the provision of primary care services under the concept of "Community Health Centres" ("CHCs").

2816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

My reply to the questions raised by Dr Pierre CHAN is as follows:

(1) and (2)

To facilitate implementation of the said policy initiative to enhance primary care, the Hospital Authority ("HA") has set up CHCs in Tin Shui Wai North, North Lantau and Kwun Tong. The Tin Shui Wai (Tin Yip Road) CHC, the first of its kind to be designed based on the primary care development strategy and service model, commenced service in mid-2012. CHCs in North Lantau and Kwun Tong started operation in September 2013 and March 2015 respectively.

CHCs of HA provide integrated multidisciplinary health care services through medical, nursing and allied health services, so as to enable patients to lead a healthy life in the community with strengthened community support and to reduce their need for hospitalization. The services offered by CHCs include medical consultation services, and health risk assessment and specific care services provided by multidisciplinary teams for chronic patients with diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc., with a view to reduce the risk of complications and need for consultations for chronic patients. Health care professionals of CHCs also provide other services such as wound care, fall risk assessment and management, smoking cessation counselling and dietetic advice. Patient empowerment services and facilities are available at CHCs as well to encourage patients to strengthen their ability in disease management by making use of community resources.

The integrated multidisciplinary health care services of CHCs involve staff from different disciplines, such as doctors, nurses, dietitians, dispensers, optometrists, podiatrists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, social workers, clinical psychologists, occupational therapists, executive officers, technical services assistants, general service assistants, etc. As the service provision of CHCs involves cross-programme activities undertaken by different multidisciplinary teams within their respective clusters, and involves multiple service sites, the breakdown of staff and estimated expenditure of individual CHCs cannot be separately identified.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2817

Generally speaking, general outpatient clinics ("GOP clinics") and CHCs in the same district will complement each other in terms of service capacity and scope of service. To make medical consultation services more readily accessible to patients, the consultation quotas of GOP clinics and CHCs in close proximity in the same district are pooled together to facilitate the provision of primary care services in that district. The service capacity of each GOP clinic or CHC may vary owing to differences in clinical space and manning level. It is therefore not possible to make a direct comparison between them. Local residents have made full use of the services provided by the three CHCs since they started operation. The attendances for the Tin Shui Wai (Tin Yip Road) CHC, North Lantau CHC and Kwun Tong CHC from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are as follows:

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Tin Shui Wai (Tin Yip Road) 71 124 75 448 82 431 CHC North Lantau 29 580 CHC (Commenced 59 774 64 826 service in September 2013) Kwun Tong 5 336 CHC (Commenced - 235 505 service in March 2015)

Note:

The attendances include those for medical consultation, nurse clinics in GOP setting and primary care services in related health care reform initiative programmes.

(3) HA has been promoting the three CHCs and their services through various channels. The District Councils concerned were consulted at the construction and planning stages of CHCs to keep the community informed of the progress and collect views from 2818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

community partners and local residents. When the three CHCs started operation, publicity was launched at the district level, including producing pamphlets, distributing leaflets, displaying posters, notices and banners, and inviting District Councillors to conduct site inspection and share their views, so as to enable the local community to learn more about CHCs' services.

For general publicity, HA issued press releases to announce the completion and commissioning of CHCs and invited media visits and coverage. Moreover, feature articles about the services of the three CHCs were published by the Primary Care Office in its publication Primary Care Link which is made available to primary care stakeholders and the public on the Primary Care Office's website widely distributed to various districts. Online information and recorded voice messages about the new CHCs are also added to the website of HA and the General Out-patient Clinics Telephone Appointment System respectively.

(4) The Government is working on a number of CHC pilot schemes to offer the public one-stop primary care services in a more holistic manner, which include setting up CHCs in Mong Kok, Shek Kip Mei and North District. Feasibility studies and preliminary planning for these projects have been completed. The Food and Health Bureau is making arrangement for the required works and funding according to the internal resource allocation mechanism. Upon confirmation of the projected development time frame and detailed project information, we will seek the views of the districts concerned in due course.

We are also exploring the feasibility of implementing CHC projects in other districts and will identify the scope of service and mode of operation which can best meet local needs. The Government will continue to work with health care professionals and service providers from the public and private sectors, non-governmental organizations and universities to explore models for different types of CHCs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2819

Regulation of electronic cigarettes

18. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, according to the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138), nicotine is a Part 1 poison, and electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") containing nicotine are therefore considered pharmaceutical products, which must be registered with the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong before they may be put up for sale or distribution in Hong Kong. As revealed by a research conducted earlier on, a number of harmful chemicals and carcinogens have been found in various types of e-cigarette products not containing nicotine. Moreover, it has been reported in the press that fruit-flavoured e-cigarettes labelled as nicotine-free are sold in some consignment shops (commonly known as "cube shops"), and that some primary school students have been found smoking e-cigarettes in public places. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of items of e-cigarette products registered as pharmaceutical products under Cap. 138 in Hong Kong in the past three years;

(2) whether the relevant government departments conducted sampling tests in the past three years on e-cigarette products which claimed to be nicotine-free to see if their composition is consistent with that claimed on the packaging; if they did, of the frequency and outcome; if not, whether they will consider conducting such kind of sampling tests;

(3) whether the relevant government departments conducted sampling tests in the past three years on various types of e-cigarette products to see if they contained harmful chemicals and carcinogens; if they did, of the frequency and outcome; if not, whether they will consider conducting such kind of sampling tests;

(4) whether the relevant government departments instituted prosecutions in the past three years against offences involving e-cigarette products; if they did, of the number of prosecution cases, with a breakdown by the charge laid and, among them, the number of cases involving online sale of such products; and

2820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(5) as the authorities indicated in June 2016 that they were planning to enact laws to completely prohibit the import, manufacture, sale, distribution and advertising of e-cigarettes, of the factors considered by the authorities in making such a decision; the details, work schedule and progress of the plan; when they will conduct a public consultation on the plan; whether they will, based on the outcome of public consultation and other factors, reconsider the relevant decision before commencing the legislative exercise; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, at present, according to the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138), e-cigarettes containing nicotine are considered pharmaceutical products. They have to comply with the relevant requirements on safety, quality and efficacy, and must be registered with the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong before they can be put up for sale or distribution in Hong Kong. Besides, under the same ordinance, nicotine is categorized as a Part 1 poison, which can only be legally possessed or sold by licensed medicine dealers, including "licensed wholesale dealers" and "authorized sellers of poisons". Illegal possession or sale of Part 1 poisons or unregistered pharmaceutical products is an offence. Any person convicted of the offence is liable to a maximum fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to two years.

In addition, the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance (Cap. 371) stipulates that no person shall smoke or carry a lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe in a no smoking area. Any person who smokes (including e-cigarettes) in a statutory no smoking area commits an offence and is subject to a fixed penalty of $1,500.

My reply to the questions raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:

(1) According to the records of the Department of Health ("DH"), there are currently no nicotine-containing e-cigarettes registered as pharmaceutical products in Hong Kong. Neither has DH received any application for e-cigarettes containing nicotine for sale or distribution in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2821

(2) to (4)

From 2014 to November 2016, the Drug Office of DH received a total of 180 enquiries about e-cigarette products (mainly concerning regulation of the products) and 41 related complaints. The Drug Office followed up on all the complaints and took appropriate actions where necessary. During the same period, the Drug Office carried out 133 sampling tests on the presence of nicotine in various e-cigarette products on the market. Detailed figures are as follows:

Number of sampling Number of Number of tests on the enquiries complaints Year presence of about about nicotine in e-cigarette e-cigarette e-cigarette products products products 2014 21 93 15 2015 70 48 14 2016 42 39 12 (January to November) Total 133 180 41

The Drug Office handled a convicted case involving illegal online sale of unregistered nicotine-containing e-cigarettes during the period from 2014 to November 2016.

The Government is highly concerned about the issue of e-cigarettes. Contrary to the claim made by e-cigarette advocates and manufacturers, there is evidence that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely water vapour. It was demonstrated in studies that formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent, was released during vaporization of e-cigarette liquid. As e-cigarettes may contain various concentrations of nicotine, the use of e-cigarettes may cause nicotine dependence and constriction of blood vessels. Moreover, most e-cigarettes also contain propylene glycol, a known irritant, inhalation of which may induce airway disorders. In addition, overseas studies indicated that various harmful substances such as heavy metals, nitrosamines and flavouring agents were detected in 2822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

e-cigarette aerosol. The Government is conducting laboratory tests on the constituents of e-cigarettes available in the market and will announce the test results when appropriate.

(5) In view of the potential health effects and hazards arising from the use of e-cigarettes, the wider long-term impact on students and youngsters and the recommendations of the World Health Organization, the Government proposes to step up regulation of e-cigarettes. We note that other jurisdictions such as Singapore, the United States, the United Kingdom and a few other countries have already planned/adopted measures to either regulate or completely prohibit the import, distribution and sale of e-cigarettes. We will study in detail the regulatory approaches and formulate a suitable tobacco control policy in light of the actual situation in Hong Kong. We are discussing the legislative arrangements with relevant departments and are looking forward to introduce the amendment bill into the Legislative Council in 2017. We will consult stakeholders on the details of the legislative proposal at an appropriate time.

Water and electricity charges of tenants in inadequate housing

19. DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Chinese): President, a survey report has revealed that over 80% of tenants residing in inadequate housing (including sub-divisions of flat units (commonly known as "sub-divided units"), caged homes, bedspaces, cubicle apartments or rooftop structures) were overcharged by their landlords for use of water and electricity given that the latter had not installed separate water and electricity meters for them. The median water and electricity charges paid by the surveyed tenants to their landlords were $12 per cubic metre and $1.5 per unit respectively, both of which are higher than the maximum rates chargeable under the progressive charging mechanism in respect of water and electricity consumption. The survey results have also revealed that the high water and energy expenditures brought adverse impacts on various aspects of the livelihood of those tenants (including physical and mental health as well as child development). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") will expeditiously include, in the General Household Surveys conducted regularly, the gathering of the relevant data on the monthly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2823

expenditures on water and electricity of tenants in inadequate housing and the respective percentages of such expenditures in their total expenditures; if C&SD will not, of the reasons for that;

(2) given that the Supply Rules of the two power companies have stipulated that customers must not supply or share with any third party electricity obtained from the power companies without the written consent of the power companies, or else the power companies may disconnect their power supply to the customers concerned, whether it knows if the two power companies will investigate into the situation of their customers reselling electricity without their consent to the tenants in inadequate housing for profit, and take follow-up actions in accordance with the Supply Rules; if the two power companies will not, of the reasons for that; and whether the Government will enact legislation to set penalties for such acts; if legislation will be enacted, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that regulation 47 of the Waterworks Regulations (Cap. 102 sub. leg. A) stipulates that no person may, without the permission in writing of the Water Authority, sell water from the waterworks, whether the Government will amend legislation to raise the penalties for contravening that provision; if it will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether the Government will enact legislation to stipulate that (i) landlords of inadequate housing must install separate water and electricity meters for their tenants, or (ii) such tenants may apply on their own, without the consent of their landlords, to the Water Supplies Department and the two power companies for the installation of separate water and electricity meters upon presentation of proof of their residential addresses; if it will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether the Government will, prior to the enactment of the legislation mentioned in (4), implement interim measures to ensure that tenants in inadequate housing will not be overcharged by their landlords for use of water and electricity; if it will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

2824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(6) given that the two power companies are required under the Scheme of Control Agreements to offer Fuel Clause rebates to their customers when their Fuel Clause Recovery Accounts record a surplus, in order to reduce the net tariff, but tenants in inadequate housing often cannot benefit from such rebates since they are not registered customers of the two power companies, whether the authorities will enact legislation to stipulate that the two power companies must disburse such rebates directly to the electricity end-users (including tenants in inadequate housing); if they will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(7) given that the two power companies previously introduced concessionary tariff schemes to assist the grassroots, whether the authorities will include provisions in the new Scheme of Control Agreements to be signed with the two power companies in the future, requiring the two power companies to offer concessionary tariff schemes for tenants in inadequate housing; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(8) whether the authorities will set up a subsidy scheme for energy expenditures under the Community Care Fund to provide families in need (including tenants in inadequate housing) with subsidies on water and electricity expenditures, with a view to alleviating the financial pressure of those families; if they will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, with information from relevant Policy Bureaux and the two power companies, my consolidated reply is as follows:

In 2016, the maximum residential net rates of the CLP Power Hong Kong Limited ("CLP") and Hongkong Electric Company Limited ("HKE") are $2.01 and $1.849 per unit respectively; they are higher than the median electricity charge of $1.5 per unit paid by the surveyed tenants to their landlords as stated in the question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2825

(1) The Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") conducts the General Household Survey to collect information on the employment, unemployment and underemployment situation of the Hong Kong labour force for timely release of related statistics every month. To avoid affecting the release of the statistics, C&SD considers it not appropriate to collect from the survey additional information on household expenditure such as electricity charges and water charges.

(2) Under the Supply Rules signed between the two power companies and their customers, customers shall not supply or share with any third party electricity obtained from the power companies without the prior written consent of the power companies. The two power companies will follow up and investigate reports on suspected cases of resale of electricity and overcharging the use of electricity. If there is concrete evidence that a customer is involved in reselling electricity to a third party, the power company concerned will require the customer to stop breaching the Supply Rules and take appropriate action in accordance with the Supply Rules. The power company will consider disconnection of power to the customer under the Supply Rules if the breach continues. However, before taking action, the power company will also consider if disconnection would jeopardize the tenants ultimately and deprive them of electricity supply.

The Supply Rules set out the terms of the service contracts between the two power companies and their customers. As the power companies are commercial organizations, it is not appropriate to enforce the Supply Rules by legislation.

(3) Regulation 47 of the Waterworks Regulations (Cap. 102A) stipulates that:

"(1) Subject to subregulation (2), no person shall, without the permission in writing of the Water Authority, sell or offer for sale water from the waterworks.

2826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(2) Subregulation (1) shall not apply to a consumer of an inside service who recovers the cost of water from any person:

(a) who occupies the premises in which the inside service exists; and

(b) who uses in such premises water which is supplied through the inside service."

Pursuant to Regulation 51 of the Waterworks Regulations, any person who contravenes Regulation 47 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 3, the current amount of which is HK$10,000. The Government has no plan at the moment to amend the penalty concerned. On the other hand, pursuant to Regulation 47(2), the landlord can recover the cost of water from the tenant in such premises who uses water which is supplied through the inside service of the landlord. Such cost of water is not confined to charge of water in the water bill. It can also include other costs incurred, such as the cost of maintenance and repair of the inside service paid by the landlord. The cost payable by the tenant to the landlord can be stipulated in the terms of tenancy agreement between them.

(4) On electricity supply, the power companies will install individual meters for customers if prior consent from landlords and building management has been obtained, and that the units concerned comply with the relevant prerequisites and safety standards such as installation of an individual door, and the separate electrical installations and other facilities can meet the safety standards stipulated in the Electricity Ordinance (Cap. 406) ("the Ordinance") and requirements of the Supply Rules of the power companies. If the rental premises are subdivided units equipped with electrical installations and separate meters, landlords' consent will be required to modify the existing electrical installations to meet the safety standards stipulated in the Ordinance and the requirements of the Supply Rules before individual meters can be installed. In addition, meters must be connected to the riser which supplies electricity in a building and be installed in the common areas to facilitate meter LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2827

reading by the staff of the power companies. Therefore, before applying for individual meters, tenants of subdivided units should identify suitable locations in the common areas of the buildings for installing meters and obtain the consent of building management for allocation of space for meter installation. Given the various site constraints and safety considerations, it would not be practicable to mandate by statute the provision of individual meters for tenants of inadequate housing.

As regards installation of water meters, if the relevant unit has a proper postal address to ensure that letters from the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") such as notices and water bills can be posted to the occupier, the occupier may apply for a separate water meter from WSD. The following factors will also be taken into account by WSD when processing the applications:

- Whether the premises can be accessed without passing through any area occupied by others to ensure that the Water Authority can enter the premises directly for inspection or carrying out other relevant duties in case of any problem of the inside service;

- Whether the premises have proper drainage systems to ensure that no flooding will occur in case of inside service fault; and

- Whether the application satisfies the requirements of the Waterworks Works Ordinance. For example, the applicant is required to accept responsibility for the custody and maintenance of inside service, and submit the plumbing proposal in respect of the inside service etc.

WSD will follow the established procedures to handle applications for water meter and it is not necessary to enact a new law for this purpose.

(5) Before entering into a tenancy agreement, landlords and tenants should agree on the terms and conditions of the agreement, including the level of and basis for calculating rents and other charges (e.g. 2828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

water and electricity charges). Once the tenancy agreement is entered into, both parties are required to abide by the relevant terms and conditions. As for charges outside the scope of the written tenancy agreement, landlords and tenants should discuss and negotiate an arrangement based on any previous agreement, including oral agreement. Tenants may use the enquiry service provided by the Rating and Valuation Department ("RVD"). RVD also offers mediatory service subject to the agreement of both the landlord and tenant.

The collection of electricity charges by landlords from tenants of inadequate housing is not just an energy or electricity issue. It also involves the tenancy arrangements between landlords and tenants as well as building structure, etc. Regulating the collection of electricity charges by legislation is not the appropriate tool for resolving the issue.

(6) Whether landlords will raise or reduce tenants' electricity charges following annual electricity tariff adjustments is subject to the provisions in the tenancy agreements concerned. As it principally involves agreements between landlords and tenants, interference by the Government is not appropriate.

(7) The coverage of concessionary tariff schemes is subject to the commercial decisions of the power companies. The power companies have introduced different concessionary schemes to help those in need, such as the elderly and people with disabilities to reduce their burden. CLP organized the Power Your Love Programme in 2015 and 2016, under which the electricity saved by participating customers was donated to families in need, including households living in subdivided units, to reduce their electricity expenses.

In negotiating with the two power companies on the new Scheme of Control Agreements, the Government will consider whether further assistance may be offered to households in need.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2829

(8) The Community Care Fund ("CCF") had received a proposal for providing subsidy on energy expenses to residents of subdivided units previously. The CCF Task Force had also discussed the relevant proposal. Some members raised the concern that such subsidies might trigger an increase in energy charges collected by the relevant landlords and hence the relevant households could not benefit eventually. The CCF Task Force will continue to launch new assistance programmes taking into account views from the public and stakeholders to support the underprivileged and low-income families.

Control on import, export and handling of hazardous waste

20. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Chinese): President, it was reported in the press in November last year that 123 containers on a container vessel, which originated from Romania and were suspected to be carrying slag with heavy metals of cadmium and arsenic, had been refused entry by the port authorities of Shanghai, Xiamen and Malaysia one after another. Subsequently, these containers had been shipped to Hong Kong waters, and had since remained here. Some environmentalists have pointed out that in the event that the slag in those containers is disposed of at local landfills, it will lead to ecological disasters which are too ghastly to contemplate. Regarding the control on the import, export and handling of hazardous waste, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed the threats or harm posed by the slag in the aforesaid containers to public health and the ecological environment; if it has assessed, of the outcome;

(2) whether it knows if those containers are still in the territory of Hong Kong; if they are, whether they have been taken ashore, and the circumstances under which the slag in these containers will be allowed to be disposed of at local landfills;

(3) whether it has taken mandatory measures and other measures to prevent the slag in those containers from being taken ashore for disposal in the territory of Hong Kong; and

2830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(4) of the number of prosecution cases, instituted by the Environmental Protection Department in the past three years, of unauthorized import or export of hazardous waste in violation of the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), together with a breakdown by type of waste; the respective numbers of containers in such cases which at present (i) have been shipped out of the territory and (ii) remain in the territory of Hong Kong (with a breakdown by means of handling); the number of cases of repeated offences among such cases?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) to (3)

Upon receipt of the reports in late September, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") has been closely following up on the movement of the containers shipment. EPD conducted sampling and laboratory testing of the materials carried in this consignment of 123 containers. Laboratory findings indicate that the materials are raw mineral ores of copper, as reported in the cargo declaration, and they are not hazardous waste. According to the Government Laboratory's reports, the raw mineral ores contain mainly iron, copper, zinc and lead, with the levels of other trace elements within the normal range expected of raw mineral ore materials. The entire consignment of containers is currently kept within the container yard of the Kwai Chung Container Terminals ("KCCT"). The shipping company and the containers shipment owner are arranging for their shipment out of Hong Kong.

Although the materials are not hazardous waste, to prevent such imported materials from being stranded in Hong Kong for disposal at our local landfills, EPD will continue to supervise the shipping company and the containers shipment owner to ship the entire batch of containers out of Hong Kong as soon as possible, and to closely monitor the shipment arrangements until all the 123 containers have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2831

left Hong Kong. These containers must not be removed from KCCT during the interim period.

(4) EPD attaches great importance in combating illegal trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste. Based on risk assessments and intelligence received, EPD collaborates with relevant departments to conduct random inspections of imports/exports that are suspected of containing hazardous waste, in order to intercept illegal import of hazardous waste. Over the past three years (2014 to 2016), EPD completed prosecutions of 68 cases of illegal import/export of hazardous waste, of which 9 cases involved repeated offences. All illegal import containers involved in these cases had been returned to their places of origin, and each of these cases was reported to the relevant overseas enforcement agencies. A breakdown of the cases is as follows:

Prosecution Cases (with breakdown by waste types) Year Waste Cathode Ray Tubes or Waste Total Waste Liquid Crystal Display Panels Batteries 2014 18 3 21 2015 14 8 22 2016 16 9 25

The measure allowing same-sex partners of consular officers to stay in Hong Kong

21. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, it was reported that the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office had informed a number of foreign consulates in Hong Kong in June last year that the Government would implement a new measure to allow the same-sex partners of those foreign consular officers who hold diplomatic/official passports ("same-sex partners of consular officers") to stay in Hong Kong until the officers concerned had departed from office. However, the overseas same-sex partners of Hong Kong residents are currently not permitted to stay in Hong Kong as dependents. Some members of the public 2832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 have relayed to me that the aforesaid differential treatment is unfair. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the aforesaid measure; the current number of persons granted permission to stay in Hong Kong under the measure, with a breakdown by country to which the consulate concerned belongs;

(2) whether the same-sex partners of consular officers enjoy all the legal rights of a spouse in Hong Kong (such as signing of the consent form for surgical procedures to be carried out on the spouse, and receiving the cremated ashes of the deceased spouse);

(3) of the ranks of the consular officers to whom the aforesaid measure is applicable; whether a person who applies for staying in Hong Kong under the measure is required to prove that he or she has entered into a same-sex marriage/civil partnership with the consular officer concerned; and

(4) whether the Government had formulated the aforesaid measure based on the privileges and immunities accorded to diplomatic agents under instruments such as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Consular Relations Ordinance (Cap. 557); if so, of the details; if not, the Government's justifications for granting this privilege to consular officers; whether the Government will consider extending the coverage of the measure to include the overseas same-sex partners of Hong Kong residents?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, upon consultation with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, the consolidated reply to the question is as follows:

In general, unless a person has the right of abode or right to land in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"), he/she requires a visa to enter HKSAR for residence as a dependant. The existing immigration policy on entry of spouse as a dependant in HKSAR is based on monogamy and the concept LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2833 of a married couple consisting of one male and one female in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.

With a view to promoting friendly relations between international community and HKSAR, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") introduced a measure in June 2016 to facilitate same-sex spouses or civil partners of accredited members of the consular posts in HKSAR to enter and remain in HKSAR if those same-sex spouses or civil partners hold diplomatic, official or service passports. Under the facilitation measure, the consular post concerned should issue a note for the application for entry and provide information such as supporting documents stating the relationship and the tenure of the accredited member of the consular post in HKSAR concerned for ImmD to consider granting permission to the same-sex spouse or civil partner of the accredited member of the consular post in HKSAR concerned who is holding a diplomatic, official or service passport to enter and remain in HKSAR during the tenure of the accredited member of the consular post in HKSAR concerned. The above facilitation measure is an administrative arrangement which does not imply recognition in HKSAR of the applicants as spouses of accredited members of the consular posts in HKSAR. Nor does the above facilitation measure have any effect on the rights under the existing legislation. In addition, the above facilitation measure is not applicable to same-sex spouses or civil partners of accredited members of the consular posts in HKSAR if those same-sex spouses or civil partners hold ordinary passports. The above facilitation measure is distinct from the immigration policy on entry as a dependant in HKSAR.

Between June and December 2016, three persons were permitted to enter and remain in HKSAR under the above facilitation measure. It is inappropriate to state the consular posts in HKSAR relating to the above three persons.

Single parents concurrently receiving maintenance payments and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payments

22. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Chinese): President, some single parents who are concurrently receiving maintenance payments and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") payments have relayed to me that since the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") regards maintenance payments as household 2834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 income, SWD makes a deduction of maintenance payments when calculating the amounts of CSSA payments payable to them. Moreover, in the event of a default in maintenance payment, SWD will grant them advance payments only after they have applied to the court for an Attachment of Income Order for the purpose of recovering the arrears of maintenance payments from the maintenance payers. As the procedure for granting such advance payments takes quite a long while, they often fall into financial difficulties for a period of time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of CSSA single-parent families which concurrently received maintenance payments in each year from 2011 to 2015; the current monthly average and median amounts of maintenance payments received by such families;

(2) from 2011 to 2015, (i) of the number of CSSA single-parent families which were granted advance payments by SWD due to default in maintenance payments, and (ii) the average time taken from applications for an Attachment of Income Order made to the court by the single parents concerned to their being granted advance payments by SWD; and

(3) whether SWD will review its current practice of deducting maintenance payments when calculating the amounts of CSSA payments payable to CSSA single-parent families, so as to avoid such families falling into financial difficulties during the period when they are owed maintenance payments; if SWD will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr SHIU Ka-chun is as follows:

(1) The number of single parent Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") cases involving maintenance payments from 2011 to 2015, and the average monthly maintenance payments involved were as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2835

Average amount of maintenance Year^ Number of cases# payments per month# ($) 2011 2 258 1,500 2012 2 321 1,500 2013 2 446 1,500 2014 2 690 1,600 2015 2 783 1,700

Notes:

^ The number of cases and average amount of maintenance payments refer to the position in December of the respective year.

# Excluding cases involving nominal amount of maintenance payments equivalent to no more than $1 a month.

(2) and (3)

In assessing the amount of CSSA payments to be granted to a CSSA recipient, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") will first assess his/her recognized needs. If an applicant has assessable income (including maintenance payments), the CSSA payments will be suitably deducted.

In handling CSSA cases involving default in maintenance payments, SWD will not reduce or stop CSSA payments until the maintenance payments have been successfully recovered by the relevant recipients. However, the recipients should indicate to SWD their intention to take action in filing claims for maintenance payments. After the recipients have successfully recovered their maintenance payments, SWD will discuss with them whether there is a need to adjust their CSSA payments having regard to individual circumstances.

SWD does not have the information on the number of CSSA cases involving default in maintenance payments.

2836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

GOVERNMENT BILL

First Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: First Reading.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION LEGISLATION (THIRD PARTY FUNDING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2016

CLERK (in Cantonese): Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Second Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Second Reading.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION LEGISLATION (THIRD PARTY FUNDING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE: President, I move that the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016 ("Bill") be read the Second time. The main objective of the Bill is to amend the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) and the Mediation Ordinance (Cap. 620) to clarify that third party funding of arbitration, mediation and related proceedings is permitted under Hong Kong law.

The proposed amendments were formulated on the basis of the recommendations made in the Report on Third Party Funding for Arbitration ("Report") published by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong ("LRC") in October 2016 and the views of the Steering Committee on Mediation.

The Government has a long-standing policy of promoting Hong Kong as a leading centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2837

Pacific region. In recent years, third party funding of arbitration and other dispute resolution proceedings has become increasingly common in various jurisdictions, including Australia, England and Wales, various European jurisdictions and the United States. To date, third party funding arrangements have usually been motivated by a funded party's lack of financial resources to pursue its own claims in contentious proceedings. However, increasingly, parties who do have the financial resources to fund contentious proceedings may also seek third party funding as a financial or risk management tool.

Hong Kong is one of the major international arbitration centres in the Asia Pacific region. It is likely that a party to an arbitration taking place in Hong Kong may wish to consider whether or not it should seek third party funding of its participation in such an arbitration if it is clearly permitted by Hong Kong law to do so.

The Hong Kong courts do not object, in principle, to third party funding of arbitration and related proceedings (including mediation). However, it is currently unclear whether the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty also apply to third party funding of arbitration taking place in Hong Kong. Indeed, a Court of Final Appeal judgment handed down in 2007 expressly left open this question. As there is uncertainty as to whether third party funding of arbitration is permitted under the current Hong Kong law, the attractiveness of Hong Kong as a venue of arbitration may be affected. This may also affect the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an arbitration centre in handling cross-border investment and commercial disputes.

Against the above background, I, together with the Chief Justice, asked the LRC in June 2013 to set up a sub-committee to review the current position relating to third party funding of arbitration for the purpose of considering whether reform is needed. In October 2015, the sub-committee published a consultation paper proposing that third party funding for arbitration taking place in Hong Kong should be permitted under Hong Kong law.

Based on the submissions received during the public consultation period, the LRC published the Report in October 2016, concluding that the reform of Hong Kong law is needed to state that the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty do not prevent third party funding of arbitration and associated proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance.

2838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The LRC recommended that third party funders funding arbitration should be required to comply with a Code of Practice issued by a body authorized under the Arbitration Ordinance. The Code should also set out the standards (including financial and ethical standards) and practices with which third party funders would ordinarily be expected to comply when carrying on the funding activities.

The LRC also recommended that consideration should be given to whether to make consequential amendments at the same time to the Mediation Ordinance to extend the above proposals to mediation within the scope of the Mediation Ordinance.

The Government considers that, from the perspective of promoting Hong Kong as an international dispute resolution centre and for the purpose of clarifying the law, the proposed law reform is desirable. It is important that Hong Kong, as one of the leading centres for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia Pacific region, can keep up with the latest international development and thereby enhance its competitive position.

Following the release of the Report, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") has written to key legal and arbitration professional bodies in Hong Kong to consult them on the recommendations set out in the Report. The organizations which have responded so far have all indicated their support for the proposed reform. The DoJ has also consulted the Steering Committee on Mediation and the Steering Committee supported the proposed consequential amendments to the Mediation Ordinance.

At the meeting of the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services ("the Panel") of the Legislative Council held in November last year, I, together with the Chairperson of the Sub-committee, provided a briefing on the proposed reform and the views of the aforementioned stakeholders. The Panel expressed support for the introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council.

The Bill proposes that a new Part 10A be added to the Arbitration Ordinance, so as to ensure that third party funding of arbitration is not prohibited by the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty and to provide for related measures and safeguards. The new Part 10A, which is based on the draft provisions in the LRC Report, contains six Divisions. The new Part 10A is intended to come into operation in two stages: Divisions 1, 2, 4 and 6 will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2839 commence on the gazettal of the Ordinance, while Divisions 3 and 5 will commence on a date to be appointed. This is to facilitate the preparatory work for the relevant regulatory framework to be done before the provisions clarifying the legal position come into operation.

The Bill also proposes that a new section 7A be added to the Mediation Ordinance so as to extend the application of the new Part 10A of the Arbitration Ordinance to mediation to which the Mediation Ordinance applies and to funding of services provided in Hong Kong for non-Hong Kong mediation.

Under the above proposal, where litigation in court ensued despite the mediation, the doctrines of maintenance and champerty will continue to apply. The doctrines will only be inapplicable to the mediation conducted prior to or during the course of the litigation.

President, the DoJ has been reviewing the dispute resolution regime of Hong Kong from time to time and will also consider improvement to the Arbitration Ordinance and the Mediation Ordinance as and when appropriate, so as to ensure that the latest developments in the dispute resolution sector can be promptly reflected in the relevant legislation. There is undoubtedly a trend to permit third party funding of arbitration in international arbitration. We believe that the Bill, when enacted, will further enhance Hong Kong's position as a leading centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia Pacific region.

With these remarks, I urge Members to support the Bill.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

2840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions.

Two proposed resolutions under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: To extend the period for amending two items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) Ordinance, which were laid on the Table of this Council on 14 December 2016.

I now call upon Mr Frankie YICK to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed under my name on the Agenda, be passed.

At the House Committee meeting on 16 December 2016, Members agreed that a Subcommittee be formed to study the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 and the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Safety and Survey) (Amendment) Regulation 2016. The Subcommittee held a meeting with the Administration on 5 January 2017. In order to allow sufficient time for the Subcommittee to scrutinize the further information provided by the Administration, I call upon Members, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, to support the extension of the scrutiny period for these two amendment regulations to 8 February 2017.

Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2841

Mr Frankie YICK moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the―

(a) Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 186 of 2016; and

(b) Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Safety and Survey) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 187 of 2016,

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 December 2016, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 8 February 2017."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Frankie YICK be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Frankie YICK be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

2842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

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): Second motion: To extend the period for amending two items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the Construction Workers Registration Ordinance, which were laid on the Table of this Council on 14 December 2016.

I now call upon Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

At the House Committee meeting on 16 December 2016, Members agreed that a Subcommittee be formed to study the Construction Workers Registration (Exemption) Regulation and the Construction Workers Registration Ordinance (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 1A) Notice 2016. To enable the Subcommittee to report its deliberations to the House Committee before the deadline for giving notice of amendment of the two items of subsidiary legislation, I move, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, that the scrutiny period of the two items of subsidiary legislation be extended to 8 February 2017.

President, I call upon Members to support this motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2843

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the―

(a) Construction Workers Registration (Exemption) Regulation, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 188 of 2016; and (b) Construction Workers Registration Ordinance (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 1A) Notice 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 189 of 2016,

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 December 2016, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 8 February 2017."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

2844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

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): Ms Starry LEE will move a motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to take note of the Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016, which is included in Report No. 8/16-17 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will first call upon Ms Starry LEE to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant subsidiary legislation, Ms Tanya CHAN, to speak, to be followed by other Members.

Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes.

Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Ms Starry LEE to speak and move the motion.

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion, as printed on the Agenda, under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure for a debate on the Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016, which is included in Report No. 8/16-17 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2845 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments.

President, I so submit.

Ms Starry LEE moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 8/16-17 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 11 January 2017 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(2) Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 (L.N. 166/2016)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 ("Amendment Order"), I would like to report the major deliberations of the Subcommittee to the Legislative Council.

The Amendment Order seeks to designate The Brothers Marine Parks ("BMP") to compensate for the loss of Chinese white dolphin ("CWD") habitat arising from the reclamation and marine works of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ("HKBCF") project. The Subcommittee has held one meeting to discuss the Amendment Order and its related matters with the Administration.

The Subcommittee has asked the Administration about the marine conservation measures of BMP, especially how to minimize collision of vessels with CWDs in or near BMP. According to the Administration, the Marine Parks and Marine Reserves Regulation (Cap. 476A) ("Regulation") prohibits and controls certain activities in marine parks or marine reserves. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulation, fishing activities will be controlled in BMP; and 2846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") will only grant marine park fishing permits to bona fide fishermen or persons who ordinarily reside near BMP. Moreover, no person shall operate a vessel at a speed exceeding 10 knots inside BMP, and a buffer will be maintained between the BMP boundary and the fairways of high speed crafts, so as to minimize collision of vessels with CWDs.

In respect of marine conservation measures inside BMP, according to the Administration, AFCD will implement marine ecological enhancement measures in BMP as in other marine parks. These measures include the placement of artificial reefs and the release of fish fry, with a view to restoring and enhancing the fisheries resources there.

The Subcommittee has expressed concern over the reclamation works due to take place at Tung Chung East close to BMP, which may cause potential pollution to the marine park. The response of the Administration is that any designated projects near BMP will be required to follow the Environmental Impact Assessment process and carry out the mitigation measures proposed in the environmental permit. The mitigation measures include, among others, the adoption of non-dredge reclamation method and control on the number, speed and fairway of construction vessels.

The Subcommittee has asked the Administration how it will strengthen enforcement actions to combat illegal fishing activities in marine parks and other Hong Kong waters. According to the Administration, marine park patrol teams will conduct joint enforcement operations regularly with the Marine Region of the Hong Kong Police Force ("Marine Police"). AFCD will continue to maintain close communication with the Marine Police, and adjust the arrangements based on the actual situation to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement actions. Moreover, the Government will procure a patrol vessel and set up an additional patrol team to strengthen enforcement actions and regulatory efforts within the BMP waters.

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

To combat illegal fishing in Hong Kong waters, AFCD has been maintaining close liaison with the Marine Police to share information and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2847 intelligence on illegal fishing activities. The Marine Police has also been providing support for AFCD enforcement officers, such as assisting in the interception of trawlers that are in illegal operation, as well as detaining vessels and crew that are suspected of illegal fishing. The law enforcement agencies of Hong Kong and Guangdong will take joint enforcement actions on a regular basis to combat illegal cross-border fishing activities.

Members have expressed concern over the designation of more marine parks, which will further reduce the fishing waters of fishermen, citing the persistent reduction in the number of marine park fishing permits as an indication of the significant drop in the number of fishermen allowed to operate in marine parks. Members have also criticized AFCD for being too stringent in vetting and approving applications for the succession or transfer of marine park fishing permits. According to the observation of the Subcommittee, the fisheries industry holds that the present "double control" imposed by the authorities, which means the certification system under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) and the marine park fishing permit system under the Regulation, has been putting immense pressure on the sustainability of the industry. The Subcommittee has explored whether the Administration will consider dispensing with the homeport system in issuing marine park fishing permits or relaxing the restrictions on the succession and transfer of marine park fishing permits.

The Government says that in response to the fisheries industry's concern over fishing operations within BMP, the authorities have already reduced the size of a no-fishing area within BMP and appropriately relaxed the requirements for the succession and transfer of fishing permits, thereby allowing permit holders' immediate family members to apply for succession to fishing permits and allowing permit holders to transfer the permits to authorized persons of other fishing permit holders in the same marine park. On the other hand, the authorities have launched a review exercise on the fisheries management measures of marine parks and they will consider enhancing such measures on the premise of not compromising the conservation objectives of marine parks.

The Subcommittee and the Government have not proposed any amendment to the Amendment Order.

Deputy President, the following are my views on the Amendment Order.

2848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

I am pleased to see the different efforts that the Government has made in protecting the marine ecosystem in Hong Kong. But the fact is that at present, the area of marine parks and marine reserves only accounts for less than 2% of the total area of Hong Kong waters, according to the figures from the WWF Hong Kong. In my opinion, in regard to the vision of forming a network of marine reserves with an area large enough to support the development of a marine ecology with biodiversity, the Government still has a long way to go.

The Civic Party has repeatedly pointed out that when planning marine parks, the SAR Government should not focus only designating marine parks as "something offered in return" to ensure the go-ahead of infrastructure projects; otherwise, conservation efforts will only be reduced to "second-class policies".

I also have one worry if the Administration sticks to the old practice or mindset and thinks that it can already offer sufficient compensation as long as it can designate a marine park as "something offered in return" near the waters or locations affected by a works project. In that case, if the Government needs to launch another massive works project in Hong Kong waters in the future, is it going to adopt the same old practice of merely asking AFCD to propose a new marine park or marine reserve elsewhere in our waters as "something offered in return"? But this is actually a practice that does not recognize and treasure the value of the existing ecologies and biodiversity in the affected areas of waters.

I would think that the harm inflicted by works projects on marine ecologies will take a very long time to heal. When it comes to the marine ecologies in the waters near Lantau Island, one very important task must be the conservation of CWDs. But in the case of the HZMB-HKBCF project, for example, media reports and dolphin monitoring data indicate that in the first year of the project, about 70 dolphins were seen in the waters off the North-eastern Lantau, but in the year from October 2015 to September 2016, only one dolphin was seen in the same waters. Deputy President, the situation is indeed deplorable. In the past two to three years, practically no dolphin was seen in the waters near The Brothers. Perhaps CY lies, but figures don't lie. Sorry, I mean to say figures don't lie. This is undoubtedly an ecological disaster in the waters of Hong Kong, one which we cannot ignore.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2849

In the coming decade, more works projects may be launched on the heels of the HZMB-HKBCF project in the waters around Lantau. These projects include the three-runway system project of the Hong Kong International Airport and also, as we are aware, the artificial island proposed in the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030". If the Government does not make more efforts to protect our marine ecologies, and to ensure the preservation of the existing marine biodiversity and particularly a rise in the number of dolphins frequenting the waters, how can it persuade Hong Kong people to support any artificial island and massive reclamation works near Lantau? Apart from using a huge amount of taxpayers' money, these projects may even ruin all the marine ecologies in the vicinity.

Finally, I very much hope that the Government and different social sectors can continue to care for the marine ecologies of Hong Kong waters and make strong efforts and draw up good policies to conserve various species like CWDs. I also hope that after the enactment of the Amendment Order, the Government will expeditiously study a further expansion of the marine reserve network, including considering the feasibility of designating a new marine park off Lantau West.

I thank the authorities for their work on the Amendment Order and the Subcommittee for the views it expressed in the deliberation process.

Thank you, Deputy President. I so submit.

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

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this take-note motion is in fact my idea. Following the Government's putting forth of the Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016, I tossed and turned on my bed night after night, agonizing over whether I should raise a repeal order or an amendment. However, after thinking it over for some time and communicating with some fishermen, I have come to realize that if I move a repeal order and it is 2850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 really passed, we will face the consequence that the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge cannot inaugurate. In that case, is the fisheries industry able to bear the blame? But if we accept the Government's proposal, will the industry be able to bear the resultant impact on its interests and development prospects? I thought long and hard about the matter but still could not sort it all out. So I brought it up for discussion in my political party. I was then advised that prior to the passage of the amendment order, I could raise a take-note motion to voice the concerns of the industry. I think this may well be a way out. Therefore, today, I want to express our concerns to Secretary WONG Kam-sing, other government officials and civil servants. I have no idea which government officials will take over or remain as the Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the next Government, nor do I know which technocrat will take over. But I must unequivocally state the industry's opinions on this amendment order here today.

First of all, I must say a few words on the historical background. Twenty years ago, when the Government first put forth the development of marine parks, the majority of fishermen in fact welcomed the idea after listening to the Government's explanation. I must clarify to Hong Kong people that the idea was welcomed by fishermen. At that time, the Government said that marine conservation and the consequent improvement to Hong Kong's marine ecology would lead to more fish fry and a greater variety of fish, and thus bigger fish catches for fishermen. The fisheries industry held discussions on the issue but I was then very small and did not take part. As I heard from some veterans in the industry, their considerations at that time were: first, with more fish in the sea, fishermen would have bigger catches; second, the proposed marine park was not very big in size. Therefore, the industry thought it might give it a try and accepted the Government's proposal.

However, we have gradually noticed two problems with this measure. First of all, as it has just been said, figures don't lie. So, let me provide some figures here. The Government issued 860 permits for fishing in marine parks in 1997 but the number dropped to 349 in 2016. This means that the number of permits has dropped by more than half in 20 years. You may ask why. The reason is that the legislation has utterly failed to protect the development of the fisheries industry.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2851

There were some pitiable cases. The majority of permit applicants are fisherman who operate small sampan boats. How many people can live off a sampan? Normally, two, three, or four at most. There were cases where the husband and the wife worked as fishermen and one of their sons helped out occasionally. But before everything, the father must be registered as the vessel owner, and the mother and son as assistants. The vessel owner might have several sons, not just one. But as the whole family could not live off a single vessel, the second and third sons had to go ashore for work, maybe as a fireman or a taxi driver. When the father passed away, who was supposed to inherit the permit? Let us assume that the wife could inherit the permit without any hiccups. In that case, the remaining quota of registrable members under the permit would be two, so a third person could be added. The second son was willing to join but it took a long time, almost a year, to have him registered as an assistant to his mother. This was the difficulty they faced when trying to pass down their family business.

Eventually, the old man and the old woman both passed away. The elder sons did not want to take over and they left the trade. The permit then became part of the estate to be inherited, and the third son lodged an application with the Government for inheriting the permit. But then, it was said that the permit was to be granted to genuine fishermen only, as described by the subcommittee Chairman just now, and he was regarded as a taxi driver rather than a genuine fisherman.

Such cases are only the tip of the iceberg. Some were successful in their applications, but only after years of pursuit. But many others are still awaiting the outcomes of their applications, so they have no alternative but to say, "Okay, I quit the trade." This is one reason for the shrinkage of the entire system and the drastic reduction in the number of permits. I will elaborate on this later.

Let me switch to the second major topic. At the very beginning, when fishermen found that the marine park to be set up by the Government measured just 2 300 hectares, they thought that it was small in size and could be accepted. However, over the past 15 years, the Government has been expanding the scope of marine parks without revising the relevant legislation. A number of large-scale projects have been launched over the past few years in Hong Kong, 2852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 and where there is a large-scale development project, a marine park is set up right next to it. Some Members are right in saying that this may be a deal, or perhaps some sort of contribution or compensation to the environmental cause. But in the process, no consideration has been given to fishermen's discontent with the Marine Parks Ordinance. Thus, no appropriate revision has ever been made to it. Of course, some small changes were made in regard to inheritance two years ago, but on the whole the system is not operating smoothly.

Over the years, Hong Kong people have always hastened to give their strong approval whenever they hear "environmental protection", a term which stands on moral high ground. But they actually know nothing about how environmental protection principles can be fulfilled. I have asked many people for their comments on setting up a new marine park. "Good and well done." But do they know what a marine park is? They do not. Does the Government agree that it has not done well enough in this regard?

This time, due to the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, another marine park is proposed. Ms CHAN has just pointed out that the number of finless porpoises in Hong Kong has decreased considerably and some species are even extinct. In that case, we must ask why there are now fewer finless porpoises and white dolphins. Various marine experts, including real and fake dolphin experts―because some of them are not recognized either by me or by the industry―have said that dolphins are often crashed to death vessels moving at speed. A Chinese white dolphin named "Hope", for instance, was crashed to death two years ago. Is starvation the cause of their death? Not really. In Hong Kong, we have no shipping laws to restrict the speed of vessels, and of the many ordinances, only the Marine Parks Ordinance prescribes a speed limit. Vessels are not required to observe any speed limit unless they sail into a marine park, in which vessel speed is limited the level of under 10 knots mentioned in the report of the Subcommittee. Vessel speed is not limited in any other ways.

The environmental protection policy of the Government honestly cannot focus on the right areas. The Government should hold discussions with the industry on limiting vessel speed. Mr Frankie YICK should likewise communicate with the industry and explore how Hong Kong can maintain a marine working environment which can meet environmental protection needs and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2853 also safeguard the interest of the fisheries industry. But in any case, it must be noted that.

It was reasonable and justified before 2012 to require a permit for fishing in marine parks. The reason is that before this year, people could build a fishing vessel anytime they liked. They only had to tell the Marine Department that they wanted to build a fishing vessel, and then they could go catching fish in the sea―it was not even necessary to tell the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Hence, there was no limit on the number of fishing vessels, and if marine parks were designated in the absence of such a limit, how could we know the number of people who would go fishing in marine parks? As a result, there was indeed a justification for putting in place a permit system allowing only authorized persons to do fishing in marine parks. But in 2012, the Government promulgated a new law, the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171), introducing the "double control" mentioned just now: control on the total number of fishing vessels in Hong Kong and on vessel engine power. As there were 4 000 fishing vessels in Hong Kong at that time, the number of vessels was capped at 4 000; and as the engine power of a fishing vessel then stood at 45 horsepower, 45 horsepower was designated as the maximum engine power of vessels. It is okay if you want to have a fishing vessel with greater engine power. You can simply buy another faster vessel with 90 horsepower to replace the two 45-horsepower vessels you now have. This actually explains why we are going to see negative growth in the future.

Can the Marine Parks Ordinance keep abreast of present circumstances? In the past, there was no limit on the number of fishing vessels. But the number is now capped at just a few thousand, not a large number even if all of them enter the marine parks. What is more, honestly, will fishermen in the North East New Territories go fishing in these marine parks? What I mean is that even if we totally abolish the fishing permit system for marine parks, the fishermen who will do fishing there will just be those operating in nearby waters. This will not increase the normal fish-capture volume.

I am also a member of the Country and Marine Parks Board, and I have been having endless arguments with experts in the Board or technocrats from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Indeed, if marine resources in Hong Kong keep diminishing, the operating environment of fishermen will also be affected. When marine resources diminish, it is not 2854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 unreasonable to impose restriction on the use of fishing technology and methods and even to implement a permit system. But the point is that because the Government banned trawling in Hong Kong waters and enacted Cap. 171 in 2012, many people now say that marine resources and the fish population have since been increasing, and the marine ecology is now quite good, showing slow and continuous improvement in quality. But whenever I ask the Government if it has any relevant evidence, figures and reports to publish, it will invariably reply that it has not written any relevant report in recent years. Without any such reports, how can we argue with environmentalists? They will only keep talking about conservation. If our marine resources have really been increasing gradually, meaning that the existing environmental policies are effective despite the Government's reticence, it will not be necessary to invoke the Marine Parks Ordinance all the time and keep designating marine parks in Hong Kong.

Therefore, I really hope that the SAR Government can listen to our aspirations and tell the fisheries industry that apart from the $500 million Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund, the Government is also able to provide policy support to the industry. If the Government only intends to use the Fund as a means of "buying off" the industry, I would think this initiative cannot possibly provide the right kind of assistance. The Government does not want to take back the permits. But there have only been seven successful applications since the inauguration of the Fund. How can the Government dispel people's discontent in that case? How can the SAR Government prove its sincerity?

I am kind of very ambivalent today. The size of marine parks may increase gradually from 2 300 hectares to 8 000 hectares or more, and most of them are located in New Territories West. According to Ms CHAN, the size of marine parks makes up a mere 2% of Hong Kong waters. Over the last four years, I have kept asking the Government to provide an official marine and coastal waters map, so as to let Hong Kong people know the size of waters actually available to fishermen over the past 20 years or so. But the Government has kept evading the question. The areas closed to fishing is not limited to the 2% of our waters occupied by marine parks. The Government may argue that fishermen can enter these areas now. But I am talking about 20 years from now, the time when the number permits will get smaller and smaller. Suppose I have sold my permit to Mr WONG Ting-kwong, he may not be able to enter the marine park areas. I am not sure about this as I do not hold such a permit. So, how much fishing area is available after deducting marine parks, the prohibition area outside the airport, the 100 sq m surrounding each bridge pier, the vessel berthing spaces, the typhoon shelters, and the shipping channels? Is it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2855 the intention of the Government to make our fishermen live like some North Pole inhabitants who can only fish in a hole dug by themselves, despite the abundance of fish in the lake? The 4 000 or so fishing vessels and small boats are now fishing in a hole like this. Is this conducive to the development of the fisheries industry?

Fifteen minutes is not enough for me to voice out all these worries and point out the industry's dissatisfaction with the government policy today. I have many pent-up negative comments, and I hope the Government can listen to them, pay genuine attention to our opinions, so as to come up with viable solutions to improve the Marine Parks Ordinance. I understand that several other marine parks are going to be set up apart from the one near the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. I have to tell the Government today that while I let your legislative proposal pass this time, the industry is not going to support the Government's setting up of any marine parks in the future if it cannot show us any sincerity or concrete measure. I proclaim here to my fellow party buddies and to other Members of this Council that I am not supporting it. If the Government does not have any concrete measures to enhance the Marine Parks Ordinance or the management initiatives for the fisheries industry, I will oppose the establishment of any marine parks.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken. I now call upon the Secretary for the Environment to speak. This debate will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I wish to thank Ms Tanya CHAN, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 ("the Subcommittee"), and the members of the Subcommittee for their deliberation work.

2856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 seeks to designate The Brothers as a marine park (The Brothers Marine Park ("BMP")), and to make consequential amendment to the Marine Parks (Designation) Order (Cap. 476 sub. leg. B) by including BMP in the Schedule to the subsidiary legislation. With the marine park management measures in place, the designation of BMP as a marine park can provide better habitats for marine organisms and in the long run, to further protect Chinese white dolphins ("CWDs") in Hong Kong waters.

The designation of BMP is intended to compensate for the loss of CWD habitats arising from the works of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Project. BMP is located in the north-east of Lantau which covers a sea area of about 970 hectares. Through a systematic and rigorous scientific approach based on the dolphin habitat index, important dolphin habitats around The Brothers have been confirmed by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") and considered in the delineation of the extent of the proposed BMP. The existing facilities in the area, the associated marine traffic, the water quality and the views of stakeholders have been taken into account in the delineation of the BMP boundary.

After the designation of the marine park, activities within the waters of BMP will come under the management and control of the Marine Parks Ordinance (Cap. 476) and the Marine Parks and Marine Reserves Regulation (Cap. 476A), including the restriction of new development projects, a vessel speed limit of 10 knots inside BMP, and the regulation of fishing activities under a system of fishing permits. AFCD will implement marine ecological enhancement measures in BMP, such as the placement of artificial reefs and release of fish fry, with a view to enhancing the fisheries resources thereat, and biodiversity of marine habitats. These management measures are conducive to the long-term conservation of CWDs.

In the meetings of the Subcommittee, a Members expressed concern about the cumulative impacts of marine park designations on the sustainable development of the fisheries industry. He asked about the direction and timetable of and enhancement measures being considered in the review on fisheries management in marine parks and marine reserves. He also asked whether the Administration would consider amending the relevant legislation to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2857 dispense with the homeport system for registering inshore fishing vessels and to relax the restrictions on the transfer and succession of marine park fishing permits.

The purpose of designating marine parks is to provide better habitats for marine organisms, safeguard as well as enhance fisheries resources in the subject waters. AFCD has been conducting long-term monitoring in marine parks and the data so obtained do reflect the effectiveness of their establishment. The level of fisheries resources within existing marine parks is generally higher than that outside the marine parks. In the meantime, Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park is also an important habitat for CWDs.

During the public consultation on the establishment of BMP, we came to learn of the worries and concerns of fishermen's organizations over the establishment of new marine parks. They were of the view that the practice of issuing permits only to fishermen from eligible homeports under the existing fishing permit system would result in the polarization of fishermen. They were also concerned that the existing fishing permit system would result in a decrease in the number of fishermen, thereby downsizing the fisheries industry gradually. In view of their concerns, the Government has already relaxed the restrictions on the succession and transfer of marine park fishing permits by allowing permit holders' immediate family members to apply for succession to fishing permits and restricted transfer of fishing permits to authorized persons of other fishing permit holders in the same marine park. The relaxation measures have been in place since July 2016 and they will be applicable to BMP. In order to further address the aspirations of fishermen and to promote the sustainable development of the fisheries industry, the Administration has launched a review exercise on the fisheries management measures of marine parks and will consider enhancing such measures, without compromising the conservation objectives of marine parks. The review exercise will be focused on further enhancing the fisheries management measures of marine parks. The review exercise may involve legislative amendments. During the review, the Government will maintain communication with stakeholders and consult them on the enhancement options.

Moreover, some members were concerned about illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong waters including marine parks. The marine parks patrol teams of AFCD have been conducting patrols in all the marine parks in Hong Kong to 2858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 combat illegal fishing and other unauthorized activities. Moreover, the Marine Region of the Hong Kong Police Force ("Marine Police") will carry out preliminary investigation and collect evidence during daily routine patrol, and will refer fishing vessels and personnel suspected to be engaged in illegal fishing activities to AFCD for follow-up investigation. The marine parks patrol teams of AFCD will carry out joint enforcement operations regularly with the Marine Police. Between 2014 and 2016, the marine parks patrol teams carried out 94 joint enforcement operations with the Marine Police. The marine parks patrol teams will continue to adjust the arrangements for joint operations as necessary to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement actions. Besides sharing information and intelligence on illegal fishing activities with each other, the Marine Police will also provide support for AFCD enforcement officers, such as assisting in the interception of trawlers that are in illegal operations, as well as detaining vessels and crews that are suspected of illegal fishing. Moreover, upon the establishment of BMP, the Government will deploy extra resources, including a patrol team, to strengthen enforcement actions and regulatory efforts within the waters of the marine park.

The law enforcement agencies of Hong Kong and Guangdong (including AFCD, the Marine Police and the Guangdong Fisheries Administration General Brigade ("GFAGB")) take joint enforcement actions on a regular basis to combat illegal cross-boundary fishing activities. AFCD maintains close liaison and exchanges intelligence with GFAGB of the Mainland and its sub-offices so as to jointly combat the illegal operations of fishing vessels across Hong Kong and Mainland waters. AFCD will forward the information of Mainland fishing vessels found engaging in illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong waters during patrols as well as the information on Mainland fishermen who have been successfully prosecuted in Hong Kong to GFAGB for follow-up actions in accordance with Mainland laws and regulations.

Lastly, I wish to thank the Subcommittee for putting forward invaluable views during the Subcommittee's meeting. We will maintain close communication with all stakeholders regarding the management of marine parks.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2859

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

The motion debate on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong".

Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung to speak and move the motion.

STRIVING TO MAKE SIGN LANGUAGE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF HONG KONG

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): (The Member spoke softly and then used sign language)

Deputy President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. Deputy President, just now, I used lip movements and sign language to convey my message. It was actually a very simple message of striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong. My doing so just now is meant to make Members realize two points. First, the deaf are living in a world of silence. When people with normal hearing speak, deaf people can only read their lips and will thus find it very difficult to follow the messages. Second, sign language is the communication medium of many deaf people. However, since the wider community knows very little about sign language and does not understand what deaf people are doing, the deaf people using this communication medium are caught in a very difficult situation.

Before I explain in detail why I move this motion today, I wish to clarify some points first. I know that some deaf people and their parents are very worried because they very much hope that they themselves and their children can receive spoken language training rather than sign language training. Here, I must state my respect for their right to choose the kind of language training they 2860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 want. The reason is that as Members all know, some deaf children have made very great success after receiving spoken language training, with some even becoming professionals. That is why the Government must offer greater assistance in the provision of spoken language training for the deaf. In particular, it must step up publicity on spreading the message that deafness is definitely not the same as muteness, and that by receiving spoken language training, deaf people can also make utterances like people with normal hearing. And, for this particular reason, I must emphasize that although I request to make sign language an official language today, the Government must still offer deaf people a free choice between spoken language training and sign language training. My intention is just to urge the Government not to ignore the importance of sign language any more. This is the most important point.

According to the Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK"), sign language can facilitate classroom teaching and plays an equally important role as spoken language. I therefore hope that the Government can place equal emphasis on spoken language and sign language, so that deaf people can choose to learn either spoken language or sign language, or both. At the same time, some parents are worried that people using sign language may face discrimination. This is precisely why I request to elevate the social status of sign language today. My hope is that people using sign language will not be subject to any discrimination.

Some people fear that the designation of sign language as an official language may bring forth huge impacts. For instance, does this mean that all students and teachers with normal hearing must then learn sign language? I must emphasize here that my motion today is only meant to urge the Government to promote the use of sign language at the governmental level, especially in respect of the provision of sign language interpretation in the delivery of public services, so that deaf people can integrate into society and their right to such integration will not be compromised. It is definitely not my intention to force all people to learn sign language.

I received requests for assistance from many deaf people in the past. A friend of mine who knows sign language told me that on one occasion, while he was waiting for his turn in the accident and emergency department of a hospital, he saw that a deaf patient tried very hard to communicate with the doctor. Unfortunately, even after a very long time, his communication efforts were still unsuccessful. At that time, no one in the hospital knew sign language. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2861

Fortunately, my friend happened to be there, so he hastened to provide sign language interpretation for the deaf patient.

Besides, a deaf couple once asked someone to ring me up and tell me that they were going to register their marriage in a marriage registry. But I was told that like hospitals, marriage registries also do not provide any sign language interpretation service though they are government bodies. The couple therefore asked me to help them find a sign language interpreter to assist them in this big event of their lifetime.

As I have said, hospitals and marriage registries are either public organizations or government departments, but they also do not provide any sign language interpretation service. This can show clearly the Government's neglect of the difficulties faced by deaf people in their daily life, and how it has taken the lead in discriminating against them. The two cases I have mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg. Owing to the inadequacy of sign language support, deaf people must face far more unimaginable difficulties in their daily life.

I think Members all know that during the Umbrella Movement in 2014, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM once had an open dialogue with five student representatives. I believe the meeting was of very great concern to all Hong Kong people, and everyone wanted to know the contents of the discussions. I knew at that time that there would be live television broadcast of the meeting, but no sign language interpretation service would be provided. Therefore, during the several days before the dialogue, I kept talking to the then Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs LAU Kong-wah, asking him to provide sign language interpretation service in the live broadcast. It was not until after several days of negotiation and just a few hours before the two-side dialogue that he finally told me of his success in arranging sign language interpretation. Deputy President, we can all see how difficult it was to fight for the provision of sign language interpretation service.

I want to emphasize that the provision of sign language interpretation should not be limited to any specific occasions, and the Government is duty-bound to promote the use of sign language in society on a full-scale basis. Actually, except for the dialogue I have just mentioned, no press conferences held by the Government in the past was provided with any sign language interpretation service. In contrast to foreign countries, the Government's performance in this respect is really very poor. Therefore, my purpose of moving this motion today is to establish the legal status of sign language by making it an official language. 2862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

It urges government departments and public organizations to lead the promotion of sign language, so as to protect deaf people's right to use sign language against any deprivation. Therefore, besides requesting the Government to step up the promotion of sign language in primary and secondary schools, my motion also requests that government departments and public organizations must provide sign language interpretation service, so as to ensure that the use of sign language by deaf people will not deprive them of the equal right to use public services.

Deputy President, as I have just mentioned, deaf people are very concerned about social issues. But at present, in most cases, sign language interpretation is not provided in the programmes of Hong Kong television stations, including news broadcasts and even the Legislative Council election forums in the past. When I was an election candidate, I once adamantly requested the free television broadcasters to provide sign language interpretation. But they all refused. When I asked if I could arrange the provision of sign language interpreters myself, they also said no. Deputy President, deaf people also have the right to vote. But how can they get to know the candidates at all well in that case? I think all this has deprived deaf people of their right to social participation and also their right to know.

Earlier on, I put a question to the Government on this issue. The reply I got was that the Government was already conducting various studies and reviews in this respect and the subtitles provided by television stations could solve the problem. Then, I enquired with the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC"), asking if a television station could deny claims of discrimination by the provision of subtitles. The reply was very disappointing because EOC said to my dismay that if subtitles were provided, there would be no contravention of the Disability Discrimination Ordinance. I think Members all know that many deaf people do not know the written language, and even if they do, the grammatical structures they use are completely different from the structures we know. As a result, they cannot quite understand the written words they see. It is indeed very deplorable that even EOC is not aware of this point. In that case, I therefore think that if we cannot make sign language an official language, we will not be able to solve the problem.

Deputy President, actually, during the term of the previous Legislative Council, I already moved a motion on making sign language an official language of Hong Kong, and the motion was agreed to and passed by Members. Sadly, the Government has done nothing so far, even after the passage of a very long LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2863 time. I have kept wondering why the Government has behaved like this. Other than apathy and a lack of concern about the disadvantaged, I cannot think of any other reasons. Actually, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was already entered into force for Hong Kong as early as 2008. The Convention clearly points out the importance of sign language to deaf people. The Government should promote sign language, so as to safeguard the equal right of deaf people. But so far, we have done no more than just recognizing the written words of the Convention, and the Government has never taken any actions at all. This makes us very dissatisfied and discontented.

Deputy President, New Zealand designated sign language as an official language in 2006. Hong Kong should learn from this example. The New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 ("the Act") aims to ensure that the use of sign language by deaf people is maintained as a legally recognized right not subject to any deprivation. There are three major areas in the Act: first, the protection of deaf people's right to use sign language in legal proceedings; second, the need for the government to render sign language interpretation service when providing information to the public, conducting consultation and organizing activities; and third, the need for the government to report to Parliament on the progress of promoting sign language following its designation as an official language. Besides, following the enactment of the Act, New Zealand also set up the New Zealand Sign Language Board and the New Zealand Sign Language Fund to monitor the progress of maintaining sign language as an official language, and to step up the promotion of sign language in the community.

Deputy President, my present request for making sign language an official language only aims to lay an essential foundation for the promotion of sign language, rather than achieving all results in one go. This is just like the case of New Zealand, where they only seek to establish the right to use sign language and formulate a good promotion plan following its designation as an official language, rather than immediately requiring all New Zealanders to use and learn sign language. I think we must also achieve this aim because it is a result which many deaf people in Hong Kong are looking forward to.

But it is a pity that the Government has been withholding efforts to promote sign language on various excuses. On the one hand, it argues that there is no standardized sign language at present, so it is no easy task to do any promotion. On the other hand, it also says that there is a shortage of sign 2864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 language interpreters, so it is again difficult to proceed. Frankly, I find these two reasons very ridiculous after listening to the Government because all is just like a chicken and egg situation where it is impossible to tell which of the two existed first. If the Government refuses to make determined efforts to promote sign language, the two problems it talks about will exist forever. But if the Government is willing to do so, these two problems can be overcome very easily.

In fact, many organizations and people have been assisting in the standardization of the sign language today. In particular, the Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of CUHK has been spending lots of time on assisting in taking forward this task. Language standardization is honestly not such a difficult task. As for talents, once sign language is made an official language, they will emerge naturally. This is actually the product of a natural interactive process. Besides, as we all know, it is never uncommon to see some so-called linguistic differences among users. When I chat with young people, they sometimes cannot understand what I am saying, and I too may fail to know what they are talking about. This is not uncommon at all. The times are forever changing. They now use many catchwords, and we need time to understand and assimilate them slowly and gradually. But there is no difficulty at all. I therefore think that the Government should stop using this as an excuse for deterring or stopping us in our request.

What I find most regrettable are the newscasts of television broadcasters. When the authorities first issued a licence to these television broadcasters, there was a clear requirement that they must provide sign language interpretation in some specific programmes. But when the television broadcasters applied for licence renewal, they put forward two reasons for not doing so, and the Government accepted them. The reasons are similar to the arguments of the Government itself. First, it will be technically difficult to do so. Second, there is a shortage of talents. This is simply absurd. These television broadcasters all make huge profits, but then they have the face to say that they cannot even overcome a technical problem. I believe we all know that Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") broadcasts a weekly news recap. RTHK can do it, so how come other television broadcasters are unable to do the same? I honestly cannot understand why. This is the first point. There is the second point. How can any such large-scale television broadcasters ever talk about a shortage of talents? What is wrong with them anyway? They say that they cannot even train up the required talents. This is really ridiculous, isn't it? But then, the Government accepts their arguments and even bears with them, allowing them to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2865 merely provide subtitles without rendering any sign language interpretation over all these years.

Have Members ever noticed something when watching world news reports? Usually, when a foreign government official speaks in a press briefing, there is always a sign language interpreter beside him. This is the only way to enable deaf people to feel the pulses of the times, follow social changes and integrate into society more easily. But then the Government has simply ignored all these problems, showing total indifference. I find this very regrettable. I therefore hope that Members can all support the motion I put forward today to request the Government to make sign language an official language as soon as possible. Please remember that I am talking about an official language, not a statutory language. By talking about an official language, I mean to say that whenever the Government releases any information, it must provide (The buzzer sounded) … sign language interpretation.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That, as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ('the Convention') has been in force in Hong Kong since 31 August 2008, in which Article 21 states that States Parties shall '[r]ecogniz[e] and promot[e] the use of sign language', Article 24 states that States Parties shall '[f]acilitat[e] the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community', and Article 30 states that '[p]ersons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture', this Council urges the Government to fulfil its obligations under the Convention to step up the promotion of sign language, so as to create a truly inclusive society; the relevant measures should include:

(1) implementing the designation of sign language as an official language;

(2) stepping up the promotion of sign language in primary and secondary schools;

2866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

(3) requiring the provision of sign language interpretation for television news broadcasts; and

(4) providing sign language training for staff of all government departments and public organizations to ensure that the departments and organizations concerned provide adequate sign language interpretation service for persons with disabilities."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung be passed.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I wish to thank Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung for moving this motion on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong".

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Convention") was entered into force for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 31 August 2008. The development direction of Hong Kong's rehabilitation policy has always aimed to assist persons with disabilities in developing their potentials, and to bring forth a barrier-free environment that can ensure full participation and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in respect of their social life and personal development. This is in line with the spirit of the Convention. The promotion and implementation of the Convention is a sustained undertaking, and when the SAR Government formulates any policies and implements any plans, especially when it draws up policies and measures that will have significant impact on persons with disabilities, it must give full consideration to the provisions of the Convention. The Government will appropriately consult persons with disabilities and stakeholders, so as to ensure that the relevant policies and measures can adequately cater for the needs of persons with disabilities.

As indicated by the data in the Special Topics Report No. 62 published by the Census and Statistics Department in December 2014, there were 155 200 people with hearing difficulty in Hong Kong. Of these, 3 900 people, or roughly 2.5% of the total, knew how to use sign language. Besides, there were 49 300 people with speech difficulty. Of these, 3 400 people, or 6.9% of the total, knew how to use sign language.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2867

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please hold on. Ms MO, do you have a point of order?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I am sorry. His voice is much too soft. I could not quite catch the figure he cited just now though he read it out twice. I could only hear "forty thousand" and could not hear the complete figure. Can he speak a bit a louder?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, Ms MO, you have made your point very clear.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President. Shall I read out that part again?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please continue.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): The figure I mentioned just now is taken from the Special Topics Report No. 62 published by the Census and Statistics Department in December 2014―can Ms MO hear me? According to relevant figures, there were 155 200 people with hearing difficulty in Hong Kong. Of these, 3 900 people, or roughly 2.5% of the total, knew how to use sign language. Besides, there were 49 300 people with speech difficulty. Of these, 3 400 people, or 6.9% of the total, knew how to use sign language. My quoting of these figures is meant purely to give Members some background information.

Regarding the promotion of sign language, the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee ("RAC") under the Labour and Welfare Bureau has set up a working group to advise the Government on ways to promote sign language. The working group comprises members of RAC, hearing impaired persons, sign language interpreters and representatives from non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") of the rehabilitation sector and the education sector. Representatives of relevant government bureaux and departments would attend meetings for discussion as and when necessary.

2868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The working group notes that a common form of local sign language has not yet evolved. The deaf community are still using different signs to stand for the same objects. The working group is of the view that the priority at the present stage should be the promotion of basic sign language―basic sign language, I must emphasize―with a view to popularizing some easy signs and signs standing for common words and expressions used in current affairs. In this connection, the working group recommends the promotion of sign language development in Hong Kong in three directions, namely promoting the use of sign language in daily life, propagating the message of integration by encouraging the general public to learn sign language and conducting studies on ways to induce students with hearing impairment to learn sign language. The working group maintains that it is necessary to step up sign language interpretation service in the areas of law, health care, social welfare and entertainment. In particular, it encourages the frontline staff of government departments, NGOs and public utility organizations to learn sign language, so that they can communicate with clients with hearing impairment more conveniently and properly.

After listening to Members' views on the motion topic, I will give a detailed reply on the efforts of the Government to promote sign language. I so submit. I will now invite the Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to give a reply on the provision of sign language interpretation in television news broadcasts. Thank you, Deputy President.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung for moving the motion entitled "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong" today. Both the Labour and Welfare Bureau and our bureau already replied to a relevant oral question on 9 November 2016. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare has also explained to us just now the overall policy on sign language and the latest position.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to report on the story behind the request made by deputations of people with hearing impairment for the provision of sign language interpretation service in television news broadcasts. I will also report on the follow-up work done by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and related organizations when handling the licence application.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2869

Following established procedures, the Communications Authority ("CA") conducted a public consultation exercise in 2014 in respect of the applications of Television Broadcasting Limited ("TVB") and the Asia Television Limited for renewal of their free television licences. In the exercise, a request was received from deputations of people with hearing impairment who hoped that free television stations would provide sign language interpretation service in their news programmes.

In response to the request raised by deputations of people with hearing impairment, an enabling provision on providing sign language interpretation service has been included in the free television licence of TVB. The effective date of the relevant provision will be subject to the review to be conducted by CA. Meanwhile, after considering the representation of TVB, CA considers that it is prudent to conduct a review first, so as to explore what measures can be implemented to resolve issues relating to the implementation of and compliance with the TV Programme Code in the provision of sign language service in news programmes.

After consulting the Labour and Welfare Bureau, CA has invited deputations of people with hearing impairment, sign language experts and representatives of the Labour and Welfare Bureau to join the task force for a joint study of the relevant issues. CA aims to complete the relevant study by late November this year.

To conclude, the inclusion of an enabling provision on providing sign language interpretation service in the free television licence of TVB is a response of the authorities to the request for sign language interpretation service for free television news broadcasts, made by deputations of people with hearing impairment during the public consultation exercise in respect of TVB's application for free television licence renewal.

Deputy President, I will stop here for the time being. I will provide a supplementary response after listening to Members' speeches. Thank you, Deputy President.

2870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, talking about sign language, I must first apologize to the sign language interpreters in the Legislative Council for my abnormal speed of speaking, which is sometimes rather fast. I thus find that they have to sign at a rather fast speed for me. I wish to take this opportunity to apologize to the hard-working interpreters and I am grateful for their work. I will try to adjust my talking speed in this or other speeches in future, hoping they will not have such a hard time signing for me. Some members of the public who watched the video clips I posted left messages saying that the sign language interpreters could not keep up with my talking speed. I will thus slow down my speed today. I very much appreciate the sign language interpreters for their effort. Without them, people with hearing impairment will have one channel less to instantly or more accurately learn about the events in the Legislative Council.

There may be a general misconception that sign language development in Hong Kong is very mature because even the Legislative Council has provided simultaneous sign language interpretation service. But the truth is that the sign language in Hong Kong has been internationally recognized as an endangered language. According to a decision reached at a meeting on endangered languages in Germany in 2000, languages can be divided into seven categories and the sign language in Hong Kong can at least be categorized as at level four endangerment. An endangered language is defined as a language which is used by people mostly older than 20 and the children in the group of people will not learn the language. The sign language in Hong Kong is definitely developing towards the risk of increasing endangerment.

According to the latest demographic data, 155 000 people in Hong Kong have a varying extent of hearing difficulty, but only about 3 900 people know how to use sign language, and there is only one special school providing a limited extent of sign language education for children with hearing impairment. Under the integrated education policy, the majority of the students with hearing impairment in Hong Kong are receiving education in mainstream schools together with normal-hearing students. They simply do not have any opportunities to learn sign language. In the long run, the sign language in Hong Kong will gradually become extinct.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2871

Sign language has been neglected by the Hong Kong and international communities in the past years largely because of a resolution passed in the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf in 1880. The resolution upheld pure oral teaching and speech training for students with hearing impairment so that they can integrate into mainstream society. Many countries have thus neglected sign language education, turning sign language into a second-class language. It was not until 130 years later that a formal apology was made in 2010 by the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf to people with hearing impairment, which admitted that the resolution made in the past was wrong. And the status of sign language was formally reinstated at that point.

People with hearing impairment can hear sound by having a cochlear implant surgery or using a hearing aid, but their hearing cannot be restored to a normal level. It is thus necessary for them to use sign language as one of their means to help their communication with others. A person with hearing impairment who acquired sign language after reaching adulthood has shared with me that it was very difficult for him to understand what the teachers were talking at school, though he could still hear sounds at that time, and he often failed at dictation. It is thus evident that, to a certain extent, deaf people who lack sign language education are less likely to be given an equal opportunity to participate in society.

Deputy President, I believe revitalizing sign language and strengthening its support are a consensus in this Council, but a substantial amount of resources should be provided when putting this consensus into practice. At present, there are only 50 qualified sign language interpreters, which is totally disproportionate to the 150 000 deaf people. Injecting resources in strengthening the training of sign language interpreters should definitely be a priority task of the Administration. On the other hand, given that the ratio of deaf people who know sign language is relatively low, the Government should enable deaf students who wish to learn sign language to receive sign language training, just like blind students who are now all given the chance to learn braille. This is an option for them and not a decision made on their behalf.

2872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities expressly states that persons with disabilities shall enjoy equal rights on the language, culture and education fronts. The Convention has been in force in Hong Kong since 2008. The Government is thus duty-bound to promote the development of sign language. On the other hand, a number of international non-government organizations endorsed the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights in 1996, which considers learning one's own language a right vested to every person and that governments should respect that members of any language community should have the right to learn the language common to the community. As an international community, Hong Kong cannot fall behind other communities in promoting sign language and equal opportunities of people with hearing impairment. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I wish to thank Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung for proposing the motion debate on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong".

First of all, I wish to talk about a case that I received about a month ago. It was a holiday, and a friend of mine sent me an urgent message, saying that a man with hearing impairment had been sent to Castle Peak Hospital. However, this person with hearing impairment did not have any psychiatric disease. I asked my friend what had happened, and he said that this person with hearing impairment―who was actually a deaf person―was having an argument with his mother and then the Police were called in. Upon the arrival of the Police, this deaf person tried to tell the Police what had happened in sign language. However, because his family members did not know sign language and there was no sign language interpreter around, the Police simply shoved him down and handcuffed him when they saw him gesticulate and wave his hands. Afterwards, the Police sent him to the accident and emergency department of a hospital because he had an argument with his mother and his mother thought that he had a mental problem.

Since the staff at the accident and emergency department could not communicate with the man and there was no sign language interpreter, the doctor had no alternative but to ask him if he would beat his mother again. He read the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2873 lips of the doctor and thought he was asked if he had attacked his mother, so he answered "yes". The doctor determined that he would likely hit his mother again if he was allowed to leave the hospital. Therefore, the doctor sent him to Castle Peak Hospital. When asked by the man's relatives why he was sent to Castle Peak Hospital, the doctor said that because the man's mother was a psychiatric patient, he was suspected to have inherited the illness, so he was sent to Castle Peak Hospital.

The man had been hospitalized for three days when I received the message. I called the Hospital Chief Executive ("HCE") of Castle Peak Hospital and told him that I received this message. I told him that the patient had no mental problems and he had all along been a gentle person. Although he had some arguments with his family, he had no record of any psychiatric diseases. HCE of Castle Peak Hospital said he would deal with the matter immediately. He then convened a case meeting on the same day. The patient was discharged from the hospital on the same night after they found that he was not suffering from any psychiatric illnesses.

Deputy President, you cannot possibly imagine that in 21st-century Hong Kong, our health care and police personnel are still so deficient in their knowledge of sign language. Today, no representative of the Hospital Authority ("HA") is present at the meeting, but I know that HA has been cooperating with the HKSKH Lady MacLehose Centre in the provision of sign language services. In case of need, HA can ask the Centre to provide sign language interpretation. There were indeed not many sign language interpreters in the past. Nevertheless, as we are aware, there is now a list of qualified sign language interpreters in the website of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service. I have just done some counting and know that there are 54. Hence, one simply cannot say that there are no sign language interpreters. The only thing is that there must be some problems with the promotion of this service to do away with the lack of sensitivity in this regard among frontline personnel, people who provide public service, and even doctors or psychiatrists. Otherwise, how could a situation like this have happened?

I wish to mention another case―I do not know if Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has received any similar complaint. A deaf person was robbed on the street. He chased the robber but failed. When the Police arrived at the scene, he tried 2874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 to use sign language to communicate with the police officers. But when the police officers saw him gesticulating, they simply shoved him to the ground and handcuffed him. They later found that they had apprehended the wrong person, and the deaf person was in fact the victim.

Can we imagine how wide the gap between the deaf and the mainstream world is? Why is Hong Kong so deficient in its knowledge of sign language? How come the number of persons with hearing impairment who know sign language, as disclosed by the Secretary a moment ago, is just 4 000 out of 155 000? Actually, we have never attached any importance to sign language, or we have even forbidden the use of it because the use of sign language has been regarded as undesirable under our education system over all the years. Why is sign language considered undesirable? Because people think that the use of sign language will obstruct the integration of deaf persons into the mainstream community. This is an out-dated idea which requires persons with disabilities to adapt to the requirement of the mainstream community. This is not social inclusion. This simply requires them to adapt themselves to our environment, instead of requiring all to adapt to each other on a mutual basis.

As Ms Tanya CHAN mentioned just now, in 2010, this view was already overruled in an international conference where a pluralistic culture was advocated. As clearly stipulated under Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that we signed in 2008, signatories shall recognize and promote the use of sign language. Today, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung aims precisely to ask the authorities to recognize sign language. What is an official language? It is just about recognition and different from a statutory language.

A statutory language is a language that all government documents must use under the law. But making sign language an official language only means the provision of sign language service in official communications where necessary and appropriate. It is just as simple as that. As to courts of law, where necessary, sign language service should be provided. Under Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we as a signatory shall have the responsibility to promote the use of sign languages. However, at present, even our television stations do not provide any sign language interpretation. Our process of promoting sign language is still very slow. This is downright connivance and total disregard.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2875

Deputy President, many people call the deaf the deaf-mute. But deaf people are not necessary mute. Besides, the deaf may not really like to be called people with hearing impairment, because the deaf have their own culture. Sign language is part of their lives and one of the tools for them to express thoughts and emotions. Moreover, according to a number of surveys, sign bilingualism education can make learning easier for the deaf and other people. Unfortunately―I do not know if any representatives of the Education Bureau are present today―the Bureau is reluctant to actively promote sign bilingualism education. Having promoted the establishment of the Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Bureau simply leaves it to run its own course. This is really sad.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") to oppose Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion entitled "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong".

Before I begin, let us first look back at history. In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, confirming that people are born with rights that cannot be taken away from them. In 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Convention") which further affirms that persons with disabilities can equally enjoy human rights and basic freedom. With China joining the Convention in 2008 as a signatory, the Convention also applies to Hong Kong. Nobody should object to this.

BPA agrees that people with hearing impairment have the right to freely express their views. We strongly support the promotion of sign language culture in society. Therefore, we support certain measures proposed in the original motion, including "stepping up the promotion of sign language in primary and secondary schools" and "providing sign language training for staff of all government departments and public organizations". As regards "requiring the provision of sign language interpretation for television news broadcasts", BPA is aware that the Communications Authority is looking into the matter and expects to complete the study this November. So long as issues involving resources and 2876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 technology are resolved, we agree that it should be expeditiously introduced. However, BPA has reservation about the proposal in the original motion regarding making sign language an official language.

At the present stage, there are at least three major problems in making sign language an official language in Hong Kong. First, sign language is not popular in Hong Kong; second, there lacks a common form of sign language; and third, legislative changes are involved.

Let me first discuss the first point. The Special Topics Report No. 62 of the Census and Statistics Department indicates that in 2013, out of 155 000 people with hearing impairment, only 3 900 of them knew sign language, accounting for 2.5% of the group. On the other hand, the latest List of Sign Language Interpreters released in 2016 shows that there are only 54 sign language interpreters in Hong Kong. Compared with 155 000 people with hearing impairment, the ratio between them stands at 1:3 000. If the Government is to make sign language an official language now, it implies that all services rendered by the public sector have to provide sign language as a means of communication. Nonetheless, given the serious shortage of sign language interpreters, there is actually insufficient manpower to provide the service.

Second, there is a lack of a common form of sign language. Just as different places have different dialects, different social groups also have different forms of sign language. Currently, New Zealand and Iceland are the only countries in the world which have made sign language a statutory official language, and these two countries have their own sets of sign language. In Hong Kong, the Government has in recent years subsidized schools and organizations in building up a sign language glossary. For example, the Government has granted a subsidy to the Lutheran School For The Deaf to develop a set of vocabularies sign language in teaching. The Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong has received a subsidy from the Government to develop the Hong Kong Sign Language Browser. However, the scope of the glossary under these two projects is limited. In other words, before Hong Kong comes up with a common form of sign language, it is premature at this stage to make sign language an official language.

Finally, making sign language an official language involves complicated legal implications. Hong Kong passed the Official Languages Ordinance in 1974, stipulating Chinese and English as Hong Kong's statutory languages. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2877

Article 9 of the Basic Law also states that "In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." There is an essential distinction between spoken language and written language. It is not desirable for us to rigidly include sign language, which is neither a spoken nor a written language, as a statutory language.

BPA acknowledges that people with hearing impairment have the right to learn and use sign language. Therefore, we support enhancing the popularity of sign language through education in school, public promotion and the training of sign language interpreters. We also agree that the Government should make greater efforts to consolidate the sign language glossary. Given the low popularity of sign language, an absence of a common form of sign language and the legal implications, I do not consider that it is now appropriate to make sign language an official language. Based on what I have explained above, BPA does not support the original motion.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I want to clarify. Mr Christopher CHEUNG said earlier that I strive to make sign language a statutory language. However, I simply want to make sign language an official language. The two are definitely different. Dr Fernando CHEUNG has explained earlier.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have clearly clarified the part which you think has been misunderstood. Please sit down.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): A large crowd of deaf people protested downstairs this morning. I actually should not use the word "protest". They actually came to show their support for this motion moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung today. This is a very educational motion. I learned sign language for the first time today. (In sign language) This means Hong Kong. (In sign language) This means incorporating sign language. Sign language is really a universal thing.

2878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

I have lately seen a video clip on YouTube which shows a cat making signs to its deaf owner. Cats can only mew and do not know how to speak. The cat places its paws on the hand of its owner and then puts its front paw on its mouth. It means to ask the owner to give it food when he eats. Sign language is in fact a universal thing.

Like many people, I used to have the wrong conception that braille for the blind is only a system and not a language. Yet, I now realize that I was wrong. In Chinese, the term is "手 語" (sign language), meaning a kind of language. In English, the term is "sign language" which also means a kind of language. However, I used to think of braille as a mere system.

I heard government officials say earlier that they have already been promoting sign language. I am grateful to the government officials and authorities concerned for their efforts, but I must say what has been done is still not enough. Now, news programmes on television already come with subtitles in simplified Chinese characters but sign language interpretation is not available. They say the biggest obstacle is the shortage of sign language interpreters. I appreciate this point. At present, there are only 50-odd people in Hong Kong who can perform simultaneous sign language interpretation. BPA says that as sign language is not popular, it should not be promoted for the time being. This reasoning of BPA will only lead to a vicious cycle.

I initially wanted to remind Members that before clearly distinguishing a statutory language from an official language, we should not talk about any legal difficulties in promoting sign language. However, it does not matter whether I still do so now because Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, mover of this motion, has already given us a very clear explanation on this. Maybe, I can borrow the words of Carrie LAM. She said that she initially regarded it as "an unrealistic idea" to build a Hong Kong version of the Palace Museum at the West Kowloon Cultural District. When I first saw the wording of this motion moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, I immediately wondered how it could be possible to make sign language an official language. Let us take the documents of the Legislative Council as an example. Are we supposed to make a video to explain the contents of every document? This is really unrealistic. However, as the discussion reaches the present stage, we now consider it only natural to do so.

Yet, government officials think differently. They said earlier that there are about 150 000 people with hearing impairment in Hong Kong but only 3 000 to 4 000 of them really know how to use sign language. In other words, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2879 think such people are just a minority. But I think the reason why so many people with hearing impairment do not know sign language may just be the lack of any learning opportunities. Yet, aren't we supposed to take care of the minorities in society?

The first proposal in Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion is "implementing the designation of sign language as an official language". Members will ask if this is difficult to achieve. Members' motions like this one do not carry any legislative effect, but I still hope that the motion today can be passed so that this Government or the next can take action. The promotion of sign language cannot be achieved overnight. This motion serves as a reminder to the Government that although there is only a small pool of sign language interpreters, their status should still be elevated. Some teachers are good at teaching Chinese and others English. In the future, there may be teachers who excel in teaching sign language. This in fact is an alternative career avenue. Why don't we promote it?

The second proposal in the motion is "stepping up the promotion of sign language in primary and secondary schools". Mr LEUNG is only asking for the promotion of sign language. Students do not necessarily have to learn it, nor do we need to give them any grades. The objective of promoting sign language is to let children know that some people are different from us, but there is still a way to communicate with them.

Some people say that we do not have a standardized sign language. I appreciate this argument. But I must add that we can actually guess the meaning in context. I also cannot understand the buzzwords of the younger generation. When I first heard them say "閃", I could not figure out what they meant. So, they explained to me that "閃" means to leave quickly.

Lastly, I want to say that we should not argue that since subtitles have been provided for deaf people, there is no need to consider whether there is sign language interpretation. Let me tell you this example. When we write it out, it is "我不吃蘋果" (I do not eat apples), but if we express in sign language, it will become "我吃蘋果不", with "不" (meaning do not) appearing at the end. In other words, if only words are provided, they may have a different understanding.

Thank you.

2880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many people with hearing impairment are as able-bodied as normal people, except that they are unable to have direct spoken communications with normal people because of the barriers posed by their hearing and speech impairment. They are living in a world of silence.

According to the feature article entitled Persons with Disabilities and Chronic Diseases in Hong Kong released in 2015 by the Census and Statistics Department, the number of people with hearing impairment increased from 92 000 in 2007 to 150 000 in 2013. But only around 10 000 of these people have profound hearing loss. Despite the small number of people with hearing impairment, we must not ignore their rights.

The motion under debate today proposes to require the provision of sign language interpretation for television news broadcasts. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong strongly approves of this because, apart from subtitles, sign language interpretation will also help people with hearing impairment to receive messages when picking up news information. We believe that with the help of this additional assistive device, they will find it easier to understand messages and integrate into society, thus avoiding separation from the outside world.

But the reality is that there is a severe shortage of qualified sign language interpreters in Hong Kong, as there are just about a dozen sign language interpreters who are formally registered. There is a variety of sign language interpretation courses on offer in the market, but there is no regulation and quality assurance. Another big problem is that sign language varies by race, ethnicity and the community in which a person lives. Moreover, people with hearing impairment do not rely solely on sign language for communication. Some of them will, depending on their levels of hearing loss, learn spoken language and lip-reading for communication with the outside world. For instance, a family with a member having hearing difficulty will naturally develop a simple set of sign language for its own use and may communicate with the help of body language as well. Apart from members or close relatives of the family, no one from the outside world can understand their "conversations".

Therefore, we maintain that if we are to help people with hearing impairment integrate into society, the following three tasks must be done as a matter of urgency. First, the different types of sign languages currently used by different ethnic groups should be standardized as in the case of the Chinese language. People from Guangdong and Shandong speak their respective dialects LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2881 with different pronunciations, but they all write the same Chinese characters. It is only when there is a standardized sign language that society can understand the meanings of signs and gestures without any confusion.

Second, the training of sign language talents should be enhanced. We advise the authorities to put in more resources for offering relevant training classes, with a view to increasing the number of qualified professional sign language interpreters, especially professionals with recognized qualifications enabling them to provide assistance in lawsuits. In this way, people with hearing impairment can seek immediate support in case they get involved in any litigation.

Third, promotion and publicity should be stepped up, so as to popularize the understanding of sign language among members of the public. The Radio Television Hong Kong once produced a programme on the life of the deaf community. The main character remarked that the world in sign language is beautiful, in the sense that when it comes to describing a painting, for example, sign language can detail the number, shapes and colours of the painted trees. It can show the whole picture. I think the Government should not regard promoting sign language merely as a measure to assist people with hearing impairment in their communication. Instead, it should recognize that spoken language aside, sign language can also be a lively means of communication that makes messages much more vivid.

Nowadays, many Hong Kong people are "phubbers" who chat with others by smartphone texting. I can remember the opening words of a certain micro movie on this issue: "Perhaps the widest distance apart is not the distance between life and death, but that between you and me when you, standing right before me, hear me not." In contrast, people with hearing impairment are very much focused when communicating in sign language. They will look at one another to read people's facial expressions and feelings. It seems as though people with hearing impairment are closer with one another than normal people.

Lastly, the motion topic under discussion is about making sign language an official language of Hong Kong. As I have mentioned just now, given that sign language has yet to be standardized and with a severe shortage of professional sign language interpreters, there are still technical and operational difficulties to overcome before sign language can be made an official language. Hence, I can only abstain from voting.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

2882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I can remember that I had my first experience with sign language when I worked as a student social worker for the second time. I was then assigned for a half-year internship to a home for persons with disabilities. The residents of the home spent the day in a workshop and returned in the evening for sleeping and various activities. At that time, a resident caught my attention as he often sat silently on one side wearing an amiable smile every now and then. But I did not really have any conversation with him. Later, I came to know that he was a deaf-mute person with mild intellectual disability. I tried to chat with him, but it was understandably difficult to do so, as Members can all imagine. He could not understand what I was saying, so he used all sorts of gestures before me. That was my first experience with sign language, and I was thus motivated to learn how to use sign language to communicate with the deaf-mute. He became my first sign language teacher, and his case gave me a first-hand understanding of one thing: many people actually long to communicate with others, but very sadly, perhaps due to hearing impairment, there is a wall between them and others. They are thus unable to communicate with others and may thus fail to integrate into society. This gives rise to our motion topic today: can sign language be made an official language of Hong Kong?

Honourable Members, this brings out one question. Do we really respect people with disabilities in Hong Kong and want to make it possible for these people to have a means through which they can communicate with others and express their feelings in this city? Has sign language ever been given any respect? Members may judge for themselves. We can see that in the city of Hong Kong … Just now, some pro-establishment Member noted the request for making sign language an official language. But since there are only 50-odd sign language interpreters in Hong Kong, they asked, how can it be possible to cope with the need of 150 000 people with varying degrees of hearing impairment? Fortunately, some other Members have helped to correct this perception, clarifying that this is not the case.

The point of the discussion today is an official language. In brief, we need to promote sign language and think of various ways to let it play a greater role in our daily life and our community. If there is any shortage of interpreters or interpreting service, the Government should make the necessary investment of resources. If we see the need to eliminate this obstacle, recognize the right of the disadvantaged to make their voices heard and express their feelings, and agree LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2883 that Hong Kong should make improvement in this respect, then we must take immediate actions to let sign language play a greater role in the community.

Talking about our senses, we hope the Members present and people listening to this debate on television can realize that being able to hear with one's ears and speak with one's mouth is actually a very great blessing, a blessing that came with one's birth. Can Members imagine how the world of deaf people is like? It is a world of silence, total silence. Having regard to their respective degrees of hearing impairment, deaf people will try to integrate into society. Some of them are very clever. They have learnt to use the spoken language and can understand others' messages by lip-reading. At the same time, they have also learnt how to express themselves using the more systematic means of sign language. But how often can we see the use of sign language in the streets? Not very often. So, what are we going to do? If the Government does not take a strong lead in promoting an awareness of sign language in society, all our efforts, however vigorous, will be rendered largely useless.

The debate today can therefore bring home to people the inconvenience suffered by the deaf-mute in our society. When we handle some banking transactions at a bank branch or over the telephone, the bank employee may ask for some information such as our dates of birth and identity card numbers. We can imagine that to us, all is very easy and it is not at all difficult to comply with the request. But at present, deaf-mute people encountering such problems and obstacles do not have any simple solutions. People with hearing impairment lack the ability to express themselves and are unable to handle many transactions over the telephone. What they lack is just a means, but they are unable to improve their situation.

Hence, the point I want Members to understand today is that when formulating any policies for the disadvantaged, we must put ourselves in their shoes and ask them to tell us what they need. Is their present request in any way excessive? No. What we now ask and hope for is just the gradual enhancement of promotion efforts to integrate sign language into education, so that the deaf-mute can understand the news reports on television and participate in social affairs.

Actually, no one should be limited by any physical disabilities in the fulfilment of his dreams. Many deaf people I know have their dreams. They do realize that their physical disabilities may thwart their attempts to realize their 2884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 dreams, but in their own silent worlds, they have nonetheless kept thinking about ways to achieve what they want to do, so as to prove their abilities. They have kept thinking about ways to prove that they are also capable of achievements given their abilities. We are in great need of the holistic support of government policies and society.

Honourable Members, the motion debate moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung today really merits our careful thoughts. I also hope that Members can think about and ask themselves this question: in 21st-century Hong Kong, if we still allow people with hearing impairment to be stuck in a situation of not being able to understanding what we are doing, and if we still fail to come up with any ways to shatter this wall, what is the point of having any discussion in the Chamber?

Finally, (In sign language) please allow me to use very simple sign language to thank my sign language teacher back then. Most importantly, I hope that people watching this debate on television and people with disabilities can know that their feelings are also ours. (In sign language, meaning "striving to make sign language an official language") This is very simple sign language, expressing the hope that sign language can be made an official language.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion on striving to make sign language an official language.

Deputy President, people with normal hearing may never know how the world of people with hearing impairment is like. But our society should enable persons with disabilities to enjoy equal opportunities. Many years ago, the Disability Discrimination Ordinance was already passed in Hong Kong to offer assistance from the standpoint of equal opportunities to people with various disabilities like visual impairment, hearing impairment and mobility difficulty, with the aim of enabling them to learn, work, live and communicate with others like their able-bodied counterparts.

In the course of exchanges and communications with others, a language medium is of course required. But what language can deaf people use? We shall discuss this a moment later. Apart from the Disability Discrimination LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2885

Ordinance, Hong Kong must also abide by a number of international conventions. Article 21 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is entitled "Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information". This Article provides that persons with disabilities shall have the opportunities and rights in this regard, and the signatories shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention.

Concerning language medium, I note that there have been two approaches in the history of deaf children education in Hong Kong. In the earliest years, there was the Hong Kong School for the Deaf set up by the Hong Kong Anglican Church (Episcopal) in 1935. This school for deaf children had only six students when it was founded. The teachers were not deaf people, and they used spoken language as the teaching medium. Later, in the post-war years, the number of students increased to 40. From 1970 onwards, education for children with disabilities was gradually taken over by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). From then on, the deaf children education run by SWD gradually evolved into two separate systems. In some cases, classes continued to be taught in spoken language, and in other cases, sign language was used as the teaching medium.

Nowadays, students admitted to schools for the deaf-mute really account for just a very small portion because Hong Kong has been implementing a system of integrated education under which deaf students with varying degrees of hearing impairment are allocated to mainstream schools. That is why we are very concerned about the education of deaf children, and the question we must now tackle is: which medium should we ask them to use for learning, sign language or spoken language? If they are to enter integrated education schools, that is schools where the teachers themselves do not know any sign language, we really do not know how they are going to receive education. And, for this reason, many new problems will arise.

However, we have also heard some parents and headmasters say that rather than learning sign language only, such students should also learn spoken language. This means that the earlier deafness is diagnosed, the better deaf people will be able to learn to speak, as students and children with varying degrees of hearing impairment can thus be given appropriate training and equipped with hearing aids or cochlea implants. Practically 80% to 90% of 2886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 them can communicate normally like people with no hearing impairment. In other words, deaf people are not necessarily mute.

The point is that we have associated deafness with muteness for much too long indeed, and we think that deaf people are unable to speak. Why can't they speak? Because no one has taught them how to do so. I therefore hope that the Government must seriously tackle the problems in several areas. First, we must take the principle of equal opportunities very seriously, so that deaf children can receive training in the very early stage of their life. Besides, the Government must eliminate the established thinking that muteness always comes with deafness and help people understand the world of deaf people and their difficulties.

Besides, in respect of language training, the most important thing is that the Government must provide resources, so that children suffering deafness after birth can be expeditiously identified for early intervention and appropriate treatment and training. As for the choice between sign language and spoken language, I think they can actually learn both. I talked to some petitioners just now, and they did not say that they were only allowed to learn sign language and barred from learning spoken language. Therefore, after early intervention and identification, the Government should provide sufficient resources that can really suit their needs, so that children with hearing impairment can start to lean both sign language and spoken language in their infancy, rather than just learning one of them. I think deaf people are capable of mastering both, the only thing is whether the Government can provide any resources to suit their needs, enable them to stay in touch with the world and communicate with others. If we do not have any resource support, the Government is to blame. (The buzzer sounded) The problem is not with deaf people themselves.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to express support for the motion on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong" today.

Just now, I heard some Members express a worry, the worry that the implementation of this policy may give rise to resource problems. Here, I wish LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2887 to explain to Members the process of materializing barrier-free access in the past 10 years or so in Hong Kong, so as to enable Members to understand that the enactment of legislation, followed by social and policy support, can make it possible for persons with disabilities to live an independent life.

Here, I first declare that I was once appointed a member of the Advisory Committee on Barrier Free Access ("the Advisory Committee") under the Buildings Department ("BD"). So, I have the relevant experience, and I also understand the difficulties in the process and how they can be overcome. Let me first talk about the background. Adopted in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights already stipulates that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein. There are seven conventions, one of which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Convention"). China is a signatory to the Convention, so the Convention also applies to Hong Kong. Hong Kong is duty-bound to implement the relevant requirements.

Article 9 of the Convention discusses the need to build a barrier-free community. It states that persons with disabilities should be able to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life. We have done a good job over all this time, but we are only able to fulfil the barrier-free access requirements in the case of hardware facilities, such as buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities. The process of legislating against disability discrimination years back and then amending the Buildings Ordinance to implement the Convention stipulations on barrier-free facilities spanned almost 20 years. Initially, some voices asserted that doing so might incur huge costs and lead to tremendous difficulties. And even today, many old buildings (including a number of railway stations) are still unable to fully meet the barrier-free access requirements. But with social progress in the past decade or so, more and more persons with disabilities are able to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, including buildings, transportation and indoor facilities. Such progress is honestly encouraging.

But I want to point out that over all these years, we have merely focused on the first segment (meaning the achievement of barrier-free access to buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities). Actually, we have ample experience. From my experience of achieving barrier-free access as a member of BD's Advisory Committee, I understand that as long as we make efforts, persons with disabilities will be able to enjoy the right to live independently in the community. But we have neglected the second aspect, the 2888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 question of how to achieve barrier-free access to information, communications and other services. One thing is baffling. Hong Kong only focused on the hardware during the 10 years of implementing Article 9 of the Convention. Certain facilities which community figures initially deemed to be costly, difficult or even impossible to install have gradually come to be regarded as necessary ones by now. As a result, persons with disabilities can live freely and independently in the community. Even so, we have nonetheless neglected the second segment―the question of how to enable persons with disabilities to live independently with access to information, communications and other services.

The motion today is very good, in the sense that it leads us onto the path of meeting the requirements under Article 9 of the Convention―the provision of barrier-free services as the second stage. Initially, people thought that many difficulties and resource support problems might need to be overcome. But I would think that as long as legislation can be enacted to designate sign language as an official language of Hong Kong, everything will be alright. The case of barrier-free access to facilities can illustrate this point. With amendments to the Buildings Ordinance years back, followed by the gradual support of the community and various organizations, and also the Advisory Committee's willingness to consider the provision of exemption under exceptional circumstances, we have achieved some success. We now have experience in making such arrangements. At present, we are moving towards the second stage, and this is precisely an opportune time for the community to better manifest equality and respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.

All in all, Members should not take the outcome as the cause and refuse to designate sign language as an official language owing to difficulties and resource problems. Instead, experience shows that the Government can take the lead and stipulate in its policies and law that all buildings must comply with the relevant barrier-free access requirements. In the event of extreme difficulties, a committee may be set up to provide exemption or suspend the implementation of certain requirements. All these initiatives, meaning the enactment of legislation as the first step and policy promotion, will gradually enable the community to fulfil the requirements of a barrier-free life as set out in Article 9 of the Convention.

Thank you, everybody.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2889

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, 18 September last year was the first HK Sign Language Day. I do not think many Members or government officials are aware that there was not any sign language day in Hong Kong before that.

The first HK Sign Language Day on 18 September last year was held by The Hong Kong Society for the Deaf. That day, only one Secretary of Departments from the government was present―Financial Secretary John TSANG. Of course, my mentioning of Financial Secretary John TSANG does not have any special meaning. And, I believe he attended the ceremony that day merely because of his duty. Neither Secretary Matthew CHEUNG nor Secretary Eddie NG attended the ceremony. Later, I will explain why Secretary Eddie NG should attend the ceremony.

Many Members have risen to speak. I think the motion topic today is very complicated, and the difficulty is that the discussion on this topic goes beyond the understanding of the broad masses. I will speak on three aspects. The first thing is that conceptually, I think it is necessary to clarify two concepts. First, "sign language" as we call it is not a skill. In particular, it is not a vocational skill as such. The meaning and point are simple. The case is the same as our learning of Cantonese in childhood. We will not be asked to produce any kindergarten certificate on Cantonese-learning as proof that we are equipped with the skill of speaking Cantonese. This is the very basis of my whole discussion. Sign language should not be perceived as a skill. Instead, it is a natural language. What is meant by "natural language"? It means that as Hong Kong citizens, we have the right to learn Cantonese and our language.

If Members understand this, I will bring up the second point. As sign language is not a skill, we should not even regard sign language as a welfare benefit. What is meant by this? A natural language should not … Some people may be physically disabled, but they should not be deprived of the right to learn this natural language. Children with normal hearing have the right to learn spoken language and Cantonese. Why should we deprive children with hearing impairment of the right to learn sign language? In a broader sense, sign language is not a skill or a systematic language as we perceive it. Rather, it is a way of human communication and self-expression developed naturally in different periods of time and places. Just now, I expected Mr Christopher CHEUNG to share with us his experience of working in The Stock Exchange of 2890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Hong Kong Limited years back in his speech. Members should have watched a television drama called The Greed of Man. The gestures made by stockbrokers before writing on the blackboard are sign language. It can be seen from this that sign language is a natural language rather than a mere skill possessed by the sign language interpreters we see on television.

Why is the discussion today so very complicated? This involves the second aspect, the policy aspect. A long-standing problem in Hong Kong is that sign language learning is not perceived as a legitimate right. As a result, the Government puts sign language learning under its education policy and entrusts special schools to offer training on sign language as a skill. But such training has regressed since the 1960s. As mentioned by Dr Helena WONG just now, only one school for deaf children remains to offer sign language courses in Hong Kong today. In other words, sign language teaching is on the brink of extinction, as aptly described by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung just now.

At this point of my speech, I also wish to point out that policy-wise, we must condemn Secretary Eddie NG. I do not understand why only Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is present today. Sign language should be put under the education policy. But why is it put under the social welfare policy instead? As my starting point differs from theirs, I cannot proceed to the discussion on the second point. By this, I mean I cannot possibly explain why only one school remains to offer sign language courses to children under the integrated education framework of our education policy in Hong Kong. So, speaking of salary increases, I think the salary of Secretary Eddie NG should actually be slashed, or he should even return the salary he has already received due to this matter.

Finally, it is the third aspect. Speaking of the policy aspect, I am not able to hold thorough discussion because Secretary Eddie NG is not present. Besides, I do not think I should criticize Secretary Matthew CHEUNG because this matter is outside the scope of our welfare policy under his charge. As for the third aspect, or the daily life aspect, I think the entire Hong Kong and the broad masses should reflect on their daily habits. Such reflection is marked by a political overtone. If Members understand the inheritance history of the sign language used in Hong Kong, they will know that it was brought into Hong Kong in the 1960s by some Chinese people from places such as Shanghai, Hangzhou and Nanjing. In other words, it carried the history of Chinese people fleeing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2891 from wars to Hong Kong and seeking to turn Hong Kong into a place to inherit their culture. This involves political discussions. I earnestly urge pro-establishment and democratic Members to understand this. If Members understand this, there is no room for them to raise objection because this political issue is involved. Members will not reject the culture from Nanjing, Shanghai and Hangzhou because our sign language is inherited from Cantonese or the southern Chinese language system.

Apart from discussing the political aspect, I also want to urge people to change their daily life concepts where appropriate. Just now, a Member mentioned the discussion on installing barrier-free access years back, and how people's perception of certain facilities as unnecessary gradually transformed to the otherwise by changing public perceptions and education. What he meant to say was that everybody should be entitled to various opportunities without any barriers. How to achieve such changes? For instance, when one does grocery shopping in a supermarket, sometimes one may encounter wheelchair users who are unable to get canned food from the top of a shelf. Some may simply ascribe such inconvenience to shelf designs. But actually, the point is merely that supermarkets in Hong Kong are used to piling up products. It can be seen from this that the question is not so much about whether they have the ability to get the canned food. Rather, the point is that the products are placed too high on shelves.

Finally, I wish to point out that to my understanding and also in my world, the motion topic today (that is, "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong") is only a reasonable demand because sign language is neither a skill nor a welfare benefit. I also hope Members can understand that as long as the authorities agree to allocate some resources, sign language can be made an official language. That way, the only mainstream television broadcaster at present will provide sign language interpretation services (The buzzer sounded) … I hope the Deputy President and Members can support this motion. Thank you, everybody.

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

2892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, can I ask you and the Secretary if the two of you know how to say your names in sign language? We frequently need to introduce ourselves. Many people know the two of you, but do you know how to introduce yourselves to the deaf-mute using sign language? I know how. (In sign language) What I am saying is that my name is SHIU Ka-chun in sign language, and I support making sign language an official language and its inclusion in the list.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

I find the debate topic today very meaningful, and I naturally support Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong". I do not think I am alone in supporting this motion, as there is another person. This person is called Zygmunt BAUMAN, a Jewish big name in sociology who passed away at the age of 91 on Monday this week. He is a sociological thinker of great standing in our age, and in order to show my tribute to him, I wish to relate the debate topic today to one of his books called Wasted Lives: Modernity And Its Outcasts. In this book, he delves into the situations confronting refuges, homeless people, foreign workers and illegal immigrants, with special emphasis on how globalization and the modernity of society have driven these people down to the lowest social strata, and how they have come to be regarded by society as useless people who can be discarded or disposed of. I hope deaf people will not become another kind of wasted lives. Hong Kong faces no lack of resources; it only faces heartlessness.

Articles 21, 24 and 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities repeatedly lay stress on the importance of sign language and a deaf culture. I need not make any repetition here. Like other Hong Kong people, deaf people should also enjoy equal opportunities of receiving information. Regrettably, at present, deaf people and persons with hearing impairment are unable to receive the information disseminated in many cases. I even think … The Government thinks that the Hong Kong Palace Museum is very meaningful and important, but the authorities have not provided any sign language interpretation and are thus unable to tell deaf people how important and valuable the Hong Kong Palace Museum is. Also, in case there is an outbreak of avian flu, will the lack of sign language interpretation render deaf people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2893 unable to receive the important information in all the avian flu forecasts and reports that can enable them to take early precautionary actions? I can actually go on enumerating many such examples and problems.

However, I think Members can all see the importance of sign language, so I should instead draw their attention to the issue of resources. The Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong started the Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme with funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club in 2006. The Programme has lasted seven years up to now, and they have been saying that the Programme can yield marked success and win the support of deaf communities locally and overseas. The Programme can enable deaf students to learn in sign language and instil in students with normal hearing a willingness to understand the needs of deaf people. In this way, deaf students and students with normal hearing can understand and respect each other. But such a wonderful programme has now lost the funding of the Hong Kong Jockey Club. I only hope that this loss of funding has nothing to do with the $3.5 billion to be used for constructing the Hong Kong Palace Museum. After the loss of funding, the Programme is still being maintained despite all hardship, but it is now confined to one kindergarten, two primary schools and one secondary school. Only 72 deaf children can be served. In the absence of regular funding, we really do not know what will happen three years later and whether the Programme can continue to develop by then.

In 2014, when the Subcommittee on Integrated Education met to discuss the Programme, many students and parents staged a petition outside the Legislative Council Complex. They presented to the Education Bureau some 400 submissions in support of the Programme from Hong Kong and overseas, in the hope that Education Bureau could provide some funding. I therefore agree with Dr CHENG Chung-tai that the Labour and Welfare Bureau should not be the only Policy Bureau asked to send officials to the meeting today. How come Education Bureau officials do not show up? Why does Education Bureau once again fail to send any officials here today? The Programme has been refused regular funding on the ground of high costs and unclear effectiveness. The funding for the Programme is only $1 million a year, but due to shortage of money, it has to give way to the Hong Kong Palace Museum, a white-elephant project costing $35 billion. Such resource investment and allocation may in fact be an illustration of the Government's attitude.

2894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

It is only with the designation of sign language as an official language that sign language interpretation and related deaf people services can develop, that there can be any rectification to the dichotomy between barriers to deaf people's information receipt and the development of people with normal hearing, and that the development of rules regarding social service, education, job opportunities, interpretation and legal services can slowly follow. It is only in this way that more people will be interested to learn sign language, thus giving deaf children more chances to get in touch with sign language and other people.

I maintain that this debate in the Legislative Council is also about public education apart from legal requirements. I hope members of the public can join me in learning sign language. (In sign language) Striving to make sign language an official language and include it in the list. We hope that sign language can become an official language. This is (In sign language) what we fight for and insist. Thank you, Honourable Members.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): (In sign language, meaning: President, can I deliver my speech in sign language?) President, I raised a point of order in sign language just now, asking you whether Members are permitted to deliver their speeches in sign language. Suppose a deaf person is elected a representative of the people, can our Rules of Procedure, legislation and conventional practices of handling the affairs of the legislature permit the deaf person to fully perform his functions under the Basic Law and as a representative of the people? Of course, President, even if you gave me a positive answer just now, I do not think I can possibly cope with my speech today with the sign language I have learnt.

I am deeply grateful to the simultaneous sign language interpreters of the Legislative Council today for teaching me these simple words in sign language. I think the Legislative Council has done a very good job in one respect, and in this particular respect, it has definitely done better than the Government. I am talking about the provision of simultaneous sign language interpretation in all Council Meetings. The Legislative Council must face all Hong Kong people, not just a portion or even a majority of them. It must face all Hong Kong people. Yes, deaf people are definitely in the minority, but they must never be ignored. Precisely for this reason, we in the Legislative Council must hold ourselves accountable to every member of the public, and this is the intrinsic duty of every civilized society. But the Government's sign language policies have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2895 lagged far behind those of many other places and countries. As far back as 1988, the European Union ("EU") already passed a motion on making sign language a statutory language. All EU member states were asked to enact their own national legislation on making sign language a statutory language. But the policies of the Hong Kong Government, like its many other policies, have lagged far behind those of other countries and places.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion provides a very good opportunity for all in Hong Kong, especially the Government, to reconsider why our policies and legislation in this respect are so backward. In May 2014, the Subcommittee on Integrated Education of the Legislative Council also discussed sign language education, as sign language education is also an important segment of special education. Sadly, the policies of the Government and its assistance in this respect are basically fragmentary, short-term and not regular, failing even to cater for students' basic needs.

In the case of sign language education, for example, the most notable measure is just the Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme rolled out in 2007 for the participation of schools. Under the programme, sign-bilingual instructors, deaf instructors and speech therapists can work together to provide a common learning environment for deaf students and students with normal hearing. But it is a pity that the programme had to stop in 2014. Fortunately, even though the Hong Kong Jockey Club ("HKJC") did not want to inject any more money, another fund is willing to take over the programme. But the point here is that without the fund concerned, it will be impossible to continue with the programme. What role should the Government perform in this regard? Should the Government forever depend on HKJC or other funds for the discharge of its intrinsic duty?

Actually, like other students with special education needs, deaf students likewise need the enactment of special education legislation to protect their fundamental rights, so that they can learn in an environment no different from that of mainstream students. As Members know, in the previous Legislative Council, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and I put forward a Member's Bill on special education needs. When preparing this bill, we spent three whole years on consulting students with special education needs, parents and frontline teachers and social workers, listening to their aspirations. In the process, we saw all the inadequacies of the laws in Hong Kong, and we also saw the fragmentary policies of the Hong Kong Government in this area and their failure to meet even the most 2896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 basic needs. That was why we considered it necessary to put forward a Member's Bill to give all children and students with special education needs a learning environment which can meet their basic needs. It is hoped that they and other children and students can have access to the same learning environment.

I of course know that the Government will only give a perfunctory reply to Mr LEUNG's motion today. It will not be willing to put forward any concrete policies or legislation, nor will it want to make any changes to any past measures. But what I still wish to say is that if the Government is willing to take the lead, it will set a good example for people and society. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Government there adopts the policy of asking private organizations such as Barclays Bank to implement programmes tailor-made for deaf people. For instance, a deaf person visiting a bank branch will immediately be offered sign language service once he presses the button to indicate such a need. This is also the case in Taiwan. Hence, the stance, policies and legislation of the Government in this respect will have very significant impact on the relevant discussions in the whole society.

President, I so submit.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am old, like you, and my hearing fails me and my tinnitus is getting worse. I often say, "My eyes are dim and my ears deaf", but as compared with the 155 000 people with hearing impairment in Hong Kong, especially the 4 300 deaf people, my problems are minor.

In the world of the deaf, there is no sound. Sign language is one of the means they use to communicate with the outside world, and sign language interpreters are an important bridge that connects them to the world of sounds.

Nevertheless, we need to plan prudently when we decide to designate sign language as an official language by legislation because an official language has a statutory status and public organizations are required to use it as a formal language. This means that all government departments and public organizations are required to provide adequate sign language service for the public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2897

One needs to know that different people in Hong Kong may sign differently. Instead of spending a lot of resources on making sign language an official language and requiring all civil servants to acquire the language, it would be more practical to spend the resources on making sign language more systematic and standardized because a universal database on sign language terms is what is missing in Hong Kong now.

Apart from the need to establish a systematic database, there is also the need to establish sign language interpretation as a profession. According to the data from the Census and Statistics Department in 2013, there were only less than 10 registered sign language interpreters in Hong Kong. The assessment test for sign language interpreters were organized by non-government organizations using raised fund. And more regrettably, these assessment tests were no longer held since 2007.

According to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, they used to organize assessment tests before 2007, but they stopped doing so because the levels of the candidates varied so much that many of them could not pass the assessment. As a result, sign language interpreters almost have no opportunities to get registered after 2007. This has led to a vacuum of talents: many people know how to sign but very few can get their sign language accredited.

Although the Government has already redeployed resources and given subsidies to different organizations for training sign language interpreters since 2015, the students will only be ready to sit for the assessment in 2018 the soonest. We can say that registered sign language interpreters are seriously inadequate in Hong Kong.

Given that there is yet to be a set of universal sign language developed in Hong Kong, different deaf communities still sign differently to express the same thing. Moreover, professional sign language interpreters are inadequate. Given that objective criteria are not well-developed, we have reservation about make sign language an official language at this stage.

In fact, sign language is rarely adopted as an official language in countries around the world. The only exception, as far as I have heard, is New Zealand. And other countries, such as Australia, Brazil, Finland, Iceland, Mexico, Norway and Thailand, mostly would only affirm their sign language as a special language 2898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 of the deaf by law, or establish the status of sign language by an order, mostly through education-related orders.

I must stress that the rights and interests of people with hearing impairment must be protected. Government departments and public organizations which provide direct services to the public have the responsibility to help people with different needs to overcome their language barriers, so that these people will not have to face different difficulties on the education, employment, housing and health care benefit fronts due to their language barrier.

Hence, if objective criteria permit, we support the provision of sign language interpretation services by service providers in public departments (including Social Welfare Department, Hospital Authority, Labour Department, Department of Health, Home Affairs Department and Census and Statistics Department) and some statutory bodies (such as Employees Retraining Board and Equal Opportunities Commission), so that information can be communicated to the deaf community.

However, not everyone has the talent to learn sign language or can manage to acquire the language with a brief training, and not everyone has the need to learn sign language. Beside, people can express key messages to deaf people by means of writing. Nowadays, smartphones and tablet computers are very common and almost everyone has one with them. It is thus not difficult to communicate with deaf people by writing.

So, the Liberal Party holds that some leeway should be given in the provision of sign language interpretation service, rather than requiring the staff of all government departments and public organizations to receive compulsory sign language training. We hold that different departments and institutions should be allowed to choose the format of service provision based on their different situations as long as the opportunities of people with hearing impairment to receive information and services are reasonably safeguarded.

The original motion calls on the provision of sign language training for staff of all government departments and public organizations to ensure that the departments and organizations concerned provide adequate sign language interpretation service for persons with disabilities. I find this requirement too rigid, and it may result in mismatch of resources utilization, thus bringing disadvantages before any benefits can be seen.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2899

We believe that providing assistance and convenience for people with hearing impairment to communicate with others by means of administrative measures and supporting services can also meet the expectation of society. At this stage, the authorities should actively promote sign language and step up the training of sign language interpreters; they should also speed up the establishment of a sign language database on common current affair terms. I believe these would better meet the practical needs of people with hearing impairment.

President, I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion. To start with, we all feel every disappointed and sad today because Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is the only public officer here to respond to our questions, and there is no trace of Secretary Eddie NG, who takes charge of the education policy of Hong Kong and is supposed to provide suitable education and support to people with different learning needs or with different disabilities. Perhaps he is worried that if he attends this meeting, he will have nothing to say, or he does not know what to say. He can speak, but he just pretends not to hear.

Many people, including Mr Tommy CHEUNG who just spoke, say that there are not enough sign language interpreters, but they also say that we can disregard the needs of the people who have no means to communicate with the outside world because there are only a few thousand of them, and what matters is money. I think such comments are very cold and mean indeed. Yes, among the 150 000 people with hearing impairment in Hong Kong, not every one of them has profound hearing impairment. But sign language is the only communication means to these people with profound hearing impairment who cannot communicate with others by having cochlear implants or using hearing aids.

How could they be so mean? In this society where its Government has trillions of dollars in fiscal and foreign exchange reserve and all sorts of revenues, Members are really apathetic to have said something like that. Certainly, you may say that transforming sign language from the stage of no recognition to the stage of becoming a formal official language, which is like going from stage zero to one, is a process full of challenges. But shouldn't we lay down a policy target first and then work hard towards it? In the past years, the Government has 2900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 abandoned the promotion of sign language, done nothing to assist people with hearing impairment to integrate into society and to alleviate their learning difficulties, and suppressed the status of sign language, if any, in Hong Kong. Given this backdrop, how dare they put the horse before the cart and say that because of insufficient sign language interpreters and the consequent impossibility to provide sufficient support to the Court or other places, we should give up doing this work? In fact, if their grounds were tenable, the best solution would be to exterminate all those who could not adapt to mainstream society, just like what the Nazi Party did in the past. This would be the best solution because it takes lots of money and resources to look after people who cannot hear or see, or cannot overcome learning or mental disabilities. How come our society and our Government are not helping? What kind of a principle is this? Why don't we try our best to find ways to enable people who have no bargaining power and have been discriminated and marginalized to get in touch with society?

I still remember how hard our former colleague Emily LAU, together with other Members, have fought for, I know not for how many years, the provision of sign language interpretation for the Legislative Council meetings. It is fortunate that there are still Members in this Council who will speak out for inequality and will make an effort to defend our systems and improve society. They make live broadcast of sign language interpretation for Legislative Council meetings possible. But the Government can ignore all these issues because it does not need to be accountable to the people, especially those with no votes in their hands. The contest for the next Chief Executive and the question of which Chief Executive hopefuls get the green light are in the spotlight lately. Would the Chief Executive Election candidates care about these people? Certainly not, because these people have no votes in their hands. Those who are discriminated, marginalized and have the least bargaining power can be cast aside. Hence, if this logic is tenable, I believe Hong Kong will soon get rid of its sign language. It is because there is only one school for the deaf left and only 2.5% of the hearing impaired know sign language, and the number of sign language interpreters is dwindling. There will be even less people using sign language in a few more years.

But President, the problem will not disappear by itself. If you do not help people with profound hearing impairment, there will not be other spontaneous help for them, and they still have to face the difficulties. We all know TSANG Tze-kwan, a very smart student who studies by using braille and lip-reading. She worked against all odds and became top achiever in public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2901 examinations. That said, I believe all those who know her story understand the hardship and difficulties that she has experienced in overcoming all those obstacles. Not everyone is as smart as she, and not everyone can have so much support and so many means to overcome difficulties as she has. She is one in a million. Another example is LI Ching, which is a very sad story. LI, having hurdled all kinds of obstacles, managed to get admitted to university and was then employed for some brief periods of time. Society did not provide much support to her. Though highly-educated, she could not find a stable job, and finally, in a moment of weakness, she chose to end her brief life. An organization named Silence was then founded to commemorate her. But our Government remains apathetic and continues its discriminating policies which disregard the needs of the deaf. To date, the Government still refuses to face these problems squarely and even shirks its responsibility with all sorts of reasons. It is really unbearable. I hope the Government can provide a proper response on how it will face these people whose lives are plagued with difficulties. (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit and support Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's motion.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, it is rather regrettable that no public officers from the Education Bureau are present at today's meeting. I believe that as far as the education for children with hearing impairment is concerned, in particularly integrated education, sign language is a very important subject. Why public officers from the Education Bureau failed to attend today's meeting? Later on, I will focus on the education aspect in my speech. I do not know if the public officer who is present today can reply on behalf of the Education Bureau. Nevertheless, I believe he cannot. For this reason, it now turns out that the most important audience are absent in today's debate.

President, with regards to the question of "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong", I hope I can clarify two points in the very first place. Firstly, as to "striving" that we are talking about, of course it will go through a process. At present, we do not have the necessary conditions, but we should strive to secure the condition. Secondly, the fact that we strive to make sign language an official language does not mean that we will forsake spoken language. A lot of students with hearing impairment can learn spoken language at a younger age and there are successful examples. Sign language and spoken language may complement one another. They are not mutually exclusive. And sign language is still very important.

2902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

To many people with normal hearing, sign language is perhaps only one way of conducting dialogues among the deaf. However, being a bystander is one thing, communicating with them is another, because this is their language for communication. At present, there is only one special school which enrols students with hearing impairment, and that is Lutheran School For The Deaf. It provides about 100 places ranging from primary one to the sixth form. Under the integrated education policy, where have all the students with hearing impairment other than these 100 students gone? It turns out that the majority of students with hearing impairment are studying in mainstream schools. According to the figures provided by the Education Bureau, from 2015 to 2016, as many as 670 deaf students or students with hearing impairment were studying in publicly-funded mainstream secondary and primary schools. Have they received appropriate and adequate support? I have been observing this problem and received complaints about this since I assumed office as a Member of the Legislative Council.

To many children, a cochlear implant is a simple device, as long as we are able to provide the device to them. However, now we only subsidize the operation fees, not the costs for replacing the hardware. I do not know the rationale of this. We have provided them with hearing aids, but as the wave length of many hearing aids are not correctly tuned, it will cause hearing difficulty to them. Yet all of these problems can be rectified by the provision of appropriate support and help to people with hearing impairment.

As to the problem of sign language that we are talking about now, I have also assessed the situation of schools and found that more often than not, no adequate subsidies were provided to students with hearing impairment in mainstream schools when the Government was promoting integration education. Many teachers could see that these students with hearing impairment were having difficulties in learning, but due to capacity constraints, they were unable to offer full assistance to them. Moreover, sign language is also a big problem. How can an average teacher use sign language to help students? How can students cultivate the habit of using sign language as a means of communication? In the current circumstances, schools are simply unable to achieve that without the necessary help provided by the Government. Just think about that if sign language support is given to mainstream schools, it will not only help students with hearing impairment in lip-reading, it will also make up for the message or learning contents they have missed, thereby making the learning more effective. Sign language is helpful to a certain extent. Its importance will augment as these children are growing up.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2903

Some mainstream schools were able to overcome difficulties through their own efforts. For instance, just now a number of Members mentioned that with the help of the Hong Kong Jockey Club ("HKJC") and The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK"), these schools joined the Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme. It was a very successful programme. Schools may combine students with hearing impairment and students with normal hearing in the same class. Teachers, after receiving the training, may change the teaching approach such as increasing visual elements as teaching and learning aids. Moreover, measures such as the increase of sign language training will not only benefit students with hearing impairment but also the entire class. Even students with normal hearing will also be benefited.

For that reason, if we wish to promote sign language and achieve real integration education in primary and secondary schools, we consider that we should have the necessary resources in place on the one hand, and we should create space for teachers on the other by way of providing them with suitable trainings and support. In this regard, we consider the existing policy of integration education is rather meagre. Some schools could achieve some successes only because they have obtained the extra subsidies from HKJC and the help from CUHK. However, the programme has ended and it could not be fully implemented because it lacked the necessary government support.

At present, only a small number of schools are trying to hold on by adopting their own approaches. I have visited some schools. I could see that their students could help each other out and students with hearing impairment could learn effectively with the help of sign language. This is an enormous reward to students as well as teachers. Nevertheless, the Government did not regard highly or cherish these invaluable experiences. I dare to say that integration education is merely a lip service; it is a big no-no in essence. Therefore, what we are fighting for now is that if sign language could be promoted in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, could students with hearing impairment or even adults be benefited from that as different institutions are using sign language on a wider scale?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to share a case that I have dealt with in my constituency and use that story to illustrate that there is a practical need for sign language in society. Besides, sign language is also an important right of the deaf. The person involved in this case was a deaf-mute, a scavenger, in my constituency. He collected things that people consider garbage and stored 2904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 them at roadside. He was not a tramp, as he had his own dwelling. He would sell some of the things that he collected if they were of recycling value. But to the majority of them which were virtually valueless, he would pile them up as if they were some collectable items. However, as he was collecting more and more things, they caused street obstruction and certain government departments were called in to take care of them. Nevertheless, neither the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") nor the relevant District Office could deal with them. Even the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") was unable to intervene, because they needed to communicate with him before they could lay charge on him. However, they could not communicate with him and could not understand what he wanted. Why did he collect such items?

It was not until we intervened that SWD found a sign language interpreter to help. Eventually, the reason why he collected scraps was unveiled. It was partly because of a mental projection of his regard about his father, and partly because he had to support the sustenance of himself. At the beginning, he thought that government departments were targeting him and robbing personal items from him. Later on, he started to realize the nuisance and obstruction he had caused in the community after the appearance of sign language interpreter. The situation was improved afterwards, but it was not the end of the story. At first, the situation was improved and the items being collected were under control. Less and less scraps were piled up and no roads were obstructed anymore. However, one day, his problem relapsed. All of a sudden, he put back all the things on the sidewalk. I was really puzzled and people in the community could not understand why, as the sign language interpreter had already communicated with him. We later found out that since the sign language interpreter who had been communicating with him was unable to provide the interpretation service, therefore the relevant authorities sent another sign language interpreter to help him. But as the sign language was somewhat different from the sign language that he used, therefore the communication did not work out that well, and hence causing the misunderstanding as well as the friction brought by him to the community.

It is a case that I have handled. It turns out that it is difficult even for SWD or other government departments to find the right sign language interpreter. It turns out that the communication will be jeopardized if one sign language interpreter is replaced by another. Furthermore, if we browse SWD's web page, can we find the list of sign language interpreters with professional qualification which are recognized by the Government? No, only some welfare organizations LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2905 will do that, and there are just more than 50 of them. For that reason, it is difficult for us to imagine what kind of professional training should they obtain before they are given the due recognition? Furthermore, even those employed by the Government could not communicate with the deaf. For that reason, this case could show us that how little resources and support are given to the deaf and people who needed to communicate by means of sign language.

There is actually progress in society. Just now some Members have mentioned that the Legislative Council finally provides sign language service after they have striven for such service. If we turn on the television, we can see that there are some sign language interpretations in certain information and news programmes, but there is not that much. Besides, if it is a tentative arrangement and no policy is put in place properly, then if the overall social climate changes drastically in future, no one will remember them and hence this arrangement will vanish. Since this policy has no continuity, thus no such policy will be put in place in future if there is no official recognition. Furthermore, the provision of sign language interpretation service by television stations is not a standard requirement.

Sign language is the first language that the deaf learn, and it is also the most natural language to them. Some people say that the way a society treats the underprivileged and the disadvantaged minority can reflect the degree of civilization in society and if our society is civilized. Whether the Government actually adopts a civilized way to treat and accept people who use sign language as a means of communication? Whether the Government recognizes it is their right, so that they can co-exist with the mainstream society? The Government should take the lead to do all of these. Failing to do so and claiming that the Government is waiting for a natural formation of a certain mode before the Government will take the lead is nothing but an excuse. Therefore, I hope today's Member's motion will make the Government to reflect on itself and to examine to what degree of civilization is it leading us to. For that reason, I speak to support today's motion.

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, our discussion today is about striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong. First of all, I need to take this opportunity to express my gratitude towards a group of 2906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 colleagues in charge of sign language interpretation in the Legislative Council. It is already difficult enough to be an interpreter in the Legislative Council, but it is even more difficult to be a sign language interpreter. Members speak very quickly, and what they say is no ordinary stuff. I think if a person can be a capable sign language interpreter in the Legislative Council, he is capable of doing well anywhere else.

This group of sign language interpreters must be people with aspirations. Most of them have especially taken an interpretation course in the department of translation and then pursued further study in sign language interpretation. In fact, when they chose to study this course, they had no idea whether they could find a job. It was only in early 2013 that the Legislative Council started to provide sign language interpretation service, but this was only provided in regular Council meetings. The Legislative Council would originally want to provide sign language interpretation service in all open meetings, but this has yet to materialize due to lack of manpower resources. The expenditure on providing sign language interpretation service in general Council meetings alone is over $1 million per year. Whether this is worthwhile is a matter of one's perception of values and is not a matter of commercial business.

I would like to highlight that there was already provision of sign language interpretation service since the first Hong Kong Pride Parade. Exactly because we are the minorities, we can understand the obstacles encountered by the minorities and are more willing to provide some more service. We requested the television stations to provide sign language interpretation service in their news programmes, but they said that there was a lack of qualified sign language interpreters in Hong Kong. This is again a chicken and egg situation. If there are insufficient working opportunities, who will join this occupation and plan to turn it into a career instead of taking it purely as an interest class? It will also be quite challenging for the Legislative Council to provide comprehensive sign language interpretation service. If there are meetings being held at Conference Rooms 1, 2 and 3 at the same time, while each meeting will require two sign language interpreters taking turns to provide the service, the Legislative Council may need 8 to 10 sign language interpreters.

I also know some people with hearing impairment. In the case of communication among individuals, there are not many obstacles. First, they can make use of lip-reading. If there are still problems, they can write notes. If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2907 they really want to communicate, the obstacles can be overcome when it comes to communication among individuals. However, people with hearing impairment will have to face a lot more obstacles if they, in the public domain, need to receive information from or to communicate with able-bodied people, that is what we call having equal opportunities.

We have asked the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau about the provision of sign language interpretation service by television stations for only live news broadcast. As a matter of fact, when a television station applied for renewal of the free television licence in 2014, some groups for the hearing impaired requested the provision of sign language interpretation service in television programmes, especially in news programmes. The Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") responded that there was a limited supply of qualified sign language interpreters in Hong Kong. This is the first point, meaning that TVB is powerless in face of limited supply of such interpreters. I would rather suggest borrowing some manpower from the Legislative Council. If TVB is willing to provide comprehensive sign language interpretation service, the Legislative Council may suspend its provision of such service until another batch of interpreters has been trained. Another reason put forward by TVB is even weirder. It said that in accordance with the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards promulgated by the Communications Authority, licensees shall ensure the accuracy of the contents of news. Its meaning is that any inaccurate interpretation due to varying service quality of sign language interpreters will render a licensee unable to comply with the requirement on the accuracy of contents of news programmes as stipulated in the Code. In other words, the television station is afraid of making mistakes. In my opinion, it is evading responsibility if it does not provide sign language interpretation service for fear of making mistakes. Of course, I think that the local Government is also not placing too much emphasis on sign language interpretation.

If we take out our mobile phones, go to App Store and type "sign language", you will be able to find a lot of applications relating to sign language. However, for local applications, I can only find "香港手語初探" (preliminary exploration on sign language of Hong Kong). We can see that many applications are provided by Taiwan and even the Mainland. Today, I would like to introduce an application called "The National Palace Museum sign language guide", with which we can tour around National Palace Museum with the provision of sign language interpretation. This application is provided by 2908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

National Palace Museum and comes from Taiwan, but not Beijing. I thus want to propose an idea to Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. If he becomes the Chief Secretary for Administration in the next term and is on the Board of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, he should remember creating an application called "Palace Museum sign language guide", so as to provide a barrier free environment for people with hearing impairment when they tour around this facility which will take up an investment of over $3 billion in Hong Kong.

With this example, I actually want to query whether the Government has attached any importance to this aspect. The Government has indeed set up a Working Group on Promoting Sign Language, but as I recall, what it says in the last paragraph of the main reply to an oral question in November last year is highly disappointing to us. It says, "The Working Group notices that a common form of local sign language has yet to evolve. Different sign language expressions may be used by different deaf groups to convey the same meaning." This is exactly the problem that the Government is facing. The lack of officially-defined sign language expressions for proper names is simply due to the absence of intervention and assistance from the Government at an early stage. If the Government is willing to set up a system, the problem can be resolved. Finally, the conclusion of the Government is, "The Government currently has no plan to designate sign language as an official language." This is a matter of direction and importance. As regards Mr Tommy CHEUNG's views, we are not requiring that every staff member of the Government should know sign language. We only mean to suggest that all government departments should provide sign language training to certain staff, so that there will have some staff in every government department and public organization who can communicate in sign language. I would ask these businessmen not to judge everything from the monetary angle, or to think that they will go bankrupt when all their staff also have to know sign language.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked earlier whether it is worth spending $1 million on providing sign language interpretation service in general meetings of the Legislative Council. I think it is worthwhile, because this service makes the Legislative Council the leader among different organizations in Hong Kong society, even ahead of the Government in this regard. This is something that I take pride in as a Legislative Council Member.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2909

I thank Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung for moving this motion. It is my hope that Members from different political parties can reach a consensus on this subject, so as to send a clear message to our Government that we need to provide appropriate resources and proper care to the disadvantaged, so that they can live a full life with dignity in this Hong Kong society.

The first point that I want to say is that I feel very pleased when sometimes I see people on the street using sign language to communicate among themselves. It is because when deaf people use sign language, they are very sincere and can express their feelings and emotions very candidly. This is the most effective way of communication for them. From the abundant experience, we learn that if they are given technological device like artificial cochlear or various kinds of hearing aids to improve their hearing, and are placed in some mainstream schools but without other support, they may actually only exercise 30% to 50% of their communication capacity, and there is no way that they can express themselves fully.

Sign language is very amazing, and is a language itself. If we are very sure and believe that sign language is a complete communication system of itself, it is unnecessary for us to argue so much on this subject, including whether there should only be one option for these students, which is studying in mainstream schools. We definitely will not think it that way, as we surely will think that it is a very nice thing for them to be able to communicate in a language which they know best. This has thus brought us to other topics. Since it is said that the development of sign language in Hong Kong at present is not standardized but has different versions of the same vocabulary, the Government will have to use resources in the study and development so that sign language can become a common language of people. This is precisely where the Government has to provide resources. In this way, there can be an additional choice for the parents concerned, as there are fewer schools for the deaf. If the students cannot be admitted to these schools, the parents are actually forced to place their children under the highly undesirable integrated education at present, such that none of these children can develop their full potential. How can we provide better integrated education? Since Mr IP Kin-yuen has already expressed a lot of views, I will not repeat them here.

For the second point, people with normal hearing should put themselves in the shoes of the deaf. If you are a person with hearing impairment, will you feel that you can live or be respected just like other people in society? If you are a 2910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 person with hearing impairment and you want to watch news reports with sign language interpretation, you have to get up very early on a weekend morning, because this is shown only once a week at weekend. They do not particularly want to get up so early, but the Government only reserves this time slot with the least viewers for them to watch news reports with sign language interpretation. This is already the most disrespectful move to them.

When I walked to the Chamber just now, I was thinking if I were hearing impaired, I really would not know how to solve the many problems in living. For instance, I want to call the police now, but if I were a deaf person, I really would not know what to do during that split second. Perhaps the Police have already thought of some measures which I do not know. But I think the Government should take the lead in making people with normal hearing aware of a group of people in society who need special assistance, so that while people with normal hearing can understand their situation, the deaf people can also be given appropriate assistance like us. From the Government to the mass media, there are actually a lot of things that they can do.

Finally, the crux of this discussion is: What is official language? Many pro-establishment Members seem to be very worried. They find it miserable as it seems that other people are forced to do a lot of things. I want to make clear one point. From the proposal of Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung as well as from the question and answer paper on the table about striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong, my understanding is that they are actually not about forcing other people in Hong Kong to learn sign language, but about how the Government, as an official organization, should take the responsibility no matter in education or in media, and how government departments can do more on the administration level. Therefore, this is very meaningful and is necessary (The buzzer sounded) … I hope that this is acceptable to the Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2911

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to the 17 Honourable Members for the many valuable comments they have made on stepping up the promotion of sign language. I also wish to thank those colleagues who provide sign language interpretation in Legislative Council meetings. In the remaining time, I will briefly respond to the comments made by Members. First of all, I must stress that the Government attaches a great deal of importance to the promotion of sign language.

As I mentioned a while ago, the Labour and Welfare Bureau set up the Working Group on Promoting Sign Language ("the Working Group") under the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee ("RAC") in 2010. Over the past few years, the working group has been making strenuous and active efforts to promote sign language development in Hong Kong. The Government has all along adopted a three-pronged approach in the promotion of sign language, including (a) promoting the use of sign language in daily life (which is very important); (b) promoting the message of inclusiveness by encouraging the public to learn sign language; and (c) exploring ways to promote the learning of sign language among students with hearing impairment. Many Members have talked about issues in education just now. I would like to add a few things, which you might also be interested, about the major responsibilities we have undertaken in these three areas in recent years:

(a) Promoting the use of sign language in daily life

The Labour and Welfare Bureau has all along been providing funding to service agencies and self-help organizations for people with hearing impairment, so that they can organize a diversity of public education activities which promote inclusiveness and the use of sign language (for instance the Hong Kong Deaf Festival, sign language workshops, sign language interpretation contests, sign language exhibitions and carnivals, and so on); produce materials for sign language training and self-learning (including assistive tools for sign language learning on the computer or mobile applications, and sign language learning cards and teaching kits). We also provide the Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong with subsidies for building up a sign language database, and so on. These figures and facts clearly show we are working hard in these areas to promote sign language application.

2912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Meanwhile, the Labour and Welfare Bureau and RAC have worked with the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") to debut four series of Sign Language Capriccios television minutes successively from 2011, for introducing basic sign language to the public in an entertaining way. The latest series, Sign Language Capriccios 5, will have its length extended considerably, from five minutes to half-an-hour. Commencing next month in February, the programme will go on air for three months till April.

RTHK used to broadcast only one current affairs and information programme with sign language interpretation in a week. With the support from the Labour and Welfare Bureau and RAC, it launched in April 2016 a current affairs and information programme, This Morning, which goes on air from 7:30 am to 8:00 am Monday through Friday, with sign language interpretation service provided to give people with hearing impairment easy access to current affairs information.

(b) Promoting the message of inclusiveness by encouraging the public to learn sign language

In a breakthrough move, the Labour and Welfare Bureau included sign language courses as part of the language courses under the Continuing Education Fund ("CEF") in September 2015 and accepted course providers' application to register their sign language courses under CEF. Students of sign language can apply for an 80% reimbursement of tuition fee, subject to a $10,000 cap, after successfully completing the relevant courses. CEF indeed serves to encourage people to further their studies and to learn sign language.

Moreover, since February last year, two professional sign language interpretation courses offered by rehabilitation agencies have been included into the reimbursable course list under CEF. Both courses are accreditated at Qualifications Framework level 3 by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications. Furthermore, the Centre for Sign Linguistics and Deaf Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong has been approved by the University Extension Board to start offering the Diploma Programme in Deaf Education in June 2016. This diploma programme is also accreditated at Qualifications Framework level 3.

RAC, the Hong Kong Joint Council for People with Disabilities and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service joined hands to release the first List of Sign LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2913

Language Interpreters in Hong Kong ("the List") on 30 June last year, on which information of more than 50 experienced sign language interpreters is set out. The List provides the professional qualifications of sign language interpreters, their work experience, contact details, and so on, so as to aid the public, individuals or groups, in choosing sign language interpretation services according to their own needs. The Labour and Welfare Bureau has told various Policy Bureaux and departments to refer to the List for interpreters' information when purchasing sign language interpretation service.

(c) Exploring ways to promote the learning of sign language among students with hearing impairment

On the level of schools, the Education Bureau has all along encouraged teachers to adopt the most appropriate mode to teach and communicate with students with hearing impairment, in the light of their abilities and needs. The Quality Education Fund, for instance, has allocated funds to a school for children with hearing impairment for the integration and development of new sign vocabularies for its teachers, in order to cope with curriculum requirements, and for enhancing teachers' success when teaching with the aid of sign language and raising pedagogical quality.

At present, individual schools will organize sign language promotion activities for students, parents and staff in accordance with their needs, in order to boost their ability to use sign language. Some schools also cooperate with schools for children with hearing impairment or non-governmental organizations to conduct inclusion activities in order to strengthen the understanding of hearing impairment and sign language among their students, parents and staff.

To promote sign language and an inclusive culture, schools for children with hearing impairment also invite teachers and students of ordinary schools to participate in a variety of activities, such as sign language workshops and talks, "The Inter-school Sign-a-Song Contest", "Information Day for the Hearing Impaired" and "Sign Language and Deaf Culture Promotion Day".

Provision of sign language training to employees of the Government and public organizations

We also work hard in respect of the civil service. Since August 2011, the Civil Service Training and Development Institute under the Civil Service Bureau 2914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 has organized sign language training courses which are tailored to frontline staff. As at late October last year, the accumulated number of participating civil servants reached 1 600. The Civil Service Training and Development Institute will keep up its effort and organize more relevant courses.

Designating sign language as an official language

President, as I said in my opening remarks, the Working Group under RAC holds the view that a common form of sign language has yet to evolve in Hong Kong, as different sign language expressions are used in the deaf community to convey the same meaning. We consider the promotion of basic sign language our priority at the present stage, so as to popularize sign language and gradually build up a uniform glossary of commonly used terms. On this basis, we will formulate more standardized hand signs, promote the List as well as professional courses on sign language interpretation and instruction, with a view to achieving the important task of enhancing people's confidence in sign language interpretation service.

Conclusion

It is the Government's established rehabilitation policy direction to create a barrier-free environment and to facilitate the integration of the disabled into the community. The Labour and Welfare Bureau will continue working with the rehabilitation sector, relevant government departments, public bodies and all sectors in the community, including schools and universities, for the promotion of sign language learning and daily application, and the organization of a diversity of community publicity activities, so as to advance and promote mutual understanding between people with hearing impairment and normal hearing, with a view to creating an inclusive society.

President, I so submit. And I now ask the Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to speak. Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I wish to thank Members for expressing their views on the overall policy on sign language. From his policy perspective, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has already responded to the concerns raised by Members. On my part, I will focus on the area of television LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2915 broadcasting regulation under the purview of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and provide additional information on what appropriate actions we will take in order to dovetail with the Government's overall policy of sign language development.

As I have pointed out at the beginning of the motion debate, in response to the request made by people with hearing impairment in the earlier consultation, the Communications Authority ("CA") is now making various follow-up efforts, including the conduct of a review and consultation with stakeholders (including the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the television industry, deputations of people with hearing impairment and sign language experts) on the technicalities of providing sign language interpretation in television news programmes, such as the format of service delivery, the size and positioning of the inset window and the scheduling of programmes with sign language interpretation.

We can well understand the importance of news programmes with sign language interpretation to the information access and social integration of people with hearing impairment. While we must consider the need of people with hearing impairment, we must also consider the licence-holder's need for flexibility in commercial operation and whether the actual delivery of service will be smooth enough to maintain the quality of news programmes. For this reason, CA considers that a review and consultation with stakeholders should first be conducted for the purpose of studying the various issues involved in the provision of sign language interpretation in free television news programmes, including related issues like the technicalities of actual service promotion and compliance with regulatory requirements, so as to ensure a smoother start for the implementation of sign language interpretation service. As I said in the opening remarks, it is estimated that CA's review will be completed by the end of November this year.

In fact, as advised by CA, TVB (Television Broadcasts Limited) has agreed that in the interim to the completion of CA's relevant review, video clips of Legislative Council meetings and important government meetings/announcements with sign language interpretation will be broadcast as they are in its channels, so to facilitate the information access of people with hearing impairment.

President, let me repeat here that when society at large can forge a consensus on the overall sign language policy of the Government, and when 2916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 society is fully ready for popularizing sign language, we will be more than happy to provide active support and take appropriate follow-up actions at the level of television broadcasting regulation, including ways to implement various arrangements if society as a whole recognizes the need to provide sign language interpretation service in television news programmes. We may, for instance, consider whether it is necessary to amend the existing television licensing conditions. In the process, we will have adequate communication with stakeholders. I wish to thank Members once again for their views on the related issues.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2917

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr Kenneth LAU abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the motion.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 11 were in favour of the motion and 19 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion and 10 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

2918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

The motion debate on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive".

Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr KWOK Wai-keung to speak and move the motion.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE NEXT CHIEF EXECUTIVE

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Members are leaving the Chamber hastily.

(Noises from many Members were heard in the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. This Council is now conducting a motion debate.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I find it an honour to propose this motion at the first Council meeting in 2017. Everybody knows that employment, employees' rights and interests, housing and retirement protection are the core policies of concern to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU").

The upcoming Policy Address will be delivered next week, and the Chief Executive election will be held two months later. So, I propose this motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive", in the hope of providing a platform for offering new hopes for the new year and also for enabling Members to put forth their views on ways to resolve the difficulties faced by Hong Kong. Of course, those intending to stand in the election may now get a sense of the pressure on them before assuming office. At the same time, people can also have an opportunity to see clearly for themselves which political parties and Members can put forward meaningful and feasible proposals, and who will continue to be subjective rather than being objective and to raise opposition for the sake of opposition.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2919

Some media organizations have asked me somewhat with concern why no officials are present here to listen to this debate, and whether I am angry with this. In my view, as various policy areas are involved, the 13 accountability Bureau Directors are all welcome to listen to our debate here. But I wonder why none of them is here: is it because they are worried that they have to speak in reply afterwards? Or, is it because they do not think they are in a position to give a reply for the next Chief Executive? How about the Department Secretaries? Based on media conjecture, they are probably doing some "warm-up" and "stretching" exercises now.

President, let me return to the topic under discussion. I am an elected Member in the Hong Kong Island Constituency. When local residents talk to us, they invariably say that whenever livelihood issues are discussed, they will feel a strong sense of helplessness because it looks like every issue will inevitably lead to fruitless arguments. Some put the blame on the Government, while some others ascribe all this to the Chief Executive. They seem to suggest that all livelihood problems can be resolved as long as the Chief Executive is replaced by another person. But those who have advocated "ABC" are obviously contradictory to themselves as they will not really accept anyone. After voting down the "one person, one vote" constitutional reform proposal, the pan-democratic camp has succeeded in dismissing the Election Committee system as an original sin of the next Chief Executive while taking every opportunity to adopt whatever means to dismiss anyone so elected as an adversary of individuals, organizations and political parties.

President, the United States Congress was ridiculed as "a do-nothing Council" sometime around 1947 and 1948. Occupying over 57% of the seats in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party voted down many proposals put forth by President TRUMAN from the Democratic Party with a banning tactic, and only allowed the passage of some minor bills. As a result of this banning tactic, the number of Republican seats in the next Congress dropped drastically, and the party lost its advantage as the majority party. But sadly, 70 years later, the pan-democratic camp still adopts the same banning tactic towards the Government today. Nevertheless, they keep "dismissing the victim as the culprit".

The two sessions of the Public Works Subcommittee meeting this morning were supposed to discuss the construction of some 7 000 public housing units in Tai Po. The original intention was to share people's urgent concern and resolve 2920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 their housing needs. But the pan-democratic camp nonetheless proposed to build a public market in the district. As a result, the discussion on this housing construction proposal had to be delayed for two meetings. There are two other public housing proposals. I do not know how much longer they have to be delayed.

President, let me discuss certain issues relating to industries and employment. Before the reunification, Hong Kong already saw the hollowing out of industries. During the time from the 1980s to the 1990s, manufacturing industry workers gradually lost their jobs. But at the time, the colonial Government adopted a policy of non-intervention (currently known as "big market, small government") and disregarded the dwindling of the manufacturing industry in Hong Kong. The proportion of the manufacturing industry in our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") has declined from 23% in 1980 to merely 1.3% in recent years, whereas the proportion of the service industry has risen to 93%. The over-reliance of the economic structure on the service industry has reduced employees' choices and is even the main cause of our wealth disparity.

If one engages in speculative business (such as financial or real estate services) in the service industry, one can honestly ride on the multiplier effect to make more and more money. In contrast, low-wage elementary positions (such as those in the catering industry, retail industry, transportation industry and trading industry) will give people the feeling of lacking career prospects. With income polarization, young people will inevitably feel frustrated. Property prices remain high in Hong Kong, and people are even unable to satisfy their basic needs. Hong Kong people have been turned into either mortgage slaves or victims of high rents for the rest of their lives. If the husband and the wife of a couple each earns a monthly income of $20,000, they are utterly ineligible to apply for public housing. If they want to buy a Home Ownership Scheme unit, they have to count on luck. And even if they want to buy a private property, they are unable to save up a sufficient sum as down payment. So, they have no alternative but to rent a private property, and the rent is indeed outrageously high. Statistics of the Census and Statistics Department show that the Private Domestic―Rental Index (All Classes) stood at 135 in 1997, and it rose to 171 in the fourth quarter of 2016. If computation is based on actual figures, the rent for a 450-sq ft unit in Hong Kong Island is around $16,000 or $17,000 on average. But the median household income is merely $26,000. This means that rental payment already accounts for 60% of one's income. The living quality of the new generations has been severely affected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2921

In contrast, some neighbouring regions (such as our competitor Singapore) have done a brilliant job in housing. They provide various housing options, and their well-equipped units offering a spacious living environment are within people's affordability. Their per-capita living space is as much as 30 sq m. But in the case of Hong Kong, it is merely 15 sq m. Nevertheless, this per-capita figure is unable to reflect the reality. The reason is that many people can merely live in a place of only 5-7 sq m large, and occupants of "sub-divided units" can only dwell in mere bed-spaces.

As in the case of Taiwan, the service industry in Singapore constitutes 70% of its industrial structure. The remaining 30% is made up of industries, mainly including the electronic industry, the biopharmaceutical industry, as well as the petroleum and petrochemical industry. All these industries require highly technical personnel. Their young people have a wider range of career pathways, and with more career options, their science or engineering students can also seek professional development in the relevant positions. So, their salaries may naturally increase, and they need not switch to the service industry marked by keen competitions, which may otherwise drag down their wages. In contrast, the imbalanced industrial structure in Hong Kong has obstructed the career pathways for professionals and led to a succession gap in science professionals. As pointed out by some academics in the recent discussion on setting up a Hong Kong/Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in the Lok Ma Chau Loop, the first condition Hong Kong lacks in its development of innovation and technology is nonetheless innovation and technology professionals. The reason is that the pathways for science and engineering students are limited in Hong Kong, and the declining number of students enrolling on STEM courses (meaning science, technology, engineering and mathematics) has led to an inadequacy of scientific and technological research professionals. The development of innovation as well as scientific and technological research requires land and professionals.

At present, the development of other industries is not as satisfactory as it was in the past. Hong Kong was once a movie and television production capital, and its television programmes, movies and songs were well-received in various places of the world. But today, South Korea has transcended into the largest movie, television and entertainment production country in Asia. The reason is that as early as the 1990s, the South Korean Government already began to foster the development of its movie and television production industry. One of the most important policies on encouraging the industry's development was the introduction of legislative amendments concerning copyright and the copyright 2922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 infringing act of downloading as a means to protect the intellectual property right of songs, movies and television programmes. However, even though Hong Kong experienced rampant copyright infringement in the 1990s, the law has not progressed abreast of the times. Inadequate copyright protection has dealt a severe blow to the cultural and entertainment industry and led to its decline.

President, it can be seen from the above that Hong Kong is already preoccupied with the question of how to return to its development track. But the recent experience shows that we have done a better job only in poverty alleviation. The precise reason is that nobody will raise objection to poverty alleviation, so everything has gone very smoothly. But in the case of economic development and livelihood policies, queries about resource utilization will necessarily arise. And, as the process involves certain gives and takes, controversies will result. As long as controversies emerge, hindrances will become inevitable. We have a substantial fiscal reserve. But even young children will definitely understand the wisdom of "eating out of house and home". Even if we want to reverse the disparity between the rich and the poor, we can hardly take any drastic measures to achieve wealth redistribution under the overall low-tax regime in Hong Kong. The only way to tackle the crux of the matter is to promote diversification of industries and create a diversified range of work positions as a means of enabling everybody to enhance and develop their personal careers through employment.

For these reasons, FTU hopes that the next Chief Executive can give focused attention to economic development and improving people's livelihood. However, we also understand that a handful of people in the community have only devoted all their energy to politics. As a result, Hong Kong has been plunged into grave chaos. I propose this motion today in the hope of setting out the conditions for stability in Hong Kong and enabling people to live a stable and affluent life. So, social stability is the prerequisite for employment, housing and social tranquillity.

That said, if Members read the several amendments, they will be able to see that Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Nathan LAW and Mr Alvin YEUNG have deleted the important wording "building social consensus, safeguard the country's sovereignty, fully implement 'one country, two systems'" from the original motion. The reason behind is very obvious: once a social consensus is forged, they will lose their point of existence. They refuse to uphold the country's sovereignty. Worse still, they have taken "Hong Kong people ruling Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2923

Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" out of the context of "one country, two systems". Actually, "one country, two systems" already entails "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". These rights are given to Hong Kong as a gift by the Central Authorities. It is incumbent upon Hong Kong to uphold the country's sovereignty, and our rights and obligations must go hand in hand. But FTU is very confident to say that no separatist can possibly be selected as the Chief Executive. The disregard for the political reality and continued nagging and boastful talks about self-determination or separatism will only serve to tighten the knot and do no good whatsoever to resolving the stalemate.

Since the reunification, the opposition has been hindering the Government for the sole purpose of barring it from achieving anything, and they can keep reproaching the Government as a means of striving for political assets. In the case of promoting innovation and technology, for example, Shenzhen's efforts of fostering innovative technology have already overtaken ours, and the industry has recorded an economic growth of almost 20% every year and constituted as much as 35% of Shenzhen's GDP. In contrast, the HKSAR Government proposed to set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau with the original intention of fostering the development of innovation and technology. But it was delayed for several years due to their filibustering. After the political significance of their filibustering vanished, they became indifferent to this matter. The industry, the public and the entire community must then pay the price for their hindrance to social development amidst all the controversies. President, while it is easy to level reprimands, studies and negotiations are necessary for the genuine implementation of policies. And, a greatest possible agreement must be sought for policy implementation purpose. At present, the legislature is plagued by prevalent filibustering, and the pessimistic mentality of "perishing together" has weakened the positive energy in the legislature. Both sides will only fail to achieve anything in the end.

FTU considers that three livelihood issues are in most urgent need of handling: first, the labour issue; second, housing; and third, retirement protection. Other FTU Members will discuss housing and labour rights and interests. And I want to discuss retirement protection here. As one of the five pillars advocated by the World Bank, retirement protection must benefit everybody, and it is different from financial assistance. Therefore, there should not be any asset test. Besides, it is a social obligation to reward elderly people with retirement protection in return for their contribution to society. The proposals of FTU and 2924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 other organizations have put forth comprehensive financing options for the authorities' reference. We hope that the current Government can implement a retirement protection scheme beneficial to all, and that the next Government can continue to implement such a scheme and should improve it in case of inadequacies.

President, I am also the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Retirement Protection. During our all-day-long consultation session last week, certain organizations in attendance tried to use the issue of universal retirement protection to force all Members to vote down the Budget. In my view, this is not appropriate. But here, I must reflect to the next Government that retirement protection is honestly a concern to everybody. This is especially so when everybody is concerned about their retirement lives amidst imminent population ageing. So, I am very concerned that if we fail to undo this knot as early as possible, this issue may turn into a political asset of the opposition.

President, FTU hopes that the next Chief Executive can be a person with wisdom, enterprise and focused attention to improving people's livelihood and the economy, stabilizing the community and actively coping with the political obstacles which hinder his governance. At the same time, he should pay extensive heed to constructive views, forge a social consensus, uphold the country's sovereignty, and implement "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", with a view to achieving progress in people's livelihood and the economy.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, please move your motion.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed:

Mr KWOK Wai-keung moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That Hong Kong has suffered from continuous internal attrition due to political wrangling since the reunification, thus society can hardly focus on livelihood and economic issues, resulting in stagnant development; the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2925

great challenges to the edge of the traditional pillar industries and slow development of the emerging industries have caused the local industrial structure to be homogenous and hollowed out; the high land-price policy, which has given rise to the dominance of the real estate industry and rampant property speculation, has resulted in rents being exorbitant, hindering diversified economic development; the Government lacks determination to improve labour rights and interests and is unable to change the situation of 'strong capitalists and weak workers'; in this connection, this Council expects the next Chief Executive to extensively solicit advice for building social consensus, safeguard the country's sovereignty, fully implement 'one country, two systems', and initiate constitutional reform, so as to lead Hong Kong out of the stalemate of political wrangling; the next Chief Executive should also focus his/her strength on developing the economy, improving people's livelihood, and striving to improve labour rights and interests, so as to bring Hong Kong back to the track of prosperity and stability."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr KWOK Wai-keung be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Seven Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the seven amendments.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Nathan LAW, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG and Ms Starry LEE; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, today is the first Legislative Council meeting in 2017, so may I take this opportunity to wish Hong Kong efficiency in the Government, harmony in society and prosperity in all sectors in the new year. An inextricable subject of the new year is to talk about 2926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 the new year resolution. I notice many people have expressed their expectations of the next Chief Executive in their new year resolution. It is indeed an opportune time that Mr KWOK proposed this motion today.

The incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying announced earlier that he would not run for another term due to family reasons. Here, I wish to express my respect for his decision and I thank him for his hard work and efforts made over the past four years on governing Hong Kong. May I also wish him to have more happy and close time with his family after he leaves office in end of June.

However, I also wish to point out that despite the efforts he has made on improving a number of social and economic issues since he took office, such as increasing housing supply, suppressing the soaring property prices and narrowing the poverty gap, property prices and rents remain high, and he still needs to work harder on resolving social conflicts, redistributing social wealth rationally, and promoting labour relations and social harmony.

Given that the Chief Executive has announced his wish not to run for another term, people naturally put their expectations on the next Chief Executive, hoping that the newcomer will bring new changes to Hong Kong, particularly on the issues of social conflicts, dissension and division that they are very concerned about. Since the return of Hong Kong to China, some people have been stirring up troubles, holding referendum, filibustering, instigating the "Occupy Central" movement and even breaking out in riot in the name of democracy. It is indeed emotional and agitated to see such incidents get increasingly intense. We cannot help wondering why society has become so divided in recent years and whether Hong Kong is still the Hong Kong under the Lion Rock that we know.

The riot that broke out on the Mong Kok streets on the first and second days of the last Chinese New Year has pushed social dissension to its peak. It has also seriously undermined the core values of peace and social stability that we always uphold. Moreover, some people in this Council blatantly abused the oath-taking to spread the ideas of self-determination and Hong Kong independence, which triggered a Basic Law interpretation by the Standing Committee of National People's Congress to settle the matter. Politically speaking, last year was definitely not a smooth year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2927

There is no room for any compromise when it comes to defending the country's sovereignty. I earnestly hope that the new Chief Executive can find a way to build social consensus and dissolve dissension, so that Hong Kong can break away from the disturbing constitutional development and start moving forward again without losing its course in the tempest.

Due to serious internal attrition in society over the past years, development in Hong Kong has almost come to a halt, while our neighbouring cities and regions have caught up with, if not surpassed, our edges. Take the global city competitiveness ranking announced recently as an example. Hong Kong ranked ninth globally on its overall competitiveness, and it ranked second after Shanghai on integrated competitiveness for four consecutive years among the 358 cities in China. Shenzhen, situated just a river apart, indeed makes us green with envy for its leap into a high-tech city in the past years. One of the reasons that made Hong Kong slip from seventh to ninth place in the Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum announced last year is our lack of innovative power, which has stifled our development.

Given Hong Kong's externally-oriented economy, it is expected that Donald TRUMP at the helm and the political development in the Eurozone will possibly send their tremors to our financial market, and Hong Kong is likely to see more "black swans" in the market following its experience last year. We need to cautiously make every step forward to avoid introducing more risk factors to our undulating market. Thus, we absolutely have no criteria for dissension.

We, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA"), firmly believe that economic development can bring about improvement on people's livelihood. We earnestly hope that the next Chief Executive will spend more efforts in this regard, so as to find a new way out for the economy of Hong Kong, create new bright spots for our economy and vigorously improve people's livelihood. Livelihood improvement will foster social stability and provide a target for the younger generation to work hard on, thus boosting the upward mobility along the social ladder, thereby dissolving social grievances and conflicts.

Regarding labour relations, despite the different views of the two sides at times, I hope that we will not only focus on the conflicts, or saying that which is the stronger or weaker side, and forget the importance of making compromises because the employers and employees are actually in the same boat and they are 2928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 not antagonistic to each other. When the economy blooms, employers are often willing to share the profits with their employees. Since businesses are not as good as before due to escalating labour costs in recent years, employers may go bankrupt anytime if they have to shoulder any new labour costs. BPA and I hope that the next Chief Executive will work harder in this regard, so as to improve labour relations and reduce antagonism and conflicts.

President, there are many speculations in the community about the next Chief Executive. People are enthusiastically saying which Chief Executive candidate is getting more or less popular. Some even say that the Chief Secretary will resign tomorrow to join the race. In my opinion, however, no matter who will become the next Chief Executive, he or she must win the trust of the Central Government and be accountable to Hong Kong people. He or she must also stand by the principle of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. He or she must also present a solid election platform in their election campaign to win the votes of the 1 200 members of the Election Committee and to secure the support of Hong Kong people and the trust of the Central Government.

In face of the numerous difficulties in Hong Kong now, I believe the next Chief Executive will have heavy responsibilities and a long road ahead. His or her job is by no means easy. One needs to have enthusiasm, determination and faith in overcoming difficulties, as well as the ability to show his or her resourcefulness and wits in dissolving them. With single-hearted devotion, he or she must also maintain the lustre of Hong Kong and, to mark its 20th anniversary of returning to its Motherland, bring a new vision to Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, today, Mr KWOK Wai-keung moved a motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". But after listening to him, I observe that most of the time, he simply used the opportunity to lash out at pro-democracy Members as he liked. Having listened to what he said, I thought the motion today had changed to "Expectations for the current-term pro-democracy Members".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2929

Coming back to the subject, today's motion is very important because Members can take this opportunity to draw a conclusion of the work done by the Government in the past few years and the performance of the few Chief Executives so far, and express our expectations for the next Chief Executive on behalf of the people. But most regrettably, no public officers are here to listen to our views. This should be strongly condemned. They are still receiving salaries. They should not wait until the next Government to clear up the mess of this Government. They should at least attend this meeting and reflect our views to the next Government. This is their constitutional responsibility.

President, Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty had a famous saying. He said, "You learn the rise and decline if you take history as a mirror; and you understand the success and failure if you take people as a mirror." A number of famous icons in the SAR Government in recent years are involved in corruption, namely Donald TSANG, Rafael HUI, Timothy TONG and LEUNG Chun-ying. Donald TSANG is now being prosecuted. Rafael HUI is now in prison. Timothy TONG, regrettably, is off the hook. And LEUNG Chun-ying is still under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). Honesty is one of the most important core pillars of Hong Kong. Today, when we discuss our expectations for the next Chief Executive, we must point out that Hong Kong has been regressing in terms of honesty in recent years. Thus, I proposed an amendment on combating corruption to Mr KWOK Wai-keung's motion.

The honesty level of Hong Kong has been dropping ever since LEUNG Chun-ying took office. According to a research done by an international anti-corruption organization Transparency International, the ranking of Hong Kong on its Corruption Perceptions Index have been dropping for four consecutive years. And according to the Appraisal of Degree of Corruption-free Practices conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, the rating has plummeted from 7.37, when LEUNG Chun-ying took office, to a new record low of 5.95 now. No one knows when this downward trend will stop. All I know is that the damage on Hong Kong as a clean city done by the avarice of LEUNG Chun-ying is irrevocable. The damage is most seriously seen on the entire establishment because he has been using lies and excuses to cover up his receipt of tens of millions of dollars from UGL Limited.

I put an oral question this morning and the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs could not answer my question. I moved a motion on the personnel reshuffle of ICAC earlier and Chief Secretary Carrie LAM also could 2930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 not answer my question. LEUNG Chun-ying does not need to provide any service to UGL Limited and UGL Limited has not requested any service from him, except laying down a few conditions in the service contract requiring him not to provide service if there is a conflict of interests. He can then assume the post of Chief Executive while receiving tens of millions of dollars from UGL Limited at the same time. How come he can be allowed to do so? These issues concern his integrity and also the political system of Hong Kong.

Speaking from a holistic perspective, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is returned by a coterie election which is mostly made up of privileged-class people not chosen by the general public. They protect their vested interests and defend the commercial and industrial sector and large consortia. Given this backdrop, the Chief Executive inevitably would tilt his system towards large business tycoons and consortia, make secret dealings and transfer benefits to them. This has undermined the honesty culture of Hong Kong.

Speaking from a microscopic perspective, section 3 of the existing Prevention of Bribery Ordinance cannot regulate the Chief Executive. When LEUNG Chun-ying took office, he promised that he would amend the Ordinance in accordance with the report submitted by the former Chief Justice Andrew LI to include Chief Executive into the scope of regulation. However, in the past years, LEUNG Chun-ying has refused to amend the Ordinance with the excuse that the subject involves complex constitutional issues. Now, he has announced his decision not to run for another term and is about to step down, but we still cannot see any progress in this matter. I cannot help but suspect that he may have done something wrong, or may have received other benefits during his term that we are unaware of, such that he dare not amend the Ordinance to regulate himself. How come there is one set of law in Hong Kong to regulate the general public and other public officers and another set of law to let LEUNG Chun-ying off the hook?

President, today I am supposed to express my expectations for the Chief Executive, but I must also say something about Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM because she has openly said that she would reconsider running for the post of Chief Executive. A fair and open system which encourages competition is the key to Hong Kong's success. However, the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WCKD") incident revealed the imperious and arbitrary side of Carrie LAM. She went around all normal procedures and ordained the architect. Her action disrupts the level playing field and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2931 competitiveness and harms the system of competition and the fairness culture of Hong Kong. She actually admitted that she had inadequacy in the handling of the incident, but she also criticized others for making the issue political. Carrie LAM said sarcastically that people had made use of the WCKD incident to attack her like a bullet because she announced that she would consider running for the post of Chief Executive.

President, a priority task of the Chief Executive is to extensively solicit different advice and humbly listen to criticism. But I am not convinced that Carrie LAM, a potential Chief Executive Election candidate, has this moral character and aspiration. She openly admitted her inadequacy but she considered justified criticism an attack against her and an intention to politicize the matter. I hope that the future Chief Executive will not focus only on making slogan-like comments such as "I have no private intentions or private interests, and I have served Hong Kong people for decades". One needs to take actions heartily so that Hong Kong people will see that he or she is not paying lip service, but is actually defending the core values and systems of Hong Kong through his or her work, daily administration and past work performance.

President, the motion today is very important. I know that many Members have proposed different amendments to the motion. We, the Democratic Party, support safeguarding the country's sovereignty and "one country, two systems" and implementing "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". But these tasks cannot be achieved by the work of and be considered as the responsibility of one single person or political party in Hong Kong. These tasks are the responsibility of all people in society. More importantly, the Central Government must not take the lead to damage "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

Last but not least, President, I wish to advise the next Chief Executive not to continue the route taken by LEUNG Chun-ying. Do not think that you are the representative of public opinion and public interests just because you have served Hong Kong for decades. Please listen to different views and criticisms about you and see if they are justified.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

2932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the next Chief Executive Election is fast approaching, and so far, two persons have formally announced their decisions to run in the election. More people can be expected to announce their decisions to run in the time to come, of course. But despite their announcements, it is still not known whether they can eventually "enter the starting gate". Hence, in the interim, we can only keep watching and wait to see who can formally become a candidate at the end of the day. It is still not known when their candidacy can be formally confirmed, but today is a very good opportunity for us to say a few words on our expectations for the next Chief Executive. This is very important and a very good opportunity.

Sadly, although we want to express "expectations", can we honestly have any "expectations" in a coterie election? Since the first Chief Executive Election, the Central Government has been manipulating the whole electoral process, and the people have never been able to make their own choices through the ballot box. Hence, what is the point of talking about our expectations? When we have no power to choose, the candidates will not listen to our expectations, still less will they pay any heed to us. Consequently, even though we hold this debate today, whatever we say is bound to be mere empty talk. More importantly, if the coterie election is not discarded, if there is no change to the 31 August Decision of the National People's Congress that stops us from having the rights to nominate candidates and to vote, this motion will be largely meaningless.

The people have all along been very angry about the lack of democratic progress for our system, and such anger has manifested itself in many different problems. As we can observe, disputes in society have been on the increase. What is more, we have seen not only an increase in disputes but also the emergence of "Hong Kong independence" ideas that constantly split up our society and tear it apart. In spite of this, I believe that most of the people still want to see the smooth implementation of genuine "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. But the successful implementation of "one country, two systems" must to a very large extent depend on "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Regrettably, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" have never been properly implemented over the past 10 years, and the Central Government has never respected the aspirations of Hong Kong people. We can observe that in the case of many Hong Kong affairs, there was either the direct intervention of the Central Government, or the direct or indirect intervention of the Liaison Office of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2933

Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR. Hong Kong people thus feel that "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" have been reduced to "the Central Authorities ruling Hong Kong", and we simply cannot have any autonomy at all. I thus think that this situation is a cause of worry and concern. How is the new Chief Executive going to change this situation?

Another point is that having looked back at the performance of the incumbent Chief Executive and even all the three Chief Executives so far, we actually find the situation deteriorating. They simply failed to make any whole-hearted efforts to defend the values and culture cherished by Hong Kong people. Of the three Chief Executives, LEUNG Chun-ying must be the worst, and his acts are the most outrageous.

President, before moving my amendment today, I once again went through LEUNG Chun-ying's election manifesto in the election back then. When I opened the manifesto, the first thing I saw was the two words "one heart". Over the past four years or so, has he succeeded in bringing forth "one heart"? I suppose he has because we are all of "one heart" in asking him to step down and not to seek re-election. This is "one heart". This aside, there is no "one heart" at all. He has failed to bring forth "one heart", and after reading his manifesto, we even find that he has "defaulted" on many of his undertakings. What undertakings? People who are concerned about labour and livelihood issues will know clearly that he has not done anything whatsoever about legislating for standard working hours, the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund System and universal retirement protection. He has likewise failed to bring forth any improvement even in respect of housing―the top priority issue which he said must be seriously tackled at that time. Since his taking office, the waiting time for public housing has increased from three years to four years. This top priority problem has instead turned even more serious.

Besides "defaults", he is also noted for his frequent use of "doublespeak" to embellish his policies. As a result, this Chief Executive can only make us discard him with "one heart", rather than making us run Hong Kong together with "one heart". Instead of seeing the "Hong Kong camp" he referred to, we can actually observe that there is not any form of unity in Hong Kong. Therefore, his trickery of saying and doing different things can no longer work. This is something we can all see very clearly.

2934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

But as we criticize LEUNG Chun-ying, Hong Kong people also have another worry. What is their worry? Well, after LEUNG Chun-ying's announcement that he will not seek re-election, a person has quickly stated that she will stand in the election, and rumours even have it that she will resign from the post of Chief Secretary for Administration tomorrow and even sooner. This person is Carrie LAM. There are several things about Carrie LAM that worry us. One of them is her telling us that she will hold onto the line taken by LEUNG Chun-ying. President, what is the line taken by LEUNG Chun-ying? There are several aspects to his line. First, fawning on the Central Authorities. This is evident and needs no elaboration. Second, ruthless suppression of his rivals. This is also very evident. Third, splitting up and dividing society. If she really holds onto LEUNG Chun-ying's line, we will certainly be very worried.

Although Carrie LAM is not yet the Chief Executive, we can already see her style of doing things very clearly from the recent Hong Kong Palace Museum incident. From the disputes over this incident, we can observe that Carrie LAM is a person who not only ignores public opinions but also dares to contravene procedural justice to the extent of clandestine operation. Worse still, after doing all this, she is not the slightest bit ashamed. She is defiant of all the criticisms in society and extremely arrogant, insisting that she has done nothing wrong and thinking that she has won a great victory. Smugly, she has talked about how she did an excellent job in confidentiality protection, allowing no leakage at all. President, the construction of a palace museum in the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WKCD") is no small issue. And, Members must not forget that the reason for the long delay of WKCD is mainly the need for public consultation. The reason for having three rounds of consultation altogether was to require the SAR Government to undertake that WKCD shall meet the needs of Hong Kong people and fulfil the people's aspirations. This was the reason for having several rounds of consultation. But then, Carrie LAM now even has the face to say that she did a very good job in confidentiality protection, allowing no leakage at all. What do her words mean? They mean that she did not want to heed any public opinions and aspirations. How can she be so autocratic?

The basis of Hong Kong's success is its respect for procedural justice. But we now see that Carrie LAM has ignored this completely in this incident. She once said, "A government official with no expectation is always courageous." But I think her desire to be the Chief Executive has turned her brazen. I think such presumptuous and autocratic behaviour makes her no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2935 different from a dictator. When compared with LEUNG Chun-ying, she is even worse.

I hence think that apart from being bellicose and unreceptive to public opinions, Carrie LAM is also like LEUNG Chun-ying in one way that I have talked about just now―fawning on the Central Authorities. She likes to boast before the Central Authorities and claim all the credits, and she is a sycophant, as evidenced by the Hong Kong Palace Museum incident. To me, when it comes to our expectations for the next Chief Executive, the most important thing is that we do not want such a person to be the Chief Executive. What kind of people do we want? People who give strong support to "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" (The buzzer sounded) and "a high degree of autonomy". This should be the most important thing and our criterion.

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

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, during the motion debate concerning sign language earlier, a Member said: the widest distance in the world is that when I am standing in front of you but cannot hear your voice. However, in my view, the longest distance in the world is that when you are standing in front of me and can hear my words but you are never listening to what I am saying. This is what to expect in the coming Chief Executive Question and Answer Sessions and the Chief Executive Election.

When I was preparing my speech for this motion, I felt that we were facing a Christmas tree on which we hung our wishes, and then waited for the presents to be delivered by the Santa Claus. As we all know, the Chief Executive will play the role of Santa Claus, and the pro-establishment camp will be his reindeer, bringing him towards different directions and giving presents to different people. However, it is unfortunate that the Chief Executive will only go to the business sector and the organizations with vested interests to give out presents, but will never work on those policies beneficial to people's livelihood. We are the children in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes", pointing out his mistakes and questionable areas, but our wishes will never be granted by him.

2936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

In fact, when we are talking about monitoring and discussing what to expect from the Chief Executive under this system, we are merely fishing in the air. Mr KWOK Wai-keung, the mover of the original motion, said earlier that from the experience of the United States, he learned that those political groups which caused stagnation of the political state would be punished by elections. First of all, I am rather appalled by his admiration of the separation of powers system in the United States. Besides, I am not sure whether he remembers that during the election last year, there was actually increase in the number of votes and the number of seats for the democratic camp. I am not sure whether he also remembers that it is the pro-establishment camp, the camp that colludes with LEUNG Chun-ying, which was actually being punished by voters.

The five-year term of office of LEUNG Chun-ying will soon be past. Looking to the future, I would like to take this opportunity to make a brief summary on his political achievements. During his term of office, I think there is one thing that he has done very well, and that is his decision of not to seek re-election. After he has made this decision, I believe that at least a few million people in Hong Kong celebrated with champagne and walked out to the street with a smiling face. Nevertheless, his other policies have greatly disappointed the Hong Kong people. During the election, LEUNG Chun-ying pledged in all sincerity and initiated "One Heart, One Vision, For the People", which turned out eventually to be "One Heart, One Vision, For Tyranny". His political achievements during these five years really have nothing good to report.

LEUNG Chun-ying has given top priority to housing policies. However, the production volume of public rental housing ("PRH") units during these five years has never reached the target of 15 000 housing units per year, while the average waiting time for PRH units has already risen to a record high of four and a half years. With the Hong Kong economy continuously to be led by the property market, both the housing prices and social grievances have been further pushed up by.

He has also gone back on his words on all the labour policies which he chanted so frequently during election. When the universal retirement protection scheme is still far from being implemented, the Government even puts forward a bogus option incorporated with a means test mechanism. Besides, standard working hours and the abolition of offsetting mechanism of Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme have yet to be implemented.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2937

In terms of education, I think he is a "world-class" leader who is so awesome as to have recreated another world record. He has appointed "No-good NG" (Eddie NG) as the Secretary for Education, who may be the worst accountable official ever in human history. I sincerely congratulate him on this. I also call upon the Government to conform to the aspiration of LAM Tai-fai who asks to get rid of this despicable person as soon as possible. After more than 30 students have committed suicide, he did not even care to attend the related public hearing session of the Legislative Council. Facing the questions from students, he only played with his mobile phone. His misdemeanors are just too numerous to be listed. As many public members say, even speaking foul language cannot fully give vent to their anger against him.

Under the administration of LEUNG Chun-ying, people in Hong Kong cannot live a happy life, and the policies cannot meet the targets. LEUNG Chun-ying, who has a reputation as a political bruiser and all the characteristics of a tyrannical leader, will be condemned by posterity. For the sake of serving his own political interests, he does not hesitate to provoke serious political contradictions. He fully engages himself in politics. Since he took the office, he has been advocating triad infiltrated politics in the name of patriotism. From the "Alliance in support of LEUNG Chun-ying", the incident of Tin Shui Wai forum, the gangs in Mong Kok, the dark night incident in Mong Kok, to the recent airport incident, we can see that the logic of violence among gangsters has already infiltrated into our politics. Besides, he is even suspected of colluding with squire forces in forming the "government-business-rural-triad" syndicate.

After the 31 August Decision was made in 2014, not only did LEUNG Chun-ying fail to stand up for Hong Kong people's right of universal suffrage, but he even adopted a high-handed approach in treating the protesters striving for genuine universal suffrage, which triggered a large-scale Umbrella Movement. During the last few months of his term of office, LEUNG Chun-ying announced that he would not seek re-election. "A government official with no expectation is always courageous". I suspect that he is slightly suffering from mental disorder after he has lost his power, as he openly provoked Dr Kenneth CHAN, an ex-Legislative Council for no reason. I believe that this has never been heard of in the political history of the world. The internal friction of Hong Kong is due to LEUNG Chun-ying's mediocrity rather than political wrangling.

2938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

In this connection, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, mover of the original motion, also blames other people for LEUNG Chun-ying's mediocrity, as he says that pan-democracy Members hamper the discussion of livelihood issues. I am not sure how good his memory is. Can he remember who were against the motions concerning the review of the MPF offsetting arrangement, the standard working hours and the construction of more public markets? In fact, his colleagues from the New People's Party and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong did not give their support to these motions which are beneficial to people's livelihood, and even the motion on striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong that we debated earlier on was also vetoed due to the abstention of Members from Functional Constituencies ("FCs") in the voting. It is thus rather regrettable that they would confound right and wrong for the sake of supporting the Government.

This term of Government only has a few months left, and LEUNG Chun-ying will leave an awful mess behind which no one wants to deal with. We once placed hopes on the new Chief Executive who could bring forth changes to the system, but the facts proved that this is only our wishful thinking. Among the officially announced candidates for the Chief Executive election at present, none of them does not bow to tyranny. Neither can they represent the public, nor will they administer for the overall interests of Hong Kong.

Today, we discuss the motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". I want to remind Members, including Mr KWOK Wai-keung who is the mover of the original motion, that before Hong Kong can have genuine universal suffrage with the abolition of FCs, the lobbying targets of the Chief Executive candidates will always be members from the business sector. The new Chief Executive will not administer for the overall interests of Hong Kong. If the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions is really fighting for the interests of the labour and the grassroots, it should side with the pro-democracy camp. Dr SUN Yat-sen had once quoted the lines from Confucian Analects to criticize some conservative royalists. He said, "For the affairs in this world, if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success." Since we understand the crux of the question lies in the entire political system, why do we not strive together to abolish FCs? We do not agree with Mr KWOK Wai-keung who does not mention the draconian rule of LEUNG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2939

Chun-ying at all in the original motion with the intention of shirking the responsibility for the authorities. If we act like him in this way, we can never learn from experience. We cannot act like the royalists in the Qing Dynasty who would expect to have a good emperor, but would condemn and defame, both in speeches and in writings, those who advocated reforms to the system.

Therefore, what Hong Kong people need to think about is that in the coming few months, we cannot pray for help from heaven and expect democracy to be delivered from heaven, but should begin with a civic society, re-advocating our aspiration for autonomy and self-reliance of Hong Kong. We will then ask for response from the candidates.

Firstly, we must strive to establish an autonomous and self-reliant governing system for various strata of society. We need to fight for genuine universal suffrage and the abolition of the framework generated by the 31 August Decision. Besides, there are not a few statutory institutions at present. Some examples are the Town Planning Board, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Independent Police Complaints Council or board of directors of tertiary education institutions, whose composition and structures are not democratic as the members are only appointed by the Chief Executive. Heung Yee Kuk, which also has a rather enclosed system, has even become an infighting arena of the pro-establishment camp. While the operation of these statutory institutions is rather important, our aspirations of advocating democratization of local organizations and re-establishment of a three-tier council system to delegate municipal powers to institutions representing public opinions are no less significant.

Next, we need to establish a community economy, work together with the residents against the control of consortia in order to regain our dignity in living. We thus advocate bazaars policy, hawking system and encourage green economy. Besides, we also promote social autonomy. We need to step up assistance to the socially disadvantaged, increase expenditures on education and implement universal retirement protection scheme. Concerning our proposal of democratic self-determination, we do not purely refer to the discussion of our future after 2047, but to the discussion of more important social, economic and livelihood issues, with a view to taking over anew our governing structure.

2940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Of course, these aspirations will surely affect those with vested interests. I also do not believe that the Chief Executive, who is returned by a small circle of voters, will change his royalist nature simply because of this motion. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we need to feel worried and depressed. Instead of waiting for the next Chief Executive, it would be better for us to take over the political agenda again. The local community needs to continuously extend the discussion of these topics, and thus let us start from our community work. As a Legislative Council Member, I will also continue to work hard with the community such that we can really be hopeful.

Therefore, I hope that Members can support my amendment. I so submit.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr KWOK Wai-keung for moving this motion today. He remarked in his speech that he was a bit disappointed by the absence of all Bureau Directors, but I think it is still fine even though they are absent since the target audience of our speeches today are the Central Government and the several candidates running for the Chief Executive election. I hope the Central Government and the several Chief Executive hopefuls can hear clearly the speeches delivered by the representatives of public opinion today.

President, I really do hope that today, a day in January 2017, would be a watershed in the history of Hong Kong's governance. To make possible the emergence of a watershed, something has to be obliterated while something has to be established. LEUNG Chun-ying's governance approach is what should be obliterated and a reliable institutional framework is something that has to be established for healthy governance in the way forward.

I will first start with LEUNG Chun-ying's governance approach. Today is 11 January 2017 and the election of Election Committee members took place exactly a month ago on 11 December 2016. We were overjoyed at the results of the election, of which the turnout rate has seen an abrupt surge from 27% of the previous election to 46% of the current one. Besides, the number of seats won by the pro-democracy camp surged from 200 or so of the previous election to over 300 of the current one. Two important messages were forcefully conveyed by the current election. First, people in general have grown tired of the governance by LEUNG Chun-ying and thus attach great importance to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2941 forthcoming Chief Executive election. Second, even though people are not so pleased with the constitutional arrangements of the small circle election, they take pragmatic actions to make the best use of their votes to shape the election results.

President, let us sum up LEUNG's approach in a rational manner today. This is rather important because people's positive expectations for the Chief Executive will be made clear by juxtaposing their negative experiences. Recently, writer LEUNG Man-tao has generalized LEUNG's approach in two points: First, LEUNG appoints only the people who are loyal to him for filling posts in his administration regardless of their competence, thus resulting in traditional governing elites being replaced by "LEUNG's fans" and a continuous erosion of Hong Kong's core values; second, he achieves his every purpose by means of struggle, never stops stirring up controversies out of nothing and keeps blowing whatever issues out of proportion until that the community is ripped apart. He makes capital out of crises to create a personal image of bravery and loyalty in a bid to consolidate his power.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with LEUNG Man-tao's views above, LEUNG Chun-ying's deeds are inconceivably perplexing indeed. The community has to pay a high price and even his social prestige has diminished all because of what he has done. Why so paradoxical? In my opinion, it has something to do with LEUNG Chun-ying's personal attributes, but we also need to ask if there are other objective systems and causes that have brought about such consequences.

Actually, the answer is simple. We all know that LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive with the full support of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"). After being elected, he still relies on LOCPG's support in governing this city. LEUNG Chun-ying can totally ignore the public and exclude in entirety all the dissenting opinions since he was returned by a small circle election manipulated by the Central Government. The basis of his powers was built on the coalition between "Central District" and Western District" in which members of the public have no place whatsoever. Chief Executives of previous terms of Government would at least attach certain importance to popularity, but the more extreme LEUNG Chun-ying cares nothing about popularity when he is in power.

2942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

What we must do today is to obliterate LEUNG Chun-ying's approach and learn a lesson for the sake of establishing new criteria, models and systems. Bygones are bygones, I have no intention of looking back at everything about LEUNG Chun-ying but we really must learn our lessons to determine our way forward.

In reflecting on the current situation, I do wish to cite here the views given by Mr WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council as well as Democrats 300+, a coalition formed by Election Committee members belonging to the pan-democratic camp, to help shape our expectations for the next Chief Executive. As we all know, Mr WANG Guangya represents the Central Government and what he has told is the standards set by the Central Government. An interview with Mr WANG entitled "Stand firm with your bottom line, have respect and tolerance for others, take forward the principle of 'one country, two systems' unswervingly" published in the latest issue of Zijing Magazine merits our attention. He pointed out at the very beginning, "The Chief Executive represents both Hong Kong and the Central Government as well. The Chief Executive should be appointed by the Central Government after being elected in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong community has demands on and expectations for the Chief Executive, and so does the Central Government." He said that both sides have their demands and expectations, including the Hong Kong citizens. Every election candidate should be conversant in the duties of the Chief Executive, requirements of the state, expectations of the Hong Kong citizens―I repeat, "the expectations of the Hong Kong citizens".

On standards, he has raised four criteria: The Chief Executive should love both the country and Hong Kong, must be someone the Central Government can trust, capable of governing, and able to win the support of Hong Kong people. The two criteria, namely the trust from the Central Government and the support of Hong Kong people were mentioned at the same time. He further pointed out that, from the Central Government's perspective, "the Chief Executive should be able to accurately take forward and implement the Basic Law, to reflect comprehensively and accurately Hong Kong's situation to the Central Government in an objective manner, and give his views on work. He should also explain to the public the Central Government's policies in a manner LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2943 consistent with the laws of Hong Kong as well as the circumstances in Hong Kong and implement the policies decided by the Central Government". He also said, "The Central Government will also observe the election candidates … every Chief Executive candidate should focus on the long-term well-being of Hong Kong people and make clear whose governance philosophy to the public. Meanwhile, he should unite Hong Kong people through election and lead them to move forward." I believe Mr WANG Guangya made the above remarks to suggest a new and essential direction for Hong Kong's governance upon learning solidly a lesson from the failure of the LEUNG Chun-ying approach. Apart from attaching importance to the Central Government's views, the Chief Executive must also attach weight to Hong Kong citizens' views. He should understand and care about the wishes of Hong Kong citizens and unite Hong Kong people, including the pro-democracy camp and pro-establishment camp, through election. These are the Central Government's standards.

What are the standards of the Hong Kong citizens then? Try to take a look at the three major criteria suggested by Democrats 300+, a group of people emerged from the current election which represents supporters of the pro-democracy camp: First, the Chief Executive should support neither LEUNG Chun-ying nor his approach; second, not being constrained by the 31 August Decision, he will strive for genuine universal suffrage; third, he will defend the core values of Hong Kong, such as freedom, human rights, probity, etc. Actually, the views of the pro-democracy camp are pretty simple. We hope to defend our core values and pursue an improved democratic system in future.

One may query if Mr WANG Guangya's remarks can fuse with the stance of Democrats 300+, but I do not see any intrinsic contradiction between the two. If, I mean if, the Central Government truthfully understands, accepts and respects Hong Kong citizens' expectations, then an ideal Chief Executive in its concept should be someone who, apart from winning its trust, understands and attaches importance to the core values of Hong Kong and is capable of leading Hong Kong people and fostering ongoing social and economic developments on all fronts. Not only should an ideal candidate be obedient, he should also be able to lead Hong Kong in securing continuous development, including making progress in terms of a democracy system and the various core values of Hong Kong. An ideal Chief Executive should also be acceptable to both the pro-democracy camp 2944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 and the pro-establishment camp at least, and it is even better if he can have their support.

In fact, some people have concerns that Hong Kong people's separatist tendency has been increasing in recent years. Actually, what are the reasons for their increasing separatist tendency? One of the reasons being that the "two systems", especially the system in Hong Kong, have been incessantly suppressed under the "one country" framework. The original core values of Hong Kong and pillars such as probity and academic freedom have been wholly deteriorating under LEUNG Chun-ying's governance. However, I trust that both the Central Government and Hong Kong still remember the reasons for implementing the "one country, two systems". What is the original intent of the "one country, two systems" then? Well, it is intended to let Hong Kong maintain its original way of life as well as systems and move forward under the framework for unity of our country.

My expectations for the next Chief Executive being that the policy of "one country" will be well protected while the original values of Hong Kong can "take flight" under his governance without having to make great concessions. Along with the "one country" comes the "two systems". It takes corresponding systems and practices to achieve these results. I believe the results of the Election Committee election has informed us one thing, that is, people still hope that the upcoming Chief Executive election will be a genuine election no longer manipulated by the "Western District" even in the absence of an ideal election system. The election candidates must endeavour to secure the Central Government's support and common support from both the pro-democracy camp and the pro-establishment camp so as to meet the requirement of uniting Hong Kong people through election as put forth by Mr WANG Guangya. It is precisely with this requirement can the goal of making the Chief Executive accountable to both the Central Government and the Hong Kong citizens be achieved and that there will be more ideal candidates to run for (The buzzer sounded) … the election then.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please stop speaking, Mr IP.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2945

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, when Mr KWOK Wai-keung spoke just now, he said that at its meeting this morning, the Public Works Subcommittee was unable to deal with the issue of public housing developments in Area 9, Tai Po. Mr KWOK Wai-keung is an elected Member from the Hong Kong Island constituency, so he may not know Tai Po or even the New Territories East quite so well really. Regarding the public housing developments in Area 9 of Tai Po discussed this morning, even the Government admits that it is necessary to reconsider whether wet goods markets should be added to the plan. So far, 2 000 members of the public have already signed up on the Internet, saying that the present inadequacy of ancillary transport facilities is directly related to planning.

Let me advise royalist Members that they really must listen to the opinions and feelings of the public, instead of "following the vehicle ahead too closely", or else they will only do harm to themselves.

Mr KWOK named my amendment for criticisms a moment ago, so please allow me to give a direct response now. My amendment explicitly asks for compliance with "one country, two systems" and the safeguarding of "a high degree of autonomy". Mr KWOK has kept talking about state sovereignty without doing anything. The proposals in my amendment, if implemented, can really uphold state sovereignty.

President, Mr Alan LEONG, a former Member from my political party, once moved a motion back in 2011, calling upon probable Chief Executive hopefuls to answer people's aspirations. President, the Government at that time asked Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen LAM to give a reply in this Council. But no government officials have come for this motion debate today. What message has the Government thus given us? Is it because the current-term Government has already given up altogether? Or, is it because it simply does not attach any importance to the Legislative Council?

President, "CY's five-year rule has brought endless harms to Hong Kong". Political feuds have worsened incessantly over the past five years with LEUNG Chun-ying as the Chief Executive. The SAR Government led by LEUNG Chung-ying has adhered to cronyism, doing everything to incite bitter struggles among Hong Kong people. Over the past five years under LEUNG Chun-ying's rule, there has developed in Hong Kong a very unique "LEUNG Chun-ying Model" which is worth our research in the future. Under the "LEUNG 2946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Chun-ying Model", Hong Kong has seen endless turbulences over the past five years.

What exactly is the "LEUNG Chun-ying Model"? One may say that it is all about a myopic pursuit of instant achievements and a disregard for established procedures. We can observe that for five years, as long as the incumbent Chief Executive wants to do anything, he will do it by hook or by crook. This was the case with the issue of national education in 2012, with the white-elephant projects in the past few years and also with the rejection of the licence application from Hong Kong Television Network Limited ("HKTVN").

President, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Mr Christopher CHEUNG talked about innovative technologies just now. If the Government really attaches so much importance to creative industries, how come no one supported HKTVN's licence application at that time?

LEUNG Chun-ying omitted a declaration of interest in relation to his involvement as a member of the Jury in the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition. The Legislative Council established a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, and the conclusion was that LEUNG Chun-ying had unshirkable responsibility. But when LEUNG Chun-ying responded to the inquiry report of the Legislative Council, he did not tender any apology to the public. He even distorted the truth and shamelessly said that the report could re-establish his innocence. Members may have forgotten this incident already. But what can it reflect? It can reflect very serious problems with LEUNG Chun-ying's integrity.

Over the past five years, the administration of the Hong Kong SAR Government has been pervaded by "doublespeak". As result, we can no longer trust the Hong Kong SAR Government, and it has thus lost all credibility.

We will not forget the toughness of LEUNG Chun-ying. President, I of course am not talking about his good policies here. Rather, I am talking about his bigotry and his liking for antagonizing the people. The expression frequently used to describe LEUNG Chun-ying is: he will use all available powers to the fullest extent and even abuse them in order to achieve his purposes. This administration model established by this Chief Executive over the past few years really sends a chill down our spines. Every policy he rolls out will only cause social division. We can see that LEUNG Chun-ying and the SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2947

Government are never willing to heed public opinions. Such intransigence has already spread to the Legislative Council. Some democratic-camp Members have been criticizing that pro-establishment Members will obey whatever the Government advocates in respective of any voices in society.

President, over a short span of merely five years, the administration of the SAR Government has gone from bad to worse. People no longer trust the Government, and conflicts keep increasing. LEUNG Chun-ying will soon be history. What do we expect of the next Chief Executive? This is our topic of discussion today.

Expectations concerning the next Chief Executive will vary from Member to Member. But the most important expectations must be compliance with "one country, two systems" and the upholding of "a high degree of autonomy".

President, we observe that over the past 10 years, the entire SAR Government has turned "westernized" in its work, in the sense that it has moved closer and closer to the "Western District". The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR is supposed to play the role of a liaison office only. But when the pro-establishment camp, government officials and even the Chief Executive all listen to the "Western District", what is still left in "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy"?

I have said that people have lost all trust in the SAR Government. President, this loss of trust has not emerged overnight. Rather, it is the outcome of a long cumulative process. When the SAR pays no heed to the voices of Hong Kong people and listens only to the "Western District", can Hong Kong benefit in any way even if the Chief Executive is replaced? The answer is of course no.

Hong Kong is a developed city, and we need new reforms to lead us forward and turn ourselves into a society with more justice. We may need new policies on people's livelihood and housing. Yet, what is of even greater importance is that the Chief Executive we want need not be a superman or top student. A top student may well be a bigot. The Chief Executive we want is a person who is humble and receptive to views. But well, we are actually unable to elect the Chief Executive because he is chosen by just 1 200 people. Some even say that the Chief Executive is selected by only one person.

2948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

President, we do not want the Office of the Chief Executive to be headed by any self-proclaimed genius. We hope that the person can really unite all Hong Kong people. President, we have had enough of feuds and disputes over the past five years. The root of all this is invariably the Chief Executive. I therefore hope that the next Chief Executive can really unite all Hong Kong people and let them recuperate, instead of stirring up any more conflicts.

I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I must express my regret at Mr Nathan LAW's remark just now. In his 10-minute speech, he kept defaming the SAR Government in the most exaggerating manner, as well as defaming the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") and many Members in this Council. Moreover, a lot of Members have spoken in such ways as to blame everything on others, ascribing all the problems to the SAR Government and us, while they are the heroes to promote self-determination. They have also claimed that the problems have nothing to do with them. In fact, having listened to such remarks, I felt enraged too. But I asked myself not to feel so, as this is the same old trick they can play. Clueless as they are, they can offer no solution, so they have to ascribe every social problem to the SAR Government. Basically, they will not touch upon their indiscriminate filibusters on almost everything, or their objections against mostly every issue proposed by the Central Authorities or project involving Mainland-Hong Kong integration, or their comprehensive filibusters against projects implemented by the Chief Executive.

Now, the situation becomes more extreme, in which some legislators or members of the public have blatantly challenged the bottom line of "one country, two systems". I have recently learnt from media reports that Mr Nathan LAW attended activities organized by an organization which has advocated Taiwan independence. Such an extreme behaviour to test the Central Authorities' bottom line is of no benefit to Hong Kong at all. If this goes on, the relationship between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong will only go wrong. I urge everyone really not to do this anymore, as this will only bring us to a dead end.

President, back to our topic today. The subject of our discussion is "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". I appreciate Mr KWOK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2949

Wai-keung for raising this subject at this particular moment. Today, I will introduce DAB's expectations for the next Chief Executive in five aspects, namely "safeguard one country, two systems", "promote reconciliation in society", "establish quality democracy", "enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness", and "share the fruit of economic development with the people". We will put forward our demands accordingly.

President, "one country, two systems" is Hong Kong's foundation, the cornerstone to extend the legend of Hong Kong. DAB believes that "one country, two systems" is best for both the country and Hong Kong in the past, at present and in future. So, we expect the next Chief Executive to, firstly, strive to safeguard "one country, two systems".

The idea of "Hong Kong independence" has gathered pace in recent years, mostly packaged as self-determination, and has evolved into some naked act of violence. There is absolutely no room for "Hong Kong independence" under "one country, two systems". So, the next Chief Executive must go on defending the bottom line of "one country, two systems" and demolish "Hong Kong independence" in the nascent stage.

There is of course a bottom line for "one country, two systems", but there is also tolerance for Hong Kong's uniqueness under "two systems" and social diversity. President, Hong Kong is embedded in political wrangling in this few years. From the street to the Council, we are occupied by incessant conflicts and confrontations. On the other hand, increasing interactions between people of the Mainland and Hong Kong have resulted in social problems, which have aroused further contradictions, leading to issues relating to recognition of national identity. All these conflicts have torn society wider apart. Indeed, polarization does appear among different camps. Many people are tired of these divisions with grave concern. A survey conducted by the Hong Kong Research Association earlier indicated that Hong Kong people's life satisfaction over last year reached a new low in 12 years.

Moreover, a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of The Chinese University of Hong Kong last October showed that political wrangling was one of the factors for Hong Kong people's decision to emigrate. Therefore, we hope the next Chief Executive can insist on upholding the bottom line of "one country" while elaborating the tolerance under "two 2950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 systems", demonstrating charisma and broad-mindedness in politics, utilizing political wisdom and skills to promote reconciliation in society and strengthen the mutual-trust between the Central Authorities and the SAR.

How to promote reconciliation in society? First, the Central Government has already solved the problem regarding Home Visit Permits of those belonging to the pan-democratic camp. I believe the next Chief Executive should carry this on and enhance communication between those in the pan-democratic camp who maintain the bottom line of "one country, two systems" and officials in the Mainland, so as to enhance mutual-trust and pave the way for establishing a permanent communication mechanism in the future.

Second, the next Chief Executive should proactively improve the strained relationship between the executive and the legislature at present, and regard the legislature as a partner in policy implementation. In the course of formulating major policies, the next Chief Executive should exchange views with different political parties as early as possible and incorporate our advice.

Third, the next Chief Executive and his team must review existing means of communication with the people, and to explore how to make good use of many existing consultation frameworks to heed different voices, as well as to adopt up-to-date means to connect with young people, including adapting to the words or means of communication popular among them. Otherwise, the Government's policy will not be able to reach them, and their voices will unlikely be heard in the hierarchy.

President, achieving reconciliation in society is DAB's major expectations for the next Chief Executive. I believe the people wish the same, too. When society is less confronted and political atmosphere becomes relatively relax, in which we are no longer preoccupied by defamation and wilful misinterpretation, the next Chief Executive can then seize the chance to take the political system forward and reactivate constitutional reform, so as to lead Hong Kong to implement dual universal suffrage, thereby achieving quality democracy. This is DAB's third expectation for the next Chief Executive.

We all know that dual universal suffrage is essential to Hong Kong's democratic development. But it is not everything. Experience worldwide illustrates that the quality of a democratic system can vary a great deal. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2951

Democracy with good quality leaves no room for violence. In the process of democratic development, we must respect rule of law and order, as well as promote good governance. Therefore, we hope the next Chief Executive can, in the course of promoting constitutional development, endeavour to realize quality democracy in Hong Kong and say "no" to all undemocratic behaviour, including verbal and physical violence and behaviour jeopardizing rule of law in Hong Kong under the pretence of promoting democratic development.

President, Hong Kong's economic success relies largely on the advantages brought by our system, as well as a free and open market. The support offered by the Motherland is another factor of our achievements. That said, years of political wrangling caused us to miss many opportunities for development. Likewise, we let go many opportunities to enhance our competitiveness. According to various reports, Hong Kong's global competitiveness has been deteriorating. So, another of our expectation for the next Chief Executive is that he/she must concentrate on optimizing Hong Kong's intrinsic edge, promoting economic development, enhancing Hong Kong's competitiveness and maintaining Hong Kong's open economy and international connection, as well as fostering diversification of industries and striving towards industrial upgrading and restructuring, while seizing the great opportunities presented by "Belt and Road", so as to increase Hong Kong's integrated competitiveness and consolidate Hong Kong's status as an international metropolis.

President, economic development is the prerequisite for improving the people's livelihood. However, economic development must be implemented evenly to ensure that everyone, or most everyone, can enjoy the fruit of economic development relatively equally. DAB believes that economic development will lose its meaning if the people cannot generally benefit from the fruit of it in the end. Also, this will create conflicts in society, nor will development be able to go on. Therefore, our fifth expectation for the next Chief Executive is to "share the fruit of economic development with the people". We hope the next Chief Executive can exert full strength to safeguard market fairness, eliminate monopoly and formulate more policies, including policies on land and resources, so as to allow small and medium enterprises to continue their business in Hong Kong while maintaining their competitiveness, and to directly participate in economic development. More importantly, after we have made profits and kept our fiscal reserves, the Government must effectively utilize incomes generated from the economy through proactive fiscal management and financial tools and 2952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 promote wealth redistribution to narrow the wealth gap with a view to offering reasonable protection for the grass roots and underprivileged.

President, housing problem is a big issue regarding the people's livelihood. Moreover, the housing problem is not only about housing needs, but a major tool for shrinking the wealth gap. Whether the grass-roots households can be allocated public housing will decide whether they can escape poverty; to the middle class, whether they can share the fruit of economic development depends on whether they can hold a property, so that they will not feel like they are slipping down the social ladder. So, we hope the next Chief Executive can maintain the current Government's determination and direction in terms of increasing supply of land and housing, as well as to introduce policies in the short and medium run. In particular, the next person holding the top post must put forward drastic policy recommendations in exploring and expediting land supply.

President, I so submit.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the topic of today's motion is "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". Once I read this topic, a thought pop into my mind: let us discuss the Central Authorities' expectations for the next Chief Executive. I believe this is more meaningful, especially to over 800 members of the Election Committee ("EC") from the pro-establishment camp, including pro-establishment legislators present. I think they really wish to know the Central Authorities' expectations for the next Chief Executive, or perhaps we do not need to talk about expectations at all, as it is better if they can be given the name directly, lest they will "place the wrong bet" or "follow too close" like they did last time.

Honestly, with regard to the next Chief Executive, we need not elaborate Hong Kong people's expectation anymore. Hong Kong was filled with vices and worsening conflicts and confrontations between the executive and the legislature over the past four years under LEUNG Chun-ying's governance, which has taken the city to the dead end of contradiction. Likewise, we do not need to elaborate this anymore, nor do I wish to repeat this. Of course, Hong Kong people do want a change, but this does not mean "anyone but CY" only, as the people certainly do not want a rerun of LEUNG Chun-ying's course.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2953

I can briefly talk about expectations for the next Chief Executive if Members really wish to discuss this. In fact, in an article published in a magazine last year, I mentioned three areas that I considered the next Chief Executive should work on. In a nutshell, I believed the next Chief Executive should first let Hong Kong become its own self again. I mentioned the following few major aspects: the next Chief Executive must be able to listen, and be fair and impartial, while putting Hong Kong first and respecting the freedom of speech; second, he/she must attach importance to and safeguard Hong Kong's social and cultural values, freedom, probity, diversity and give priority to the people; third, instead of just blindly obeying the Central Authorities, he/she has to represent and protect Hongkongers' interests and safeguard Hong Kong's core values. Otherwise, Hong Kong will quickly become merely one of the cities in China. Perhaps this is already happening now, which has undermined international society's confidence in us, which is Hong Kong's biggest advantage originally.

Of course, when writing the above principles, I did not imagine anyone. Yet, I never predicted LEUNG Chun-ying to be gone today so unexpectedly. However, it seems like these are no longer important. Why is this so? It is because, recently, many people have asked about the strategy to be applied by over 300 pan-democratic EC members after the pan-democrats have seemingly secured landslide victories in small-circle elections in professional sectors, including the last Election Committee Subsector Elections. So, what kind of strategy do we have? In fact, I always reply that we do not have any strategies at all. We have barely over 300 votes. Do you consider that we have many votes? Still being the minority actually, we are unable to play the offensive against the pro-establishment camp whose number of votes are more than twice as many as ours. We can only play a counterattack. What does this mean? Of course I will not announce our strategy beforehand and I truly do not know any strategies. This all depends on the circumstances.

Therefore, the main point is not what we wish for. Instead, the point is that we have all realized so clearly in these few years that universal suffrage without screening would have allowed every candidate to enter the race and stand for election by "one person, one vote", without causing us to take part in this debate like we do at this moment. Everything would have been fine under such a system. Yet, there was the 31 August Decision. Now that we have voted 2954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 down the election proposal under the 31 August Decision, we have to go back to the small-circle arrangement. So, under present circumstances, I urge Hongkongers and the public to really pay attention to how the Central Authorities have blatantly exercised their control over us. How do they control us?

I wish to share with Members a few lines of lyrics to a song, a Cantonese pop song published a few years ago. Upon reviewing the lyrics, I find the lines fit exactly the situation today. Mr CHAN Siu-kei, the lyricist, did have the insight. I am not sure what he was thinking then, yet his lyrics surprisingly suit our circumstances at the moment. I am not going to sing the song, but read the lyrics out instead. The lyrics read to the following effect: "The traffic light was apparently green before, yet it turns read in the blink of an eye". And, "Suppose I am courageous, but how am I going to rediscover my own self?" For those who are courageous, they may have lost themselves now, exactly because of their courage, and have thus lost their own thoughts; another line of lyric reads to this effect: "If I dash, how can the injuries not leave me with scars?" In terms of not leaving any "scars", someone may attempt to jump the red light, and will probably get injured as a result; another line carries this effect: "Having come and gone, I have never come close to fulfil my aspirations". So, there is a person who wishes to run every time, and expects a better chance during this campaign, but it turns out that it is not the case. Probably the chance is as remote as last time, with that person failing to secure enough nominations yet again.

The next line of lyric reads to this effect: "Lifting my head and look in front of me, I see the attraction across the road". The expression "across the road" of course projects a picture of a building on the opposite side of the road facing the Legislative Council Complex. It is a giant building housing the Office of the Chief Executive. Not only is the office spacious, the position is powerful as well. "As I wait anxiously every second, my road ahead is always fraught with increasing difficulties". Some people have really been waiting over the past month. By today, it has been one whole month now. Is the road ahead really fraught with increasing difficulties? "Do I really have to bravely sacrifice myself first?" I believe the need to sacrifice themselves does not necessarily apply to these candidates only. Does the lyric reflect the mind of many of those from the pro-establishment camp indeed? This is particularly true for those pro-establishment Members present at this moment, as they are really afraid LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2955 of "making the wrong bet" or "following too close". What are they going to do then?

So, the present situation is not about the 31 August Decision or the screening that bars democrats from running in the race. The present situation is that even pro-establishment hopefuls are not allowed to join, effectively capping the number of candidates at one or two, or even permitting only one person to go. How pathetic, laughable and enraging is this? How ridiculous! Therefore, at this stage, Hongkongers really have to open their eyes, instead of focusing their minds only on picking candidates. Why do we have to scramble to pick a candidate when we in fact are not entitled to choose anyone? Or, to put in another way, why do we, the democratic camp, need to be told who to select? In fact, we must unequivocally express our opinions and let the Central Authorities know that Hong Kong people do not accept this … they show no mercy even in such a small-circle election. Do they truly need to be like this? The people must clearly voice our opinions to the Central Authorities that they may have to put in more effort in this respect. In the elections held in early December last year, the people clearly showed the Central Authorities that LEUNG Chun-ying was hopeless. We have to tell the Central Authorities that a Chief Executive selected under such controls will equally be hopeless, and the next five years will be as difficult. I hope the red light will not keep turning on after we have passed this message to the Central Authorities.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The topic today is "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". As we have seen, LEUNG Chun-ying's not seeking re-election is the best present for Hong Kong in the new year. To Hong Kong, the five-year period of enduring his governance is coming to an end. In fact, LEUNG Chun-ying committed a really long list of vices during his term of office, namely erecting unauthorized building works, failure to disclose interests concerning the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition, the dinner at Siu Tao Yuen alleged with triad members, alleged corruption in the UGL scandal, the "luggage gate" incident and his bankruptcy of credibility, and all these have made him extremely unpopular; moreover, LEUNG Chun-ying instantly visited and expressed his gratitude to the Liaison Office once he took office. Over the past four years, the Liaison Office has been the de facto supreme ruler which has a hand in virtually everything, like interfering 2956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

Legislative Council affairs and election and damaging "one country, two systems". There is concrete evidence for the above claims, and Members in this Council have also clearly pointed out the Liaison Office's support for him during the election.

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

We all know that, despite this great present of a change of the incumbent Chief Executive, such a big red pocket, society will not resume normal merely because of this. We need a change in the system. In fact, many members of the Election Committee ("EC") said that "Anyone but CY" is no longer applicable as LEUNG Chun-ying will not seeking re-election. It seems like we have lost our focus. However, Members probably have not noticed that pro-democracy EC members have another mission in which they are duty-bound to pragmatically elect a new Chief Executive who is capable to lead Hong Kong to restart afresh. Despite the diversifying opinions, this indeed indicates that candidates in the upcoming Chief Executive Election not only have to gain the trust of the Central Authorities, but also the trust of Hong Kong people, so that society as a whole can refocus on resolving conflicts in society and take Hong Kong forward while upholding "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

In fact, these principles are major shelters given to Hong Kong under the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which serve to differentiate Hong Kong from provinces and cities in the Mainland; through "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems" enshrined in the Basic Law, we manifest the difference of "two systems", while safeguarding the country's sovereignty on the other hand. From this perspective, "two systems" is a very important process. Indeed, it is also stipulated in the Basic Law that, apart from defence and foreign affairs, most affairs are Hong Kong's internal affairs, and that Hong Kong is managed by Hong Kong people, so as to achieve "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Furthermore, we have to stick with this foundation in order not to have the present situation in which so many amendments deleting the expression "safeguard the country's sovereignty" have been moved; as a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2957 matter of fact, the very essence of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy" is exactly the spirit to safeguard the country's sovereignty.

Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates that: "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Therefore, the next Chief Executive is duty-bound to reactivate constitutional reform in the light of the actual situation in Hong Kong. Regarding reactivate constitutional reform, certain suspected candidates, potential candidates or those who are prepared to run may reiterate that, after all, constitutional reform must be reactivated on the basis of the 31 August Decision. That said, the Democratic Party, the pro-democracy camp, or Hong Kong society have plainly expressed that any framework based on the 31 August Decision is not a way out for Hong Kong.

In fact, the constitutional reform proposal based on the framework under the 31 August Decision was voted down by a large margin of 8:28 in the end. Also, do not forget that the framework aroused public discontent and led to Occupy Central; obviously, conflicts in society cannot be resolved under such a political system. Therefore, candidates must propose something beyond the framework under the 31 August Decision to reactivate constitutional reform. With respect to proposals beyond the 31 August Decision, there are many different possibilities indeed, including Mr Justice WOO Kwok-hing's suggestion of setting up a nomination committee. We have also recommended to start with Article 68 of the Basic Law in order to improve governance beyond the 31 August Decision, that is, electing the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. There are many different ways indeed, but never repeating the 31 August Decision. Keeping the framework unchanged will only bring us social conflicts once more.

On the other hand, regarding the incident of Hong Kong Palace Museum ("Palace Museum") in the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WKCD"), we have seen how Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM has explained that a 2958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 consultation was not necessary as the outcome might embarrass the Central Government. She then made the decision herself on behalf of Hong Kong people, considering it best to select WKCD as the site for the Palace Museum. Actually, if Chief Secretary Carrie LAM is a candidate (if she wants to be one) with political strength and judgment, she should realize that the Palace Museum offers her a chance to demonstrate the prerequisites for the top post mentioned by WANG Guangya recently. This includes the fact that, after earning the trust of the Central Authorities, she will then have to make effort to win the trust of the Hong Kong public, thereby creating a win-win situation in respect of the Palace Museum in WKCD, instead of generating yet another source of social conflicts and divisions as in the case of today.

Therefore, I urge the Chief Executive-elect or the next Chief Executive that, when handling social contradictions in Hong Kong, especially conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong, he/she should on one hand acknowledge the views of the Central Government, while adopting the means understood by Hong Kong people on the other, as well as means that safeguard the rights, benefits and dignity of Hong Kong people; most importantly, to treasure the core values in Hong Kong society and procedural justice, as these are essential core values in our society through all the years. He/she should differentiate Hong Kong from provinces and cities in the Mainland on the basis of the above, in order to identify a way forward. Otherwise, the Central Government merely needs to assign one or two yes-men to resolve the problems. That said, according to the prerequisites pointed out by WANG Guangya, such a person is apparently not the Chief Executive candidate in the mind of the Central Government. So, I appeal that the next Chief Executive should be someone trusted by Hong Kong people (The buzzer sounded) in order to effectively perform the functions and duties of the post.

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

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the year 2017 marks the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's reunification with the Motherland. It is also a year of significant changes in Hong Kong. As the Chief Executive election is fast approaching, various social sectors are keeping a close watch on this election LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2959 while cherishing high expectations for the new Chief Executive. People hope that the new Chief Executive can be a leader with the ability to take the broad picture in view, repair our social dissension and stand united with the people to develop the economy and improve people's livelihood, with a view to bringing forth social harmony and political stability in Hong Kong and in turn enabling people to live and work in contentment.

During the 20 years since the reunification with the Motherland, Hong Kong has experienced many ups and downs. With the Central Authorities' support, the Government's diligence and also people's concerted efforts, we have tided over many turbulences of various scales at ease. However, growing social dissension, persistent internal attrition as a result of incessant arguments, and also the failure to properly resolve deep-rooted social conflicts have led to widespread public outcry for changes in recent years. Nevertheless, such shambles is not unique to Hong Kong. The many "black swan" events in various places of the world last year, coupled with the tide of populism and protectionism sweeping over the whole world, have dealt a severe blow to the world order in place over the past several decades.

Hong Kong is an international metropolis. Economically, it is susceptible to the impact of the external economy. Politically, it has also come under the intervention of various external forces, especially in recent years. The rise of self-determination and "Hong Kong independence" forces as we call it have plunged the community into endless political arguments. Any issues relating to people's livelihood and economic development can be very easily politicized or even escalated to the level of conspiracy theories. As a result, the SAR Government faces many difficulties in its every step of policy implementation, and its popularity remains at a persistently low level.

In the face of opposition Members who raise objection for the sake of objection, deliberately fan Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts and oppose China and the Communist Party of China, the Chief Executive and the SAR Government are utterly unable to take forward any long-term strategies on administering Hong Kong and policies for alleviating people's plight. Good at taking the moral high ground, the opposition camp is never tired of criticizing the Chief Executive and the Government and fanning people's hostility to the Central Authorities and the Mainland. However, they pay no heed to the words about respecting the Basic Law, "one country, two systems", and also national security. If they are asked to 2960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 propose practical and feasible economic and livelihood policies, they are unable to do so either.

Deputy President, politics is an art of compromise. Even if the Central Government shows amicability by reissuing the Home Visit Permit to certain pan-democrats and opens the door of communication, they remain adamant about their own views and pour cold water on them. While asking for changes in the present status quo and demanding reform, they have nonetheless shut the door on the Central Authorities and the SAR Government. Apart from successfully gaining the spotlight for themselves, what good have they done to society and people?

We hope that the next Chief Executive can forge social consensus, reduce social conflicts and repair our dissension. Irrespective of who is elected, his personal ability alone is insufficient. We hope the opposition camp can put aside its prejudice and take a step forward on the basis of people's well-being and also for the sake of Hong Kong's long-term interests. That way, Hong Kong can return to the normal track.

Deputy President, Hong Kong is a small and externally-oriented economy, and its prosperity and stability are dependent on economic support. Regrettably, society now sees the prevalence of polarized and confrontational sentiments. Worse still, some people even instigate hostility to the business sector and the rich and also schism between the business sector and the labour sector on various issues. Besides, in recent years, the Government has shown an intention to introduce more new rules and keeps tilting its policies towards labour and welfare benefits. This has inevitably aroused the concern of the business sector about the possible surge of operational cost and even the loss of business opportunities due to excessive market regulation. All this, coupled with the tense employee-employer relationship, has given rise to our concern about the further weakening of Hong Kong's competitiveness.

The industrial and business sector hopes that the next Chief Executive can balance the interests of stakeholders by paying full heed to the views of various sectors and refrain from seeking to raise his popularity in the short run at the expense of Hong Kong's long-term economic interests. More importantly, the Chief Executive and his team should be appropriately proactive and visionary with a broad international horizon, the mentality of seeking development, and the ability to grasp opportunities. Apart from preserving the simple and low-tax LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2961 regime in Hong Kong to attract foreign investors, they should also actively provide the industry with a business-friendly environment, support small and medium enterprises and business start-ups in Hong Kong, draw on innovation and technology to drive economic restructuring, and grasp the opportunities presented by the country's "Belt and Road" development strategy to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre, so as to increase employment opportunities and people's incomes, raise the living standard of the broad masses and bring forth social harmony and affluence.

Deputy President, as said by Director WANG Guangya recently, the criteria for the next Chief Executive are that he must love the country and Hong Kong, command the trust of the Central Authorities, possess the ability to govern and have the support of Hong Kong people. Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China, and the Chief Executive is a bridge between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong people. He must be loyal to the country, dutiful to Hong Kong's future, and dedicated to Hong Kong people. I hope those intending and also those who have already expressed the intention to stand in the election can participate in this Chief Executive election with a liberal, open and constructive attitude and clearly explain to people their philosophies of governing Hong Kong, so as to enable the Election Committee members to make a wise choice which is in the best interests of Hong Kong.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): We are now discussing our expectations for the next Chief Executive. Honestly, I only hope that he can be a normal person who can talk normally and sensibly to Hong Kong people and Beijing, rather than anyone who is always preoccupied with trickery, or a belligerent person with a penchant for stirring up arguments.

The situation over the past four years is evident to all. As I said just now, the integrity of a Chief Executive is more important than his or her knowledge. Someone's academic qualifications may be three-page thick, but then he is of no integrity. He never really says no to people's demands for welfare benefits, health care and housing. But he is unable to fulfil his promises afterwards. As an ancient saying goes, "Relationship built on benefits is soon over when benefits run out; relationship gained through power is forsaken once power vanishes." This means that nothing can be achieved in the end. If his 2962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 relationship with his workmates is conditional upon certain considerations, then any governing team he has formed will eventually abandon him like "monkeys deserting a falling tree".

When LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, he claimed that he would take a people-oriented approach and visit the districts with a notebook, a pen and a folding stool. Did he ever do so? He did, but every time, he was surrounded and protected by a whole team of watchful and vigilant special guards. He fears the people. All his talks about visiting the districts with a notebook, a pen and a folding stool are downright nonsense. His may-be successor seems to have got his blessing as he has said she does not have any problem of "divided attention". Carrie LAM is now the Number One Bootlicker in the world―to Beijing. She is dubbed "Chief Groveler to Beijing" in an English language commentary. Why? Why couldn't we see this in the past four years? How come we have come to notice this only now? Is this what we call "time reveals a person's true nature"?

He suddenly says that we are also owners of the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort and wants us to pay $5.8 billion for no reason. And, the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop is still very much a mystery at present. The site is just like a big mystery. How it will be developed, who owns it and who will benefit are still unknown at present. I hope the next Chief Executive can clearly explain all this to us.

Many commentaries in Chinese and English have expressed one hope, the hope that the next Chief Executive can tell Beijing the truth. We are not asking him or her to confront Beijing, because it is pointless to put up confrontation. Actually, as we have always said, "one country" takes priority in the concept of "one country, two systems". But we hope that the next Chief Executive can stand up to Beijing for Hong Kong. We are not asking him or her to pick a fight. But he or she should not tell any falsehood. The Chamber is honestly full of big liars. From the earlier speeches of many Members, we can see that they virtually regard themselves as government spokespersons or representatives of the Information Services Department. Hong Kong practises separation of powers. They have totally forgotten what they have said.

We request all those may-be candidates in the Chief Executive Election to promise to carry out a thorough investigation into the alleged receipt of $50 million by LEUNG Chun-ying from UGL Limited, and to tell us how they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2963 will deal with the issue of enacting legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law ("BL 23"). The reason is that many people think that a motion on enacting legislation to implement BL 23 must be passed by two thirds of the Members present. But this is not the case in reality. It can be passed anytime as long as there is a simple majority support. This is a highly political issue, and we want to hear the views of Chief Executive Election candidates. Nevertheless, the next Chief Executive must tell Beijing the truth and advise them against any paternalistic mindset in government. According to ZHAO Ziyang, who signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with the British Empire for the People's Republic of China years ago, the concept of "one country, two systems" is about trusting Hong Kong people and giving them a free hand to govern Hong Kong. But of course, what happened to ZHAO subsequently is quite a miserable leaf in contemporary Chinese history.

So far, I have talked about LEUNG Chun-ying and Carrie LAM. I think to myself: "We are discussing our expectations for the next Chief Executive here. Mrs Regina IP can actually stand up and talk specifically about herself. She can ask Members to look at how good she is and thus find out the prerequisites for the next Chief Executive." She is definitely entitled to speak here. But I do not think she will do so. I also wonder why the Chief Executive Election Ordinance permits Legislative Council Members to stand in the Chief Executive Election without having to tender resignation. Isn't this baffling? The Ordinance provides that public officers must tender resignation. However, this merely applies to designated public officers and does not cover Legislative Council Members. Don't Members think this is baffling? But Members should not think that Mrs Regina IP has the biggest advantage. She wears fur and has made untruthful accusations against her Filipino domestic helper. She is certainly wrong. But then, she is not the person who has the biggest advantage. The person who has the biggest advantage is Carrie LAM. Her "West Kowloon Palace Museum Branch", as an electioneering project, is really inconceivable in scale and dimensions. I am not quite so familiar with WOO Kwok-hing. And my friends have asked if it is possible that only "Uncle Pringles" is left and they must then choose "the least of three evils". I hope Hong Kong people do not have to make such a choice. It will be very miserable if they really have to. Integrity is definitely more important than knowledge.

Thank you.

2964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, right after the last Chief Executive Election, the labour sector was highly expectant, hoping that the elected Chief Executive would honour the undertakings in his election manifesto and take concrete steps to bring about institutional changes for workers and the disadvantaged in society, so as to protect the rights and interests of the grassroots and upgrade their quality of living. Time flies and the five-year term of the incumbent Chief Executive is already coming to an end. But all the undertakings made in the election are still castles in the air. There have been no concrete schemes of implementation, let alone any improvements to workers' rights and interests.

The Chief Executive has a very important role to perform in the promotion of workers' rights and interests. In this regard, voices asking for the abolition of the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund System have been heard for a long time, and I myself have repeatedly fought for its abolition in this Council. I must of course admit that the complexity of the issue cannot possibly be tackled overnight. But the request was already made a very long time ago, and many different organizations and sectors have put forward their proposals. It is a pity that even when the term of the incumbent Chief Executive is already coming to an end, the Government has still failed to take any concrete actions, and the abolition of the offsetting arrangement has remained an elusive goal. As a representative of the labour sector, I sincerely hope that the next Chief Executive can expeditiously work out a concrete proposal that can balance the respective interests of workers and employers and do away with this exploitation of workers.

Another issue is the enactment of legislation on standard working hours. According to the global survey on working hours conducted by UBS AG last year, the number of weekly working hours of Hong Kong people was 50 on average, the biggest among all cities in the world. This problem has been frustrating the grassroots, but the Government has also failed to drive the enactment of legislation with a positive attitude. Its evasiveness and procrastination has once again disappointed the working-class people. Nowadays, the cost of living is very high, with property prices and rents far exceeding people's affordability. The next Chief Executive must pay heed to workers' work-life balance, drive the enactment of legislation on standard working hours and more importantly, quit its bad habit of procrastination.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2965

One more issue that cannot be omitted is the implementation of universal retirement protection. As population ageing has greatly added to the pressure on society, the implementation of universal retirement protection cannot afford any further delay. After all these years, the various social sectors have already forged a consensus and come up with a very clear stand. However, after several rounds of consultation and discussion, no concrete scheme has been put forward, and "fake consultation and false hopes" are instead used to delay the matter. The next Chief Executive has the duty to change this deplorable situation. I hope that the next Chief Executive can act decisively, instead of cold-shouldering public opinions and putting up any further delay regarding this issue, on which there is already a consensus.

Besides, there are still many untied knots in the labour sector. Issues such as occupational safety and the manpower establishment of non-civil service contract staff cannot be ignored. The relevant aspirations are clear enough, but the improvement measures taken by the Government are not quite so satisfactory. Here, I hope that the next Chief Executive can actively examine the existing labour issues and show the determination to resolve the problems.

Deputy President, the next Chief Executive Election is fast approaching. These days, societies all over the world are actively seeking changes and alleviation of the wealth gap, striving to build a fairer and more reasonable living environment. I hope that the next Chief Executive can once again seek to forge a social consensus with a broad vision, so as to build a truly people-oriented society that emphasizes people's livelihood, promotes democracy and seeks sensible solution to conflicts.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr KWOK Wai-keung for proposing the motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". I would like to raise a few issues of concern in society and the medical sector, with a view to reminding the next Chief Executive of his or her responsibilities.

The reform of the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") rolled out by the current Government will have far-reaching effects on both the medical sector 2966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 and society. Medical practitioners do support the reform of MCHK and improvements to the complaint and disciplinary inquiry mechanism, but they do not agree to the Government's approach. Last year, rather than accepting the people's opinions to forge a consensus, the Government sought to foment discord and stir up the antagonism of doctors and patients The Government is the very culprit who has damaged doctor-patient relationship. Our insistence on professional autonomy is in fact intended to protect the public interest.

The medical sector wants to retain the present ratio of 1:1 between members elected by medical practitioners and appointed members on MCHK. As to the request for a broad electorate to return elected members, it is not my invention but an idea supported by statistics. There were two large-scale opinion polls last year, one conducted by the Hong Kong Medical Association and the other by the Hong Kong Public Doctors' Association. And, on my part, I also conducted one opinion poll among the Medical Subsector of the Election Committee and another poll for all doctors in Hong Kong last month and this month respectively. The results indicate a majority support for sticking to the existing ratio of 1:1. Some may think that doctors will of course protect themselves. Yet, I can tell Members that the results of two telephone surveys commissioned by me and carried out by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong in the past year indicate that members of the public and doctors have similar opinions in this regard; the majority of respondents agree to retain the current ratio of 1:1 in a bid to support the professional autonomy of the medical profession. These results prove that there is no major clash between the medical sector and the people.

Regarding how to improve complaint investigation and disciplinary inquiry, most medical practitioners and members of the public agree that MCHK should make performance pledges on certain procedures where "deadlines" are applicable, as in the case some administrative measures, so as to speed up MCHK's handling of complaints. Various survey results once again prove that doctors and patients do stand on the same front in respect of reforming MCHK. Yet, the Government and a handful of pro-government organizations have instead turned against the people.

We fear that the Government may selectively appoint members it prefers, thus increasing intervention in MCHK by the Government and groups with vested LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2967 interests. Our insistence on the ratio of 1:1 is meant to ensure professional autonomy and protect the public interest. MCHK is a statutory organization responsible for maintaining medical standards in Hong Kong. We hope that medical practitioners can get rid of all outside intervention and concentrate wholly on the well-being of patients.

In case the ratio of 1:1 ratio is altered and appointed members come to constitute the majority in MCHK, it will be very easy for the Government to pass any policies it wants. For example, if the Government does not want to increase its resource investments in public health care, it can make use of MCHK to lower the threshold for non-locally trained doctors to practise in Hong Kong, so as to bring forth a massive import of cheap foreign labour for employment by the Hospital Authority. Can Members imagine the consequence if we lower the threshold and increase the import of foreign labour, rather than allocating more resources? The answer must be a decline in medical standards, which is our concern. And, doctors will again be blamed in the unfortunate event of any medical incidents. Therefore, we insist that the threshold must not be lowered, otherwise the people will be the ultimate victims.

As part of the preparation for my speech about this motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive", I have surveyed the opinions of different people in the medical sector and collected the political platforms of the 30 successful candidates in the Medical Subsector election of the Election Committee, so as to grasp their expectations for the next Chief Executive in respect of health care. I am not making things up when I say that the Government does not want to increase its resource investment in public health care. When replying to our questions, the Government once said that rather than merely seeing no increase, the funding for public health care in recent years has even decreased. If the Government does not provide any resources, it will be pointless to have more doctors as we do not have the money to hire them. Given the health care demand arising from population ageing, I suggest the Government to adopt a population-based funding model for computing the annual recurrent expenditure on health care, taking into account factors like population ageing, preventive medical services and advanced medical research. There are also opinions that the turnover rate of health care staff is high. In fact, members of the Election Committee and I have both recommended in our political platforms 2968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 that the establishment of a mechanism for adjusting the fixed monthly allowance for HA2 staff in the Hospital Authority can readily retain experienced health care staff. Apart from public health care, I also want to talk about dental services. We hope the Government can expand the public-private partnership in dental services by, for example, enhancing dental assistance for the elderly and the underprivileged through non-governmental organizations or the Community Care Fund.

The standard of health care services in Hong Kong is in fact very high. This is attributable not only to the efforts of the public health care sector but also to the contribution of private medical practitioners. I hope the next Government can provide the private health care sector with policy support. For example, thoughts may be given to the establishment of a health care development board with the aim of turning Hong Kong into a regional health care hub. Moreover, I also hope that the Government can reduce its intervention in the private health care market. This is also an expectation for the next Chief Executive held by the medical sector.

Mr KWOK mentions "continuous internal attrition due to political wrangling" in his motion. The medical sector and most people all breathed a sigh of relief when the incumbent Chief Executive announced his intention not to seek re-election in December. I hope the next Chief Executive can ease the tense atmosphere and stop the splitting of our society.

Mr KWOK also hopes that the next Chief Executive can "initiate constitutional reform". In this respect, the results of the survey on members of the Medical Subsector of the Election Committee indicate that 57% of the candidates and 76% of the successful candidates in the Subsector are against the 31 August Decision. I hope the next Chief Executive will have the courage to relay our opinions to the Central Authorities (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, I so submit.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2969

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it never occurred to me that Mr KWOK Wai-keung of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") would act ahead of others and accuse, at this juncture, the incumbent Chief Executive of failed governance and causing social stagnancy and strife. His motion gives us an opportunity to express our expectations for the next Chief Executive―who may be Carrie LAM, John TSANG or Regina IP―and to recap the evil deeds of "689" LEUNG Chun-ying over the past few years.

Most of the political disputes and strife after the reunification actually occurred in the past few years. Members may look at the "report card" for "689" LEUNG Chun-ying. In the Johannes CHAN incident, LEUNG Chun-ying used various means to have Johannes CHAN's nomination as the Pro-Vice Chancellor rejected, rather than listening to others' views and opinions. As we all know, Arthur LI is a "LEUNG fan". All the teaching staff and students of the University of Hong Kong ("HKU") do not trust him, and they think that he will only do harm to HKU. Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying still appointed him Chairman of the Council despite opposition.

Let us also look at the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC"). LEUNG Chun-ying appointed his trusted allies only and simply turned IPCC into his fan club. In the Umbrella Movement and due to the case of "The Seven Cops", the public power in Hong Kong suffered a great setback. The function of IPCC is to check whether there are any abuses of power on the part of the Police. But its credibility has declined drastically by now.

Let me now talk about LEUNG Chun-ying's staff. In the motion debate on sign language just before this present motion, for example, Secretary Eddie NG, who is responsible for education, did not even show up. We know that he likes travelling to Japan and other places for good food. If we are to name the most inept principal official, he must be the sure choice. Another official I want to talk about is Paul CHAN. We heard that there was once an arrangement for him to fill the post of Deputy Financial Secretary. We have dubbed him "Land-hoarding Paul". This official is responsible for land development, but it turns out that his specialism is land hoarding and building "sub-divided units".

The "collusion among the Government, the business sector, rural forces and triads" recently uncovered in the Wang Chau incident has aroused people's animosity towards LEUNG Chun-ying. The Government could have used the brownfield sites for public housing construction to honour LEUNG Chun-ying's 2970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 pledge on housing supply. But due to his dealings with certain rural forces, Wang Chau has instead been turned into a scandal.

LEUNG Chun-ying's receipt of £4 million from UGL and the Rebecca LI incident have taken their toll not only on LEUNG Chun-ying himself but probably also on the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), which he hates so much. Because of him, public support for ICAC has plummeted to a record low. We are also able to see how LEUNG Chun-ying would use all his powers to wipe out his opponents in order to maximize his personal gains.

I believe Members all know that some have described him as the "Father of Hong Kong Independence". A mere article in a university student magazine has become a declaration of Hong Kong independence, thanks to his "magical tricks" at a Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council. In a bid to increase his chance of re-election, he has since launched a whole series of so-called "anti-Hong Kong independence" actions.

It may not be very meaningful to mention the above incidents again. But the recent Hong Kong Palace Museum incident has added to the discontent and helplessness of the people. After knowing that "689" will not seek re-election, the Chief Secretary for Administration, who is closest to the centre of power, has quickly turned herself into a different person and done various things that go against procedural justice and the established system . If the system itself is not changed, the departure of "689" may well be followed by another "689" as replacement, and Hong Kong will continue to be caught in disputes and strife. Only a person who can change this system and implement universal suffrage based on "one person, one vote" is qualified to take over as the next Chief Executive.

I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): The motion debate entitled "Expectations for the Next Chief Executive" today is a very opportune one.

Deputy President, in the recent subsector elections of the Election Committee for nominating and electing the Chief Executive, the pro-democracy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2971 team managed to win 26 seats out of the 30 seats in the accountancy subsector. Understandably, this result must be a very big surprise to many "esteemed" candidates and accountants from other teams. But I instead think that this is actually a totally natural result, because it indicates that even in the relatively conservative and cautious accountancy sector, the electors are likewise highly dissatisfied with the status quo and want to see changes. From our narrow sectoral perspective, we in the sector naturally have some aspirations. But the thing is that the Chief Executive is supposed to face all Hong Kong people. Not only this, he must also face the Central Government and perhaps other nearby countries in Asia. That is why the post is indeed very important and carries a very heavy responsibility.

From our narrow sectoral perspective, what aspirations do we people in this professional sector have in mind? In brief, there are only two. First, it is the issue of excessive working hours. I of course understand that ours is a professional sector, so it may not be feasible to apply standard working hours to our daily work. But standard working hours aside, can the next Chief Executive consider the formulation of other measures to ease the pressure of excessive working hours on certain professionals? Second, our professional sector is concerned about the issue of professional autonomy. The conduct and behaviour of professionals must of course be subject to regulation, but how far should such regulation go? Should we allow one single statutory organization to assume sole responsibility for regulating the auditors of listing companies, even including the enforcement of disciplinary actions? Should we allow one single organization to take charge of investigation, prosecution and penalty? Deputy President, these are the issues related to our professional sector.

From the broader perspective, let me discuss a topic of concern to all Hong Kong people, that is the required attributes of the next Chief Executive. I do not intend to comment on the several candidates or prospective candidates. But after Mr LEUNG Chun-ying announced several weeks ago that he would not seek re-election, it looks like everybody has sighed a sigh of relief. Why? Actually, over the past few years, we have all been living in something like a huge pressure cooker. We have seen many blunders in the Government's work, and the causes are invariably attributable to the Government's failure to really appreciate and heed the people's opinions and voices. I need only give just a few examples, such as the subject of national education several years ago, the licensing of free television broadcasters and the Territory-wide System Assessment. Can the next Chief Executive govern Hong Kong effectively, command people's support 2972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 and win the approval of the majority of people? His competence in governance will of course count, but he must really listen to the voices of Hong Kong people. The next Chief Executive must maintain ongoing communications with all sectors in Hong Kong. He must spend time listening seriously to such voices, disregarding whether they come from the leftist camp, the moderate camp or the rightist camp.

Deputy President, this is my second term as a Legislative Council Member. I therefore had some contacts with a number of Bureau Directors. Some of them―it is not appropriate for me to give any names here―did a very good job, in the sense that very often, for a certain bill, they would specially set up a meeting to give me some explanation and discuss the bill with me. They might already know of my support for the bill, or my stand was already very clear, but they still did so, and their attitude, thoughtfulness and behaviour could actually give them extra credit. In contrast, however, some Bureau Directors simply ignored me. Our Chief Executive must guard against such an attitude and mentality. An ability to bring forth social cohesion and stop social division and also a reasonable degree of governing competence are all people's expectations for our Chief Executive. Besides, the next Chief Executive must formulate appropriate polices and long-term planning under a Hong Kong-oriented approach that puts Hong Kong people first, so as to ensure the maximum benefit of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy".

It has been 20 years since the return of the sovereignty over Hong Kong to China. We do have very close ties with China, but if we are to leverage on Hong Kong's unique advantages under "one country, two systems", we must not blindly seek any integration of our systems and technologies with those in the Mainland. There is indeed much room for us to cooperate with the Mainland economically and culturally, but we must still uphold our core values such as the rule of law, human rights, liberties and probity. The Central Authorities have announced many initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and "Belt and Road". Admittedly, we can identify many opportunities in these initiatives, but at the same time, we may also seek greater development in the world arena as China's biggest window on the world and freest city.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2973

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me make an analogy to start my speech on today's motion debate entitled "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". The sky of Hong Kong has been pervaded by the toxic smog flowing from a totalitarian regime these days. However, the motion debate we have had over the past hour or so is somewhat like a meteor piercing the sky of Hong Kong, attracting wishes from Members.

The scene is rather absurd, absurd in the sense that denuded of its political overtone, the whole motion on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive" is somewhat like a wishing fountain or a wishing tree. We all throw joss papers, expressing various expectations for the next Chief Executive. If you ask the people of Hong Kong whether they want Andy LAU to be the Chief Executive, who would say no? But about this very point, we can actually see how our expectations are treated most absurdly in reality here inside this Chamber―not even one single public officer is present at this motion debate today. Staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat may take some photographs of the empty seats of public officers.

Speaking of which top officials or government officials should attend this motion debate today, I think LEUNG Chun-ying should be the first choice and Carrie LAM should be the second. However, as both of them are not present, to whom shall we express our wish here? Hence, the entire motion gives us the feeling that we are actually wishing upon a wishing tree or a meteor.

With a bit of self-mockery, I would think it is a bit stupid of me to say all this. I am really stupid. In what sense? Well, what Hong Kong has experienced over the past 20 years is the wholesale loss of our civilized life nurtured over decades. Our civilized life is more than its wrappings like the rule of law, freedom, social order, and so on. It is actually built upon a simple capitalist market economy in which we believe that we can depend on our abilities to earn money and then live, purchase things and make various choices freely. In other words, freedom as we see it in our society is essentially the freedom to make personal choices.

Yet, in present-day Hong Kong, even a person borrowing a library book may be charged for subversion of state power; people in the publishing trade may vanish into thin air, reappear later somewhere in Mainland China, and then return to Hong Kong all of a sudden. All this attests to the fact that over a short span of the past few years, the rule of law, the judicial system and the government 2974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 administrative system we are so familiar with have all been lost under LEUNG Chun-ying's rule. Of course, the loss only serves to shatter the illusion we used to cherish in the past. This Government has always been a despotic system with a veneer of enlightenment. It has now torn away this veneer and told everyone that it is nothing but just a despot.

During the time of TUNG Chee-hwa, this autocratic government started to wear a mask of kindness, telling Hong Kong people that their concerns were also its concerns. But of course, due to his policy errors or ill fate, he later came to be called "TUNG the Old Fool". The second Chief Executive, Donald TSANG, was even more outrageous in behaviour. These few days, he has been appearing before the High Court, and he may well face imprisonment. People in Hong Kong may think that the imprisonment of a Chief Executive must be the manifestation of the rule of law. But then, this is not the case in reality because the whole thing is just the outcome of power struggles.

Now, will the next Chief Executive, whose ordinal position in the succession of Chief Executives I have lost count, also bring his or her predecessor, LEUNG Chun-ying, before the Court for reasons of power struggle? The possibility of this is now a bargaining chip in the upcoming Chief Executive Election. Therefore, the absurdity involved really terrifies all of us who are present here, because no one knows when he or she will become the next victim. Some pro-establishment camp Members like Dr Junius HO may not agree with me on this because he usually does not need to face any charges after breaking the law, after calling himself a social worker, for example. Yet, in the recent Legislative Council Election, many pro-establishment camp Members just could not help sighing when they realized that such absurdity could really happen to an electoral system so familiar to us. The absurdity I am talking about is the fact that as a result of power struggle, Hong Kong politics could really be subjected to such blatant and autocratic intervention.

Under such circumstances, what expectations should we have for the next Chief Executive, and what position should we take in response? In the recent Legislative Council Election, we took a very positive position which we thought the masses in Hong Kong would choose. During the election, the Civic Passion, the Proletariat Political Institute and Dr Horace CHIN's city-state group joined hands to form the Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-City-State Alliance ("the Alliance") in a peaceful attempt to amend the constitution. Our objective was to have one representative of the Alliance elected in each of the five LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2975 geographical constituencies, so that we could make use of the very great power of the Legislative Council and resign to trigger a de facto referendum, thereby establishing the procedure for Hong Kong people to amend the Basic Law and remove its loophole step by step. The loophole is related to the motion under debate today because when selecting the Chief Executive, we must face Article 45 of the Basic Law, which provides that candidates for the office of the Chief Executive shall first be screened by a nominating committee, and then subject to endorsement by the people of Hong Kong. This is a process which we have discussed many times.

Regarding the loophole, we thought during the last Legislative Council Election that through a campaign advocating a five-constituency referendum and a constitution drawn up by all people, we could expeditiously establish a localist government under a Chief Executive with Hong Kong people's mandate, thus ultimately solving the doomsday problem brought by 2047. But it is a pity that the recent election was influenced by many unimaginable factors, some of which even amounted to corrupt conduct in our eyes. But anyway, let us return to the present-day Hong Kong in January 2017. At this very time, Hong Kong is still overcast with the smog of totalitarianism, and the Legislative Council must still hold a debate on our expectations for the next Chief Executive. There is such a gap between hope and reality, and I can only conclude by saying that Hong Kong has been regressing. We have been regressing because back in 2007 and 2008, we already asked for dual universal suffrage, but we are still discussing our choices regarding the next Chief Executive. This regression is attributable not only to the pro-establishment camp; it may also be ascribed to the pro-democracy camp and even Hong Kong people. Yes, over the past two weeks, there have been enthusiastic discussions on who will eventually run in the election. But very frankly, the common masses in Hong Kong just couldn't care less.

Hence, I must repeat the point that if we do not make any constitutional (The buzzer sounded) repairs, we will not be able to establish a government that truly belongs to the people of Hong Kong.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

2976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Mr KWOK Wai-keung for moving this motion today on "Expectations for the next Chief Executive". I think all people in Hong Kong, including the Members present here, hope that every Chief Executive can outperform his or her predecessors, really act as Hong Kong's leader in the pursuit of better development and seek greater benefits for Hong Kong people.

Voting is a very important process in any election. Frankly speaking, I also very much hope that there can be "one person, one vote" for all Hong Kong people to select the Chief Executive. But the whole thing is so regrettable. As we all know, although the constitutional reform proposals put forward two years ago were not deemed by all to be the best options, they were at least considered acceptable by more than half of the respondents in a number of public opinion surveys. Yet, very regrettably, the opposition camp still acted against public aspirations and voted down the proposals. They talk about their respect for democracy and public opinions, but they chose to act against public aspirations and vote down the constitutional reform proposals. As a result, our constitutional system is forced to mark time, and even now, in 2017, we must still select the Chief Executive through the Election Committee, thus depriving all Hong Kong people of a chance to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage based on "one person, one vote".

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Is the endless struggle for universal suffrage in our society really necessary? Or, should people ask themselves whether they really want to implement universal suffrage? In the endless fight for universal suffrage, some manage to get political chips for themselves. They stand on the moral high ground and keep lashing out at the Government for the reason that it is not elected by universal suffrage. But do they really want to implement universal suffrage to enable the people to elect the Chief Executive based on "one person, one vote", so that the Government's legitimacy can be enhanced?

In the past few years, the opposition behaved like this not only on the issue of universal suffrage; on the issue of Occupy Central, they were also impervious. Even in the case of the motion on "bogus refugees" we moved in this Council recently, they likewise opposed it for the sake of opposing it due to their own LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2977 political stance, even at the price of antagonizing the people. People can indeed see all this very clearly. Anyway, I do not want to talk too much about such helplessness because I must focus on discussing our expectations for the future.

I do not know who will become the next Chief Executive, but whoever is elected or intends to run in the election, he or she must answer the aspirations of the labour sector. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") and the labour sector as a whole are united in their stance. But despite the unity of the labour sector, the Government (including the Chief Executive and officials in charge of labour and welfare policies) has nonetheless handled labour and welfare issues with what looked like a neutral attitude over all these years. And, using a slang, we can even say that attitude-wise, it is simply like a bystander "grabbing his peanut for the show". You know, one online radio station also uses this catch phrase: "Grabbing your peanut for the show keeps our life positive".

As a result of this attitude, many labour issues have run into a deadlock due to a so-called absence of consensus. Although people's demands on many issues are already very clear, we still find it hard to proceed because a consensus cannot be reached in the Labour Advisory Board. These issues include standard working hours, the abolition of the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund System, retirement protection, and so on. I do not know if the Government has intentionally put up any delay, or if there are any real difficulties. But frankly speaking, although the present Government has made some progress in such areas as housing and elderly welfare, we cannot possibly give it a very high grade when it comes to labour and welfare issues.

Hence, I think the next Chief Executive must be enterprising and aware of the injustices in our society. He or she must have the courage to face up to thorny issues, and also understand that employees' access to the fruit of economic growth and social fairness, justice and impartiality are the cornerstones of Hong Kong's long-term stability and social harmony. Even though we must still continue to adopt the present electoral system, and even though there may be all kinds of obstacles, the Chief Executive must still make efforts for all the employees.

As for working hours, we have pointed out many times that working hours in Hong Kong are exceedingly long, and with the number of working hours per week standing at 50 hours, we actually rank first in the world in this regard. We should have set our standard working hours a long time ago, but the work 2978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 progress of the Standard Working Hours Committee is very slow, and there are even rumours that the Committee intends to replace the proposal of legislating for standard working hours with the setting of contractual working hours. FTU has already made it clear that this is definitely unacceptable, and the next Chief Executive and even the incumbent Chief Executive must never ever think that they can appease FTU and the labour sector by replacing standard working hours with contractual working hours.

We hope that apart from the issue of setting standard working hours, the next Chief Executive will also review the definition of a continuous employment contract, commonly called the "4-18" definition. The existing definition is fraught with loopholes, rendering it impossible for employees to enjoy their legitimate benefits and rights of continuous employment. The penalties for negligence leading to the injuries or deaths of employees at work are thus too light, and the amount of compensation awarded cannot catch up with the times.

On the other hand, I am personally very concerned about the situation of employees under the outsourcing system. FTU has been criticizing the outsourcing system very severely over the years, because it has deprived employees of their work protection. Furthermore, while outsourcing its services, the Government also outsources its responsibility and takes the lead as an unscrupulous employer. I have raised an oral question recently on severance payment for employees of outsourced service contractors, but the Government has turned a deaf ear to my queries. It has turned a blind eye to an obvious problem and failed to improve the situation when the outsourcing system is plagued with loopholes. It has undertaken to grant extra scores only to service contractors who offer higher wages, but many employees still suffer a wage cut when they sign a new employment contract with their employers. We consider it necessary for the next Chief Executive to tackle all these problems.

President, finally, in order to preserve Hong Kong's prosperity and stability, the next Chief Executive should lead us out of the present dilemma created by political disputes, so that we can concentrate our efforts on achieving economic development and improving people's livelihood. The next Chief Executive should also ensure that the grass roots would be able to share the fruit of economic growth, and strive to improve employees' rights and benefits (The buzzer sounded) … so that employees can live with dignity. Thank you, President. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2979

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

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the topic under debate now is "Expectations for the Next Chief Executive". But no government officials are present. To me, this is quite a strange and disconcerting sign. What has happened to the legislature anyway? How is the relationship with the legislature and the Government now? Why are no government officials present in this meeting? Who are we supposed to address?

All this makes me think of two sayings. This first one is: "Shame on the run but useful". This comes from the lines in a popular Japanese serial television drama. What is said in this saying may well be a reality in Hong Kong now. Government officials now choose to treat this motion topic in a shame-on-the-run-but-useful manner. But I want to say to them, "Shame on the run and not useful too." Some Members have remarked that speaking on the motion "Expectations for the Next Chief Executive" is just like making wishes to a passing meteor. I share this feeling. But the second thing I want to say is: A false hope is also a hope. A misguided hope or a false hope is also a hope. In a society where hopes are such a rarity, cherishing even a false hope may sometimes produce a burst of epinephrine that gives us a momentary lift. This is not a bad thing.

President, let me now return to the motion topic today, "Expectations for the Next Chief Executive". The first thing that comes to my mind is one saying of French philosopher Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU. In his most enlightening philosophical work, Confessions, ROUSSEAU said that mistakes are caused not so much by ignorance as by the thinking that one knows everything. I think this is a very good point to make as we start to give reminders to the next Chief Executive. The Chief Executives we have seen so far are mostly opinionated and arrogant, regarding themselves as "able warriors". They think that since they have gone through all sorts of tests and difficulties, they can always consider problems very comprehensively. Or, maybe, they simply think that they have already thought about all the questions we ask todays, and if there are still any questions they have not thought about, such questions must be ones that are not worth asking at all. All this is disgusting elitism, and what I have said just now may well be direct quotes. A probable Chief Executive hopeful has even remarked that based on her personal judgment, she can bypass the required administrative procedures, procedural justice or long-standing consultation 2980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 processes, because her decision must be the best decision, her eyes must be the sharpest eyes and her vision must be the most desirable vision. I think even one such Chief Executive or Chief Executive Election candidate is already too many. Regrettably, there are now not only too many but also far too many.

Speaking of expectations for the next Chief Executive, my first hope is that the person can have the courage to admit mistakes, including mistakes not made by himself. Some will of course wonder why the candidates should admit any mistakes right at this moment since what they are seeking is the office of the next Chief Executive. I think they may well show penance at least for the governance problems and social division over the past few years. In ancient China, monarchs might sometimes issue edicts of self-criticisms with the aim of reflecting on their own mistakes and reversing their policies. Such edicts are called "Imperial Edicts for Penitence". Emperor Wudi of Han did so, and many emperors widely lauded today also issued such edicts to all people of the land for their erroneous political decisions and policies.

A German Chancellor did a similar thing. Twenty-five years after World War II, the then German Chancellor, Willy BRANDT, dropped to his knees before a monument to Jewish victims in Warsaw, in a bid to show penitence for the crimes committed by the Nazis. Media around the world neither scorned nor jeered at him, and one newspaper even wrote, "German Chancellor kneels as Germans rise". The message of this is that after the culprit has sincerely repented and admitted his mistakes, his descendants and people will be able to stand upright among others without any sense of guilt.

On 7 December 1970, a very cold day after a snowstorm in Eastern Europe, Willy BRANDT, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, was before a monument to Jewish victims in Warsaw after a formal state visit to Czechoslovakia. Despite the biting winds, he laid down a wreath and stood in silent tribute. A moment later, he dropped to his knees, softly praying to God for His forgiveness and wishing peace to the tortured souls. With this very act, BRANDT expressed deep condolences to the innocent Jewish people murdered by the Nazis in World War II and whole-heartedly admitted and redeemed the guilt of Germany in the Nazi era. At the same time, the President of the Federal Republic issued to the famous contrite statement to the whole world. When the news of this became known, it won worldwide acclaim and approval. The following year, BRANDT was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2981

My analogy may be inappropriate because our Chief Executive is not the president of a country. What I want to say is that in the midst of social division and the constant downward spiralling of a changing Hong Kong in areas like politics, the economy, people's livelihood, culture and even relationships in private life as well as moral values, if the Chief Executive thinks that Hong Kong must unite to form only one "Hong Kong camp", and if he really thinks that the whole of Hong Kong is facing such a situation, then I suppose we really need a moral and political leader capable of recovering our human qualities and telling everybody that we have indeed taken the wrong paths.

Just now, pro-establishment Members criticized opposition Members for opposing practically everything. But when (The buzzer sounded) the motion on striving to make sign language an official language was discussed just now, they were all absent to show their opposition, right?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please stop speaking.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the main theme of the original motion moved by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is to put forward expectations for the next Chief Executive.

The Fifth Term Chief Executive Election will be held on 26 March, and the nomination period will begin on 14 February. The contest for the post of Chief Executive will formally commence about a month from now. Under the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive shall be elected by a broadly representative Election Committee, and serving Members of the Legislative Council are automatically members of the Election Committee. I hope the discussion today can help Members think about how they can make proper use of their votes to select a Chief Executive welcome by all.

President, Mr WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, remarked during an interview some days ago that the Basic Law establishes the constitutional status of the Chief Executive, who must represent both Hong Kong people and the Central Authorities. A Chief Executive elected in Hong Kong shall be appointed by the Central Authorities. The Hong Kong community has its requirements and expectations for the Chief Executive and so do the Central Authorities. But both actually 2982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 share one common expectation, that is an ability to lead Hong Kong in the pursuit of future development. As regards the expectations of the Central Authorities for the Chief Executive, the person is expected to love the country and Hong Kong, command the trust of the Central Authorities, possess governing ability, and enjoy the support of Hong Kong people. Every candidate in the Chief Executive Election must give priority to the long-term well-being of Hong Kong people, expound his or her governance philosophy to the public and make use of the election to unite Hong Kong people and help them make progress under his or her leadership.

Director WANG's words are a reiteration of the Central Authorities' policy towards Hong Kong. They are in line with the actual circumstances in Hong Kong, so the responses of different social sectors have been positive. As regards the requirements and expectations of our society for the Chief Executive, they can in fact be regarded as some kind of inquiries into the problems that Hong Kong must now resolve as a community. I think there are mainly two aspects to these problem, one being the socio-political aspect. Hong Kong in recent years has been marked by incessant political disputes, serious social division, rampant filibuster in the Legislative Council, and a worsening relationship between the executive and the legislature. The constitutional reform proposals were voted down in the midst of bickering. In the process, there occurred the unlawful "Occupy Central", and more recently, attempts were even made to slur China and advocate "Hong Kong independence". The incessant social and political strife within Hong Kong has made it difficult for us to focus on issues of developing the economy and improving people's livelihood. Stagnancy and declining competitiveness have thus resulted.

Strongly dissatisfied and fed up with such a situation, many people now hope that the next Chief Executive can deliver Hong Kong from the predicament of endless political disputes as soon as possible, bring forth a consensus, rebuild mutual trust between the executive and the legislature and fully implement the "one country, two systems" based on the long-term well-being of Hong Kong people.

Second, economically and in respect of people's livelihood, Hong Kong is definitely facing many internal and external challenges. Externally, a new cycle of interest rate increases in the United States has started alongside a revival of trade protectionism. Hong Kong's export demand and financing costs for enterprises will be adversely affected since the Hong Kong Dollar is pegged to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2983 the US dollar. Internally, property prices and rents have remained high over the years, and this has hindered our economic diversification to a certain extent. In contrast to its neighbours which have undergone rapid development, Hong Kong has seen the gradual disappearance of the advantages enjoyed by its traditional pillar industries and the sluggish development of new ones. Many people are very concerned and worried about such a situation. They hope that the next Chief Executive can focus on economic development, including the enhancement of integrated town planning, and ensuring the long-term supply of land and housing and infrastructure support. It is also hoped that he or she can draw up a long-term, comprehensive and balanced industrial policy and steer the local economy towards diversified and high value-added development. Moreover, people also hope that he or she can strengthen Hong Kong's role as a "super connector", help expand regional economic cooperation, seize the opportunities arising from the "Belt and Road" Initiative, and enhance the upward social mobility of the new generation.

President, it is always easier said than done. To effectively tackle the various socio-political challenges facing Hong Kong at the moment, the next Chief Executive must have vision, conviction, a concrete political platform, political experience and exposure and above all else, the ability to secure support from all quarters of community for the implementation of government policies. And, in my opinion, while governance must keep abreast of the times, it is also necessary to bear in mind the need for continuity in the case of important policies. For instance, the current-term Government's various efforts to increase land and housing supply and measures formulated for promoting the development of innovation and technology industries are worthy of continuation and optimization.

President, I also wish to emphasize that Hong Kong belongs not only to the Chief Executive but also to all Hong Kong people. Therefore, we should have expectations for both the Chief Executive and also different social sectors. For example, the community should give appropriate room to the next Chief Executive for giving play to his or all abilities. The community should also extend the olive branch and help him or her to improve the relationship between the executive and the legislature as well as the interaction between the community and the SAR Government. The overall interest of Hong Kong, economic development, the improvement of people's livelihood and a life of contentment for all must always be the emphases. I strongly believe that all these are what the public expect of the Chief Executive and Members of the Legislative Council.

2984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

For all these reasons, I am afraid I cannot agree to the unfounded allegation about government-business collusion and the emphasis on labour disputes highlighted in the wording of the motion. President, I so submit.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, the motion topic under discussion today is "Expectations for the Next Chief Executive". Let us first look at people's expectations for the last policy address of the incumbent Chief Executive. As revealed by an online poll jointly conducted by ET Net and Sky Post, people's greatest hope is that the Chief Executive can increase land and housing supply. This hope is held by 35% of the respondents. This is followed by the hope that universal retirement protection can be implemented. The rate here is 29%. I think these figures can basically reflect people's general aspirations. And, they can also let us see people's main expectations for the Chief Executive.

Actually, the requests of Hong Kong people are very modest. They just want to have a shelter and some livelihood protection in their old age. The Chief Executive that people want is a doer who can improve their quality of living. Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has said on various occasions that land and housing is the top priority in the work of the current-term Government. Even at the risk of being criticized for "scrambling for land", the current-term Government has actively increased land supply and made strong efforts to reverse the imbalance of supply and demand in the property market. It has rolled out "three harsh measures" to curb the property market, including the Buyer's Stamp Duty, the Double Stamp Duty and the Special Stamp Duty, in order to stabilize the overheated property market. The Government has also abolished the application list system and regained control over land supply and sales. Besides, it has also implemented the policy of extending the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") secondary market to white form buyers to revitalize the HOS secondary market. In the coming 10 years, the total supply of public and private housing will be 460 000 units, 280 000 of which will be public housing units. In 2012-2017, the estimated total output of public housing will be 71 273 units. All these measures can prove the Government's determination to solve the housing problem.

President, I wish to point out that the ultimate solution to the housing problem is land supply. For instance, the target of public housing supply in the next 10 years is 280 000 units. But even if all identified sites can be used for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017 2985 housing construction as scheduled, the number of public housing units that can be constructed will just be 236 000. There is not yet any land for constructing the shortfall of 44 000 public housing units. Large-scale development plans such as the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, the Kwu Tung North/Fanling North New Development Areas and the Tung Chung New Town Extension are meant as the sources of land and housing supply in the future. But every time when the Government proposes a development plan, the opposition will invariably come up with various excuses, say no for the mere sake of saying no and seek to foil the plan, regardless of people's keen demand for housing. This has not only hindered Hong Kong's development but has also seriously impeded the progress of relieving the housing demand.

No land and housing policy can achieve any instant results. Long-term planning is required, and it will take a long time before the results can be seen. The present housing problem has actually resulted from the housing demand amassed over the past 10 years, and from the perennial shortage of housing supply. I think whoever is to become the Chief Executive should continue with this benevolent policy and persist in identifying lands to construct housing for Hong Kong people. We request the Government to actively increase the short-term supply of public housing, so as to attain the goal of allocation within three years. Besides, we maintain that a rent allowance scheme should be implemented to provide bridging assistance, so that people who have waited more than three years for public housing and who are paying exorbitant private residential rents can be given relief. The Government should also improve the home acquisition ladder. As I have repeatedly proposed, more HOS flats should be constructed, and the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme and the Tenants Purchase Scheme should be re-launched to benefit more people in need.

Also, Kowloon East is the area with the highest proportion of elderly people. We are all very concerned about retirement protection, because elderly people all feel that they must worry about their life after retirement. When can retirement protection be provided to rid elderly people of any worry after retirement? The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has always supported the expeditious implementation of retirement protection and asked for the provision of more protection for needy elderly people. Before any universal retirement protection is implemented, elderly people can only depend on the "fruit grant" and the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"). At present, OALA applicants must satisfy the relevant requirements, and people who want to apply for the "fruit grant" must be aged 70. 2986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 11 January 2017

DAB requests that the eligibility age for the non-means tested "fruit grant" should be lowered to 65, and the rates of the "fruit grant" and OALA should be increased. I have recently organized a signature campaign in the districts, and in Kwun Tong alone, more than 4 000 signatures were collected in one week. This can show the strong demand of people in this regard. I hope that the Government can heed people's advice and improve the existing system quickly. I also hope that universal retirement protection can be implemented as early as possible.

The term of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is already coming to an end. We must admit that he is a people-oriented Chief Executive with a heart for people's livelihood. He is also a Chief Executive of action and enterprise. Sadly, even though he is sincerely in serving Hong Kong, the opposition already started to ask him to step down even before he assumed office. They have even used "ABC" (Anyone But CY) as an electioneering slogan. Such personal attack and venting of irrational negative sentiments are definitely not a manifestation of quality democracy. President, I wish to point out that no matter who becomes the next Chief Executive, the opposition will still oppose for the mere sake of opposing, and their destructive actions will only escalate. I hope that the next Chief Executive will be person with commitment and enterprise, a Chief Executive backed by a sound political platform and governing competence. More importantly, he or she must hold onto all the benevolent policies, defying all the cries and provocations of the opposition.

President, I so submit.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, it is now 7:36 pm. This Council is not able to complete the handling of this motion before 8 pm. The Council is adjourned until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7:37 pm.